I got an email this evening ... you won't like it...

[capt-zero]

Here, Here GreyGeek. I think, in order to protect our children from dangerous traffic we should prohibit everyone from crossing the street; unless, of course you are one of those types who supports running over children.

[SteveRiley]

No, the real problem is those durn cars! If we must limit Internet freedom to save the children, then we must also limit automotive freedom to save the children. Because a few drivers are morons, we must outlaw all cars and prohibit everyone from driving.

</snark>

[NickStone]

You are shocked that people lie about their age when they sign up for Habbo Hotel? And that they (ab)use that environment to access and seduce young people?

Yes, I do believe the Internet should be free and open. And, Habbo Hotel should be a place where a child can visit and be safe.

While I think drunkenness is not a condition someone should willingly enter, the experiment with prohibition proved that you cannot stop some people from getting drunk by making it illegal for ALL people to drink. It was using a shotgun to kill a fly. Good people with good goals (to stop drunkeness which they claimed to be the cause of broken families, shoeless and hungry children, etc...) provoked other people to act out their "moral outrage" without thinking, or even suspecting, what the consequences might be, and outlawed "daemon alcohol". So, because your neighbor could not control his use of alcohol, the do-gooders convinced enough people to believe that only way to prevent him from drinking and getting drunk was to prohibit you from drinking as well. Proponents felt morally satisfied after the law was passed, but ten years later you had a hard time finding someone who'd admit that they voted for it. Prohibition increased general lawlessness because people will not abide by oppressive laws. The "cure" was worse than the disease and led to organized crime which made drunkenness look like jay-walking.

A gun is a gun. It is not evil in and of itself but it can be used for good or evil. So is a butter knife. When England outlawed guns people started using knives to do the same thing, threaten or harm others. In their infinite wisdom Parliament was working on legislation to outlaw knives. In their zeal to stop people from harming one another they set up an environment where a crook can break into a house and threaten the owner with a knife. The owner defended himself with a bat and knocked the thief unconscious, then he called the police. They arrived and promptly arrested the .... owner, charging him with assault, for which he was convicted and sentenced to five years. The thief sued and won in court more than what he was trying to steal, he was given the entire house and property of the former owner!

That example from England goes to show that laws prohibiting can also morph into or encourage laws of requirement if the PC atmosphere gets virulent enough. We now live in an era where emotionally laden terms have been enacted into law without defining exactly what those terms mean. To make matters worse, the accused is at the mercy of the accuser, who is free to place about any definition on "hate" that they or a zealous prosecutor wants to choose. "Hate" is an example. Hate is like porn, we know it when we see it. Or do we? It's politically correct these days to label someone a "hater" or a "denier" if they don't sign on to the cause de-jour. You see it in comments all the time. "Hater's hate!", someone posts. What does that mean? When is a crime a "hate" crime?

With such a vague word who decides what actions are motivated by "hate" and who gives them such authority? "Hate" is not in the constitution, yet the constitutional rights of the accused are being violated to satisfy the "moral outrage" of those who think they know what "hate" is. It's like accusing someone of using an ad hominem attack and then calling them an idiot, certainly a double standard.

Places where one can engage in intelligent discussion on ANY topic, debating both the arguments and facts introduced by both sides without resorting to name calling, personal attacks, PC buzz words, etc..., are few and far between.

Then as now, freedom can exist only when responsibility exists. The owner of Habbo Hotel has a responsibility and obligation to police the site, which he claims he is doing. He states:


This is obviously inadequate. It amounts to each of the moderators looking at about 9 or 10 lines of conversation a second, 24/7, and that is something that is physically impossible for a human moderator to do. Computer software isn't intelligent enough to parse English and pick out attempts at grooming or seduction. It might look for the words "naked", or "webcam" and take some sort of action, but it wouldn't be long before code words would replace those words and the software would fail. An "arms race" would take place, with moderators chasing morphed words all over the site, but the perverts would continue as usual.

To me, the only fair solution is to require the parent or guardian to monitor their own children, not further restrict my rights on the Internet by some law that can and will be used by prosecutors in areas the law didn't intend to cover. Parental monitoring can be easily done with software. Khan Academy has a site where parents set up an account for their child. When the child logs in and goes through the various video tutorials and worksheets the results are posted to the parent's side of the account, where they can see the progress their child is making. On Haboo Hotel the parent should be required to set up an account for each of their children who want to use the site, supplying information that only an adult would have access to for proof of identity, and logs of conversations their children are having on the site could be accessed by the parent. The parent should disable the webcam when the child is on line.

I don't think it is fair to relinquish my online rights because others are too lazy to be good parents.

No I'm not shocked at hearing this because I know it goes on on most sites that attract children. What I was trying to do was highlight the need for internet (or certain parts of it) should be monitored.


A gun is a gun. It is not evil in and of itself but it can be used for good or evil.
Guns are designed to kill. Its up to the gun user to use it to injure (wound) someone rather than kill them.

I don't recognise this story that the criminal sued the homeowner and got his house and everything he owned. There have been cases where homeowners have been prosecuted for using excessive force on an intruder, but I have never read or heard of a criminal getting the homeowners property after suing them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime A description of what hate crime is.

Your assuming that every parent has the skills required to set up computers to block inappropriate content so that their kids cannot see it. I think the reality is that the majority of parents do not know how to protect their kids online. But should they not have access to the Internet?

[NickStone]

No, the real problem is those durn cars! If we must limit Internet freedom to save the children, then we must also limit automotive freedom to save the children. Because a few drivers are morons, we must outlaw all cars and prohibit everyone from driving.

</snark>

Only the morons who cause death and destruction on the roads should be banned from driving. Here in the UK you can be banned from driving if your prosecuted for driving offences. Personally I'd like to see people banned for life from driving but their only banned for a few years.

[NickStone]

You may think that the USA is a free country. It isn't, as long as there are laws for its citizens to live by it is not a free society. If the USA was truly free you would have no laws and you could do anything you wanted such as rape or murder or any other things which are deemed to be criminal activity. Of course there would be no such thing as criminal activity because there would be no laws to define it.

[capt-zero]

Nickstonefan,

The question isn't whether there may be objectionable material online, but who and what should society do about it. The responsibility ultimately resides in the user. A handgun as well as a screwdriver can be a dangerous item if used inappropriately. Every parent owes it to their offspring to DEVELOPE what skills are necessary to protect them, online and elsewhere. I have a number of very sharp kitchen knives and woodworking tools in my house, but it is MY responsibility to protect children from them. I would find it disturbing indeed if society judged that these items posed a grave danger to children so I would be required to give up the hobbies of cooking and woodworking because of the potential danger these items possesed.

Every tyrant in recent history began the rise to power pontificating on dangers to their society and rationalising implementation of draconian rules to protect society. Dachau was filled with such "dangers". In addition, often protective laws create greater dangers than they protect us from; the gangster era brought on by the US prohibition laws for example. A society regulates for its' safety at peril of the very freedoms it proports to support.

[HalationEffect]

@GreyGeek

I'm really not sure where you're getting your (mis)information about what things are like in the UK.

A thief suing a homeowner for defending his property, and being awarded the home he was trying to burgle? That would have been massive headline generating news, yet I've never heard of it happening. Searching on Google also drew a blank. TBH, it's the kind of urban myth that we in the UK hear about as purportedly happening in the US... (probably due to US society having a reputation for being way more litigious than UK society).

(Edit) On the subject of knives and guns - if given the choice, I'd much prefer to face an assailant armed with a knife... I'd have a realistic chance of running away. Kinda hard to outrun a bullet. In cases of gun crime, it's not uncommon to hear of people (other than the criminal's intended victim) being wounded or killed by 'stray' bullets. Ever hear of anyone being killed by a stray knife stab?

The CCTV camera issue is another one where I find many Americans presuming to tell me just how bad it is in my country. The truth is that there isn't anywhere close to a camera on every street corner. Sure, there are quite a few of them in city- and town-centres (where crime is highest), but far from being "Big Brother Is Watching!!!", the majority of the cameras are owned and operated by the private sector - not by national or local government. Outside of urban centres, pretty much the only cameras you'll see are traffic light & speed cameras, and I don't believe we're any worse off than you guys are in that regard.

I suspect that a lot of such stories are jingoistic propaganda, and it happens on both sides of the Atlantic. E.g. People are unhappy about certain aspects of domestic politics? Let's run some exaggerated (or totally made up) stories about how much worse it is elsewhere! Then people here won't feel so bad!

[GreyGeek]

You are right. The USA isn't even close to being as free as it was when I was in my teens and twenties. Neither does it posses a free market economy. The reason is obvious, more lips service and less adherence to the Bill of Rights. The 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Bill of Rights says that those two rights shall not be "infringed", but our Congress has ignored that word in pursuit of "social" justice and have put fringes all around them, essentially making them moot. You cited the wiki definition of "hate-crime", which replaced the word "hate" with the phrase "bias-motivated", which simply moves the goal posts. How do you know when someone is commits a crime because they are "biased"? And if, as the wiki says, "that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws", why are "hate-crime" laws necessary at all since the laws they "enhance" already apply? For only one reason - political manipulation of the application of laws in order to apply them to unprotected groups.

In 1848, Frederic Bastiat, a French classical liberal theorist, political economist, and member of the French assembly. Bastiat's most famous work, however, is undoubtedly The Law, originally published as a pamphlet in 1850. It defines, through development, a just system of laws and then demonstrates how such law facilitates a free society. It is still good reading.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G001

Bastiat describes the path a country takes when people learn that they can live off of the labor of others by an act of law and not contribute anything to the society except a hand with the palm up. Your country is farther down that path than mine, but mine is catching up as fast as it can.

[SteveRiley]

You may think that the USA is a free country. It isn't, as long as there are laws for its citizens to live by it is not a free society. If the USA was truly free you would have no laws and you could do anything you wanted such as rape or murder or any other things which are deemed to be criminal activity. Of course there would be no such thing as criminal activity because there would be no laws to define it.

Wouldn't any rational definition of freedom include the right to be free of getting raped or becoming a murder victim? Let's not get carried away in trying to define freedom. It's actually pretty simple, the way I see it: the extent of my freedom ends at the boundary of someone else's person.

[GreyGeek]

@GreyGeek

I'm really not sure where you're getting your (mis)information about what things are like in the UK.

A thief suing a homeowner for defending his property, and being awarded the home he was trying to burgle? That would have been massive headline generating news, yet I've never heard of it happening. Searching on Google also drew a blank. TBH, it's the kind of urban myth that we in the UK hear about as purportedly happening in the US... (probably due to US society having a reputation for being way more litigious than UK society).

Actually, my memory goofed. But, at 71 I am not going to complain. I did some looking and found what I was misrepresenting:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ny-Martin.html

http://theerant.yuku.com/topic/45625#.T9gj8BWsiCg
(sort of reminds one of the Zimmerman case in Florida)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...osecution.html
I have a PDF, from which I had read about the incident. I read it about five or six years ago and it detailed the rise of gun laws in England.

Gun Control in England: The Tarnished Gold Standard
Joyce Lee Malcolm
Tracing the history of gun control in the United Kingdom since the late 19th century, this article details how the government has arrogated to itself a monopoly on the right to use force. The consequence has been a tremendous increase in violent crime, and harsh punishment for crime victims who dare to fight back. The article is based on the author’s most recent book, Guns and
Violence: The English Experience (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joyce Malcom is professor of history at Bentley College, in Waltham, Massachusetts. She is also author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right (Harvard University Press, 1994).
...

(Edit) On the subject of knives and guns - if given the choice, I'd much prefer to face an assailant armed with a knife... I'd have a realistic chance of running away. Kinda hard to outrun a bullet. In cases of gun crime, it's not uncommon to hear of people (other than the criminal's intended victim) being wounded or killed by 'stray' bullets. Ever hear of anyone being killed by a stray knife stab?

Yes. Accidental stabbings are a frequent explanation as to why someone was stabbed to death. For 15 years part of my consulting business was criminal forensics. I've worked on several homicide cases. And stray bullets fired by police are as lethal as any other. You should be careful about using a knife in England to defend yourself:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...LL-jailed.html

The CCTV camera issue is another one where I find many Americans presuming to tell me just how bad it is in my country. The truth is that there isn't anywhere close to a camera on every street corner. Sure, there are quite a few of them in city- and town-centres (where crime is highest), but far from being "Big Brother Is Watching!!!", the majority of the cameras are owned and operated by the private sector - not by national or local government. Outside of urban centres, pretty much the only cameras you'll see are traffic light & speed cameras, and I don't believe we're any worse off than you guys are in that regard.

We are "privatizing" our surveillance and detention facilities too, but that doesn't mean that the government isn't in charge. Urban areas are where we are one-upping you. We've got drones! So our spies in the sky will cover every square inch of land. They are already being used to monitor "compliance" of cattle feedlots here in Nebraska with EPA regulations, evading the 4th Amendment forbidding unreasonable searches.

I suspect that a lot of such stories are jingoistic propaganda, and it happens on both sides of the Atlantic. E.g. People are unhappy about certain aspects of domestic politics? Let's run some exaggerated (or totally made up) stories about how much worse it is elsewhere! Then people here won't feel so bad!

No doubt!

[HalationEffect]

Ah yes, the farmer who was gaoled for shooting burglars in the back. That was HUGE news - as almost every firearm incident is in the UK (because, outside of the centres of the largest cities, it's uncommon, and therefore newsworthy). He shot them as they were *leaving* his property, so he clearly wasn't in fear for his life. Not sure I disagree with the court for putting him away, although I do disagree with the (at the time) overly strict laws on what a home-owner could legally do to protect his property. Those laws have been relaxed somewhat following the outcry over the cases in the Daily Mail that you linked to, and I expect them to relax further in the future. BTW, the Daily Mail is a poor source of information; it's a sensationalist tabloid. The main reputable broadsheet newspapers here are the Times, the Independent, and the Telegraph.

I'm a bit dubious about Joyce Lee Malcolm's book. Having just done a bit of research, it seems that she's a pro-gun professor who has never lived, or spent significant time, in the UK. Let's hold that up in a reversing mirror for a moment: how much credence would you give to a book written by an anti-gun English professor, writing about guns & violence in the US, having never lived there? I can't imagine you'd have much confidence in its ivory tower conclusions.

The article about knife crime didn't say much about using a knife in self defence (although if you don't know how to fight with a knife you run the risk of having it taken from - and used against - you, making it far from ideal for self defence); it was more about people carrying knives out in public because they intend to use the knife to commit a crime. I don't have any problem with the law taking a dim view of that behaviour at all. Personally, I feel very content living somewhere that I don't feel any need to be armed (even with a knife) when going out. In my 43 years of living in the UK I've been mugged once (when I was a teenager), and randomly assaulted by drunks on two occasions. The mugger was unarmed (but a LOT bigger than me!), as were my drunken assailants. In my entire life, outside of movies and TV I've never seen anyone draw a firearm in public, and I'm very glad about that. As a parent, doubly glad!

I find it instructive when considering comparative crime levels to look at a figure that is harder to 'massage', such as the per-capita prison population. The UK comes in at around 90th in the world, compared to the US at number one. Per-capita, the US imprisons more than *four* times as many people as the UK, making it very hard to believe that the US is a less lawless society than the UK. Of course, I realise that differing detection & conviction rates, average length of sentence, (and other factors) complicate the comparison, I still think it is a meaningful one.

I'm not trying to make the UK out to be some kind of placid idyll of a country, because it isn't. I'm just saying that I've encountered many Americans espousing an extremely jaundiced, and (IMO) highly inaccurate view of the UK.

[GreyGeek]

He shot them as they were *leaving* his property, so he clearly wasn't in fear for his life.

The sources I read said he heard them in his house while he was in bed. He got up, grabbed the shotgun, opened the door and looked down the stairs. He said he saw two people coming up at him shining a torch and that one had a knife and the other a crowbar. He fired one shot, hitting them both, and they ran. The deceased burglar was found outside under a bush by police the next day.

One report said that the survivor had a long record with 144 convictions, was sent to prison, was released in July and in September was arrested for burglary again.

In America the MNM do not distribute stories on the use of guns in self-defense unless they can be twisted to support anti-gun bias. The Zimmerman case in Florida is a classic example. Yet, estimates range between 800,000 and 2.5 million uses of guns each year for protection of person or property.

What most anti-gun folks fail to realize is that the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting.

[HalationEffect]

The sources I read said he heard them in his house while he was in bed. He got up, grabbed the shotgun, opened the door and looked down the stairs.

That part is basically correct.

He said he saw two people coming up at him shining a torch and that one had a knife and the other a crowbar. He fired one shot, hitting them both, and they ran.

That bit is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

On the night of 20 August 1999, two burglars – Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras 16 – broke into Martin's house. Shooting downwards in the dark, with a pump-action Winchester shotgun loaded with birdshot, Martin shot towards the intruders (who were by then trying to flee through a window). Fearon was hit in the leg, and Barras in the back. Barras escaped through the window but died at the scene.

The guy shot and killed a 16 year old kid who was in the act of fleeing. I just can't find it in me to be OK with that.