Internet troll identities to be revealed

[peach174]

ahh

The Constitution is going to take another hit.

don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.

You are an idiot. The Constitution guarantees "privacy"...not anonymity.

Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !

 

[tigerbob]

Oh, I see. Just a bad and misleading thread title.

Can I sue manifold for putting up a fact youtube video and attributing it to me?

Bad and misleading thread title is based on the article linked. Only bad and misleading if you don't read the article. Seems to be the case with multiple posters.

As to Mani, if you live in the UK and he's used your real name as an attempt to maliciously defame you in real life then I guess you would have a case for requesting his IP address if he'd done it on Facebook. But...

1. You're not in England.
2. It's on YouTube not Facebook.
3. I'm guessing it doesn't use your real name.
4. I have no idea whether the intent was to maliciously defame you personally, or just to mock you under your screen name.

What do you think?

 

[PredFan]

Try reading the OP.

I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.

Try reading your own OP.

You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.

That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.

 

[tigerbob]

ahh

The Constitution is going to take another hit.

don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.

You are an idiot. The Constitution guarantees "privacy"...not anonymity.

Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !

This law is in England, not the US.

Even if it were in the US, you could still say what you want. You'd just need to be aware of the fact that if you were trolling a person maliciously under their real identity, you do so under the understanding that you might not be able to do it anonymously.

The only freedom you would give up is the freedom to be an asshole with impunity.

 

[PredFan]

Random list from 60 seconds googling.

Three Lawyers Talk Online Profiling

How Your Social Media Profile Could Make Or Break Your Next Job Opportunity - Forbes

Job seekers getting asked for Facebook passwords

You can find these all day long but what do they prove? They don't prove that what the thin skinned idiot did was right. Just because some lawyer want to get publicity for themselves talking up a case where there isn't one, or the fact that there might be some moronic employers who actually care what's on Facebook and demand passwords, doesn't mean that any of that will be halted because someone might be able to sue for slander.

Situation:

I am applying for a job, and for some reason my new employer cares what I post on my facebook page and demands my password, and suppose I don't tell him to shove it up his ass. I give him MY pass word, how is he going tom access a FALSE Facebook page about me that I don't have the password for or am friends with?

It's bogus, the crybaby needs thicker skin, and you need to think more about this subject.

 

[PredFan]

Oh, I see. Just a bad and misleading thread title.

Can I sue manifold for putting up a fact youtube video and attributing it to me?

Bad and misleading thread title is based on the article linked. Only bad and misleading if you don't read the article. Seems to be the case with multiple posters.

As to Mani, if you live in the UK and he's used your real name as an attempt to maliciously defame you in real life then I guess you would have a case for requesting his IP address if he'd done it on Facebook. But...

1. You're not in England.
2. It's on YouTube not Facebook.
3. I'm guessing it doesn't use your real name.
4. I have no idea whether the intent was to maliciously defame you personally, or just to mock you under your screen name.

What do you think?

No,we all read your article, YOU just don't seem to understand it or understand how our responses follow it. Not much we can do about that so it isn't our fault.

 

[tigerbob]

I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.

Try reading your own OP.

You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.

That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.

The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.

 

[tigerbob]

Random list from 60 seconds googling.

Three Lawyers Talk Online Profiling

How Your Social Media Profile Could Make Or Break Your Next Job Opportunity - Forbes

Job seekers getting asked for Facebook passwords

You can find these all day long but what do they prove? They don't prove that what the thin skinned idiot did was right. Just because some lawyer want to get publicity for themselves talking up a case where there isn't one, or the fact that there might be some moronic employers who actually care what's on Facebook and demand passwords, doesn't mean that any of that will be halted because someone might be able to sue for slander.

Situation:

I am applying for a job, and for some reason my new employer cares what I post on my facebook page and demands my password, and suppose I don't tell him to shove it up his ass. I give him MY pass word, how is he going tom access a FALSE Facebook page about me that I don't have the password for or am friends with?

It's bogus, the crybaby needs thicker skin, and you need to think more about this subject.

We're not going to agree on this. That's OK. But I'm quite comfortable with my thinking on this.

 

[tigerbob]

Oh, I see. Just a bad and misleading thread title.

Can I sue manifold for putting up a fact youtube video and attributing it to me?

Bad and misleading thread title is based on the article linked. Only bad and misleading if you don't read the article. Seems to be the case with multiple posters.

As to Mani, if you live in the UK and he's used your real name as an attempt to maliciously defame you in real life then I guess you would have a case for requesting his IP address if he'd done it on Facebook. But...

1. You're not in England.
2. It's on YouTube not Facebook.
3. I'm guessing it doesn't use your real name.
4. I have no idea whether the intent was to maliciously defame you personally, or just to mock you under your screen name.

What do you think?

No,we all read your article, YOU just don't seem to understand it or understand how our responses follow it. Not much we can do about that so it isn't our fault.

Not saying it's your fault. We're just coming at it from different positions.

 

[PredFan]

You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.

That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.

The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.

I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.

 

[PredFan]

People shouldn't (and don't) have the right to not be offended.

 

[tigerbob]

That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.

The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.

I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.

The fact that the court decided that Facebook has to release the IP addresses concerned would appear to indicate that the court feels there may be a case to answer.

I don't know how much consideration the court gave to your position that she should just suck it up, but I would guess that they either didn't consider it, or did consider and and decided that it didn't have sufficient merit to inform their ruling.

 

[manifold]

Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.

How far the Empire has fallen.

Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals. I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter. Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?

I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?

 

[Wry Catcher]

ahh

The Constitution is going to take another hit.

don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.

The Congress had nothing to do with making a law in the instant matter, nor does the Constitution guarantee your privacy.

 

[tigerbob]

ahh

The Constitution is going to take another hit.

don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.

The Congress had nothing to do with making a law in the instant matter, nor does the Constitution guarantee your privacy.

I must confess it does surprise me that so many people appear to have missed that, or have just chosen to ignore it.

 

[PredFan]

The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.

I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.

The fact that the court decided that Facebook has to release the IP addresses concerned would appear to indicate that the court feels there may be a case to answer.

I don't know how much consideration the court gave to your position that she should just suck it up, but I would guess that they either didn't consider it, or did consider and and decided that it didn't have sufficient merit to inform their ruling.

Courts usually don't simply say "get thicker skin", though they should.

 

[del]

Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals. I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter. Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?

I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?

only evelyn waaaaaah

sorry

 

[HUGGY]

ahh

The Constitution is going to take another hit.

don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.

You are an idiot. The Constitution guarantees "privacy"...not anonymity.

Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !

How so? You could still say anything you want whenever and wherever you want. Oh..you just don't want to be held responsible for what you freely choose to say..I undergetit.

You just want to yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater with no consequences. Bully for you! Tough shit!

 

[Foxfyre]

You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.

That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.

The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.

Years ago, I underwent some pretty intensive training on AOL to learn how to spot predators in kids' chatrooms. We already encouraged parents to use parental controls for who could instant message their kids. So while monitoring the chatrooms, if we identified what we suspected was predatory behavior, we notified a specific contact on AOL and I presume that contact then notified the proper authorities and provided them with information to check the person out. Violation of privacy? I don't think so. I'm guessing that most who were checked out never knew they had been identified. The pedophiles I'm hoping were nipped in the bud.

There simply has to be some means, short of just staying off the internet, to protect our right to privacy while at the same time defend ourselves from people who intend us no good. USMB for instance, takes personal threats very seriously. Should they not? We all know that 99% of those are just childish nonsense, but what of the other 1%. Is it worth the risk? And if somebody does find out our identity and is posting damaging--that is DAMAGING and not just insulting--false information about us, should there be no recourse?

I'm still sorting this one out. But I don't think it is quite as cut and dried as some of my friends here have decided. I would question giving the complaintant the identity of the other person though. Seems to me there could be some inherent risks in that.

 

[tigerbob]

I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.

The fact that the court decided that Facebook has to release the IP addresses concerned would appear to indicate that the court feels there may be a case to answer.

I don't know how much consideration the court gave to your position that she should just suck it up, but I would guess that they either didn't consider it, or did consider and and decided that it didn't have sufficient merit to inform their ruling.

Courts usually don't simply say "get thicker skin", though they should.

In many cases I would agree with that.