Mizufall

March 14, 2011 at 10:33pm

Just because you can doesn't mean you should if only we all excersied this there would be a lot less trolls *sigh*

cup

January 26, 2011 at 7:30pm

I'll agree - this is retarded.  commonsense.exe does not need to (nor should be) legislated.  And government is not, should not be, and, is constututionally prohibited from being in the business of legislating speech in a private forum (e.g. a web forum or site.)

"“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.” Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged."
(Jean-Luc Picard - ST:TNG - The Drumhead)

From a show set ~300 years in the future (and, written 20 years ago), a quote that will forever ring true.

Danthrax66

January 25, 2011 at 7:55pm

I think a better solution would be to make a male and female internet. /s

macumber

January 25, 2011 at 6:21pm

I wouldn't put anything on the web that I wasn't fully prepared to lose all control over. I would never subject the memory of someone I love to the crassness of John Q Public, whether it be on a web memorial, a roadside cross or a bulletin board at work. The web especially so, as it is rife with examples of people saying and typing things they wouldn't dare do face-to-face. I was raised to treat death and grieving as private matters and wouldn't subject/expose myself to that sort of pain in the first place. Passing a law against moronic speach isn't going to strike mute the great reservoir of idiocy and cruelty in this world. Of course where I was raised, and the time in which I was raised, we had a thing called "fighting words". I recall a time when you couldn't just roll off with this kind of talk without expecting to get a severe ass whuppin. I think they still have "fighting words" laws on the books in Texas. Vigilante justice isn't something I am advocating - but it's notable how people were a lot more respectful before they could hide behind their keyboards and had to consider how much they were willing to defend what they had to say.

Jox

January 25, 2011 at 5:03pm

"...there is a time and place for mourners to be left alone."

Yes, there is.  But the internet is not that place.

If you make a private sight for friends and family to use which requires logon authentication then, yes, you have a case against people who hack it and post messages you don't like.  However, a new law is not required - it's already covered by the DMCA.

On the other hand, people who create "cyber-memorials" that are open to the public are, to use the technical term, attention whores and deserve what they get.  Too many people forget that the internet is open to the world.  This includes stupid people who enjoy a cheap laugh.  The onus is on you to keep stupid people off your forum.  The US can enact as many laws as it likes... they will have no effect on the remaining 96% of the Earth's population.

-Jox

 

MeanSquare

January 25, 2011 at 4:54pm

I can understand the intent, but there are far better ways to do this than to establish some sort of law.  It's fairly easy to set up moderated posting on a web site.  The moderator would then approve (or not) any statement before it was posted.  That's a lot of work, depending on traffic, but it does keep the comments from degrading due to idiots who can't pass up a chance to display their lack of wit and compassion for all to see.

Why do we so quickly turn to law and government to solve our problems?  All it does is put more power in the hands of those who've proven themselves to be almost universally incapable of exercising it properly.

JohnP

January 25, 2011 at 1:52pm

 When I was a teenager, we had a classmate who was very drunk drive into a tree and killed himself. A couple of days after the burial, his drinking buddies had a beer bash on his grave, knocked the stone over, and pissed on it. Obviously this is a lot more serious than a few distastful postings on the internet. NO WAY would the feds get involved in a beer party in a cemetery. This lady is way overreacting to a minor annoyance.

stradric

January 25, 2011 at 1:18pm

Um, shouldn't the memorial site simply remove these comments?  Why is the woman trying to pass a law?  Shouldn't she just contact the administrators of the site and ask politely to have the disrespectful comments removed from the database?

What she is proposing is half a step away from thought crime.

ShyLinuxGuy

January 25, 2011 at 11:44am

Unfortunately, this law could never pass because it would violate free speech rights. However, there's always loopholes, and the mourners could possibly get the naysayers for harassment.

Sinced the deceased teenager was a US citizen, and the parents/family are US citizens, and the commenters are 99.999% likely to be US citizens (they probably knew the deceased teenager), this would follow under the jurisdiction of our laws and could be a harassment case here. It would just be a matter of investigation to see who posted what from their IP address (like what the RIAA does).

jth

January 25, 2011 at 11:36am

No. Laws protect us from actual harm, not from getting our feelings hurt. Censorship is what should not be tolerated. You cannot, and should not try to, outlaw rudeness. Passing this law would be a huge step backwards in free speech.

DJSPIN80

January 25, 2011 at 11:23am

How about not posting idiot crap period?  It's not even a matter of free speech anymore, it's about a matter of tastefulness.

People who are posting crap to the memorial site most likely knew the deceased.  In the US, this is protected under the 1st Amendment - yes, it sucks, but censoring speech is not simply difficult to enforce, but the definition of "hate speech" can be very expansive (anything negative) to very strict.  I don't trust politicians to be the judge of said definition.

Anyways, whoever posted crap on this person's site be damned.  It's not only in poor taste, but if it were to happen to them, they'd be rolling over their graves.

Caboose

January 25, 2011 at 11:12am

If this was possible, it'd be the first step to shutting up WBC forever!

Keith E. Whisman

January 25, 2011 at 10:53am

Such a law would also protect memorial sites for people like Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Saddam Hussain, and all other tyrants that are responsible for the death and suffering of millions of people on earth. Do you really want those people to receive the same protections that innocent victims and heroes get? I say go out now and attack all the evil doers memorial sites and leave it at that. No law that will give protections to evil tyrants. Decent people will always be there to scoff at snide remarks on memorial sites for decent people. 

popstop785

January 25, 2011 at 10:43am

While I see how it cannot be outlawed since comments can come from different countries and a single country cannot enforce laws online to the world... I would say the website should be suggested to block and ban the negative comments towards a person's death. While you cannot stop how royally messed up a person thinks (in this world people are getting worse with their finger pointing and bashing) a website can beef up mods to nip annoying comments in the butt. Xbox.com is good this and those mods are often volunteer.

And it is common for a teenager to be a brat, it doesn't give anyone the right to bash them. And the whole "free speech" doesn't qualify online either since a website is broadcast around the world. We in the US have free speech but those who post on a US based website do not automatically get that same right since they are not US citizens. So free speech is not even a topic of discussion when it comes to web postings, more or less.

In a nutshell, the website in question should be suggested to enforce some damage control. if not, the website is just as responsible as the people being jerks. That's my opinion on the matter.

I Jedi

January 25, 2011 at 10:25am

Oh, yes, let's just ban any negative comments towards other people because we surely wouldn't want others to voice their own opinions about someone else. Perhaps, the teen that died was a real big bitch? Hell, while we're at the censoring, let's just remove the first admentment altogether. Finally, I say we take it a step further and just do away with the Constitution. I mean, come on, let's face it, this woman obviously doesn't know about the first admendment, so why keep it if she represents a majority of the nation anyway? It is not illegal to say mean/hurtful things to someone, even if they are dead. Folks, the only things that are mainly "restrained" in freedom of speech are slandering, threatning to kill someone, and inciting an unruly protest/riot. The only people, who should have a say in the comments posted on the memorial website are the web host and the owner of the site. It is officially their property, so if they allow it, great!

jnwoll

January 25, 2011 at 10:20am

There's no law now and never will be to keep people from being a-holes.  However, I think sooner or later technology will be available that such speak or posts just won't be posted as if passing through a filter.  I know it's out there to an extent, but I think it will vastly become improved upon. 

Internet.  Never before have some many said so much that so few (less the a tenth of a %) could EVER backup in person. 

TommM

January 25, 2011 at 10:17am

I understand this lady's frustration and angst at the crass use of a memorial website.  But no attorney is going to seriously touch trying to fight the 1st Amendment on this one. 

Blues22475

January 25, 2011 at 10:14am

It's not gonna work. Just as there are douchebags in the real world, there are going to be people just like that on the internet. The Internet is just another medium for humans to interact with. Also, just as stated before, if you find offensive content somewhere justreport it. Let the staff/Moderators deal with it.

Getting butthurt doesn't justify trying to erect a law in which freedom of speech would be taken away (to some extent even though it is anyhow).

p47riot

January 25, 2011 at 9:51am

D00dlavy said it.  I'm heartbroken for this woman's loss, but we absolutely CANNOT enact laws to keep people from expressing their opinions.  Maybe there's a solution that includes reducing the anonymity when it comes to using the web.  Half of these people that post these stupid insensitive comments would never say the same thing to someone's face if there was a chance of recourse.  I think people would be a little more hesitant to post if their name and address were tied to the comment.  I dunno, I'm not a fan of violating personal privacies, but there's something to be said for being accountable for your actions and the words you use.  That's the flipside, and the price paid for Freedom of Speech.

Victek

January 25, 2011 at 9:49am

It is a common problem that respectful behavior which is naturally supported in the world isn't replicated on the internet.  The internet has become the place where some people act out just because they can.  Sometimes it is stupidity and sometimes intentional malice.  It may not be possible to prevent this behavior through legislation, but I hope ways can be found to control the worst of it.

zNelson24

January 25, 2011 at 9:41am

Her ententions are good and everything, but if you start making laws reguarding what you can say where, you might illegalize legitamate speech.

Another thing I would like to point out is while you may have free speech on the internet and other places, that dosen't exactally mean you have to provide a platform for them. If someone is trolling the memorial site, just delete their comments and deny them access.

Vatigu

January 25, 2011 at 9:36am

It's like the wow funeral in winterspring that got raided forever ago lol

D00dlavy

January 25, 2011 at 9:16am

I understand the intention.  I don't think this woman understands the slippery slope.  I say "F-ck no" to this law.

Brett's Law is retarded, too.