Utah Targeting VPN Users Trying to Avoid Invasive Online Identification "Age Verification", Bu-Bye USMB

[frigidweirdo]

You think the government can’t find out who people are on message boards?




He’s not silencing them. They are free to report anything they want. There is no right to be in the White House press room and if he thinks news agencies are going to report him inaccurately, or unfairly, he can prevent them from being there.

if Fox or a right wing news agency didn’t same thing to a democrat president and he removed them, I’d say the same thing.




Agreed, and if they harass someone, then that can be dealt with as it is intentional and malicious.

That would have a negative impact on someone.

Harassment is against the law.




Who decides this? Republicans? Democrats?



Well, I don’t control what other people do. As I said, incitement is a slippery slope slope with me because at the end of the day, it’s just a suggestion, the person hearing it has full capacity to not listen to them, but I get in the heat of the moment it can cause an emotional response so, who knows.

So I could see incitement as being something they couldn’t charge people over.





And opening that can of worms will lead to those things being encroached upon more and more as time goes on.

what one finds to be “harassing” today might be different than what someone finds harassing 10 years from now

Yes, I think the government can't find out people who don't want to be found. They couldn't find me.

But the point of this thread is about the government setting up a system of age verification. It's about the government putting in place something that forces you to identify yourself or not.

Yes, he's silencing them. They can report whatever they want, but they can't ask questions of their own government. The questions being asked are ones the government wants. Which is not really what happens in a free society.


Laws exist and many laws step on fine lines. That's the job of Congress to write good laws.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, I think the government can't find out people who don't want to be found. They couldn't find me.

Are you sure? How do you know they don’t know where you are?

But the point of this thread is about the government setting up a system of age verification. It's about the government putting in place something that forces you to identify yourself or not.

Are we talking about breaking laws here, or posting on internet message boards?

Yes, he's silencing them. They can report whatever they want, but they can't ask questions of their own government. The questions being asked are ones the government wants. Which is not really what happens in a free society.

Nah he’s not silencing them, they can still submit questions in writing. Trump is just being a big baby because some people wouldn’t call it the “gulf of America”

Didn’t Clinton similarly ban people from the press room?

Laws exist and many laws step on fine lines. That's the job of Congress to write good laws.

I don’t want congress writing laws on what speech is acceptable….have you read 1984??

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you sure? How do you know they don’t know where you are?



Are we talking about breaking laws here, or posting on internet message boards?




Nah he’s not silencing them, they can still submit questions in writing. Trump is just being a big baby because some people wouldn’t call it the “gulf of America”

Didn’t Clinton similarly ban people from the press room?



I don’t want congress writing laws on what speech is acceptable….have you read 1984??

I know because I know. You don't need to know.

We're talking about breaking the law while talking on the internet.

Yes, he's trying to silence them. It's not that effective, but that's what he's TRYING to do.

Same as why he keeps suing media outlets.

I don't know, did Clinton ban people. Your argument, make it.

You say you don't want them writing laws on what speech is acceptable, and yet you say certain things are not acceptable.

Should people be able to write "Let's go to that place and burn it down with all the people inside"?

 

[g5000]

Should you be anonymous when you post online?

Should you not be responsible for what you say? Should there no be consequences if you break the law?

Seeing as how Donald Trump and his Gestapo are literally snatching innocent people off the street for writing things Trump disagrees with, then yes, we should have the option to be anonymous.

Idiot.

 

[my2¢]

In the UK it has led to this....

Mustache Mischief: Kids Bypass UK's Digital Age Barriers​

Kids used to draw on their faces for fun. Now, they're doing it to play Roblox.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is this worse than Hitlary obtaining her opponent's FBI files?

 

[Sparker]

When people use credit cards for online shopping, ID is not required. Just the credit card is enough. But now governments around the world want age verification just to see some sites, while still ignoring ID for transactions.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I know because I know. You don't need to know.

We're talking about breaking the law while talking on the internet.

Ok, so what does anonymity have to do with it, you yourself just said if you don’t want to be found, they can’t find you. What deprivation of anonymity are you talking about?

Yes, he's trying to silence them. It's not that effective, but that's what he's TRYING to do.

Same as why he keeps suing media outlets.

I don’t think it’s him trying to silence anyone but more about his thin skin.

I don't know, did Clinton ban people. Your argument, make it.

I think it was Hillary who used to exclude people from press conferences, and Obama had clashes with Fox News, excluding them from some press events.

Obama, Fox News and the Free Press - FactCheck.org

Former President Barack Obama stood up for a free press in his first political speech of the 2018 campaign season, but he engaged in a bit of revisionist history when it came to his administration's dealings with Fox News.

www.factcheck.org

You say you don't want them writing laws on what speech is acceptable, and yet you say certain things are not acceptable.

What have I said that is not acceptable?

Should people be able to write "Let's go to that place and burn it down with all the people inside"?

Probably not, as that is incitement to action, and people have agency to not do what the call is for, however, I can see the inherent danger in inflaming an already stressed situation by trying to influence an already agitated person to commit a crime.

My point was, if we let government make laws to decide what speech is acceptable and what speech is not, then you’ve lost any free speech you might have had.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ok, so what does anonymity have to do with it, you yourself just said if you don’t want to be found, they can’t find you. What deprivation of anonymity are you talking about?




I don’t think it’s him trying to silence anyone but more about his thin skin.




I think it was Hillary who used to exclude people from press conferences, and Obama had clashes with Fox News, excluding them from some press events.

Obama, Fox News and the Free Press - FactCheck.org

Former President Barack Obama stood up for a free press in his first political speech of the 2018 campaign season, but he engaged in a bit of revisionist history when it came to his administration's dealings with Fox News.

www.factcheck.org

What have I said that is not acceptable?



Probably not, as that is incitement to action, and people have agency to not do what the call is for, however, I can see the inherent danger in inflaming an already stressed situation by trying to influence an already agitated person to commit a crime.

My point was, if we let government make laws to decide what speech is acceptable and what speech is not, then you’ve lost any free speech you might have had.

Freedom of speech is freedom from the government. A free or anarchic internet is one where you can say anything without fear of the government getting involved.

Then you have a controlled internet where you're expected to behave as you would in the real world.

And then you have what people fear, the government stifling free speech, like they do in countries like China.

This whole topic is about age verification, which would prevent young people from accessing certain parts of the internet without parental permission. In order to do that, you need to require age verification for all people.

Your argument about Obama and Hillary is what? You're just going to post a source without actually using the source? A bit pointless, isn't it?

You say limiting speech on the internet is unacceptable.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Freedom of speech is freedom from the government. A free or anarchic internet is one where you can say anything without fear of the government getting involved.

Then you have a controlled internet where you're expected to behave as you would in the real world.

And then you have what people fear, the government stifling free speech, like they do in countries like China.

This whole topic is about age verification, which would prevent young people from accessing certain parts of the internet without parental permission. In order to do that, you need to require age verification for all people.

Your argument about Obama and Hillary is what? You're just going to post a source without actually using the source? A bit pointless, isn't it?

You say limiting speech on the internet is unacceptable.

I agree with age verification, I think parents need to be more involved with what their kids view online, there are monitoring programs where you can see what your kids are viewing on the computer.


What level of speech “approval” are you suggesting from the government?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree with age verification, I think parents need to be more involved with what their kids view online, there are monitoring programs where you can see what your kids are viewing on the computer.


What level of speech “approval” are you suggesting from the government?

"speech "approval""???

I think online bullying, and physical threats and things like that need to be dealt with.

Like I've been saying and like you've been agreeing with.

 

[sparky]

Freedom of speech is freedom from the government.

so how much control is necessary Frigid one? ~S~

 

[frigidweirdo]

so how much control is necessary Frigid one? ~S~

Enough that the internet is not being used by China and Russia to manipulate people. Enough that bullying isn't a huge issue on the internet.
Enough that when people incite violence on the internet, they can be arrested.

 

[ThisIsMe]

"speech "approval""???

Yes, you want congress to write laws to govern speech. I fear what that may look like down the road.

I think online bullying, and physical threats and things like that need to be dealt with.

Like I've been saying and like you've been agreeing with.

I think intentional harassment should be considered, sure, but I have no idea how you’d police that. If an 8th grader calls a girl a bad name a few times, and she commits suicide, are we arresting the 8th grader? I mean, how do we deal with that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, you want congress to write laws to govern speech. I fear what that may look like down the road.




I think intentional harassment should be considered, sure, but I have no idea how you’d police that. If an 8th grader calls a girl a bad name a few times, and she commits suicide, are we arresting the 8th grader? I mean, how do we deal with that?

There are already laws that government speech. And you've agreed with all of them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

There are already laws that government speech. And you've agreed with all of them.

Yes, laws for defamation, laws for calling for actions that could harm others, but laws that would be subjective in how they make someone else feel? That’s a tough row to hoe.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, laws for defamation, laws for calling for actions that could harm others, but laws that would be subjective in how they make someone else feel? That’s a tough row to hoe.

No, that's the end of free speech.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

lol

agree

with

a

Wow!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, laws for defamation, laws for calling for actions that could harm others, but laws that would be subjective in how they make someone else feel? That’s a tough row to hoe.

Yes, things might be tough. So, the American way, just don't do it. Take the money and sit back and watch everything BURN.

 

[Concerned American]

We shouldn't break sensible laws. But I think we're approaching a point that speech that doesn't align with the "official narrative" will be considered "hate speech" or "offensive speech" or something along those lines. We know it's happening in Germany, the UK, and other places and we've even seen it happen here in the USA. Alex Jones (someone I don't care for) was found "guilty" of exercise his right to free speech and fined more than a $Billion.

You or I could be the next victims of a rogue government that punishes people for saying the wrong words.

Already happened in the US decades ago when laws were enacted making different penalties for the same crime dependent on WHO the victim was. As for anonymity on line, it has never existed.