jluzar20 said:
IKWerewolf said:
jluzar20 said:
Is it just me, or has Jim's episodes been less and less entertaining and more brow beating over time? Nothing better than being called a "sick fuck" when this was the first I've heard of the Dragon Age lady thing.
Yeah, I know he's not calling me a sick fuck personally, but white knights always leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Especially so when you chastise a crowd in order to speak to a few. Shoulda stuck to the dildo, Jim.
Unfortunately whether we like it or not, this vocal minority is the reason why gaming as an industry is not entirely taken seriously. We can attack the developers as much as we like about their decisions and how they are ruining the industry but there is this vocal minority that can dictate through threat and abuse the way people operate like school yard bullies, it is this sort of attitude that will force us back to this topic again and again.
I'm actually surprised Police forces have not made arrests; as far I was aware death threats are a criminal offence?
Freedom of speech. If no evidence can be produced that someone has both the motivation and means to execute their claim, the comment is disregarded under first amendment protection and is not to be prosecuted as a criminal offense. Internet comments especially are not given much weight since the gap between claims and action is so wide.
Fun fact.
First, so many answers in law are "it depends". Is such and such act an actionable offence? "It depends". I'm being threatened - what can I do about it? "It depends". The factors that the law must take into account to answer the simplest of questions can, at times, be staggering (often to a fault). A blanket statement like the one above is never sufficient to dismiss a legal concern out of hand. Nor is a like statement sufficient to pursue legal action a propos of nothing. It all depends in law - quite literally. There are a surprising number of posts from people that went to the school of Google Quick Legal Answers or Iheardsomewhere Law. The most significant material elements that separate threats made on line from someone making the same threat in person (all other things being equal), are the elements of distance and anonymity. There are so many variables to consider regarding each such statement, that anyone receiving such threats would be remiss not to alert the appropriate authority.
Second, the excuse of "amendment x permits action y" is as week as the internet balls these cowards strained to grow to make their threats. (Please be aware, I'm not singling out the person to whom I'm replying with this statement in reference to the 1st Amendent. I've seen a number of posts with this idea as their basis.) Our rights and freedoms are in a constant state of checks and balances one against the other. I have a right to flail my arms about as walk down the street and call it interpretive dance all day long. But the instant my flailing arms strike a person, I've offended that person's expectation of safety. If I caused them injury, they could sue me for their medical expenses. I could face misdameanor or even criminal charges. DEPENDING on a variety of considerations. I have the right to speak my mind, but if I gather a couple of people together and talk about how we are going to kill someone, those words could carry the weight of conspiracy before anyone even gets hurt. The Bill of Rights is not the blanket license to act that many assume - but rather the protection of civil right and liberty from being impeded by an interfering governing body, and from being infringed upon by the averse, inequitable, illegal, and otherwise harmful actions of other individuals and groups. The Bill of Rights is not an instument to use in a way that one hides behind their provision of choice, all others be damned. It is not a buffet. One can not choose the bacon and forego the pancakes. The document must be considered in full at all times in determining whether or not an act has trespassed the being of another in such a harmful way that the act offends the conscience, the protection of our civil rights and liberties, and ultimately the law of the land.
Third and last, the logic that the "amendment x permits action y" follows, seems to have ussured forth this idea that if a thing can be done under whatever element of a governing instrument, than the doing of that thing is sacresanct and should be free of consequence - whether or not the doing of that thing actually is. The greatest flaw in law is it's reactive nature. This has been true throughout civilized history; and it is more true now than it has ever been. There was a time where there was no law preventing "the unlawful killing of one person by another person". People were too thick to discover the societal harm this can do if left unchecked so a legislative body had to define the act, condemn it, establish a method of punishment for it, and position to quell it. So too does the law react with new kinds of actions that do or can harm others as technology progresses. But the law is slow to react, because of all the elements it must consider. So what is left to counter the notion that, if one CAN to a thing, than the doing of that thing is sacred? It is the notiong that, just because one CAN do a thing, doesn't mean they SHOULD do that thing. One CAN swallow a bag of broken glass, but one SHOULDN'T. One would probably find one'sself in the hospital, or a coffin. One CAN call a child with glasses names like "four-eyes" and make fun of the child - because, 1st amendment. But one SHOULDN'T. One would be a dick. And DEPENDING on the severity, frequency, reasonableness of the actor, etc. etc. etc., one could find one'sself in jail trying not to drop one's soap.
What is admittedly lacking as this relates to threats made online, is that where direct interpersonal reactions carry direct consequences - legal, or otherwise -- intended, or unintended - internet reactions are delayed, by time and distance, subject to context, opaqued by anonymity, go unreported, are incompetantly handled once reported, and are comparatively light on consequences. The law will never match pace with technology due to its reactionary nature, but it isn't without teeth in confronting threats (baby teeth though they may be in confronting on-line threats). It is then up to the reasonable community to break away from this idea of whatever right in whatever document is a sheild, whatever can be done - once done - is sacred, and the fantasy that internet balls are, indeed, actual balls.
Oh well. The good games we get are worth the trouble. Not that we need or should have to deal with trouble to get them/make them.
