Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Press Releases and Film News => Topic started by: Mr. DS on October 08, 2010, 04:55:29 PM



Title: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Mr. DS on October 08, 2010, 04:55:29 PM
This is just beyond sick man and very sad someone would resort to these actions...
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/the_edge/dying-girl-taunted-by-neighbors-in-trenton


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: 3mnkids on October 08, 2010, 06:11:52 PM
Very sad. There are some truly sick individuals in the world. I hate bullies but I despise adult bullies.   :hatred:


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: indianasmith on October 08, 2010, 08:02:46 PM
Yeeesh. What wicked, petty people.  As we say in Texas, "Hell ain't hot enough for some."


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Allhallowsday on October 08, 2010, 09:24:54 PM
I'm thankful it wasn't TRENTON..., New Jersey!!   :bluesad:  :hatred:


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: El Misfit on October 08, 2010, 09:36:53 PM
I say sue those bastards for all its worth! TAUNTING AT A DYING 7 Yr? BULLs**t!!!!! :hatred: :hatred:


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Joe the Destroyer on October 08, 2010, 10:44:04 PM
What horrible people.   :hatred: 


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Umaril The Unfeathered on October 08, 2010, 10:51:42 PM
What horrible people.   :hatred: 

Horrible is a good start, but there are other words that I would use, 99% of which wouldn't pass a language filter. No punishment would be good enough for these people.. :hatred:


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Dr. Frank N. Furter on October 09, 2010, 01:51:22 AM
Me feelings towards people who would do this can best be summed up by a certain kind of popular TV cyborg:   "EX TER MIN ATE! EX TER MIN ATE!"


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Mr. DS on October 09, 2010, 07:51:42 AM
I've had some awful neighbors in the past, none I've hated enough to wish death upon their children.  This is just messed up.


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Warp Ninja X on October 10, 2010, 10:40:29 PM
It's just like the story about that poor girl who killed herself because she was tricked. By her b***h neighbor pretend to be a boy on the internet and the law didn't do crap about it. :hatred:


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Umaril The Unfeathered on October 11, 2010, 03:49:15 PM
It's just like the story about that poor girl who killed herself because she was tricked. By her b***h neighbor pretend to be a boy on the internet and the law didn't do crap about it. :hatred:


Any law that would curb or abolish online bullying is already in the sights of the Free Speech crowd.   There has already been some debate on the issue of whether or not Online Bullying is Free Speech or not. Once again, it's common sense vs. free speech.

One article brings up that point:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/30/scitech/pcanswer/main3768945.shtml

There has to be a balance between online criminal activity and Free Speech.

And like any attempt at balance, (like many other similar issues in the past) this one will most likely be thrown OFF balance by the myriad of special interest groups and their propaganda and projection, claiming that such a bill is a stepping stone to a broader base to remove American Civil Liberties.

It's easy for these people to say, it wasn't THEIR kid who was bullied into suicide.. :hatred:


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Jim H on October 11, 2010, 04:12:14 PM
It's just like the story about that poor girl who killed herself because she was tricked. By her b***h neighbor pretend to be a boy on the internet and the law didn't do crap about it. :hatred:


Any law that would curb or abolish online bullying is already in the sights of the Free Speech crowd.   There has already been some debate on the issue of whether or not Online Bullying is Free Speech or not. Once again, it's common sense vs. free speech.

One article brings up that point:
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/30/scitech/pcanswer/main3768945.shtml[/url]

There has to be a balance between online criminal activity and Free Speech.

And like any attempt at balance, (like many other similar issues in the past) this one will most likely be thrown OFF balance by the myriad of special interest groups and their propaganda and projection, claiming that such a bill is a stepping stone to a broader base to remove American Civil Liberties.

It's easy for these people to say, it wasn't THEIR kid who was bullied into suicide.. :hatred:


There is absolutely no way to properly separate "harmful" internet speech of this type from non-harmful without opening the door to ridiculous abuse - and blatantly violating the 1st Amendment.  It can't be done, and frankly, shouldn't be done.  The extremeness of free speech on the internet is one of its greatest assets. 

Further, if I lie and manipulate peoples emotion's in real life so badly they're driven to suicide, something that likely has happened thousands of times in the past, no one ever gets charged with anything (which, by the way, the mother who made up the boyfriend was charged - by zealous prosecutors bending the Computer Fraud act so far it broke and they lost).  Why is it suddenly so different on the internet? 


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: indianasmith on October 11, 2010, 06:37:21 PM
The best thing all of us can do is raise our children to be kind - and to know their own worth so well that no heartless words from a stranger can ever make them deny it.


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Umaril The Unfeathered on October 11, 2010, 09:36:32 PM
It's just like the story about that poor girl who killed herself because she was tricked. By her b***h neighbor pretend to be a boy on the internet and the law didn't do crap about it. :hatred:


Any law that would curb or abolish online bullying is already in the sights of the Free Speech crowd.   There has already been some debate on the issue of whether or not Online Bullying is Free Speech or not. Once again, it's common sense vs. free speech.

One article brings up that point:
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/30/scitech/pcanswer/main3768945.shtml[/url]

There has to be a balance between online criminal activity and Free Speech.

And like any attempt at balance, (like many other similar issues in the past) this one will most likely be thrown OFF balance by the myriad of special interest groups and their propaganda and projection, claiming that such a bill is a stepping stone to a broader base to remove American Civil Liberties.

It's easy for these people to say, it wasn't THEIR kid who was bullied into suicide.. :hatred:


There is absolutely no way to properly separate "harmful" internet speech of this type from non-harmful without opening the door to ridiculous abuse - and blatantly violating the 1st Amendment.  It can't be done, and frankly, shouldn't be done.
 

Divided on this one.


The extremeness of free speech on the internet is one of its greatest assets.


By your opinion then, all forms of extremeness are protected?  If this is your stance, you may not like what I have to say, but I'll try to be as respectful as possible. 

That means then, that despite overwhelming opinion, Bill O' Reilly is NOT responsible for the murder of Dr. George Tiller either.  O' Reilly had as much right to say what he did about Tiller online, and in printed word and book. All are protected under 1st Amendment rights.  This again, by your defense of the "extremeness of free speech."

And if some on the Left are going to blame O'Reilly for the death of Tiller (while allowing this online abuse thing to be defended as 1st amendment freedom) then that is a very blatant and apparent hypocrisy. Again, not saying you personally, (as I don't know your own feelings on either case) but facts are facts: Right or Left, right or wrong, you have the Right To Say.

Further, if I lie and manipulate peoples emotion's in real life so badly they're driven to suicide, something that likely has happened thousands of times in the past, no one ever gets charged with anything (which, by the way, the mother who made up the boyfriend was charged - by zealous prosecutors bending the Computer Fraud act so far it broke and they lost).  Why is it suddenly so different on the internet? 


Aside from the apparent feeling that she had the Constitutional right to abuse a 13 year old girl,  this goes deeper than this...this is an adult woman who should have known better at her age.  That's what bothers me even more than the Free Speech issues.

It's bad enough when kids do this stuff, but adults? I dunno' man... :question:




Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Jim H on October 11, 2010, 09:59:39 PM
Quote
That means then, that despite overwhelming opinion, Bill O' Reilly is NOT responsible for the murder of Dr. George Tiller either.  O' Reilly had as much right to say what he did about Tiller online, and in printed word and book. All are protected under 1st Amendment rights.  This again, by your defense of the "extremeness of free speech."

Legally responsible, no he isn't.  Nor should he be.  At least, of what I can recall about his comments.  If he'd called for his viewers to kill him (Pat Robertson has bordered on doing this once or twice, if memory serves), that'd be different though - and indeed, incitement to violence is usually illegal.  Mostly I recall him saying he thought he was an awful human being who killed babies, basically.  I don't see how what he did could be construed as incitement.  Maybe irresponsible, considering how violent some anti-abortion people are, but that's about as far as I'd go.

Quote
And if some on the Left are going to blame O'Reilly for the death of Tiller (while allowing this online abuse thing to be defended as 1st amendment freedom) then that is a very blatant and apparent hypocrisy.

Who did that? 


Title: Re: Dying Girl, 7, Taunted by Neighbors
Post by: Umaril The Unfeathered on October 11, 2010, 10:17:06 PM
Quote
That means then, that despite overwhelming opinion, Bill O' Reilly is NOT responsible for the murder of Dr. George Tiller either.  O' Reilly had as much right to say what he did about Tiller online, and in printed word and book. All are protected under 1st Amendment rights.  This again, by your defense of the "extremeness of free speech."

Legally responsible, no he isn't.  Nor should he be.  At least, of what I can recall about his comments.  If he'd called for his viewers to kill him (Pat Robertson has bordered on doing this once or twice, if memory serves), that'd be different though - and indeed, incitement to violence is usually illegal.  Mostly I recall him saying he thought he was an awful human being who killed babies, basically.  I don't see how what he did could be construed as incitement.  Maybe irresponsible, considering how violent some anti-abortion people are, but that's about as far as I'd go.

And if some on the Left are going to blame O'Reilly for the death of Tiller (while allowing this online abuse thing to be defended as 1st amendment freedom) then that is a very blatant and apparent hypocrisy.


Who did that?  

Not you personally, bro. You seem to be capable of decent expression (as most everyone here at the site is)  and that's fine with me.  Good show  :cheers:

I'm just saying that I've seen a LOT of arguments over this O' Reilly thing at other sites (and Youtube as well.)  And in some instances, the same people who tout O' Reilly as a "hater" will  (and have) gladly turned around and spewed things twice as worse at those who defend O'Reilly, engaging in thir own hate. Thus the hypocrisy I speak of.  Hope that helps..

There again, Youtube isn't the best place for balanced thinking anyhow. As one of you said about it in another thread, "it's the armpit of the 'Net."