Texas judge orders site to identify a...

Texas judge orders site to identify anonymous trolls, flamers

There are 4814 comments on the arstechnica.com story from Feb 12, 2009, titled Texas judge orders site to identify anonymous trolls, flamers. In it, arstechnica.com reports that:

The right to flame someone online has typically been protected by the courts, but a Texas judge has decided enough is enough when it comes to 178 anonymous commenters on Topix.com. The site has less than a month to hand over identifying information about the Internet trolls.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at arstechnica.com.

“where it all comes together”

Since: Apr 08

Santa Cruz, California

#3321 Feb 22, 2009
Linwood Smith wrote:
Jerry Falwell didn't collect any money because what Flynt and Hustler Magazine did to him was parody, and Falwell was a public figure.
Never mind that when it comes to defaming, slandering, and libeling others Falwell has -NO- equal.
Tucker

Gatesville, TX

#3322 Feb 22, 2009
palmspringsbum wrote:
It seems to me the purpose of voir dire is to eliminate anyone that is honest, intelligent, and ethical, or that might be -MY- peer.
Juries represent the community, so what else would you expect?

Since: Nov 08

Parsippany, NJ

#3323 Feb 22, 2009
Beat the Dart proposed the best idea to prevent homeowner foreclosures:
Using our proprietary Subjective Probability Model (SPM), Dartline has developed the only feasible plan to keep 5 million homeowners out of foreclosure and halt free-falling home prices, while allowing the mortgagors time to attract private capital to improve their balance sheets. If enacted the S&P 500 index would increase 25% in 12-months and immediately jump-start the economy to benefit not only the US by the world economies as well.
Background:
Obama’s rescue plan offers $75 billion in incentives for banks and investors to reduce struggling home borrowers' interest rates and make other changes to loan terms., while the money will come from the second half the $700 billion federal financial bailout. The goal is to keep 4 million homeowners out of foreclosure and halt free-falling home prices. To qualify, lenders and mortgage investors would have to agree on a lower interest rate that would be designed to reduce the borrower's mortgage payments to 38 percent of their pretax income. The government would then provide financing to bring that ratio down to 31 percent. A second feature would help borrowers who are still making their payments on time, but want to refinance into lower mortgage rates.
In principle the plan was not work because it promotes irresponsible behavior and fails to address the root cause of residential foreclosures – overprices values, easy mortgages schemes to qualify for a loan and expectations of increasing real estates values in a growing economy with accelerated wage growth. Well, all these prospects are gone when reality set in.
Residential Real Estate Reclamation and Ownership Act (RRC)
Under RRC an agency would be created and supervised by US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD. The agency would have a calendar life of five (5) years and authorized to conduct the following:
1. Collect all the necessary primary data on residential mortgages issued on U.S prosperities and three categories:(i) Current within 60 days,(ii) Delinquent over 60 days, and (iii) Currently in foreclosure. The data would be updated monthly and disclosed to the public.
2. With the primary data, the target groups under (ii) and (iii), the homeowners would have the option to remain in their homes by paying and occupancy fee (rent) based on their ability to pay. Under the ability to pay clause, a comparable value shall be placed on occupancy based on an established rate of tenant rentals in the area. Any difference in cost can be subsidized from a federal grant.
3. By the original mortgage agreeing to this condition, the owner would have the right to re-purchase the dwelling at the original mortgage cost for a period of three (3) years.
The original mortgagor would be able to carry the mortgage as current for mark to market purposes for the ensuing three-year period and collect 95% of the occupant fee. The balance of the fee would go to HUD. However, it the homeowner elects to move or cannot continue with the monthly occupancy fee, the agency takes possess of the real property without need of foreclosure. The agency would have authority to sell the property with the net process payable to the mortgagor. Any gain or loss to the mortgages would be recorded as fiscal income or loss.
Under RRC 5 million homeowners would be kept out of foreclosure and halt free-falling home prices, while allowing the mortgagors time to attract private capital to improve their balance sheets.

Since: Jun 08

El Paso

#3324 Feb 22, 2009
Free Speech? People there is a limit. An axample is you can not run into a Movie Theater and scream FIRE. Just like you can not attack a person character or slander their name, even online...

At the same time this is an iffy situation, because it was my understanding the internet was not bound by country, state, city laws... it was cyber space... And people who own these sites set the laws and rules that govern them.

I guess this will set some new guidline where the LAW and the internet come together.
Tucker

Gatesville, TX

#3325 Feb 22, 2009
Muhnay wrote:
Free Speech? People there is a limit. An axample is you can not run into a Movie Theater and scream FIRE. Just like you can not attack a person character or slander their name, even online...
At the same time this is an iffy situation, because it was my understanding the internet was not bound by country, state, city laws... it was cyber space... And people who own these sites set the laws and rules that govern them.
I guess this will set some new guidline where the LAW and the internet come together.
You are correct that people cannot just say whatever they want without consequence.

But, this is not an "iffy" situation at all. Websites (or any individual) do not have the authority to write laws.

Anyone using the I'net is subject to the laws of his nation. US residents are subject to their state's laws and the laws of US.
Linwood Smith

Denver, NC

#3326 Feb 22, 2009
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're going to demonstrate how humans can build civilization without rational thought then?
Right, Tucker.
The more he posts, the more wacked out and unstable Tucker is. And he fantasizes his scaly leg is being humped by a dog.

I have read some more in the complaint, and it seems to me about as close to the tort of outrage as the posters could get without crossing the line. For decades I have shared the agony with various people who have been the victims of unfair and false criminal indictments. And I have seen one huge felony indictment close to home and know how excruciating it is to have the local press and community publicity turn brutal and pitiless on an innocent person.

Every case turns on its own unique facts. The Leshers are human and maybe even not the most likeable or sympathetic people in the world, but I cannot help believing a terrible wrong was done them by cowards sniping at them from behind their screens and false names.

It's been nice talking with most of you and now I'll probably have to quit for a while and go back to more gainful work. Best wishes to you in these threads, especially to those of you who are kind-hearted, rational, and civilized.

“Vincit Veritas”

Since: Sep 08

Dillon, SC

#3327 Feb 22, 2009
Tucker wrote:
<quoted text>
... There is no such thing as an "honest person" ...
Are you Diogenes of Sinope?
Tucker

Gatesville, TX

#3328 Feb 22, 2009
EricCBaxter wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you Diogenes of Sinope?
I am a very old guy who has been around the block several times.

If an honest person can be found, he is well hidden.

And, I am a person, so my opinion includes me.

“Vincit Veritas”

Since: Sep 08

Dillon, SC

#3329 Feb 22, 2009
Those answers would apply to Diogenes as well.

Do you mean there is no one who is always honest, or no one who is ever honest?
Tucker

Gatesville, TX

#3330 Feb 22, 2009
EricCBaxter wrote:
Those answers would apply to Diogenes as well.
Do you mean there is no one who is always honest, or no one who is ever honest?
Proposing that no one is ever honest would seemingly be a ridiculous proposition.

No one is honest all the time.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#3331 Feb 22, 2009
Tucker wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans do not act rationally.
Never have and never will. Emotions preclude any such behavior.
Christmas is a very well known example of irrational human behavior. As are all such events.
You do not know what you are talking about, just like your alter ego, the Leg Humping Dog.
This reveals your personality and world view very well.

A Bush-loving, Neo-Nazi, Right-wing extremist Christian, who also hold exactly the same view as you do.

LOL!!!!!!!!
Tucker

Gatesville, TX

#3332 Feb 22, 2009
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
This reveals your personality and world view very well.
A Bush-loving, Neo-Nazi, Right-wing extremist Christian, who also hold exactly the same view as you do.
LOL!!!!!!!!
You, like your Leg Humping Dog counterpart, are a wealth of misinformation.

I am an atheist, politically independent and voted for Barack Obama.

If I had the authority, virtually everyone in the Bush administration, including Bush & Cheney, would be serving prison time for war crimes. And, given their claims that trials are unnecessary, would accord them the same consideration they extended to others.

Carry on with your leg humping...

Level 8

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3333 Feb 22, 2009
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
This reveals your personality and world view very well.
A Bush-loving, Neo-Nazi, Right-wing extremist Christian, who also hold exactly the same view as you do.
LOL!!!!!!!!
Why don't you two get a room?

“Vincit Veritas”

Since: Sep 08

Dillon, SC

#3334 Feb 22, 2009
Tucker wrote:
<quoted text>
Proposing that no one is ever honest would seemingly be a ridiculous proposition.
No one is honest all the time.
Ok. Now when you say "Humans do not act rationally" do you mean they never act rationally or only that they sometimes act irrationally? Also, are you describing collective or individual behavior?

Would you say the pursuit of perceived self-interest is rational or irrational behavior?
Tucker

Gatesville, TX

#3335 Feb 22, 2009
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you two get a room?
Because one of the two (me) would not agree to any such arrangement.

I appear to have attracted a "fan" club of leg humping dogs that follow me (my comments) around the board. They seem to be incapable of posting a comment unless it is directed at me, or refers to me.

Some of which I respond to, some of which I don't. Depends on my mood at the time.

They appear to suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorders. They also appear to be homosexual, but I've told them that my pole doesn't swing that way.

“Peace on Earth”

Level 4

Since: Sep 08

Santa Barbara, CA

#3336 Feb 22, 2009
palmspringsbum wrote:
<quoted text>
They could actually enforce a prohibition of ad hominum attacks.
I believe that would impinge on one's freedom of speech. Some posters deserve to be attacked. I see no problem with that when ALL parties remain anonymous.

Anyone posting on Topix agrees that they "have read the Terms of Service" and that the comment of their post is in compliance.

The Topix Term of Service states, "You understand that Topix does not monitor or control the content of information posted by others...Topix does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You acknowledge that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable."

Pretty simple. If someone doesn't want to be exposed to "offensive, indecent or objectionable" content, they shouldn't be on Topix.
Tucker

Gatesville, TX

#3337 Feb 22, 2009
EricCBaxter wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. Now when you say "Humans do not act rationally" do you mean they never act rationally or only that they sometimes act irrationally? Also, are you describing collective or individual behavior?
Would you say the pursuit of perceived self-interest is rational or irrational behavior?
People generally always act in their own immediate self interest. But, rational behavior would require a person to act in his own long term best interest. And, in the overall best interest of the species as a whole.

Which humans have never done.

Anywhere humans congregate, they overpopulate and reduce the ability of their environment to support them.

So, they move on and repeat the process.

The human race is not going to survive in the long term because we are self-destructive as a species.

Humans are little more than a virus killing its host.

And, that is hardly rational by any stretch of the imagination.(or "civilized")

“Vincit Veritas”

Since: Sep 08

Dillon, SC

#3338 Feb 22, 2009
palmspringsbum wrote:
<quoted text>
They could actually enforce a prohibition of ad hominum attacks.
Ad hominEm (ad, to + hominem, accusative of homo, man)
Mark Roberts

Roseville, MI

#3339 Feb 22, 2009
Oh please Selecia, it's a damn joke, get over your serious self would ya? I KNOW what his name is....I choose to NOT use it as a joke because it was a joke that he got elected.
Mark Roberts

Roseville, MI

#3340 Feb 22, 2009
Lnc wrote:
Hey Mark, I do agree with you on many of your points, but I would like to point out a little irony in your post just for a little laugh.
We can't say "nappy headed ho" on the radio and that upsets us. We should have complete freedom of speech, whether it annoys someone or not, unless its a loud radio. Thats different.
:p
LNC, that's hardly irony....I could care less what people play on their radio or stereos, but it's the VOLUME that annoys me and thousands of other people because these idiots have to right to violate our "earspace"...they are lawbreakers because they are violating all noise ordinances, plain and simple....I know what you're saying, but, trust me, if you lived where I lived, in the "New Detroit 21st Ghetto" that is now called Roseville Michigan, you'd understand....
oh and thanks for agreeing....what did I say anyways???

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Topix Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CNN NBC MSNBC CBS why fake news 1 hr Ben 6
What are you wearing 7 hr Speed to Speed 11
~Last Post~ (Apr '12) 7 hr -_O_Puddin_O_- 5,335
I SEND NUDES FOR FUN KIKME@ hazeliciouzzz 10 hr hazeliciouzzz 1
K..ik pic vid swap 10 hr Nope 25
Uhm....help...? 12 hr Seduciary 5
Hey guys!!!!! Single, just moved to st louis *l... 13 hr Shelbi 1
More from around the web