Eric
Scott
a.k.a.
“SigmaX”
20
June, 2008
[Note: The below is a slightly formalized exposition of my personal thought processes, and as of yet does not represent any official Blogster policies]
1. THE PROBLEM
As to be expected from Internet communities, some users make controversial posts and/or display provoking, troll-like behavior during discussions, and still others go on lengthy campaigns to purport the illegal behaviors of individuals.
We, the service provider, need a well-defined policy to deal with the wide gray area where it is difficult to tell on a case-by-case basis whether a given comment needs moderating. Our decisions need to be consistent, and we need to have a clear reference point to which we can refer (And point users to -- since there will always be users who think we moderate too little or too much).
User dissatisfaction with the current Blogster platform, and the rumored deletion of select user accounts (i.e. blog.blogster.com) are similar issues emotionally, as far as the involvement of the team in the community, but should be treated separate from the issue at hand, which is the process of defining a general moderation policy. (That is, mmmhollywould's post from 11 June will not be treated here.)1
2. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES:
Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996), online services are not held accountable for content provided by third parties: "no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 2
In Wikipedia's interpretation, "this immunity applies even if the providers are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it, because provider liability upon notice would likely cause a flood of complaints to providers, would be a large burden on providers, and would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech on the Internet." 3
This assertion is affirmed by the 2006 case of Barret v. Rosenthal in the Supreme Court of California (2006), who concluded: "We share the concerns of those who have expressed reservations about the Zeran court's broad interpretation of section 230 immunity. The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications. Nevertheless, by its terms section 230 exempts Internet intermediaries from defamation liability for republication. The statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended. Section 230 has been interpreted literally. It does not permit Internet Service providers or users to be sued as "distributors," nor does it expose "active users" to liability."4
In short, Web 2.0 companies (Such as Blogster) are immune from any mandate to moderate their users content, save in the case of "federal criminal liability and intellectual property law” (Which does not include libel).5
3. MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES:
In nearly the same breath that it protects us from liability for NOT censoring web content, Section 230 also establishes the right of providers TO censor content as they see fit. “No provider or user of an interactive service shall be held liable on account of – (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
We don't want to neglect our users concerns. Naturally, if users are unhappy, we feel bad, because we are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the community. This month alone we've had several cases of dispute between members, where harsh words were exchanged, posters were accused of libel, racism, etc – and both sides of each respective debacle emailed us expecting decisive action on their behalf.
As Tim O'Rielly puts it in his post last year, Call for a Blogger's Code of Conduct: “Yes, you own your own words. But you also own the tone that you allow on any blog or forum you control.”6 For example, the atmosphere my friends and I strive for on our private science-and-philosophy-centric forum at http://ThoughtCommunity.com is vastly different than the high-energy flame and yo-mamma jokes that tend to accompany online gaming.
Blogster does not purport or intend to control the “atmosphere” of its users' blogs. It's likely that a public Internet site is among the worst places on which to have a flaming debate, and we would love it if everyone would be cordial to one another, whatever their differences. It's not our place, however, to force people to be nice or to censor controversial content.
As far as libel is concerned, we do not have the resources to analyze each case and determine if defamation per se has occurred. Defamation is a sensitive issue and is difficult to define concisely – that's what the courts are for. How we choose to react when faced with user complaints, then, is also a difficult question. As established above, we are not under legal obligation to remove defamatory material upon notice, like we are for copyright infringement. As such, our protocol should be established accordingly: We are not liable or responsible for seemingly libelous content, but we reserve the right to remove at will anything we deem to be inappropriate.
Simple enough. But when shall we “deem” content “to be inappropriate? Do we force a user to take down a blog post simply because one person – perhaps the defamed -- cries foul and sends us a complaint? Perhaps not, as judging such situations effectively is an inescapable stalemate (Of the two parties involved, at least one of them will invariably be perturbed by our decision for or against action). But in the case of a post which is provocative enough to draw complaints from many different users, it may be best to delete the item at hand.
As such, we can decide with some confidence that, in the case of serious and controversial matters for which we receive many complaints, we will simply remove the offending material and wash our hands of the matter. If two users simply can't get a long and get engaged in a flame war, however, we will not intervene. Blogster members are generally mature adults or teenagers, and should be capable of managing their own blogs without guidance from big brother.
In short, we're not responsible for the behavior of our users, period.
4. ERRATA
-
Nobody reads the Terms of Service that they supposedly agree to whenever signing up for a service. This is taken as a matter of fact. It might be of benefit, however, to create a separate “Code of Conduct” page, free of legal jargon, in hopes that users will self-regulate their behavior at least somewhat.
-
Often bloggers will copy and paste quotes or articles from emails and web pages. It should be noted in the Code of Conduct that it's good form to clearly cite the original source.
-
The current Terms of Service states: “Through your usage of the Site, you may submit and/or BLOGSTER.COM may gather certain limited information about you and your web site usage. BLOGSTER.COM is free to use such information for any purpose it deems appropriate, including marketing purposes.”
Seeing as we don't intend to sell email addresses or send spam to users, I don't see how this clause serves any purpose except to make the few users who actually read it uneasy. We will need to consult our lawyers first, but I'd like to see it made a little more warm and fuzzy. -
The current Privacy Policy lists a lot of information that “BLOGSTER.COM may gather” that we would never ask you for given the services we currently provide, such as “Social security or other national ID numbers.” Again, that just makes us sound creepy.
-
There should be a clause somewhere stating that Blogster staff will never ask you for your password.
47 comments on Thought Process involved in Revised Blogster TOS
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
I have no objection to the TOS ,, if I post something that someone does not like , they have the right to comment on it , or they do not have to read it if the title offends them !!!
For once I agree with you.
"Nobody reads the Terms of Service that they supposedly agree to whenever signing up for a service. This is taken as a matter of fact. It might be of benefit, however, to create a separate “Code of Conduct” page, free of legal jargon, in hopes that users will self-regulate their behavior at least somewhat."
Thatr is completely untrue. I read the terms of service when I joined. Blogster changed them a year ago with out giving anyone the opputunity to agree to the change,or, hell, even notify them. Finally I an many other s ALWAYS read the terms of service.
I have a heck of a lot more to say and will do so very shortly.
Heh, you're right -- it was rather of presumptious of me to state that "nobody" reads the TOS.
okay you ready here it comes
I have to put it on my blog though becasue otherwise you will not be able to see the italics :P
http://mmmhollywould.blogster.com/hes-a-pedophile-ban-him_200608233802
Here is my reply and BTW I was not implying you are a pedo.....going to add that right now!
Some thoughts or perhaps sugestions.
I know it would be a pain but using the confirmation tag (four random letters and numbers should be enough) for each blog or comment posted.
First 5 Blogs of a user have a TOS(short version) accepted.
Almost anything can offend and there is little that any individual can do about how another interprets what you write.
Community approval: If any Blog receives more than # (5?) Negative votes then that blog is banned from being accessed by any except the original author. Three strikes in a short period of time (3 months?) permanently removes that user. (Problem of one person creating a 'gang' to rid themselves of another with this idea though)
That won't work, liberals would NEVER let consevatives post ANYTHING and vice versa
.
mmmhollywould's blog also prompted this reply from moi!
I quite like the policy set up they have over at Matchdoctor. A user can choose to approve a comment or allow automatic approval or allow only friends to comment.
They have put into operation that only one comment on a blog per user is allowed except for the right of reply is given to the original blogger.
I think this is because they wanted to stop 'discussion' from occurring after a blog.
Ok..You vented...Feel better now?
As I said on my blog, why would they want to limit the discussion? That is what blogs are for.
EZ!!!!
I have heard of people who have been found innocent in courts of Law and yet have found that their lives to have been almost destroyed by people who set out to disrupt their life by a group of people who think they were not innocent.
Car set on fire, brick through the window until boarded up, front door smashed in and living space wrecked. Phone calls in the middle of the night, that general sort of thing. The world is full of determined people who think they are doing good and do not need 'proof' of guilt before committing themselves to actions another may find unpleasant.
Would that be sufficient reason for limiting the discussion?
I do not understand how either of the two can be compared? Here at blogster you have a block button, you can delete comments on your blog, you can even go private what would be the point of limiting comments to one if you have begun a discussion? You have total control of what is on your blog. Even major news papers now have discussion areas at the bottom of the article if you look. Why would you want to limit that for others when you can do it yourself on your own blog?
Also I wanted to add you used to be able to follow these replies and know who was commenting to who and did not have to follow them contextually. That is the complaint about the reply button. In addition all the successful social networking sites do not limit a discussion. I do not know why you want blogster to do what you can do yourself?
Being able to delete a comment if fine if you are always online. Now, and I am only speculating, Unk-nutter can email their thoughts to the friends list you have. Post their comments about your blog in their own blog.
I have encountered some fairly vile and clever people on the net. I am not against disscussion. I am against people disrespecting each other and finding ways to hurt them in any way they can.
To Whomever Owns Blogster,
When you purchased Blogster you accepted the Terms that were in affect when I agreed to join. You can change them daily if you like. However, that will not change any agreement between Blogster and me.
Understood?
This has always been the case. If you write a blog someone can quote your blog and that is true if you are ona forum, message board, newsgroup, website or a traditional blog. Hell I can quote your spoken word if we speak.
I can write about you if I choose too. You can write about me if you choose to. I fail to see the problem.
If you are having a problem with a particular user you can block them from commenting on your blog be you online or off.
You cannot make people be nice to each other.
You cannot stop people from saying things you do not approve of.
The onlly behavior you can control is your own.
That is true both on the internet and in real life.
All of what you say is true. Now if you see someone about to set fire to a child do you try to stop them or say 'oh I can't stop people being horrible, just let them get on with it, I can't control their behaviour'!
This is a multi-cultural, multi-opinionated place, where if users believe in freedom of expression, then it would be nice if the users understood that they are going to read things they do not like, but it does not give them the right to campaign vigorously against another individual just because they do not like their views.
Setting a child on fire is absolutely not comparable to blogging. We are not comparing apples to oranges here. Blogging is just words. Even if I wrote a blog on how I like to butcher cats and eat their entrails on weekends. That does not make it true, it makes them words. It is also not a crime for me to write about doing so. When speaking of being a in a room where a child is being set on fire you have brought up a whole different scenario that is not relative to the writing or commenting on blogs.
I see you would really like it if you did not have to control your own blog but let the powers that be do so. I also can see that you are not really interested in freedom of expression. In real life I can come up to you and say, “You have a really ugly shirt.” I can even say to you,” your morals are as ugly as the vomit colored shirt you are wearing” and I have the right t say it. Depending on what provoked those comments decides if it was appropriate or not. Why do you want to control what others have to say.
Why doesn’t it give them the right to “campaign vigorously against their views?” That is the basis for freedom of expression and speech.
Finally if you think blogging and commenting on blogs is comparable to lighting a child on fire you need to take some time off the internet, you take it entirely to seriously.
The first is a metaphor for how another could behave with words. You seem to be unaware of what can be achieved with words!
Derren Brown,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown) has demonstrated just how influential words can be. Getting all the people in a 'shopping mal', in American terminology, to raise their right arm as if voting. He told of a story how one prisoner got another prisoner in an adjacent cell to kill himself by using words achieve this. (Unconfirmed and may have been told for dramatic effect but Derren Brown has shown that it is possible to get people to make the choices he wants them to make by using just words)
Words are, I agree, only a map of reality and not reality itself. Not sure whether 'persecution', 'stalking' and 'campaign vigorously' are matching concepts or where one ends and the other begins.
Thanks for presenting a challenge, it is not often I get a chance, to discuss, slightly differing views.
Not sure where you got the idea that I wish to control what others say, All I am hoping for it that they don't keep shouting loud and persistently that might look like persecution. Hitler only used words, Goebbels only used words, yet for some reason the effect these words had on people was apparently pretty grim for a lot of other people.
(Got me very amused with the shirt comment, LOL, as for morals, has anybody ever seen a definition of them we can all easily understand?)
I am doing exactly what you fear as we speak, making a blog post :P
Further you need to keep your focus. There is not anyone who convinced anyone to do anything completely horrific that they did not already want to do simply with the use of words. If you think Hitler did it only with words and not with the help of
his secret police and the threat of imminent death for not conforming to his thoughts. I think your ideas a free expression might be quite similar to Nazi Germany.
Are you really comparing the atmosphere on blogster.com to that of pre-world war 2 Nazi Germany? In my humble opinion I would believe that handing all journalistic free speech over to the state (blogster team) is far more similar to national socialism than the system currently in place.
[quote]
Fear of death is the beginning of slavery
created by Jaggar
Wed Sep 26 2001 at 14:08:12
A philosophy espoused by Frank Herbert in his Dune Chronicles. The keystone of this philosophy is the assertion that every person is completely free at any time to take any action :P "The only thing to fear is fear itself"
From web site everything2
===========================
Fear of death is the beginning of slavery
created by Jaggar
Wed Sep 26 2001 at 14:08:12
A philosophy espoused by Frank Herbert in his Dune Chronicles. The keystone of this philosophy is the assertion that every person is completely free at any time to take any action that is physically possible for them. This means that all actions are completely and purely voluntary. This specifically includes cubical drones, soldiers, and even slaves (that's right, slavery is completely voluntary). From this philosophic standpoint, coercion is completely impossible unless one physically forces another person's hand.
The reason that this is not true in practice is because of fear. Office workers fear that they will lose their jobs and ultimately, their means to support themselves. Soldiers fear punishment. Slaves fear death. Ultimately, it is fear itself that is the captor. Fear is the result of billions of years of natural selection. Evolution favors those that stay alive. Fear, however, is also completely internal and Herbert argues that it is under our control (see Litany Against Fear) and can be overcome. A person who can overcome his or her fear of death cannot be coerced and is completely free, because death is always an option
Personally, I view this as an unnecessarily harsh way of looking at things. However, as the United States of America, and possibly the rest of Western Civilization prepares to face down radical extremist groups all over the world, it is very important for them to keep in mind that they have very little leverage over people who are not afraid to die for their cause. Sun Tzu points out that the ultimate goal of any military action is not to destroy the enemy's army, but to destroy the enemy's will to fight. The United States needs to understand that some people's will cannot be broken by the threat of a fiery death.
==================
Why is it so hard to communicate a simple concept backing up the concept with similar parallels to demonstrate that the concept is possible only for the backup concept to become more important than the general principal?
"There is not anyone who convinced anyone to do anything completely horrific that they did not already want to do simply with the use of words." You have proof of this? How can you be sure this statement is accurate and true? Governments and journalists use Jingoism to get people to accept some horrific action. (Weapons of Mass Destruction?) There are many who do not have the capacity or ability to think for themselves.
Your remark about Socialism, make me wonder if you really understand the concept. That would be digressing from the current discussion but I would reccoment George Bernard Shaw's "The Intelligent Womans guide to socialism
Once again you have displayed your amazing ability to disguise your semantics with more semantics. Yes I do have proof of this, Yes. Just as evolution favors those who stay alive it also favors those who go along with the group, the people who cannot think for themselves. It is a lot easier for those people who desire only survival to come to the desired decision when they have a gun pointed at their face. On another note you talk a big game but are you bleeding in the dessert? God bless you if you did.
I have another name to throw out there for you. L. Ron Hubbard just because a science fiction author can write a good game does not mean you should develop his philosophy.
Just a suggestion to the Blogster Team. You should have an attorney review your legal theories.
An Internet Provider is not what you are.
The law applies to INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS (ISP) NOT publishers of material - which you are. You control the media and the mechanism by which folks on this blog site spew information. There is an inherent responsibility that goes with that.
If people want to take FULL responsibility for what they post they should get their own site, their own hosting and their own blog.
That's not what Blogster is. It's a "community" that is hosted by blogger. It is certaintly NOT an ISP.
So okay now since I cannot reply to David Burach and I have not explored the law beyond my own realms, I can only tell you my understanding of the law regarded internet websites with user submitted content.
As a member of a very large adult web-forum and a website owner my understanding was that if you moderate, you must always moderate if you do not beyond the specific rules in your terms of service then you are not responsible for user content.
So based on this, this particular forum never moderates but will ask you to remove content and most all comply and if the thread becomes a flame war or just meanness they simply close the thread. It is still available to be read but no one can make any further comments. They delete nothing.
I would also say that Mr.Burach is wrong because what I consider the leader in blog sites blogger / blogspot both allow adult neither moderate and rarely is a blog deleted, if ever, to date I have never heard of one being deleted there even the Nazi ones. Then again blog spot , wordpress and places like my space allow you to moderate your own comments before they happen if you wish too.
They are completely user controlled and they are the places that have thus far set the legal precident.
Actually, I was going to make a similar comment with respectthe law the team referenced and that it appears (I have not read the entire piece of legislation yet) to pertain to ISPs which Blogster is not.
Also, if Blogster by way of TOS take "ownership" of your published words, then, like a newspaper, they are and will be held liable.
I, too, highly recommend Blogster seek the advise of a competent attorney who specializes in internet law and verify their presumptions. I suspect them myself to be incorrect presumptions.
Now I offer you a very recent news story that shows the statement I highlighted in bold to be untrue.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/latest/2008/05/12/fury-at-derren-brown-cat-killer-tv-show-89520-20415125/
I'm watching this discussion closely and am very intrigued by all the points of view expressed. At present, however, the only thing I want to respond to specifically is David Burach's statement that Blogster is not an ISP, which would poke a big hole in my legal resoning in the OP:
You are right to the extent that one is used to equating "ISP" with an organization that provides a *connection* to the internet. But, on a moment's more general thought, one sees that an "Internet Service Provider" is not just something that provides "The Internet," but an "Internet Service." The legal definition of an ISP is very broad, under both the Communications Decency Act and the DMCA. AT&T and Blogster both *transmit* your blogs via an "Internet Service."
But nevermind, because while the Supreme Court case I referenced did indeed speak of an "Internet Service Provider," the law it interprets uses the term "information content provider."
I would personally be appalled if these laws (Or their interpretation) do not adapt more or less perfectly to fit a Web 2.0 environment such as Blogster. The same arguments used to defend net neutrality in colloqual "ISP's" apply, as the Decency Act of '96 was targeted at reversing the '95 Oakmont vs. Prodigy case in which Prodigy was held liable as the "publisher" of user-provided content.
We are in touch with our lawyers, but you're right, the above article represents my limited research only, not that of a professional attorney (Which is why it is preliminary). As of yet I still stand by my conclusions.
The whole point of Web 2.0 is that the average person, with no knowledge of HTML, how to configure Apache, install Wordpress, etc, can set up their own site and distribute content with minimal hastle. We simply provide the tools to do so quickly and easily -- which hardly makes us responsible for what users do with those tools.
SigmaX
You Honestly beleive that people who do terrible things did not want to do them anyway?
I read is and all I can say is, you believed it?
This is beginning to get away from the major point of the discussion and our slightly different perspectives. You keep focusing on the side statements or examples; I make to back up my viewpoint.
Come on now! This reply is yet another diversionary twisting tactic.
It is not a question of if they did, or did not, want to do them, it is a question of whether they can be influenced into doing them.
However to get back to my original idea of what people on-line need protecting from are those people that go beyond standard comment and banter and attempt to make another’s on-line and even off-line life a misery.
I think that you are saying that because the Internet is anonymous and it is only words and possibly pictures, then it is each individual’s responsibility to take care of their own thoughts and reactions to what they meet on the Internet.
I am not the one who brings up unrelated topics flyinglion. You are! I simply reply to them because they are always completely unrelated and do not apply to internet blogging. In fact you never replied to the blog post I did make to replying in much more detail to each of these comments.
I personally do not feel that "the Internet is anonymous" at all unless you are a hacker and no one here at blogster can qualify except maybe sigmaX and that should any blogger here at blogster or any other blog site commit a crime they will certainly be prosecuted which gives lie to your theory that I believe the internet is anonymous. The party van will pick you up if you f*** up.
For example the pedophiles that have been prosecuted for the misuse of my space as well as the mother who pretended to be a teenage boy in order to belittle a 15 year old girl who in turn committed suicide. Both of these cases are cases where words hurt and were prosecuted and the blog site was not held liable.
Let me say this though, one mother did try to sue Myspace for 30 million dollars because her daughter got molested which was thrown out of court because the mother in question was responsible. She should have been monitoring her internet usage.
Children need protected by their parents and adults need to learn to be responsible for themselves not make an online entity responsible for their hurt feelings.
If someone finds that their online experience is being made miserable by someone else they either need to move to a different blog site or become a stronger person not a lemming as you have described previously.
So yes, you and I are responsible for our words and if in the event either of us commits a crime we will be punished for it, why then do you need mommy and daddy blogster to control the thoughts, feelings and comments of others.
You seem to be accusing me of thinking that Blogs and thoughts should be controlled. This is NOT the case. What I think should be made difficult are the very situations mentioned in your previous reply.
If someone commits a crime then you think they will be punished for it? Do you really believe that all crimes are punished? Once a crime has been committed can it be undone? This was part of my point about the difference between taking action and putting in some controls, or support, to help prevent some of the very cases you describe. (Was trying to make this point with the setting fire EXAMPLE and contrast)
Have you seen the film Zodiac (2007)? Not all crimes are punished. Making crime difficult is all we can actually do. Teaching people how to deal or cope with peer pressure and the need some people feel to belong and follow the codes, morals, and beliefs their environment as imposed upon them.
We are not responsible for another’s environment, we are responsible for trying to make sure that understanding and respect for their situation is discussed in an adult way.
(Not sure which post you think I did not answer!)
I popped in to read this and I followed the entire discussion you've had with Holly. From where i sit, you do believe that someone else should be responsible and prevent another from committing a crime.
That is ridiculous. And whether you are willing to admit your own truth doesn't change the fact of what you have been saying over and over throughout this entire discussion and that is that some "authoritarian" person, entity, or group should be responsible for preventing others from committing crimes and immoral acts. That's socialism and THAT violates the U.S. Constitution.
We are a republic that protects the individual rights of the minority and this particular discussion, the minority is the person or persons who say vile things (in your opinion) and who you think create unnecessary afflicted emotions by way of their not so nice words.
My advise to you is to get over it and move on. Grow some hair on your chest and don't let such petty and stupid stuff bother you. Have some character and respect others right to be their own wordy person regardless of whether or not you agree with what they do with their choice of words.
based on my reply, I suspect you won't be approving my friend's request.
whereabouts, right on!
First I have no objection to your friends request.
Second discussion is useful and educational and if I believe in the freedom of speech then I respect your right to say what you want to say.
My problem appears to be that my thoughts are too incomprehensible to those that read what I am saying that they 'think' I am saying something else. mmmHolyWould appears to disassociate my situational examples from having similar application within the internet.
In fact I find a slight or minor contradiction is what you are attempting to do with your whereabouts comment message on this discussion, which in the short interpretation is "shut-up and respect others to say what they want to say". Does that mean that I am not to have the same respect and should not say what I am saying? If it is clear to me that a response does not understand or comprehend my words do I NOT have the duty or responsibility to try to clear up misunderstanding?
I repeat in case you missed it the first time your read it.
However to get back to my original idea of what people on-line need protecting from are those people that go beyond standard comment and banter and attempt to make another’s on-line and even off-line life a misery.
mmmHollyWould says:
You cannot make people be nice to each other.
You cannot stop people from saying things you do not approve of.
The only behavior you can control is your own.
That is true both on the internet and in real life.
All of which I agree is TRUE, but limited in NOT taking into account the revenge obsessive compulsive behavior some people are capable of. This type of behavior and childish comments like "you f***ing fool" are not really useful to a discussion, if a person does make such a remark then they should be able to back it up with examples to prove that the opinion is justified.
I proved my point of what could be done by an expert in human behavior and psychology, as a counter to the opinion and ‘proof’ offered by mmmHollyWould to back her statement up. Because it did not fit into how she believes things work she refused to see the proof as real.
My suggestions were for the community who read another persons to VOTE, which is democratic, as to whether the community approved or disapproved of a particular blog thus eventually helping newcomers not waste or if the prefer spend time reading Blogs that others found a good read. Thus it becomes the communities responsibility not a controlling dictatorship of what is allowed and not allowed.
I said you can not prevent crime just attempt to make it difficult for it to be committed. Why else do we now have Spam and Virus checkers on our computers? We have them to make the crime of destructive virus programs, key-loggers for detecting credit card information and spam annoyance more difficult.
As for understanding the true meaning of socialism the book by George Bernard Shaw "The intelligent woman’s guide to socialism" and the philosopher’s "John Stewart Mill “political ideas should be read.
What I find difficult to understand is that people seem to be saying 'Lets do nothing to stop a potential 'crime' in progress and punish them afterwards.
Can't see a reply link for whereabouts
FlyingLion,
No, I am not saying shut up. I'm saying you have to learn to get over what you cannot control and other people's behavior's are one of those things.
Democracy is not such a good thing. Just because 90% of the people think it's okay to rape their neighbor's child doesn't make it right. This country is a Constitutional Republic with a "limited" form of democracy. A Democracy is specifically what the founding fathers did not want and for very good reason as in the example stated above. Our republic protects the minority point of view. The limited Democracy provides us with the ability to vote for representatives who we think will reinforce our Constitution and our Constitutional rights as individuals collectively.
Other people are hurtful and harmful but taking the socialistic approach leads to tyranny...do as I say you are to do and believe and think and act, otherwise we'll vote you out of the country/blog!
The specifics that you are referring to will never cure themselves through a democratic process. They will cure themselves through the evolution of our species which is still in progress. We are still babes in the woods when it comes to mastering psychological matters, habits, etc. The manner of some individuals lacking communication ettiquette and blatantly bashing or trying to crush another through their written words is an embedded issue within their personal psyche and voting them on or off or condemning them or whatever doesn't solve their personal problem; it exasterbates it. The problem lies within generations and generations of a lack of spiritual understanding...a lack of concern for the well being of others overall...a inner turmoil and feeling the need to conquer because that is what they were taught by the way they lived.
We all learn what we live. When another approaches a debate in the fashion you so oppose, it is a clear sign of where they come from and the experiences and influences they've had during the formation of their habits of communication or lack of them.
Garnering global support to prove the offender is bad is no less a conquering quest than the offender's need to be brutal and domineering throught their ugly words.
You've just been, what I call, "sucked in!"
Everything we do in life is made up of energy, good or bad, positive or evil. Thoughts are energy. Intention is energy. Action is energy. Everything is made up of energy.
Energy is free flowing and is continuous. It may ram into another source of energy and remold itself into a new element but it's always moving.
Intentions drive the thoughts that prompt the action. Everything, no matter what it is can be good or bad, intention dictates which it will be.
When one has negative intentions stemming from the negative within their realm of experience and influence (for they, too, were sucked in), what they share is what they know and what they've expereinced. Again, we all learn what we live.
Positiveness is infectious. Negativeness is comsuming, like a tornado or a hurricane, you can easily get caught up in the spiral of emotions and get sucked in without even realizing it. When you've been sucked into that negative vortex, you can't see outside the swirling wall of emotional debris flying around you. The only way to understand it clearly is to rise above the cyclone and view it from the outside. Only then can you see the clear skies surrounding the storm.
When another has been sucked in and is blindly lashing out into the storm or throwing stone over the wall they can't see beyond, the only way to cure the situation is to help them understand what they cannot see on their own because of the cycle of confusion they've been sucked into. The onyl way to help them is to teach them. This takes time.
TTT - things take time.
Charging against them, rallying against them and any other sort of such actions simply creates more of the same for both sides. Don't get sucked into the negative psychological vortex by masking the real problem with a socialistic approach that attempts to dictate their behaviors.
Be the wise of the two, and learn to teach them what they cannot see on their own. This is for everyone's benefit. This is what leads to peace, not trying to ram them down into non-existence.
We all have a very valid purpose for being on this earth and each one of us has something to teach everyone we come in contact with. We must all understand when difficult people enter into our lives, the lesson is for us, not for them. The challenge belongs to us, not the other. We're the one who is supposed to learn from this person. When it happens repeatedly, that simply means that you have refused to take the tests that life has to offer, have suffered a setback because of it, and then retreated to recover from the emotional affliction only to find that it has come about once again! It will continue to find you and continue to be a thorn until you learn to make it right by helping the other person, which helps yourself grow and learn and understand and teaches compassion to both parties thereby creating peace.
Pay attention to the signs. Your angels speak through others actions that effect you. That's a sign. Recognize it for what it is and master the challenge. Then you will be accomplishing the life you're supposed to lead.
Namaste, friend.
Have you ever seen the tv program 'Super nanny' or a program where a couple are falling apart because they don't know how to manage/teach their children?
Forgive me if I ignore the energy concept, as the word ‘energy’ seems to have been invented to explain movement or the transference of movement from one 'body' to another. It is a diversion from this discussion, however I do respect that this is the teaching of your environment.
It would be nice for just once to meet someone in this vast world of 6.5 billion people to see the person they are talking to rather than the assumed reflection of personal beliefs.
Now I had better go and sit on the naughty chair and 'grok' the situation remain confused as to why you finish with a greeting 'Namaste' and again attempt to communicate with my sub-space mind.
May your beliefs and social environment keep you happy.
"It would be nice for just once to meet someone in this vast world of 6.5 billion people to see the person they are talking to rather than the assumed reflection of personal beliefs."
Sounds like a repeated test of life that keeps coming back to you over and over again...a sign.
Possibly it isn't everyone else who doesn't see you correctly but rather you're not being straight with yourself? It's a possibility. Possibly more of a possibility than you being the only one on the planet who gets it?
Something to think about.
Tell me it ain't true, that blogs are floundering around here.
Why should it matter if they are or are not? While the site is here and you find it a pleasure to visit, the floundering question does not matter as at the now you find it fun, tomorrow; well some people do say that tomorrow never arrives.
Each tick of time is the first tick of the rest of your life.
change the color