General discussion

Locked

But Your Honor, he IS an idiot!

By maxwell edison ·
I suppose this might be somewhat of an addendum discussion to that "freedom of anonymous speech" thread, but what do you think will and/or should come of this:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_I1.HTM

What if I call somebody an idiot in one of the occasional "flame sessions", and they want me to be arrested and/or be held libel for defamation. How can I prove that person really is an idiot? Or would that person have to prove he's not an idiot? Is there an idiot test that could be applied? Will I have to refrain from using my favorite idiot link? Will I be subjected to a cyber restraining order, and be forced to stay at least 100 Web pages away from the alleged idiot? Would this only apply to the idiots in New Jersey? Would I be the idiot extradited to New Jersey? Only an idiot would be in favor of a law like this. Or would only an idiot be opposed?

(Yes, I am being sarcastic, but with an obviously serious issue.)

And how about a libel suit for this:

http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/articles/21**3422?source=PA

If Google can be held libel for that, where might it stop? I mean, really. What Yahoo would hold Google libel for that?

What about politicians? Would all those people have to PROVE that President Bush or John Kerry really is an idiot or a liar if they post a message stating as much on the Internet? And what about the international nature of the Internet? (There are international idiots, you know.)

Personally speaking, I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to make a new law to cover any little thing that bothers them; and people are obviously sue-happy. We already have too many stupid laws. Let's start repealing some of these laws, not make new ones. It used to be said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. In fact, it still is, I suppose. But there are so many laws that we ALL are ignorant, even if we tried not to be.

On a somewhat related note (related as it applies to too many laws), I was listening to a talk radio show some time ago, a show hosted by a lawyer. He takes calls answering legal questions and discusses the legal issues of the day. A caller relayed the following story.

This caller walked his young child to the bus stop to wait for the school bus. While he was waiting there with his daughter, a couple of other girls started fighting. The way he described it, a bigger girl was literally pummeling a younger and smaller girl with punches and kicks. He said that he just stood there watching, not wanting to get involved. Another parent (a mom) soon arrived at the same bus stop and saw the fighting, but this parent broke it up. She then went on to chastise the first parent (a guy) for not doing anything, and said that he should be arrested for allowing it to happen.

The gist of the call was to ask this lawyer if he could indeed be arrested for standing by and allowing a smaller child to get beat up be a bigger one. Absolutely, the lawyer answered. He then cited some law that covered that sort of thing. The caller went on to say that he thought about getting involved, and decided that if he did try to break it up, which might even take some physical contact to do so (and did take such contact for the "mom" to hold the bigger girl back), he might be accused of inappropriate touching, or some other thing like that, so he thought it best to NOT get involved. The lawyer went on to admit that if that bigger girl had indeed charged him with doing such a thing, he could have been arrested for that as well.

That sure sounded like a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't -- an example of TOO MANY friggin' laws.

So, tying-in my little story with the opening comments, would this guy have been an idiot to break-up that fight, or was he an idiot for not breaking it up? (We're obviously a nation of idiots, if this guy found himself being one regardless of what he did.)

I suppose my rambling caused a tangent to the original discussion intent without even creating a tangent thread. How idiotic is that? But don't call me an idiot. I'll sue!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

63 total posts (Page 4 of 7)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Probably the result of

by TonytheTiger In reply to time to start slapping so ...

"zero tolerance"

Collapse -

zero tolerance

by jdclyde In reply to Probably the result of

does not mean stupid.

It is called passive resistance. When you don't like an idea, you take it to an extreme to make it LOOK as stupid as you think it is hoping it will die.

There is NEVER a reason for a 17 year old boy having concentual sex with a 16 year old girl should EVER end up on the same list as a rapist or child molester. That is just stupid.

Collapse -

what about when

by JG@FJ In reply to zero tolerance

the boyfriend is say in his early twenties or the girl is 13 or 14.
The age of consent is 16 for a reason.

Collapse -

what about it JG?

by jdclyde In reply to zero tolerance

We call that "child abuse" unless your a muslim in a middle eastern country. then it is perfectly legal and acceptable it seems.

But in a CIVILIZED society, we don't allow adults to have sex with children. That isn't even CLOSE to the 16/17 difference we have been talking about or even in cases when both are 15 and the boys STILL gets the rape charge. THAT is just stupid.

Are you saying you NEVER had concentual sex with anyone under 16? Or are you saying the rules didn't apply to you? (I am talking when you were that age of course before you get offended that I am implying it is still going on!)

Collapse -

As info, Age of consent is 16, but

by TonytheTiger In reply to zero tolerance

in Ohio charges are not filed if there's less than 4 years age difference.

Collapse -

Oh we had some real fun recently

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to time to start slapping so ...

the list of people not allowed to teach our kids didn't cover all sex offenders on the register, a separate list no less, after all you wouldn'twant any confusion in such a regard would you. Some people who were known to be on it were permitted to teach. Highlighted by the male teacher who was on the sex offenders register for bonking his underage student, but it was consenting so he wasn't a 'danger'.

Collapse -

Morons for Moronia

by BFilmFan In reply to But Your Honor, he IS an ...

I was just watching the 3 Stooges famed slap at the Axis War Powers the other day and was struck what an apt commentary it is today on the world.

In the film, we have one set of morons making loud and fiery speeches and inane laws for another pack of morons who elected them.

Perhaps elections around the world should require politicians to watch this film, as well as several others that come to mind, and then write a 300 word essay before we allow them to take office. We could even get a stern teacher like Miss Shields, so she could give them a C+ if they try and bribe her with a fruit basket.

Collapse -

Ms. Shields? If that were the case...

by Jellimonsta In reply to Morons for Moronia

VP Cheney would have been warned he could 'shoot his eye out' as a child!

Collapse -

Whew!

by BFilmFan In reply to Ms. Shields? If that were ...

I was afraid no one was going to get that one!

Collapse -

Too many laws

by Cactus Pete In reply to But Your Honor, he IS an ...

Yes, there certainly are.

I remember, way back when I lived in VA, there was a "Good Samaritan" law. They basically put common sense on the books!

The gist was that if you saw a burning car next to the road, pulled an unconscious guy out of the vehicle to save him from burning alive, but in so doing you caused his injured back to worsen and he can never walk again - well, then you aren't at fault.

But these days, you're right, we sue too much.

The world, and I'd be happy if it started here at home, could use more common sense.

Back to Community Forum
63 total posts (Page 4 of 7)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums