I truly wonder why Internet service providers allow mean, horrible things to be posted on their message boards and chat rooms...Yes I know we have the First Amendment right to free speech....but the Internet should not be a place for cussing, racism, mean name calling such as 'b*tch','fat a$$', and other things I won't mention here.

Are those Internet providers like AOL and MSN afraid of losing subscribers? The ACLU crying foul over consistent nasties'losing their first amendment rights',those who get punted taking revenge by hacking and spreading viruses,Trojan horses, and worms?
Or is it just that they need those subscribers' money to keep going?

I think there's a way of speaking one's mind on the 'Net without using outright nastiness...it's called saying things without using actual nastiness or cussing...but maybe that takes more creativity than some people have or are willing to use. And I'd bet some of those mean posters are kids looking for kicks. In which case the PARENTS, if their kids are consistent offenders,should LOSE their accounts...until they are willing to take responsibility for their kids' actions and words on the 'Net.

And adults who repeatedly use OUTRIGHT nastiness on the 'Net should lose their accounts and NOT be allowed to resign on for at least ONE YEAR. That would be across the board for all ISP's.

This Decades board has polite people who post here,for the most part. I wish the rest of the Internet as well as the folks who run AOL and MSN would look at a board like this and use it as an example how to run their ISP's.

ISPs can't watch everything everyone says. They're supposed to act if someone complains about a user's conduct, but unless you complain, they won't do much. They have more to do than just watch what people post to the web all day. In general, it's not up to the ISP but the site/board owner to moderate what appears on their sites.

What I have to wonder is what if someone has something mean said to them on the 'Net and does not ignore it(as most of us do) and acts on it...like committing suicide or sending the meanie a virus..

I ignore the idiots on the 'Net....I've learned that they're just twerps trying to start stuff to see one's reaction. And I run anti-virus AND Ad-Aware to get rid of any viruses someone might send to my computer.

To be honest, I really don't have a big problem with cussing, etc. on the net... that is probably because I dont take anything on the internet seriously enough to care what people call me/say to me.

I am much more concerned with the sexual predators that lurk in chatrooms and prey on vulnerable children and teens.

Stopping child molesters from using the Internet to prey on teenagers and younger kids is what REALLY needs to be stopped...but I don't know if anyone REALLY can put the kibosh on those people effectively...coz there are so many of those people and websites to find,investigate,and hopefully prosecute...and it's an INTERNATIONAL problem....

I'm big on the FIRST AMENDMENT. 
ISP's should ONLY intervene if there is a clear and present danger.  Otherwise, it should be up to webmasters and moderators to decide who gets to say what.  If some creep wants to start a racist message board called "WE HATE N*GG*RS," he should be allowed to do it.  I would not agree with an ISP who censored such a board.  Now, if the discussion on the board revealed specific and imminant plans to commit crimes, then the ISP should contact authorities.
I know this is going to upset a lot of you folks, but I wouldn't even censor a NAMBLA board.  If the pervos on that board want to talk about their attraction to children, I think that is protected speech.  Again, if the topics turned to discussion of crimes committed or crimes to be committed, then the ISP needs to call the cops.  I have seen fictitious stories the web describing child molestation.  I call that protected speech.  Personally, I wouldn't allow it on a site I moderated, but that would be my job, not the government's.  Saying sick things, fantasizing about committing crimes, is protected speech.  Threatening to commit crimes, and conspiring to commit crimes is not.
The perverts who assume phony identities to lure minors into sex talk and sex acts in chatrooms are a much bigger threat.  They're the ones jeopardizing the internet as a "free" place.

I'm big on the FIRST AMENDMENT.
ISP's should ONLY intervene if there is a clear and present danger. Otherwise, it should be up to webmasters and moderators to decide who gets to say what. If some creep wants to start a racist message board called "WE HATE N*GG*RS," he should be allowed to do it. I would not agree with an ISP who censored such a board. Now, if the discussion on the board revealed specific and imminant plans to commit crimes, then the ISP should contact authorities.
I know this is going to upset a lot of you folks, but I wouldn't even censor a NAMBLA board. If the pervos on that board want to talk about their attraction to children, I think that is protected speech. Again, if the topics turned to discussion of crimes committed or crimes to be committed, then the ISP needs to call the cops. I have seen fictitious stories the web describing child molestation. I call that protected speech. Personally, I wouldn't allow it on a site I moderated, but that would be my job, not the government's. Saying sick things, fantasizing about committing crimes, is protected speech. Threatening to commit crimes, and conspiring to commit crimes is not.
The perverts who assume phony identities to lure minors into sex talk and sex acts in chatrooms are a much bigger threat. They're the ones jeopardizing the internet as a "free" place.
What about if someone is continually tormented by someone mean on the 'Net so much that they can't take it anymore...and they commit suicide because they BELIEVE what the mean posts and messages say....someone with an emotional problem could honestly do that..as could troubled kids and teenagers whose parents don't monitor their Internet use.

What about if someone is continually tormented by someone mean on the 'Net so much that they can't take it anymore...and they commit suicide because they BELIEVE what the mean posts and messages say....someone with an emotional problem could honestly do that..as could troubled kids and teenagers whose parents don't monitor their Internet use.

Why would a person keep returning to a message board on which he or she was constantly berated?  Sometimes mentally ill people do put themselves in situations where they ought to know they'll get upset, but you can't govern everybody else's behavior to protect one person who is there voluntarily.  Of course, If I was monitor of a message board, I wouldn't permit members to abuse anyone, but some moderators are pr!cks themselves.  I once belonged to a political message board on which I took constant verbal beatings from right-wingers, one of whom was the moderator.  So I just said the heck with it and stopped hanging out on that message board!

I wish people were more civil and considerate everywhere in life.  There are far to many sadists and insensitive jerks running around out there for my liking.  Those are the people who will exploit the mentally ill.  I had a girlfriend who suffered from schizoaffective disorder.  When I knew her she was treated and stable.  In the years where she was wandering between hospital and homelessness in schizoid fugue states, she had unspeakably terrible things done to her.  It broke my heart just hearing about them. 
Mentally ill people need guidance and protection.  They don't always get it.  I can imagine a paranoid person being driven to suicide by nasty people on the 'Net.  However, I don't think government regulation of internet speech is a either a just or affective answer.

I kinda find the whole outrage about "cussing" humorous in a way...  I mean, who decided that these words are "bad"?  And why, exactly, are they "bad words"?

What's the difference between sh!t and shoot?  Or d@mn and darn?  f*ck or fudge?  I don't use any of these words to demean anyone... but sure, I use them.  You better believe when I stub my toe some choice words come out of my mouth. 

I'll bet if they became more accepted as normal vocabulary, it wouldn't be any fun to use them anymore.. and you'd see alot less of it.  Cause if you really look at the words, what is so bad about them anyway, when their synonyms are completely acceptable?

I use to use AOL chat rooms back in 1999 when the internet was all new to me. I actually met some interesting people, but not through the chatrooms, but through the profile searching. The chat rooms were okay for about 3 months, and I got very tired of them very quickly. As one said on here, it isn't worth returning to a place where you know there's going to be the chance of getting berated or hurt by people who don't even know you. It's harmless up to a point, but no one should ever take it seriously enough to actually believe what these stinkers say. Who's to say they know you or vice versa. And would they ever be this bold if they saw you on the street? No. It's only because they're behind a screen with no eye to eye contact or voice interaction that they can get away with being rude. I find it comical that they enjoy it and even spend all that time just sitting there for a reaction - because that's all they want, is a reaction.. funny thing is, they do perfectly well spouting off what they want to say - but rarely speak to you directly..  I say, let them be..

Why would a person keep returning to a message board on which he or she was constantly berated? **snip** So I just said the heck with it and stopped hanging out on that message board!


This would be the perfect answer to the problem.  If you don't like the way you are being treated then don't go back to that particular board.  Let the people who enjoy being verbally abused and verbally abusing others hang out there.

This Decades board has polite people who post here,for the most part. I wish the rest of the Internet as well as the folks who run AOL and MSN would look at a board like this and use it as an example how to run their ISP's.
Last year as a part of my OU Course on the Internet, I learnt of Nettique, as the name says, it is the politeness with other people when online. I always wish other people bear this in mind before committing fingers to keypad.

In the past when writing to a professional business man, I didn't include foul language BUT he didn't like me condemning him for contacting me without knowing I had no need for his service as it was regarding property, I sold the property a year or two before and he is dealing with ould records. To me it felt like the telephone solicitor,so I told him to the effect...if he wants to run a professional business he ought to make sure he is calling people who need his services..he then made some comment to me not to be so rude..he it was his fault!

I think if ALL 'meanness' was taken off the 'Net, it would not be as lively, and as much as an OPEN forum as it is now....which would be rather sad.

I myself am 100% against internet censorship.

However, I feel that an ISP has the obligation to block the account of anybody that threatens violence, once it is brought to their attention.  However, it is not their responsibility to police the posts or pages on sites that they host.  But when notified, they should be responsible and freeze the site until after it is investigated.  And copies should be archived, in case it is needed later for evidence.

To give an example, a site should not be locked because somebody says "I hate George Bush", or "I want all blacks to die".  However, if somebody says "I want to kill blacks", or "I want somebody to kill my wife", that is a very different thing.

And as I stated before, I think if censorship became the norm on an ISP or the Internet...that would give hackers a reason to attack using viruses, worms, Trojan Horses, and gawdknowswhatelse! Which means anyone who uses the "Net and has no firewall or anti-virus software installed would be in an awful mess!

What really gets my goat is all the meanies who have posted cruelty and nastiness towards New Orleans and the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Sounds an awful lot like Klan-style hatred and hogwash!

What really gets my goat is all the meanies who have posted cruelty and nastiness towards New Orleans and the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Sounds an awful lot like Klan-style hatred and hogwash!
  I agree its just sick... goes to show u it takes all kinds.... I hate people like that... BIGOTS SUCK!!! Besides, that tragedy can happen to anyone... I beleive in freedom of speech but there is a line that can be crossed...

I myself am 100% against internet censorship.

However, I feel that an ISP has the obligation to block the account of anybody that threatens violence, once it is brought to their attention.  However, it is not their responsibility to police the posts or pages on sites that they host.  But when notified, they should be responsible and freeze the site until after it is investigated.  And copies should be archived, in case it is needed later for evidence.

To give an example, a site should not be locked because somebody says "I hate George Bush", or "I want all blacks to die".  However, if somebody says "I want to kill blacks", or "I want somebody to kill my wife", that is a very different thing.


What if somebody says, "blacks want to kill me, blacks want me to die," or "my wife wants somebody to kill me!"  I find the more successful hatemongers assume the place of the victim.

The problem is who gets to decide what's mean enough?  Lots of people on this board are nasty and mean.  People who don't like it complain or stay away.

I think people have the right to be jackasses on the internet, but the webmasters have the right to ban the troublemakers.

I don't really think it should be an ISP issue, unless maybe it was *really* bad.

The problem is who gets to decide what's mean enough?  Lots of people on this board are nasty and mean.  People who don't like it complain or stay away.

You're not mean enough!
;)

Heck, to some people, just telling them the truth (especially if it's not what they want to hear) is being "MEAN" ::)


Ugh, yes!  People get pissed off at me when I state the facts.

Heck, to some people, just telling them the truth (especially if it's not what they want to hear) is being "MEAN" ::)
yes..especially if the OP(Original Poster) of the thread or the message is someone you do not agree with...lately I've taken the attitude with at least some posters,of agreeing to disagree...that's because "One man's medicine is another man's poison"....and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Most of all, it's just good to let things go. People get high blood pressure over this stuff and in reality, we should just let it roll off our shoulders and not let them get to us.

Relax, nothing anybody says should get you upset.

Most of the nastiness directed towards me was when I first got onto America Online...I learned quickly that 'newbies' are (unfortunately) seen by certain Internet users as snerts, annoyances, and just plain targets to tease, goad, hassle, and just plain try to get them TOS'ed...But I hung in there. I have just as much a First Amendment right to use the 'Net... wisely..as those 'old timers' do! I have been an AOL member since 2002, and now I don't get hassled, coz the teasers and nasties KNOW I will 'red x'(ignore)them or if they offend repeatedly and they are hassling others in the chatroom, I will report them, but only as a last resort.