Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[BruceVC]

 

 

I think the Supreme Court made a mistake, there has to be consequences for that kind of threatening behavior. As the women in the video said this is a blow to the rights of abused women who now could face similar vitriol and worry about being able to legally challenge it

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right.

 

As I understand it, the guy was convicted under the test that recognizing the words as a threat was something a "reasonable" person would do.  But that as a test could remove the words from any potential context they might have. Context is always important. "I kill you? I kill everyone!" might be a threat...but probably isn't if it was proceeded by something like "Man, you're hilarious - you kill me!"

 

In this case - and again as I understand it - the guy clearly marked on his posts in ways that would provide different context for what he wrote (some sort of Free Speech disclaimer).

 

So what I gather reading about this decision isn't that you can post anything online without consequence, but the words themselves are not enough to convict - you have to provide intent.

 

 

 

But how do you prove intent if they are just seen as words...surly words can prove intention?

[Malcador]

Police have detectives for a reason, I guess.

[BruceVC]

Police have detectives for a reason, I guess.

Yes but  how is even a detective going to prove intent if its just words? Surly you need actions or how would you prove anything?

Edited June 2, 2015 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

Did he have a stockpile of weapons?  Did he draw up plans for an attack?  Was there a legitimate motive?  That is the type of stuff detectives are supposed to find in order to actually prosecute someone.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

I think the Supreme Court made a mistake, there has to be consequences for that kind of threatening behavior. As the women in the video said this is a blow to the rights of abused women who now could face similar vitriol and worry about being able to legally challenge it

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right.

 

As I understand it, the guy was convicted under the test that recognizing the words as a threat was something a "reasonable" person would do.  But that as a test could remove the words from any potential context they might have. Context is always important. "I kill you? I kill everyone!" might be a threat...but probably isn't if it was proceeded by something like "Man, you're hilarious - you kill me!"

 

In this case - and again as I understand it - the guy clearly marked on his posts in ways that would provide different context for what he wrote (some sort of Free Speech disclaimer).

 

So what I gather reading about this decision isn't that you can post anything online without consequence, but the words themselves are not enough to convict - you have to provide intent.

 

 

 

But how do you prove intent if they are just seen as words...surly words can prove intention?

 

 

What if he was joking? Should we put people with bad sense of humor into jail?

[Amentep]

But how do you prove intent if they are just seen as words...surly words can prove intention?

State of mind? Ability to carry out threat?  Context in which the words were said?

 

You act like the police can't arrest/juries can't convict anybody unless they assume that everything a person says is 100% true or they've actually done something they said they were going to do.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Amentep

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

I think the Supreme Court made a mistake, there has to be consequences for that kind of threatening behavior. As the women in the video said this is a blow to the rights of abused women who now could face similar vitriol and worry about being able to legally challenge it

 

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right.

As I understand it, the guy was convicted under the test that recognizing the words as a threat was something a "reasonable" person would do.  But that as a test could remove the words from any potential context they might have. Context is always important. "I kill you? I kill everyone!" might be a threat...but probably isn't if it was proceeded by something like "Man, you're hilarious - you kill me!"

 

In this case - and again as I understand it - the guy clearly marked on his posts in ways that would provide different context for what he wrote (some sort of Free Speech disclaimer).

 

So what I gather reading about this decision isn't that you can post anything online without consequence, but the words themselves are not enough to convict - you have to provide intent.

But how do you prove intent if they are just seen as words...surly words can prove intention?

 

What if he was joking? Should we put people with bad sense of humor into jail?

I think Adam Sandler should go to jail.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

 

I think the Supreme Court made a mistake, there has to be consequences for that kind of threatening behavior. As the women in the video said this is a blow to the rights of abused women who now could face similar vitriol and worry about being able to legally challenge it

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right.

As I understand it, the guy was convicted under the test that recognizing the words as a threat was something a "reasonable" person would do.  But that as a test could remove the words from any potential context they might have. Context is always important. "I kill you? I kill everyone!" might be a threat...but probably isn't if it was proceeded by something like "Man, you're hilarious - you kill me!"

 

In this case - and again as I understand it - the guy clearly marked on his posts in ways that would provide different context for what he wrote (some sort of Free Speech disclaimer).

 

So what I gather reading about this decision isn't that you can post anything online without consequence, but the words themselves are not enough to convict - you have to provide intent.

But how do you prove intent if they are just seen as words...surly words can prove intention?

 

What if he was joking? Should we put people with bad sense of humor into jail?

I think Adam Sandler should go to jail.

 

 

God dammit.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

What if he was joking? Should we put people with bad sense of humor into jail?

I think Adam Sandler should go to jail.

 

Good idea.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

 

What if he was joking? Should we put people with bad sense of humor into jail?

I think Adam Sandler should go to jail.

Good idea.

Hotel Transylvania is a crime against humanity.

[Amentep]

Hotel Transylvania is a crime against humanity.

I liked Hotel Transylvania. A lot. Not sure that has anything to do with Adam Sandler, per se, but there it is. I know I'm looking forward to the sequel.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Amentep

[Hurlshort]

I feel a bit like a broken record, but my kids loved Hotel Transylvania, and they are the target demographic.  

 

Actually I think Mike Meyers deserves prison more than Adam Sandler.  Although they both have their share of crimes against humanity.

[BruceVC]

Okay you guys are right, there are legitimate ways to prove intent but it does involve proper detective work 

[Malcador]

Stiller, Myers and Sandler all deserve to be sent to a labour camp.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Malcador

[Nonek]

Please add Ricky Gervais if you've room.

[Oerwinde]

I'll probably pick it up on a sale...like I did with most things I have a passing interest in.

This. I was interested in it, after a day of bitching about how much stupidity is permeating society it would be cathartic to go home and shoot up a bunch of The Masses, but TotalBiscuit's WTF is made me lose a bit of interest.

[Oerwinde]

Semi-relevant: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

 

****posters, rejoice!

Speaking of people jailed for facebook posts, what happened to Justin Carter?

[Malcador]

Please add Ricky Gervais if you've room.

He's slimmed down, I'm sure we can squeeze him in.

[HoonDing]

Googled Adam Sandler, haven't seen any of his movies but may have seen him in Cosby Show.

[JadedWolf]

Googled Adam Sandler, haven't seen any of his movies but may have seen him in Cosby Show.

 

You are so incredibly fortunate. I recommend you keep it that way.

[NWN_babaYaga]

But how do you prove intent if they are just seen as words...surly words can prove intention?

 

This is incredible stupid. Nothing personal but you have no rational mind anylonger when you realy believe what you wrote. When i say "you are an a**" do i have the intention to cast "transform human into a walking talking a**" ? Surely not right! The only thing i could do is to bash your face into an a**. I think you forget that we are humans. We live in 2015 and it´s a pretty modern world and most people are used to common language. Even they insult each other! This is part of our WAY OF LIFE. Take it easy!

Why change our great times back into the middle ages. Go take some time and talk to "normal" younger guys and they will laugh at you. The younger generation seems to be way more relaxed in using words then you and most of the day dreamers of what could be. You dream!

 

You realy just daydream!

And im sure you are the only one who wants to live in your own world. No one else is part of your own dream. I have my own dreams too and they wouldnt be pretty for 99,9 of the human population but i KNOW it´s just a little wish when i´m angry. Thats it.

Edited June 2, 2015 by NWN_babaYaga

[Meshugger]

This is quite funny. Remember the gg_autoblocker on Twitter that blocked people based on who they followed and even endorsed by IGDA for a while? Well the creator of it, Randi Harper, seems to be bullying the author Anne Rice (Interview with a Vampire)

 

https://twitter.com/AnneRiceAuthor/status/605803197324599298

 

Seems like the "harassed ones" are really just projecting.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Meshugger

[Fighter]

Not surprised even a little.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Not surprised even a little.

I'm surprised Anne Rice is on twitter, but yeah it isn't shocking to see this.

[Meshugger]

Remember the article from Erik Kain calling out FF on their tropes a few pages back? 

 

 

I would like to thank the mods for allowing continued discussion about this on the Obsidian-boards