(Original post by thunder_chunky)
You can still rep even if you aren't a member and Metrobeans is just the one posting it, he's not actually the one proposing it. Although you should probably rep him anyway in case he feels neglected. We have to look after our speakers you know. Just one rep a month can prevent our speakers feeling neglected. Act now!
This is true. I always thought S.O.S. should be Save our Speaker. I've already had 7 negs this month!
(Original post by internetguru)
It is easy to identify a troll, just raise public awareness and people will stop being so gullible. The trolls started using the internet long before these people who can barely turn their PC on. It is their home, their land and they want to deprive them of their favorite activities which is wrong.
That may be, but trolls should not be allowed to threaten people with violence. It wouldn't be socially acceptable to threaten violence on a face to face basis, and it's even more deplorable to do so hiding behind an anonymous account. It is the threatening of violence that takes some trolling from mild amusement to needless nastiness that can be distressing to the recipient.
(Original post by Kiss)
If I remember correctly, the words for that song from The Hunchback of Notredame go "The world is cruel, the world is wicked!" - I already got banned for prooving a point about how cruel the internet is. And quite frankly you can't censor the world, why try to censor the internet? But not just censor it of the obscene, but remove opinions?
There is a difference between stopping people acting like ***** and sensorship. One sounds tyrannical and the other prevents anything from hurt feelings to real nasty things happerning. There is a line and there needs to be a line otherwise things could get nasty.
(Original post by Morgsie)
If this passes, you are allowing Members of this House to be abusive towards others. This Motion should be withdrawn immediately or voted against.
On a constitutional point, if this motion were to pass, it would have absolutely no bearing on the Model House of Commons and it certainly wouldn't legitimise or permit abusive posts. It's also worth noting that nothing that happens within the TSR Model House of Commons trumps TSR moderation policy and the rules of the site.
I agree with this motion for the most part. The only part I'd object to is allowing speech that advocates criminal behaviour, this obviously shouldn't be permitted.
As for hate speech that targets groups, I don't believe that that should be regulated. If someone wants to be a bigot then let them, just as long as what they say doesn't cause any immediate damage. What I do find wrong is when people treat people improperly while acting in an authoritative capacity - no employer, official, clergy etc. should be allowed to remain in such positions if they hold hateful views that harm how they treat certain people while in their position.
As someone who has "been there, done that" with trolling (though not on this site), I'd like to say that most of the activities done online by trolls are already illegal - impersonating someone is defamation, there're also libel laws to take into account etc. So in civil law an individual can take action against someone who is trolling them (and by that I don't just mean teasing someone). What the more reactionary peeps on this thread seem to be proposing is that the act of being an ******** online be made a criminal offence. In the USA, the Westboro Baptists head to funerals with hate-y flags and cause a good deal of stress for the families, yet this is still legal, as making it illegal would be a massive waste of police time, and'd also set a bad precedent in law - "we believe in free speech except..." Going on Facebook and saying nasty things to people should not be a crime, even if you personally find it 'immoral' or whatever BS excuse there is.
(Original post by JPKC)
As for hate speech that targets groups, I don't believe that that should be regulated. If someone wants to be a bigot then let them, just as long as what they say doesn't cause any immediate damage.
Often it does cause damage though. Verbal abuse does cause damage.
What I do find wrong is when people treat people improperly while acting in an authoritative capacity - no employer, official, clergy etc. should be allowed to remain in such positions if they hold hateful views that harm how they treat certain people.
I agree with this. Especially true with positions within religious and political institutions. Not quite so bad here but in the USA it's pretty bad at times.