There is a sad story out of London that is a commentary on the mutating influence of anonymity on the Internet. Brenda Leyland killed herself after being confronted about her online abuse of the parents of the missing girl Madeleine McCann. Sky News tracked her down as the troll responsible for thousands of hate filled messages to Kate and Gerry McCann, whose three-year-old daughter went missing in Portugal in 2007.
What is interesting is that she faced a criminal investigation. We have previously discussed the worrisome trend in England in criminalizing different forms of speech. While Leyland (writing as @Sweepyface) was vicious, the 63-year-old was also engaged in what appears to be free speech. She is an online bully — something that we all have had to deal with on blogs as a constant reality. Some people find anonymity intoxicating — unleashing the most vile and hateful sides of personalities. It is truly chilling to think that some many people actively repress such impulses until they find a vehicle to attack others without accountability. However, I have serious concerns over the criminalization of speech.
Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has made clear that social media could be a criminal offence if they contain “credible threats of violence” or target an individual in a way that “may constitute harassment or stalking”. It is the harassment element that can be highly ambiguous. The prosecutors have said that “Grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false” messages can be a crime if a “public interest” case. That creates a huge chilling effect on a wide range of speech that some might see as offensive or untrue. As one of the greatest vehicles for free speech in the history of humanity, these prosecutions threaten to curtail a significant resource for free speech.
The article below cites a study by Canadian researchers that concluded that “Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun… and the Internet is their playground!”
The glee turned to a nightmare for Leyland when her true identity was revealed.
Source: Yahoo
Thanks for the links David.
Mespo, an Alec link!! I hope Barney Fife doesn’t delete it.
Thank you for the compliment David. Do you know how convention delegates are determined?
Olly, the delegates are chosen by the State Legislatures.
You might find the following Handbook interesting:
Proposing Constitutional Amendments
by a convention of the States
A Handbook for State Lawmakers by Robert G Natelson
http://www.alec.org/docs/ArticleVHandbook.pdf
Following is a link to a draft of a bill for Florida’s Article V action.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h0609d.JDC.DOCX&DocumentType=Analysis&BillNumber=0609&Session=2014
No David, my motives would be to reduce the administrative state to it’s proper function and better secure our natural rights. My fear would be as Bettykath pointed out; we would be exposing ourselves to a full blown rewrite and right now I don’t trust ANYONE with the power of a pen (or a phone).
Olly, her language of “hijacked” the effort to amend the Articles of Confederation is emotive language. The truth is that the Constitutional Convention was done at the invitation of the Continental Congress. James Madison is called the father of the Constitution, and he was a primary proponent of a rewrite. The biggest problem was that the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote of all 13 colonies, and that simply was not workable. After the Convention, James Madison did not join the Federalist party, but the Republican party with Thomas Jefferson.
I favor an Amendment process and I do not fear a “start over” scenario. Right now our present Constitution as interpreted (or misinterpreted) by the SCOTUS is like it is hemorrhaging all over the place. Nobody seems happy with the situation, and President Obama’s actions have only made the entire situation worse. Sitting around doing nothing about it seems like advocating the position of watching someone bleed to death in the street.
Actually, I think an Article V convention would cause some true statesmen and leaders to become more well known. We would discover level headed people like you through this process, in my opinion.
david, The Constitutional Convention that brought forth the current Constitution was one that was called to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Those who wanted a federalist government hijacked the effort, scrapped the Articles and created what they wanted. What makes you think that the same thing wouldn’t happen at a new constitutional convention. Wouldn’t it be better to have dialog on the aspects of the current Constitution that you find offensive and build support for an amendment? Or do you really want to start over?
There has been no greater assault on the Constitution in my lifetime than under this Constitutional prof prez. I NEVER thought I would see worse than Tricky Dick. Well, Dick as a piker compared to this Chicago politician.
David,
When we have a minimum of 3/4 of the electorate that understand and support the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence then perhaps it should be considered. I’m not sure we can even get 1/2 of this blog to agree on the purpose for government as identified in the DoI, so we are not close to being prepared to put this republic back up for sale.
Olly, when you talk about Constitutional Convention, are you thinking of reformulating the government from scratch?
I had in mind Article V of our Constitution, with a focus upon 2/3rds of the States calling a convention to propose amendments. It is not about putting the republic back up for sale, but tweaking federal law so it is clearer and the Fourteenth Amendment is not used by the courts to do the opposite of the motivations for the Amendment in the first place. You might be right, however, that agreement can’t be reached. I think it is worth a try. The debate alone, especially if televised, would be informative and interesting.
“They are also strong arguments against proposals for a new constitutional convention.”
MA,
Absolutely agree!
Olly, I disagree. A Constitutional Convention is necessary in order to create a forum for debate to make the Constitutional Amendments necessary to stop the gridlock in Congress and to stop a runaway Supreme Court. Hopefully, through debate among the parties on specific issues, the emotions will give way to rational arguments. The problem with emotions now is there is no direct debate and therefore nobody is being confronted with rational arguments that would work to keep their emotions in check. Everybody just discusses issues among themselves and their own party and people who think like themselves. They need to start talking to those on the other side of the aisle rationally.
Such would not likely happen under this President, but hopefully in a few years we can elect a President who can actually work with all political parties in Congress.
mespo and Olly:
I concede your points. They are also strong arguments against proposals for a new constitutional convention.
OLLY:
The reactionary forces are just a prevalent today as they were then. Power, greed, avarice, and oppression have no sunset. That’s why we have a Declaration, its heir in the Constitution and its amendments and that’s also why we have progressive, revolutionary thinkers to stave off the hordes advancing under the banner of self-interest.
Agreed Mespo and I would events leading up to July 4th, 1776 and then extend that out to December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights were ratified. In my opinion, it’s been going downhill since.
Mike A:
“There has never been a time in all of human history when reason dominated emotion.”
*****************
Sure there was: From May 25 to September 17, 1787 may have been the summit.
I’m also partial to July 4, 1776:
There has never been a time in all of human history when reason dominated emotion.
Dogs and cats might sleep together. But we don’t refer to sex that way. Dogs and cats don’t pork. Birds of a feather stick together.
@Nick Spinelli. Thanks NS, just a thought.
Dredd,
“Eyewitnesses are the worst source of evidence”
Tell that to the soldiers that handled the WMD’s discovered in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1
Olly, throughout history man has had to adjust to technology. But, this is a time of unchartered waters. From communication to transportation to medical, we have not adjusted to this brave new world. What concerns me most is that as we become more “scientific” we are becoming more secular, losing those virtues of which you spoke.
Nick,
If “getting off the grid, going back to choo-choo trains and using quixotic windmills, etc.” means we also rid ourselves of the toxic, progressive ideology then I’m on board with that.
A tragic outcome of all those technological advancements is the fundamental belief human nature “advances” right along with each and every discovery. Just look at this blog; I suspect the average years of formal education in this group exceeds 16 years and yet our collective civility would fit right in on the playgrounds of our youth. Advanced education (and technology) has created a more sophisticated delivery system for our designing human nature. And that is not meant to be a compliment.
So do I long for the good ole days? I long for the days when self-reliance was the norm, when reason dominated emotion and when humility was considered a virtue and not a vice.
Olly
The real irony I’ve witnessed in this thread (and blog) is that the Liberals are longing for the good ole days and the Conservatives want to keep the past in the past; the former being regressive and the latter progressive. What’s next; dogs and cats sleeping together? 😉
=============================
Eyewitnesses are the worst source of evidence (Follow The Oil).
Great analysis, Olly. But, it is consistent w/ their worldview. Alleged progressives want to “get off the grid” go back to choo choo trains, use quixotic windmills, etc. Remember, the Unabomber was a Progressive terrorists who despised all technology.