UK gov't proposes additional internet censorship rules against "online harms"; fines for non-compliance

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

completely irrelevant since that is something caused by your actions that you are aware of. I'm specifically referring to instances that you are unaware of.

Not really all that irrelevant. It's a bit different, but it's idiotic along the same lines.

[poochyena]

4 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Not really all that irrelevant. It's a bit different, but it's idiotic along the same lines.

not at all. Housing standards exist for a reason, its to keep people safe, whether it be the home owner, visitors (welcome or not), and emergency crews (don't want an EMT to break a leg while trying to get into your house to save you). It doesn't matter who the person that gets hurt is, if you create an unsafe environment, you will be responsible.

[79wjd]

Just now, poochyena said:

not at all. Housing standards exist for a reason, its to keep people safe, whether it be the home owner, visitors (welcome or not), and emergency crews (don't want an EMT to break a leg while trying to get into your house to save you). It doesn't matter who the person that gets hurt is, if you create an unsafe environment, you will be responsible.

Someone in the act of committing a crime should have no legal recourse against the person/entity that the crime is being committed against. Anything else is idiotic.

[poochyena]

13 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Someone in the act of committing a crime should have no legal recourse against the person/entity that the crime is being committed against.

why not? Someone's rights shouldn't be taken away just because they are a criminal.

[suicidalfranco]

3 minutes ago, poochyena said:

why not? Someone's rights shouldn't be taken away just because they are a criminal.

How is what the UK is doing stupid (which it is, I don't disagree on that point) and someone getting sued by someone who traspasses his property without his knowledge whilst committing a crime not stupid on the same level???

[79wjd]

14 minutes ago, poochyena said:

why not? Someone's rights shouldn't be taken away just because they are a criminal.

Someone's rights yes. The right to sue someone who's negligence caused you injury when you were somewhere you shouldn't be attempting to do something illegal, no. That right should be waived as soon as you attempt to break into that person's house -- just like how evidence gathered through illegal means (by police/investigative branch) is not valid.

[poochyena]

13 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

How is what the UK is doing stupid (which it is, I don't disagree on that point) and someone getting sued by someone who traspasses his property without his knowledge whilst committing a crime not stupid on the same level???

Whether a crime is being committed or not is irrelevant. I already explained why housing standards exist.

 

10 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

The right to sue someone who's negligence caused you injury when you were somewhere you shouldn't be attempting to do something illegal, no.

negligence that causes an injury is illegal, but you are saying illegal actions should be legal as long as the action is towards a criminal?

 

1 minute ago, Mr. horse said:

OH, hi Mr robber, oh you want to kill me to steel my stuff, OK shoot me, fighting back might hurt you and volatile your rights.

You need to work on your english.

[suicidalfranco]

6 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Whether a crime is being committed or not is irrelevant. I already explained why housing standards exist.

 

negligence that causes an injury is illegal, but you are saying illegal actions should be legal as long as the action is towards a criminal?

 

You need to work on your english.

And trespassing is also a crime

The guy gets injured at his own risk and the owner shouldn't bear no burden because of it.

Housing standard exist and if it's anything similar to here in Italy only come forth during design and project of the house in order to get approval from the governing body to carry on with the construction/renovation and eventually getting released to the market.

By your definition if someone traspasses someone else's house, without the knowledge of the owner, and end up getting attacked by let's say a dog (common case), the dog should be put down and the owner bare all medical expenses because reasons 

[79wjd]

 

15 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

By your definition if someone traspasses someone else's house, without the knowledge of the owner, and end up getting attacked by let's say a dog (common case), the dog should be put down and the owner bare all medical expenses because reasons 

Also how it works (or at least used to) in some states.

[poochyena]

17 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

The guy gets injured at his own risk and the owner shouldn't bear no burden because of it.

Lets say person A is illegally standing in the road. Person B is traveling at 90mph in a 45mph zone. Person B hits person A with the car. Should Person B face no fines for speeding and driving recklessly?

 

19 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

By your definition if someone traspasses someone else's house, without the knowledge of the owner, and end up getting attacked by let's say a dog (common case), the dog should be put down and the owner bare all medical expenses because reasons

The answer to your question is the same whether the person is trespassing or not.

[79wjd]

23 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Lets say person A is illegally standing in the road. Person B is traveling at 90mph in a 45mph zone. Person B hits person A with the car. Should Person B face no fines for speeding and driving recklessly?

The analogy doesn't compare. Person A wasn't doing anything illegal where B was the target of the illegal action.

 

[Noctus]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

And trespassing is also a crime

The guy gets injured at his own risk and the owner shouldn't bear no burden because of it.

Housing standard exist and if it's anything similar to here in Italy only come forth during design and project of the house in order to get approval from the governing body to carry on with the construction/renovation and eventually getting released to the market.

By your definition if someone traspasses someone else's house, without the knowledge of the owner, and end up getting attacked by let's say a dog (common case), the dog should be put down and the owner bare all medical expenses because reasons 

 

43 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

The analogy doesn't compare. Person A wasn't doing anything illegal where B was the target of the illegal action.

 

guuuuys, guuuuuuys, stop feeding the troll. it loves being in this position in an argument

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I agree with some of the stuff they are trying to protect against but I am a bit baffled that they need a new law to fight against content that is clearly illegal. 

I agree here, I think people need to recognize that the internet isn’t the same place it was around 10 years ago, all these claims of illegal or harmful content do exist, and cyber bullying can be difficult to walk away from, it’s hard in this day and age to just turn off your phone, when we use them for so many things. 

 

I think it was a while ago the British Government hired experts or something to consult about these issues, so this is probably a result of that. 

 

Its a tricky issue to try and deal with it, when we really wouldn’t know where to begin, that’s the reality. 

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

Person A wasn't doing anything illegal

"person A is illegally standing in the road."

 

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, poochyena said:

"person A is illegally standing in the road."

 

Ducks are also animals.

 

You can't willfully choose to ignore context because it doesn't fit the narrative. Try quoting the entire sentence and not pulling out an irelevant snippet.

[79wjd]

45 minutes ago, Noctus said:

 

guuuuys, guuuuuuys, stop feeding the troll. it loves being in this position in an argument

Yeah, I'm done.

[Master Disaster]

If they really want to pass this then they have to pass similar laws covering service providers.

 

For example why should it be Facebook's responsibility if I message someone on that platform but not Vodafone's if I send the same person a text message via my phone?

[mr moose]

Messy laws to govern a messy internet.  They are just trying to treat it like tv and have the same laws apply.  but the internet is a two way communication device.

[sof006]

UK government needs to do something useful with tax payers money. This is not something useful.

[Lurick]

26 minutes ago, sof006 said:

UK government needs to do something useful with tax payers money. This is not something useful.

I'd argue this is VERY useful.......

 

 

at getting them re-elected because "for the (insert perceived defenseless group here)" is not something you want to go against when it can bite you during election time

[Fnige]

17 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Illegal and unacceptable content and activity is widespread online, and UK users are concerned about what they see and experience on the internet

Get rid of the media then

[jaggysnake57]

why do people seam to think that the internet should not be policed....do you think that we should abolish actual police?

[suicidalfranco]

14 hours ago, poochyena said:

Lets say person A is illegally standing in the road. Person B is traveling at 90mph in a 45mph zone. Person B hits person A with the car. Should Person B face no fines for speeding and driving recklessly?

 

The answer to your question is the same whether the person is trespassing or not.

The road...

14 hours ago, Noctus said:

 

guuuuys, guuuuuuys, stop feeding the troll. it loves being in this position in an argument

Yeah was about to respond on his road example. Not worth it

[poochyena]

5 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

The road...

????????

[Lathlaer]

TBH I am kind of amazed that they have the time and energy to propose anything considering how exhausting their Brexit talks are