Split: Libel Law

[Mr. Oragahn]

As it seems, it's just a matter of backing up your insults, and claimnig that you're only criticizing one's behaviour, up to the point where you're literally claiming speaking the truth for the good of all, to denounce said behaviour.

The other point to notice is that within a couple of days only, a thread has managed to make a couple of SDN residents post here, demonstrating the ease it is to come here and talk, without being harassed.

[Who is like God arbour]

First off, in reference to point (1), how is calling you an idiot denying that you are to be accorded the rights and honor appropriate to your station — that is, as an idiot? Even if you do not feel you are an idiot, what makes you think that this impression is correct and that you are deserving an honor above idiocy, as opposed to only deserving an honor in concordance to idiocy? Furthermore, how is the accusation that you are a goddamned idiot imply that you are subhuman? Idiots are, by definition, human and therefore cannot be subhuman.

• In its most basic sense, honor describes the status of a person who enjoys equal rights and who is entitled to respect as a member of the human community irrespective of individual accomplishments (menschlicher Achtungsanspruch). Thus, even lazy or dumb persons and criminals deserve this level of respect.

  • • As you should be able to understand, it is not a question of deserving honor. Each person is granted honor irrespective of individual accomplishments.

Secondly, in reference to point (2), how is calling you an idiot denying you the resepect you are to be accorded to your station — that is, as an idiot? Again, what makes your impression that you deserve respect above that of idiocy a correct one, rather than being accorded respect deserving of your station as an idiot? Put plainly, what makes you think you are deserving of any more respect than you have been given?

• A second level of honor is concerned with the preservation of minimum standards of mutual respect in public—the outward show of respect for people irrespective of one’s feelings about them (sozialer Respekt or Achtungsanspruch).

  • • see above
    • mutual respect in public is irrespective of one’s feelings about another person.

Thirdly, in reference to point (3), if you are an idiot, then to have a reputation exceeding that of idiocy constitutes fraud. Therefore, calling you an idiot at worst merely reduces your reputation to that of which an idiot deserves, which you actually are. Furthermore, what makes you think that an idiot is not already your reputation? If your idiocy is plainly visible, then calling you an idiot can hardly harm your reputation as an idiot.

• A third level of honor covers defamation. Respect for this level of honor prohibits making factual assertions that tend to so harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him.

  • • see above
    • see above
    • see above
    • your judgement, who is an idiot is no factual assertions. It is already an judgement of facts, regardless if they have really happened or not.
    • even someone, who is lazy or dumb or stubborn, deserves to be treated with respect like an human being. You don't have to respect this someones abilities or intelligence.

This same resoning applies to any other insult you care to name: "douchebag", "scum", "horse's ass"? Each of the following insults, taken literally, are manifestly false, and therefore beg alternate definitions. These alternate definitions refer to humans displaying particular behaviors, not to subhumans or nonhumans.
If you have behaved in the manner of a douchebag (in the human sense), why shouldn't you be treated as a douchebag (again, in the human sense)? If you are behaving like scum (human sense), why shouldn't you be treated like scum (human sense)? If you are behaving in the manner of a (human) horse's ass, why should you not be treated like a (human) horse's ass?

• • • see above
    • see above
    • see above
    • see above and
    • see above. It is really not so hard to understand. "You can do it, if you REALLY want. But you must try, try and try, try and try!"

[Wyrm]

@GStone:

Other than wasting my time?

How long does it take you to read any of his posts?

One of his posts? With that atrocious English grammar? It took five minutes, all told.

Five minutes I'll never have again.

At most, it'd just take a few minutes and maybe a couple more, but that's it.

Feels like a month...

You waste more time by asking questions and waiting for answers again and again when you could have gotten your answers before you asked your questions to begin with.

I can do other things while waiting for answers, you know.

@Jedi Master Spock:

I call someone an "idiot" to make them stop behaving idiotically.

In which case you clearly don't believe they are an idiot. If they were genuinely an idiot, would they be able to act other than as an idiot?

You clearly believe "idiocy" is an immutable property of a person. I don't believe that. I believe idiocy is a state of mind, namely that you exceed the limits of your god-given intelligence. You can't stop being mentally disabled, or being of low intelligence, but you can stop behaving like an idiot, because idiocy is defined by behavior.

If you have behaved in the manner of a douchebag (in the human sense), why shouldn't you be treated as a douchebag (again, in the human sense)? If you are behaving like scum (human sense), why shouldn't you be treated like scum (human sense)? If you are behaving in the manner of a (human) horse's ass, why should you not be treated like a (human) horse's ass?

The fact that you have to try to couch all of those as true "in the human sense" - to what is clearly at best subjective and offensive metaphor in any case rather than anything that may be established as an objective fact - should tell you something about the amount of truth present in the hyperbole of the original insult.

Bullocks. If I had left them off, you would have defaulted to their literal defintions, and therefore accuse me of calling someone sub-/nonhuman. I wanted to kill that argument before you could make it.

@WILGA:

In its most basic sense, honor describes the status of a person who enjoys equal rights and who is entitled to respect as a member of the human community irrespective of individual accomplishments (menschlicher Achtungsanspruch). Thus, even lazy or dumb persons and criminals deserve this level of respect.

Well, the underlined part is the real rub, isn't it? If I give you that amount of respect entitled to respect as "a member of the human community", then I accord you with the proper minimum amount of honor. But how much respect do you deserve just by being a part of the human race?

Put another way, how much respect is deserved by the human with the least amount of respect he/she deserves? That's the minimum entitlement of "respect as a member of the human community irrespective of individual accomplishments".

In my experience, this "minimum respect" is damn little, and I daresay it's absolutely zero. There are all manner of people with no honor that have been part of the human race, people deserving of no respect whatsoever have been part of the human race, people of horrible (and deservedly so) reputations have been part of the human race. Many of them in my own government, and a few of them from YOUR nation's history (OMG, GODWIN!!).

Verdict: Nobody deserves respect just by being a part of the human race. If you want more respect, then you have to earn it.

A second level of honor is concerned with the preservation of minimum standards of mutual respect in public—the outward show of respect for people irrespective of one’s feelings about them (sozialer Respekt or Achtungsanspruch).

• see above

You first. How much respect does someone deserve just by being a human out in public?

As far as being insulted as a part of a forum, are you really in public, where this constitutional rule would apply?

This forum is private property. More specifically, it is my private property. I own the hardware, I maintain the software, I pay for the bandwidth. You are a guest in my house, and as such, you are subject to our house rules. If you think there is something unjust or unreasonable about our rules, the decisions of the administrative staff, or my behaviour in particular, TOO FUCKING BAD.

SDN is not public property. It is private property, even though much of it is viewable to the public. Just like someone's front lawn, although viewable by the public, is still legally private property.

A third level of honor covers defamation. Respect for this level of honor prohibits making factual assertions that tend to so harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him.

A bad review in Consumer Reports can damage the reputation of a person as a good designer. So, by consitutional law, this is illegal in Germany, even if Consumer Reports performed tests that showed that the bad review was well-deserved. Therefore, the truth is no defense.

Again, I'm glad I don't live in Germany.

Flippancy aside, I think you're not being completely forthcoming here. Your defamation on SDN is limited to the Senate thread you were decided banned in, and your swan-song. Only people who read those threads would even know of your verbal scouring, but the conduct that lead to same is also clearly documented in these same threads, and the reasons for being insulted is plainly visible. It is not widely known outside SDN and this forum. Unless you have published elsewhere, in which case you (perversely) are the principle agent in your own defamation.

Somehow, I think you'd be laughed out of court.

• your judgement, who is an idiot is no factual assertions. It is already an judgement of facts, regardless if they have really happened or not.

If my calling you an "idiot" is not a factual assertion, then how can it be defamation?

Respect for this level of honor prohibits making factual assertions that tend to so harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him.

• even someone, who is lazy or dumb or stubborn, deserves to be treated with respect like an human being. You don't have to respect this someones abilities or intelligence.

Don't worry. Nobody on SDN treated you like you were less than a human being. (That doesn't mean that means you would be treated particularly well.) And nobody gave you respect for your abilities and intelligence.

This same resoning applies to any other insult you care to name: "douchebag", "scum", "horse's ass"? Each of the following insults, taken literally, are manifestly false, and therefore beg alternate definitions. These alternate definitions refer to humans displaying particular behaviors, not to subhumans or nonhumans.
If you have behaved in the manner of a douchebag (in the human sense), why shouldn't you be treated as a douchebag (again, in the human sense)? If you are behaving like scum (human sense), why shouldn't you be treated like scum (human sense)? If you are behaving in the manner of a (human) horse's ass, why should you not be treated like a (human) horse's ass?

• • • see above
    • see above
    • see above
    • see above and
    • see above. It is really not so hard to understand. "You can do it, if you REALLY want. But you must try, try and try, try and try!"

You first.

[Jedi Master Spock]

You clearly believe "idiocy" is an immutable property of a person. I don't believe that. I believe idiocy is a state of mind, namely that you exceed the limits of your god-given intelligence. You can't stop being mentally disabled, or being of low intelligence, but you can stop behaving like an idiot, because idiocy is defined by behavior.

The belief that "idiocy" is a state of mind is not a very widely held belief regarding the term. Whether the outdated medical definition (profound mental retardation) or the common definition (very stupid) is applied, it is generally used to infer an intrinsic property of a person which will not change.

It's very simple semantics. "You're acting like an idiot!" is not freely interchangable with "You really are an idiot!" in common parlance - and, to invoke the standard of Canadian law, the common implication of calling someone an idiot is that of stupidity.

Bullocks. If I had left them off, you would have defaulted to their literal defintions, and therefore accuse me of calling someone sub-/nonhuman.

And rightly - because you really are. You're using it metaphorically rather than literally, granted, but even then, your metaphor amounts in public use to ascribing to that person all the negative properties associated with the sub-/nonhuman object in question. At best, it is a subjective label with highly disputable content (much like "lard-brain," in the above list from Keith-Smith v Williams) which usually cannot be defended as justified in most traditions of law.

"Your Honor, I had ample reason to believe that my opponent embodied the properties associated with being the posterior of a particularly disease-ridden equine... Your Honor? Please!"

In my experience, this "minimum respect" is damn little, and I daresay it's absolutely zero.

I disagree with the basis for this claim. The "minimum respect" one can have for a person stems not from their base status as a human, but by having earned disrespect relative to their original default status. Even then, it is contingent upon you as a civilized individual to retain a certain measure of respect for their person.

There are, of course, those who do not agree with this; from this personal philosophy comes the idea that torture is justified, that summary execution is justified, that the inhumane treatment of prisoners of all kinds is justified, etc.

As you may have observed in the active sociopolitical discourse of today, there is some heated debate on the issue of war crimes and human rights, but I will contend that war crimes remain unjustifiable and human rights and dignity should, as an encoding of respect for fellow human, continue to be respected.

I realize that not everybody believes that things like habeas corpus and due process properly apply to terrorists, pedophiles, and other forms of criminals, and that it is a controversial position, but you can expect me to stick with it.

[Mr. Oragahn]

You clearly believe "idiocy" is an immutable property of a person. I don't believe that. I believe idiocy is a state of mind, namely that you exceed the limits of your god-given intelligence. You can't stop being mentally disabled, or being of low intelligence, but you can stop behaving like an idiot, because idiocy is defined by behavior.

The belief that "idiocy" is a state of mind is not a very widely held belief regarding the term. Whether the outdated medical definition (profound mental retardation) or the common definition (very stupid) is applied, it is generally used to infer an intrinsic property of a person which will not change.

It's very simple semantics. "You're acting like an idiot!" is not freely interchangable with "You really are an idiot!" in common parlance - and, to invoke the standard of Canadian law, the common implication of calling someone an idiot is that of stupidity.

Actually, I agree with the state of mind argument, depending on the nature of the term, and as such, I perfectly assume they're interchangable.

"You eat dirtily. You're a pig." This is an insult. However, within a friendly context, it may not be taken seriously. Above all, the offender is not pretending that the subject is a pig, as a creature. He refers to the behaviour and eventually state of mind of the subject, even if here, the behaviour is the main factor.

Neglecting the possibility that an insult can be a sort of metaphor is a mistake. Actually thinking the contrary would be absurd.

Then comes the definition of the term. In my earlier examlpe, a liar is a status that any human can adopt. It's insulting someone on the basis of sharing degrading attributes with a non human species. In the case of words like liar, or fascist, there's no real problem here. There's no metaphor to see here.

And rightly - because you really are. You're using it metaphorically rather than literally, granted, but even then, your metaphor amounts in public use to ascribing to that person all the negative properties associated with the sub-/nonhuman object in question. At best, it is a subjective label with highly disputable content (much like "lard-brain," in the above list from Keith-Smith v Williams) which usually cannot be defended as justified in most traditions of law.

"Your Honor, I had ample reason to believe that my opponent embodied the properties associated with being the posterior of a particularly disease-ridden equine... Your Honor? Please!"

Your last example proves that the offender actually tried to claim a biological feature the subject didn't have.
It's a bit absurd. No one's going to pretend to literally mean that one is a sad monkey (random insult) when you actually use this insult against someone else. I'm not saying it's good, but you're making a mistake in your interpretation of the nature of the insult.

In my experience, this "minimum respect" is damn little, and I daresay it's absolutely zero.

I disagree with the basis for this claim. The "minimum respect" one can have for a person stems not from their base status as a human, but by having earned disrespect relative to their original default status. Even then, it is contingent upon you as a civilized individual to retain a certain measure of respect for their person.

There are, of course, those who do not agree with this; from this personal philosophy comes the idea that torture is justified, that summary execution is justified, that the inhumane treatment of prisoners of all kinds is justified, etc.

Agreed.

[Who is like God arbour]

In its most basic sense, honor describes the status of a person who enjoys equal rights and who is entitled to respect as a member of the human community irrespective of individual accomplishments (menschlicher Achtungsanspruch). Thus, even lazy or dumb persons and criminals deserve this level of respect.

Well, the underlined part is the real rub, isn't it? If I give you that amount of respect entitled to respect as "a member of the human community", then I accord you with the proper minimum amount of honor. But how much respect do you deserve just by being a part of the human race?

Put another way, how much respect is deserved by the human with the least amount of respect he/she deserves? That's the minimum entitlement of "respect as a member of the human community irrespective of individual accomplishments".

In my experience, this "minimum respect" is damn little, and I daresay it's absolutely zero. There are all manner of people with no honor that have been part of the human race, people deserving of no respect whatsoever have been part of the human race, people of horrible (and deservedly so) reputations have been part of the human race. Many of them in my own government, and a few of them from YOUR nation's history (OMG, GODWIN!!).

Verdict: Nobody deserves respect just by being a part of the human race. If you want more respect, then you have to earn it.

Maybe you should read a little bit more about Human rights and especially about Human dignity.

• • Human dignity is an expression that can be used as a moral concept or as a legal term. Sometimes it means no more than that human beings should not be treated as objects. Beyond this, it is meant to convey an idea of absolute and inherent worth that does not need to be acquired and cannot be lost or sold. In Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the claim is made that rational beings have an intrinsic and absolute value, which is referred to as dignity.
    [...]
    Human dignity features as a core principle in many modern constitutions. Perhaps the most prominent occurrence is article 1, paragraph 1 of Germany's constitution: "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and to protect it is the duty of all state authority." This is generally seen as a reaction to the Nazi regime's complete disregard of human dignity.

You don't have to agree with such an philosophical concept. But nevertheless, in Germany and many other modern states, it is law. If you violate it, you can get punished.

Maybe you should also read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially the Preamble, Article 1 and Article 22 and contemplate, what they mean with the term dignity.

[Wyrm]

@Jedi Master Spock:

It's very simple semantics. "You're acting like an idiot!" is not freely interchangable with "You really are an idiot!" in common parlance.

Don't strawman my points. Who says "You really are an idiot!" if they don't actually mean that someone is of substandard intelligence? The usual phrase is "You are an idiot!" — no "really". And just because "Your acting like an idiot!" is allowed by your rules of conduct, and "You are an idiot!" isn't, doesn't mean that they have different semantics.

Furthermore, if "You are an idiot!" means that you are immutably of subaverage intelligence, whenceforth comes "Don't be an idiot!", which has been said to yours truly on more than one occasion, and at least once on SDN by Great Leader Wong. If being an idiot was not a state of mind, then how could I be expected to obey this call to not be an idiot?

And, if someone constantly behaves like an idiot, and does nothing to show that he is anything other than an idiot, then why not call a spade a spade and say, "Man, you really are an idiot!"

Bullocks. If I had left them off, you would have defaulted to their literal defintions, and therefore accuse me of calling someone sub-/nonhuman.

And rightly - because you really are. You're using it metaphorically rather than literally, granted, but even then, your metaphor amounts in public use to ascribing to that person all the negative properties associated with the sub-/nonhuman object in question.

Bullocks. Pond scum... actual pond scum as you find growing in a pond... is fucking cool. It's squishy, slimy, green and smells pleasantly gross. Yes, it's an annoyance when it overgrows, but I'd rather spend time with actual literal pond scum than with a human with a repulsive personality. And if someone displayed the qualities of literal pond scum (green, slimy, smooshy, and pleasantly gross) then he'd be grotesquely AWESOME!! Or at least deserving some sympathy.

Humans I would call "scum", on the other hand... they are vile people. Not pleasant to be around, not because they are literally slimy, but their conduct comes straight the pits (quite unlike real pond scum, which just sits there). Furthermore, this kind of "scum" chooses to be this way. They have no excuse.

Actual, literal douche bags are practical items for the ladyfriends. They are admirable things, and don't pretend to be anything more than douche bags. Humans I call "douchebags" are unpleasant, hypocritical people of dubious credentials. Again, by choice.

An actual, literal horse's ass is a thing of beauty. The horse simply wouldn't be complete without it. Strong muscles, fine pelt, and packing a whallop — all admirable qualities. Humans I call "horse's asses" are pompous fools. Maybe you can't help being a fool, but you can certainly help being pompous.

Obviously, when applied to humans, these words take on a special meaning particular to their applications to humans. These are not mere metaphors, but actual semantic changes.

And my argument was that their status under these labels demanded treatment in accordance to their standing. How have you proved me wrong on this?

Hmm. Maybe I should stop calling people "scum", "douchebags" and "horse's asses"... They're an insult to actual pond scum, douche bags and horse's asses.

In my experience, this "minimum respect" is damn little, and I daresay it's absolutely zero.

I disagree with the basis for this claim. The "minimum respect" one can have for a person stems not from their base status as a human, but by having earned disrespect relative to their original default status.

Of course a random person you meet on the street deserves some respect by default, until you know he's not one to deserve that much respect. I'm talking about the respect someone deserves just by virtue of his membership to the human race, even after you know he doesn't deserve the default respect. I'm talking about the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Even then, it is contingent upon you as a civilized individual to retain a certain measure of respect for their person.

There are, of course, those who do not agree with this; from this personal philosophy comes the idea that torture is justified, that summary execution is justified, that the inhumane treatment of prisoners of all kinds is justified, etc.

As you may have observed in the active sociopolitical discourse of today, there is some heated debate on the issue of war crimes and human rights, but I will contend that war crimes remain unjustifiable and human rights and dignity should, as an encoding of respect for fellow human, continue to be respected.

I realize that not everybody believes that things like habeas corpus and due process properly apply to terrorists, pedophiles, and other forms of criminals, and that it is a controversial position, but you can expect me to stick with it.

You're conflating respect with morality, legality, ethics, and what constitutes human rights. I happen to agree that torture and inhumane treatment of anyone is universally wrong. I believe we do need habeas corpus. War crimes and human rights violations are universally wrong. I don't believe in mob punishment for terrorists, pedophiles, sex offenders and even murderers if they have paid their dept to society. Someone should not be defamed. All these spring from my morality, legal sense, ethics and conception of human rights.

But to not be merely insulted is not a human right. To be mundanely insulted is not inhumane treatment. To be insulted with common insults like "idiot" is not torture, especially on an electronic forum that you can always leave. To be smacked with epithets like "scum" is not defamation, as they are so common to be rendered impotent.

Yes, I may verbally burn the troll of the day to a crisp, but I do nothing except strip him of undeserved honor and respect, demolish an undeserved reputation, and cause wounds only to his inflated pride.

@WILGA:

Maybe you should read a little bit more about Human rights and especially about Human dignity.

• • Human dignity is an expression that can be used as a moral concept or as a legal term. Sometimes it means no more than that human beings should not be treated as objects. Beyond this, it is meant to convey an idea of absolute and inherent worth that does not need to be acquired and cannot be lost or sold. In Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the claim is made that rational beings have an intrinsic and absolute value, which is referred to as dignity.
    [...]
    Human dignity features as a core principle in many modern constitutions. Perhaps the most prominent occurrence is article 1, paragraph 1 of Germany's constitution: "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and to protect it is the duty of all state authority." This is generally seen as a reaction to the Nazi regime's complete disregard of human dignity.

If you behave in a manner of an idiot before me, calling you an "idiot" does not objectify you. I do not assign you the properties of an idiot by calling you one in that case; calling you an "idiot" is giving voice to properties that you have assigned to yourself by your behavior. Neither do I treat you like you're not a fellow human being by calling you an idiot, just that "being nice" is not something I obligated to do to fellow human beings. I do not violate your inherent worth as a human being by calling you an idiot, just that your inherent worth as a human doesn't mean that I have to treat you nicely, either.

I respect your human rights. That doesn't mean I respect you in particular.

I give you the honor you have demonstrated. That doesn't mean you will receive the honor you think you have demonstrated.

I give you the respect you have earned or have eroded from me. That doesn't mean that you will receive the amount of respect you think you deserve.

I respect the reputation you have earned. That doesn't mean your earned reputation is the one you think you have earned.

You don't have to agree with such an philosophical concept. But nevertheless, in Germany and many other modern states, it is law. If you violate it, you can get punished.

Good luck with making your international defamation suits over ordinary, common epithet stick, especially when you had violated the forum's terms of service. Especially when being publically flamed is par for the course.

Maybe you should also read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially the Preamble, Article 1 and Article 22 and contemplate, what they mean with the term dignity.

Funny thing about that declaration: it doesn't say "respect for humans" anywhere, just "respect for human rights." Insulting you, by calling you a mundane insult like "idiot", is not a violation of your human rights. Just because I respect your human rights doesn't mean I have respect for you in particular.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Don't strawman my points. Who says "You really are an idiot!" if they don't actually mean that someone is of substandard intelligence? The usual phrase is "You are an idiot!" — no "really". And just because "Your acting like an idiot!" is allowed by your rules of conduct, and "You are an idiot!" isn't, doesn't mean that they have different semantics.

Furthermore, if "You are an idiot!" means that you are immutably of subaverage intelligence, whenceforth comes "Don't be an idiot!", which has been said to yours truly on more than one occasion, and at least once on SDN by Great Leader Wong. If being an idiot was not a state of mind, then how could I be expected to obey this call to not be an idiot?

And, if someone constantly behaves like an idiot, and does nothing to show that he is anything other than an idiot, then why not call a spade a spade and say, "Man, you really are an idiot!"

"You really are an idiot!" = "You are an idiot!"

Bullocks. Pond scum... actual pond scum as you find growing in a pond... is fucking cool.

I will remind you, by the way, that while profanity in and of itself is not against the board rules, it is rather difficult to be courteous while cursing, and it is advisable to develop the habit of not cursing here as a result.

It's squishy, slimy, green and smells pleasantly gross. Yes, it's an annoyance when it overgrows, but I'd rather spend time with actual literal pond scum than with a human with a repulsive personality. And if someone displayed the qualities of literal pond scum (green, slimy, smooshy, and pleasantly gross) then he'd be grotesquely AWESOME!! Or at least deserving some sympathy.

"Slimy" has a different meaning describing a personality trait than a physical trait. This is the metaphor being invoked. We can go into a long digression on the etymology of various insults, but the simple fact is that you're calling someone something they aren't in order simply (and purely) to insult them.

There is - regardless of whatever specific definition you personally would like to stick to "scum" as applied to people - no objective agreement on any specific qualification for a person being scum. The only communicated element is the insult; hence, when you call someone "scum," your purpose is, as WILGA put it, "solely to insult." There is no other reason for you to use the term but to attack someone's person.

How would you go about proving someone to be "scum" in court? Ask yourself that.

Even "idiot," which has semantic content of its own, is usually clearly applied to people for the purpose of insulting them rather than to provide anything resembling an objective account of their behaviors; a similar notion referenced especially in English libel law is the example of calling a woman sexually promiscuous. Calling a woman a slut is considered a textbook example of defamatory speech, for example; the term has content, but the false accusation of promiscuity or of venereal disease is immediately actionable and difficult to defend without conclusive evidence of justification.

You're conflating respect with morality, legality, ethics, and what constitutes human rights. I happen to agree that torture and inhumane treatment of anyone is universally wrong.

Respect is what all those human rights are founded upon.

But to not be merely insulted is not a human right.

And to have your character assaulted? Be verbally abused? Be told untruths about which are damaging to your reputation, your livelihood, or perhaps even your psyche?

Others - such as German law, apparently - disagree. It is not, we will note, a question of "merely" insulting conduct. You may draw insult from the fact that I disagree with you; that is, we agree, not a big deal. I am not causing unjust harm to your character by disagreeing with you, nor your person, your livelihood, your psyche, or anything else.

And dignity? Your dignity, as WILGA invokes in reading you the German constitution, is precisely what insults are aimed at - the respect accorded you by your peers.

Every other basic human right you may wish to invoke can be encoded simply in terms of respect and dignity.

To be mundanely insulted is not inhumane treatment. To be insulted with common insults like "idiot" is not torture, especially on an electronic forum that you can always leave. To be smacked with epithets like "scum" is not defamation, as they are so common to be rendered impotent.

And "lardbrain"? "Nonce"? "Slut"? "Nazi"? All perfectly commonplace and no more "potent" than "scum" or "idiot."

Mind you, even in those cases, it is not the case of being insulted personally that is prosecuted; it is the public assault on one's character which is prosecuted.

[Who is like God arbour]

I don't think, that it would make sense, to continue this debate, if you are not willing to comprehend, what I have said and don't bother to read, what I have written:

Maybe you should read a little bit more about Human rights and especially about Human dignity.

• • Human dignity is an expression that can be used as a moral concept or as a legal term. Sometimes it means no more than that human beings should not be treated as objects. Beyond this, it is meant to convey an idea of absolute and inherent worth that does not need to be acquired and cannot be lost or sold. In Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the claim is made that rational beings have an intrinsic and absolute value, which is referred to as dignity.
    [...]
    Human dignity features as a core principle in many modern constitutions. Perhaps the most prominent occurrence is article 1, paragraph 1 of Germany's constitution: "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and to protect it is the duty of all state authority." This is generally seen as a reaction to the Nazi regime's complete disregard of human dignity.

If you behave in a manner of an idiot before me, calling you an "idiot" does not objectify you. I do not assign you the properties of an idiot by calling you one in that case; calling you an "idiot" is giving voice to properties that you have assigned to yourself by your behavior. Neither do I treat you like you're not a fellow human being by calling you an idiot, just that "being nice" is not something I obligated to do to fellow human beings. I do not violate your inherent worth as a human being by calling you an idiot, just that your inherent worth as a human doesn't mean that I have to treat you nicely, either.

I respect your human rights. That doesn't mean I respect you in particular.

I give you the honor you have demonstrated. That doesn't mean you will receive the honor you think you have demonstrated.

I give you the respect you have earned or have eroded from me. That doesn't mean that you will receive the amount of respect you think you deserve.

I respect the reputation you have earned. That doesn't mean your earned reputation is the one you think you have earned.

There was a reason why I have underlined parts of the third sentence:

Beyond this, it is meant to convey an idea of absolute and inherent worth that does not need to be acquired and cannot be lost or sold. In Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the claim is made that rational beings have an intrinsic and absolute value, which is referred to as dignity.

That shouldn't mean, that you should ignore these parts. Your answer - as I unterstand it - shows, that you don't even understand the underlying philosophical concept.

Maybe you should also read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially the Preamble, Article 1 and Article 22 and contemplate, what they mean with the term dignity.

Funny thing about that declaration: it doesn't say "respect for humans" anywhere, just "respect for human rights." Insulting you, by calling you a mundane insult like "idiot", is not a violation of your human rights. Just because I respect your human rights doesn't mean I have respect for you in particular.

If you would have bothered to read it, you would have seen, that they also speak of dignity - as I have said. And you should have contemplated, what they mean with this term.

• • • PREAMBLE

      • Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
        
        Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
        
        Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
        
        Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
        
        Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
        
        Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
        
        Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

      Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
      
      Article 1.

      • All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

      Article 2.

      • Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

      [...]
      
      Article 22.

      • Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

But I wanted to say something to an essay, which was made on SDN.

I should preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer. I'm not even a law student.

How he intends to get his honour avenged past national lines is not quite fully explained.

The same way you avenge any crime past national lines: you make use of extradition treaties if possible, or hope that the culprit will sooner or later cross these national lines. If nothing else, you'd limit the culprit's ability to travel to certain countries without being harassed by local authorities.

The slander claims are simply hilarious. How the hell can you slander "AVOGARDO" or "GStone"? Completely anonymous screen names with hotmail accounts? What a bunch of retards.

The fact that they use aliases would actually be irrelevant. You (the hypothetical you) would be slandering the person using the alias AVOGARDO (or GStone, repectively). Since these aliases correspond to specific users -- as opposed to generic nicks in some chat rooms, where the same alias may be used by different persons at different times -- the "victim" would be identifiable. Of course, doing so for a potential investigation would also require the "victims" to give up their anonymity, so it's not exactly likely to happen.

Before I accept any of his bullshit and his claims about German libel law (which might be roughly as he describes but probably wouldn't work very well in his favor in this case, because you would in all likelihood need to show that the insults are baseless for a defamation case to fly), I'd rather hear from our German members.

First, a state attorney will only prosecute if he considers the case to be of public interest. Nr. 86 Abs. 2, 229, 232 RiStBV gives some rough guidelines as to what constitutes public interest. Supposedly about 95% of all cases get thrown out at this stage. The few exceptions typically involve a police officer being called an asshole for giving a speeding ticket. The German public arguably has an interest in protecting the members of its judiciary from being insulted simply because they do their job. It has considerably less interest in regulating the debate about the outcome of a hypothetical war between factions of different fictitious universes.

However, that's not necessarily the end. The victim would still have the option of a civil action to restore his honour(§374 StGB). It should be noted though that an astounding number of victims find it in their heart to forgive their tormentor once they realise they'd have to pay their own lawyer.

But let us assume the victim will indeed spare no expenses. He hires an attourney. Said attourney will tell our fearless plaintiff that he is wasting his time concerning himself with insults made by a Canadian: Canadian law does not appear to have an equivalent to §185 StGB, and German law applies to the case only insofar as the charges made are already punishable in Canada in the first place(§ 7 Abs. 1 StGB), given that the "site of the crime" is in North America[1]. Not to mention that if anything, the remarks in question are legally not insults but defamation.

The latter turns out to be rather fortunate for our victim, because Canada does have defamation laws. So the attorney will sift through the evidence and realise a good chunk of the "evidence" bears no relevance to the case at all, namely every post not concerned with the plaintiff himself. Defamation is an "Antragsdelikt"(§374 StGB). That means even if a prosecutor felt inexplicably compelled to defend Ms. Traviss' honour he could not do so without Ms. Traviss' prior consent. Additionally, everything that is directed at a general group of people ("They are too stupid...") instead of one specific person is inadmissable.

Admittedly, this eliminates almost all evidence. Still, there is one line directed at AVOGARDO that could prove helpful. Unfortunately, there is also ample evidence for defamation of Mr. Wong. Should this hypothetical case go to court, it would be all but certain that the judge would dismiss the case according to § 199 StGB (which says that a judge can declare both parties exempt from punishment if the insults were mutual) without even looking at the specific contents of the remarks. And if he doesn't, he'll throw it out because there is nothing in these remarks that goes beyond the borders of a typical internet debate, and judges have to take the context of such remarks into consideration.

If AVOGARDO's really fortunate, however, the judge will decide to look at the evidence anyway. Given that Mr. Wong's certificate is available on his website, AVOGARDO would have a hard time convincing a judge that he honestly thought Mr. Wong was an incomptent engineer. At this point, a peculiarity of the German defamation laws comes into play: as far as my quick internet search showed, Canadian defamation laws don't take intent into account. German laws do. Defaming someone as an honest mistake is "Üble Nachrede"(§ 186 StGB). Defaming someone despite knowing better is "Verleumdung"(§ 187 StGB). You may take a guess as to which offence carries the higher penalty.

Oh, and the original defamation claims? They won't go anywhere. As you suspected, Edi, the plaintiff would have to actually demonstrate that the claims were wrong. Needless to say, this will most likely prove... difficult.

As a layman, I've probably missed some of the other reasons this case would go nowhere, but that should be the gist of it.

[1] I guess he could try to argue that the site of the crime is the place where he read the remarks, which is apparently in Germany. I don't know if that would fly in court, though.

Maybe you could please transmit my answer to this M. I assume, he is able to understand the German Language.

• • Das ist eine sehr interessante - und für einen, wie mir scheint, Laien annehmbare Stellungnahme. Aber ich würde trotzdem empfehlen: Schuster bleib bei Deinen Leisten.
    
    Es ist richtig, dass die Beleidigung ein Antragsdelikt ist und auch auf dem Privatklageweg verfolgt werden kann. Das ist aber nur für die Strafverfolgung relevant und ändert nichts daran, dass die Beleidigung, auch wenn sie nicht strafrechtlich verfolgt wird, eine Straftat ist.
    
    Daran ändert auch nichts, dass der Beleidigende Ausländer ist und der Server im Ausland steht. Die BGH-Rechtsprechung diesbezüglich ist eindeutig.

    • Stellt ein Ausländer von ihm verfaßte Äußerungen, die den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung im Sinne des § 130 Abs. 1 oder des § 130 Abs. 3 StGB erfüllen ("Auschwitzlüge"), auf einem ausländischen Server in das Internet, der Internetnutzern in Deutschland zugänglich ist, so tritt ein zum Tatbestand gehörender Erfolg (§ 9 Abs. 1 3. Alternative StGB) im Inland ein, wenn diese Äußerungen konkret zur Friedensstörung im Inland geeignet sind.

    Das selbe gilt auch für Beleidigunugen, üble Nachrede oder Verleumdung:

    • Das deutsche Strafrecht gilt für die Erfolgsdelikte der Beleidigung und der Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener in den Internet-Fällen. Die Ehrverletzung tritt jedenfalls mit der Kenntniserlangung des ermittelnden Polizeibeamten ein (vgl. BGHSt 9, 17), soweit es sich hierbei nicht um vertrauliche Äußerungen handelte, von denen sich der Staat Kenntnis verschafft handelte (vgl. BVerfGE 90, 255). (Bearbeiter)

    Relevant ist also nur, dass der Erfolg der Straftat in Deutschland stattfand.
    
    Ihre Einschätzung des öffentlichen Interesses an der Strafverfolgung ist m.E. nicht richtig. Das Verbreiten von Beleidigungen, üblen Nachreden oder Verleumdungen im Internet steht der Verbreitung von Schriften [§ 11 Abs. 3 StGB] gleich. In solchen Fällen steigt das öffentliche Interesse an einer Strafverfolgung selbst bei einer Beleidigung an. Im Übrigen ist nur die Beleidigung ein Antragsdelikt, nicht aber die Üble Nachrede oder Verleumdung. Diese werden vom Amts wegen verfolgt und können, gerade wenn sie öffentlich oder durch die Verbreitung von Schriften begangen worden sind, mit Freiheitsstrafe von bis zu zwei bzw. bis zu fünf Jahren bestraft werden. Einem Staatsanwalt würde es damit jedenfalls sehr viel schwerer fallen, zu begründen, wieso er kein öffentliches Verfolgungsinteresse sieht. Eher im Gegenteil, die Staatsanwaltschaft ist bemüht, zu verhindern, dass das Internet in einen rechtsfreien Raum ausartet und wird daher eine Internetbeleidigung demonstrativ eher verfolgen, als wenn diese nur mündlich erfolgt wäre.
    
    Ebenfalls ist Ihre Ansicht falsch, dass es notwendig sei, dass eine an eine Gruppe gerichtete Beleidigung nicht verfolgt werden könne. Erstens ist in diesem Fall klar, wer (bzw. welches Synonym) Mitglied der Gruppe ist. Wenn eine Beleidigung, üble Nachrede oder Verleumdung gegen alle Mitglieder einer begrenzten Gruppe, deren Mitglieder (bzw. deren Synonyme) bekannt sind, gerichtet ist, ist dies vollkommen ausreichend.
    
    Die Beleidigung geht da sogar noch weiter, weil deren Erfolg, nämlich ob sich eine Person beleidigt fühlt oder nicht, gar nicht davon abhängt, dass außenstehende die Beleidigung einer bestimmten Person zuordnen können. So wurde der bayrische Innenminister Beckstein angezeigt wegen seiner Äußerungen gegenüber "gewaltverherrlichende" Computerspiele und der implizierten Gleichstellung der Spieler solcher Spiele mit Kinderschändern und Psychopathen. Die Strafverfolgung wird wahrscheinlich eingestellt werden, weil es sich hier um eine politische Äußerung eines Politikers handelt, die in einem begrenzten Umfang im politischen Diskurs durchaus pointiert und zugespitzt sein darf und keine Personen indiviualisierbar gemeint sind. Möglich ist auch, dass die Strafverfolgung eingestellt wird, weil aufgrund der Generalisierung bzw. Pauschalisierung der Aussage die individuelle Ehrkränkung, auch wenn sie bei Millionen von Spielern stattgefunden haben könnte, als nicht wesentlich angesehen wird, um ein öffentliches Interesse an einer Strafverfolgung zu bejahen.
    Aber das ist juristisch nicht sicher und die Meinungen unter den Juristen sind hier sehr unterschiedlich. Ich empfehle hierzu einige Aufsätze zum Thema "Soldaten sind Mörder" zu lesen, um die Bandbreite der unterschiedlichen Meinungen überblicken zu können.
    
    Nur zum Teil ist die Einschätzung richtig, dass Beleidigungen in einer Internetdebatte von einem Richter ignoriert werden würden. Wie ich schon sagte, stellt das Internet keinen rechtsfreien Raum dar und Beleidigungen in einer Internetdebatte können grundsätzlich genauso verfolgt werden, wie Beleidigungen in einer mündlichen Debatte. Würde in einer mündlichen Debatte über Sinn und Unsinn einer technischen Konstruktion geredet werden, wäre die Frage der Kompetenz des verantwortlichen Ingenieurs Bestandteil der Debatte und würde eher nicht strafrechtlich verfolgt werden. Insbesondere dann, wenn am Ende der Debatte ein Ergebnis über den Sinn oder Unsinn der technischen Konstruktion herauskommt, wovon die Kompetenz des infrage stehenden Ingenieurs abhängt.
    
    Im Gegensatz dazu findet in dem Thread "Darkstar's State Of The State Address For 2007" gar keine fachliche Debatte statt. Was in diesem Thread geäußert wurde, hat keinen anderen Sinn, als Mitglieder von Starfleet Jedi zu beleidigen bzw über sie zu lästern (üble Nachrede, zum Teil auch Verleumdung). Das hat strafrechtlich eine ganz andere Relevanz.
    
    Hinzu kommt, dass ich nicht bezweifelt habe, dass der Abschluss von Mr. Wong echt ist. Nur bedauerlicher Weise besagt so einer nichts über die Kompetenz aus. Wenn jeder, der einen Abschluss in seinem Gebiet hätte, kompetent wäre, würde es keine Prozesse wegen Kunstfehler geben, Gebäude, von Ingenieuren geplant und errichtet, würden nicht wegen Planungsfehler einstürzen und anderes technisches Gerät würde nicht versagen. Die Geschichte ist voll von Ingenieuren, die zweifelsohne studiert und ihren Abschluss gemacht haben und trotzdem Inkomptenz bewiesen haben. Ich kenne Mr. Wongs Arbeiten nicht und weiß nicht, wie oft er schon verklagt wurde oder noch verklagt werden wird. Das spielt auch keine Rolle, denn Thema der Debatte ist nicht Mr. Wongs Arbeit in seinem echten Leben, sondern seine Meinungen als Ingenieur, die er über Star Trek Technologie geäußert hat.
    
    Auch ist es nicht richtig, dass für das Beschreiten des Privatklagewegs ein Anwalt von nöten ist. § 378 StPO regelt dies eindeutig. Insofern muss niemand einen Anwalt bezahlen. Besonders hilfreich ist hierbei der Amtsermittlungsgrundsatz der Strafgerichte, die es auch einem rechtlichen Laien ermöglichen, eine Privatklage zum Erfolg zu führen.
    
    Fakt ist, da ich selber Jurist bin, bräuchte ich kein Anwalt, selbst wenn ein solcher Pflicht wäre. Allerdings ist mir selber die ganze Angelegenheit den Aufwand, den ich hätte, selbst wenn ich einen Anwalt damit beauftragen würde, es nicht wert. Ich habe genügend Selbstachtung, dass mich die zum Teil doch sehr billigen Beleidigungen auf SDN nicht sonderlich treffen und ich denen eigentlich gar keine weiteren Gedanken widme. Ich wollte nur mal darauf hinweisen, dass nichtsdestotrotz es sich um Straftaten handelt.
    
    Angefangen hat das alles ja mit der Frage, ob das Verhalten bei SDN normal und für einer Debatte förderlich ist und ich bin der Meinung, dass es nicht so sein kann, wenn es in einigen Ländern (darunter Deutschland) sogar ein strafbares Verhalten ist. Es mag im anglo-amerikanischen Rechtsraum nicht strafbar sein. Nichtsdestotrotz wird es auch dort als nicht akzeptabel empfunden.

[Who is like God arbour]

Yesterday, I have seen the video "Illiterate Twats" on YouTube, that is addressed to Jedi Master Spock, calling him

• a n i l l i t e r a t e t r e k i f u c k t a r d a n d t w a t, w h o s e e m s i n c a p a b l e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g, w h a t h e r e a d s,

and now, I have read that on StarDestroyer.Net:

• • • • Hey JMSpock, Wayne Poe here. Just how much Darkstar cock do you chug on a daily basis? You parrot his dumbass ramblings nearly word for word. Besides his cock, does he have his hand shoved up your ass, working you like the puppet you are?
        
        First off, the Darkstar TGOD (which can be read here). As I've stated before, no one died in that story. But of course, Darkstar the perpetual victim likes to keep telling everyone otherwise, which is why I wrote the sequel.
        
        The truth is, I could have easily wrote a Darkstar story where a homicidal killer chopped Darkstar's head off and sodomized his eye holes while reading the Star Trek Technical Manual, and it wouldn't have mattered. That is of course, if you could produce an individual with the legal name of "DarkStar" with a picture ID.
        
        Now on the "Talifan" video. You well know that Dark Moose has been proven to be a liar and willfully made up events that do not occur in the video. I called that cocksucker on his bullshit, and wiped his face in it here. And finally, as you also well know (but hey, why not attempt blatantly false character assassination to those not in the know? Darkstar does it all the time.) I was not banned from starwars.com due to the "Talifan" video. I told DArk Moose to go fuck himself, and left on my own, the proof of which, is
        here.
        
        Thanks for reading!

It seems to me, that the insultings and ad hominems are increasing to an unacceptable level and that's why I have remembered this debate.

Some have tried to allege, that in a nation like the United States of America, in which the Freedom of speech is guaranteed, insults are not prohibited. After I had just read that insulting post, I have searched Wikipedia and have found that:

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Chaplinsky decision
Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that

• • There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. [Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942]

And as I have read, it seems, that although in Canada, freedom of speech is also generally protected under Section 2 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is however limited by the Canadian Criminal Code, which provides for several forms of punishable hate speech. The form of punishable hate speech considered to encompass fighting words is identified in Section 319:

• • Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].

[Cpl Kendall]

How is this Canadian Law relevent? Considering it states "identifiable groups", so a bunch of trekkies on an anon web-board constitute an identifiable group? Get over yourself. You were banned from SDN because you were a moron and couldn't conduct yourself within the framework of the boards rules. So you fled here and persist on a ridiculous crusade to bring Wong and his internet buddies down. Why don't you just launch a fucking lawsuit and be done with it? At least Poe has the balls to do something and publically. You cower here and blow hot air.

Edit: even if this Canadian law where relevant, Poe resides in America and therefore the Canadian Laws on the matter are inadmissable.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Oh dear, is it worth the hassle?

If they can't formulate an argument without inserting at least ten insults within a single sentence, so be it, I guess you'll just have to ignore their mediocre manifestations.

[Jedi Master Spock]

How is this Canadian Law relevent? Considering it states "identifiable groups", so a bunch of trekkies on an anon web-board constitute an identifiable group? Get over yourself. You were banned from SDN because you were a moron and couldn't conduct yourself within the framework of the boards rules. So you fled here and persist on a ridiculous crusade to bring Wong and his internet buddies down. Why don't you just launch a fucking lawsuit and be done with it? At least Poe has the balls to do something and publically. You cower here and blow hot air.

You may freely insult Who is like God arbour privately or on SDN, but I expect you to remain civil while posting on this board, per our board rules.

[Cpl Kendall]

All the rest aside, do you know why we mock Darkstar? It's not because he's a trekkie but because he's a trekkie whose obsessed with SDN to an unhealthy level. Ask yourself if you really want to be that kind of person, as it's pretty clear your headed down the same road.

[Who is like God arbour]

Cpl Kendall,

1. You have missed my point.
   When I have read his posts and seen his video, I have wondered, if such insulting is really allowed in the USA under the freedom of speech. And I have learned, that even in the USA the freedom of speech has its limits like in every other civilised nation.
2. Although I am appalled that someone can demean oneself to such a low level with which one is only showing the own primitiveness and savageness, it's not me, that is insulted.
3. Even if it would be me, that is insulted, I have enough self-assurance that the cheap insultings of someone, who apparently is not able to behave like an intelligent grownup couldn't disturb me.
4. I pity you, if you really think, that he »has the balls to do something«. To insult someone via internet is not brave. It is - in my opinion - a sign of cowardice and it is dishonorable.
5. The members of SDN don't mock only Darkstar. They insult many people if they have another opinion, even Star Wars authors. But they insult also believers and politicans and other people. They use the internet to say things, they wouldn't say to these people face to face.
6. I'm not obsessed with SDN. The fact is, that I have not much time. That's why I visit only two boards regularly: SDN and this board here. The only other board I have once visited, is Spacebattles.com.
   • It was an accident, that I have found SDN and I have observed it for a few months before I have decided to post something there (joined: 25.06.2006 - first post: 13.12.06). Already then I had the opinion, that SDN sucks because the behaviour there is nowhere else accepted for a good reason. It was not surprising to me, that I was banned. I have expected it and it is irrlevant. I have had already a second account and have known, that I will not post anything in the future because one can not realy debate on SDN. That's why I have took the chance.