39
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 07:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
But here we have people like you who mouth off on all sorts of things...hiding behind anonymity.


So you wish the ability to reach out and harm people who opinions you and others such as yourselves or even the government does not agree with?

You wish the ability to interfere with the first amendment to such a degree that people will fear making anti government or anti big business and such comments.

That the very reason that our courts had rule that being able to write/post anonymity is so important to the first amendment rights that the courts has rule for such postings to be protected under the first amendment.

You do indeed wish to live in a constitutional free nation where it does take take guts to speak freely.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 08:21 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
But here we have people like you who mouth off on all sorts of things...hiding behind anonymity.


So you wish the ability to reach out and harm people who opinions you and others such as yourselves or even the government does not agree with?


Not at all...and that was an absurd comment for you to make. But I understand it, because you make absurd comments often.

Quote:
You wish the ability to interfere with the first amendment to such a degree that people will fear making anti government or anti big business and such comments.


Not at all. I am merely saying that you don't have the guts to make those comments using your full real name.

And you don't.


Quote:
That the very reason that our courts had rule that being able to write/post anonymity is so important to the first amendment rights that the courts has rule for such postings to be protected under the first amendment.


Really! And you can cite the case to which you refer?

Quote:
You do indeed wish to live in a constitutional free nation where it does take take guts to speak freely.


I do live in one.

But some people just don't the guts to use their full real name...and then want to pretend they hope to be brave!

LIKE YOU.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:14 am
@Frank Apisa,
If there was not real risk of harm by stating a public position under your full legal name who would need guts to do so?

For myself as a person who is retired such risks only bear on some nut showing up at my door or the same or similar government bureaucrat with a sense of humor who placed a sitting US senator on the secret do not fly list doing the same to me.

But for those still in the work force it would be more then silly to post say anti-business or anti government comments in their legal names given that most businesses now have the charming habit of checking for online comments before hiring and even afterward in some cases.

Hell some businesses are even demanding passwords for facebook and twitter and such accounts,at least in the states that had not as yet move to block them from doing so.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:19 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

If there was not real risk of harm by stating a public position under your full legal name who would need guts to do so?


I do it.

Quote:
For myself as a person who is retired such risks only bear on some nut showing up at my door or the same or similar government bureaucrat with a sense of humor who placed a sitting US senator on the secret do not fly list doing the same to me.


I do it...and I am retired.

Quote:
But for those still in the work force it would be more then silly to post say anti-business or anti government comments in their legal names given that most businesses now have the charming habit of checking for online comments before hiring and even afterward in some cases.


The reason you do not do it, Bill...is because you do not have the guts to do it. Your reflection "I hope I have the guts to blah, blah, blah... was laughable.

And I am laughing...at you, not with you.


Quote:
Hell some businesses are even demanding passwords for facebook and twitter and such accounts,at least in the states that had not as yet move to block them from doing so.


So, gutless people like you use aliases in forums like this so you can spew your swill without paying any price.

You to not have the guts to use your name...which is what I said.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:28 am
@Frank Apisa,
The world is full of people like you Frank who would like to shut down the ability to speak freely and who wish to find means to punish those who dare to state positions such as Showden is a damn hero.

Anyone still in the job market who post any comments that people might disagree with under a legal name is a fool, just looking for ending a career before it can even begin for example.

Quote:


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-facebook-employers-legislation-20151113-story.html


All of those Facebook, Twitter or Instagram postings are hidden from anyone but your friends, right?

Don't be so sure. Some employers are demanding passwords from employees and job-seekers for social media accounts protected with privacy settings.

Under current law, Florida businesses can ask for social media log-ins and fire employees who don't provide them. And one statewide industry group said it wants to protect that right, but some policymakers think it steps over the line.

Sen. Jeff Clemens, D-Lake Worth, has proposed a law that would prohibit an employer from requesting the user name, password, or any other means of accessing the social media accounts of employees or prospective employees. Employers would be barred from retaliating against employees who refuse. The legislation also would prohibit employers from refusing to hire a prospective employee who refuses access to a social media account.

With 1.39 billion active monthly users, Facebook claims more people than the Republic of China, the worlds most populous country. Here are other things Facebook has more users than.
Workers could sue, recovering up to $500 per violation.

The legislation is on the agenda for the 2016 legislative session. If passed, the bill would take effect Oct. 1.

The issue, pitting worker privacy against corporate interests, has been simmering nationwide for years. Around 2012, some employers began demanding social media passwords from job applicants, students and employees, according to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU cited news reports about a New York City statistician who was asked for his Facebook password during a job interview. The ACLU also noted that the Maryland Division of Corrections required an employee to provide his Facebook login and that police departments in Norman, Okla., and elsewhere asked applicants to turn over their Facebook passwords as part of background checks.

Legislation against the practice has been considered in at least 23 states this year, with nine states enacting the legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The ability to sue is why some Florida industry groups have opposed the legislation, which has been floated in previous sessions.

Associated Industries of Florida said it opposes Senate Bill 186, saying it would have "detrimental ramifications" for Florida businesses.

"It is our belief that it is critical that employers be able to access these accounts and any devices supplied or paid for by the employer," Associated Industries said in a letter to members of the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee. Employers can be held legally responsible for employees' actions using company equipment, the group says.

Associated Industries also said employers have to be able to investigate allegations of illegal activity or work-related misconduct, which could involve an employee's personal social media account. The behavior could be job-related theft of sensitive data, insider trading or fraud, the group says. Or it could involve an employee harassing others through social media.

"Responsible employers need to be able to investigate the allegation to maintain a safe working environment," the group says.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce it is not taking a position on the bill, and the Florida Retail Federation is taking more of a middle-of-the-road approach.

"We fully support the right of our members to monitor their own networks and hardware appropriately, but we also respect the rights of employees and potential employs' privacy — unless an employee is doing something on company equipment to harm the employer or a fellow employee," said Florida Retail Federation spokesman James Miller.

Tallahassee lawyer Jim Garrity, who has blogged about the privacy rights of employees, said potential clients have told him about job interviews where they were asked to log into their social media profiles and then to flip through their postings while the interviewer looked over their shoulder. He did not identify the companies.

Garrity said it's mostly smaller companies without human resources departments that need "educating" about the issue of demanding social media passwords from job candidates.

"It is a terrible and invasive practice that has almost no relevance to a candidate's fitness for a position," he said. "The justification employers sometimes give is that it's part of a good-faith background investigation."

Garrity said employers can learn things they could not otherwise from a social media profile: religious beliefs, age, whistleblower activities, prior injuries and associations with unpopular causes.

In a hiring situation, "once an interviewer sees those things, it's not likely to slip their mind," he said.

And when an employer looks, it may find postings it doesn't like or that could hurt the business. That also can lead to legal action.

In 2012, the National Labor Relations Board found that the firing of a BMW salesman for photos and comments posted to his Facebook page did not violate federal labor law. In the same year, the board found that it was unlawful for a nonprofit organization to fire five employees who participated in Facebook postings about a co-worker who intended to complain to management about their work performance. A NLRB report did not identify the company.

Lawyers and recruiters say social media is best left out of hiring practices altogether, although many employers scan applicants' public social media posts without asking for private passwords. Transworld Business Brokers in Fort Lauderdale, for example, says it routinely screens applicants through a Google search, by reviewing a LinkedIn profile or by viewing a Facebook page, if available for general view.

When Transworld Business Brokers CEO Andy Cagnetta was looking for a new executive assistant for his Fort Lauderdale office, a recruiter gave him a name. He turned to Facebook to find out more about her and saw that they had a friend in common.

Cagnetta called the friend about her and liked what he heard. He later hired Shannon Ferguson.

Ferguson didn't find out until after she was hired that her boss had looked at her public Facebook page and talked with the friend. But she viewed it as a compliment.

"It made me feel like I was going to work for someone who is thorough," said Ferguson, who has worked at Transworld since the spring.

Debra Bathurst, vice president of human resources at Oasis Outsourcing in Boca Raton, said the proposed Florida legislation "makes sense."

"As an HR professional, some of us are wondering why an employer would want that information," Bathurst said. "Unintentionally, you're going to wade into waters that are going to have some blowback."

Sharlyn Lauby, a human resources expert in Fort Lauderdale who writes the HR Bartender blog, cautions employers and recruiters who do look at applicants' social media to be careful about making judgments based upon "only one piece of information. You don't have the full picture."

And she tells job candidates that "if a prospective employer asks you for your password, a candidate has got to step back and say, 'What are they going to ask from me if I'm an employee?'"

[email protected]com or 561-243-6650
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:32 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I do it.


That fine but that does not mean that it is a wise thing to do or that anyone else on the planet have any obligation to follow your example.

Quote:
So, gutless people like you use aliases in forums like this so you can spew your swill without paying any price.


Why should anyone pay any kind of price for posting their opinions even when a majority might consider it swill?

You surely do hate our constitutional protections.

Evil????? ...In what way or in what manner are any of my comments evil other then daring to disagree with you on such subjects as Snowden?

That the very reason for the first amendment to keep the government from punishing people from expressing opinions that is not in agreement with the majority of the population.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:53 am
@BillRM,
Nor is anyone under any obligation to allowed/make possible for businesses or groups or anyone else in society to to do the punishment in the placed of the government by postings under legal names as our courts had already rule many times.
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:56 am
@BillRM,
http://images.wisegeek.com/red-brick-wall.jpg
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 10:04 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Why should anyone pay any kind of price for posting their opinions even when a majority might consider it swill?

Good question. And what exactly does Frank want to do to us, that he would need our address for it? What sort of retribution are we talking about here?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 10:10 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
And what exactly does Frank want to do to us, that he would need our address for it? What sort of retribution are we talking about here?


That is also a good question and what punishment should I be subject to for expressing the opinion that Snowden is a hero for example?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 11:59 am
@BillRM,
So now you are telling me why you do not have the guts to post under your real name.

Okay...I get it.

But the fact remains that you do not have the guts to do it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 12:05 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I do it.


That fine but that does not mean that it is a wise thing to do or that anyone else on the planet have any obligation to follow your example.


No one has "the obligation" to do it.

People like you can simply not have the guts to do it...and not do it.


Quote:
Quote:
So, gutless people like you use aliases in forums like this so you can spew your swill without paying any price.


Why should anyone pay any kind of price for posting their opinions even when a majority might consider it swill?

You surely do hate our constitutional protections.


Are you saying that all the newspapers in the country...who will not accept a letter without a name and address (and publish that name and city)...hate the Constitutional protections???

Wake up.

You do not have the guts to use your full real name.

No need to try to justify the fact that you do not have the guts to do it.





Quote:
Evil????? ...In what way or in what manner are any of my comments evil other then daring to disagree with you on such subjects as Snowden?


Huh???

Quote:
That the very reason for the first amendment to keep the government from punishing people from expressing opinions that is not in agreement with the majority of the population.


I have no problem with that...and I encourage you to express your opinions. And if you do not have the guts to do it using your full real name...use an alias and hide from your message.

But if you are going to talk about courage while doing it...I am going to laugh in your face...if you ever show your face.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 12:06 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Nor is anyone under any obligation to allowed/make possible for businesses or groups or anyone else in society to to do the punishment in the placed of the government by postings under legal names as our courts had already rule many times.


Jesus H. Christ...what a mangled mess you make of the English language!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 12:08 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Why should anyone pay any kind of price for posting their opinions even when a majority might consider it swill?

Good question. And what exactly does Frank want to do to us, that he would need our address for it? What sort of retribution are we talking about here?


I am not asking for anyone's address.

A name and city would show some guts.


Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 12:10 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
And what exactly does Frank want to do to us, that he would need our address for it? What sort of retribution are we talking about here?


That is also a good question and what punishment should I be subject to for expressing the opinion that Snowden is a hero for example?


You should not be subjected to punishment...and you and Olivier know I have not been suggesting you should be.

I am saying YOU do not have the guts to publish your comments using your full real name...and you don't.

So your hopes that I have mentioned earlier...are a hoot.


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 12:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
But the fact remains that you do not have the guts to do it.


Having a lot of guts or not having guts is beside the point. The point being that you gain nothing by posting a legal name when expressing opinions that may not be mainstream.

It would be stupid to do so and that go with very special force for anyone still in their working life.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 12:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I am not asking for anyone's address.

A name and city would show some guts.


Unless the name is very very common that would indeed give you an address after a short internet search and you do know that I live in Miami as a matter of fact so why do you wish my address and full legal name??

So someone might be able to punish me for having opinions you do not care for as why should I be able to get away with posting unpopular opinions without being punish for doing so?

You might be a citizen of the US legally but you are not a citizen in your heart of heart at least in my opinion.

You would be far more comfortable in a dictatorship that you happen to agree with.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 01:04 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:


http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/6452/intelligence/the-right-to-anonymity.html


Right to anonymity – Legal implications
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

Many institutions and foundations, such as The Electronic Frontier Foundation, are spending a great effort to protect the rights to on line anonymity. As one court observed in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington:

“[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously.”

These organizations have challenged many efforts providing financial support to the development and deployment of Internet communications system to preserve anonymous communications, a valid example is the TOR network.

US First Amendment settled that the right to speak anonymously, the Supreme Court has held,

“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority,” that “exemplifies the purpose” of the First Amendment: “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation…at the hand of an intolerant society.”

Court pronunciations establish the duty of the Government to guard against undue hindrances to political conversations and the exchange of ideas, a vigilant review that

“must be undertaken and analyzed on a case-by-case basis”.

US laws establish a right to Speak Anonymously on the Internet and also right to Read Anonymously on the Internet, ensuring the principle of free internet ideological confrontation and the right to free movement of information.

“People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law. This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate.”

The technological developments of recent years caused high attention to the legal and technological possibility to maintain the online anonymity, especially in the face of the multiplication of resources internet monitoring.

The right to internet anonymity is also covered by European legislation that recognizes the fundamental right to data protection, freedom of expression, freedom of impression. The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights recognizes in Article. 8 (Title II: “Freedoms”) the right of everyone to protection of personal data concerning him.

The right to privacy is now essentially the individual’s right to have and to maintain control over information about him.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 01:20 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You should not be subjected to punishment...and you and Olivier know I have not been suggesting you should be.

So, gutless people like you use aliases in forums like this so you can spew your swill without paying any price.


Your pants are on fire Frank as your two quotes does not go together.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 01:54 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
But the fact remains that you do not have the guts to do it.


Having a lot of guts or not having guts is beside the point. The point being that you gain nothing by posting a legal name when expressing opinions that may not be mainstream.

It would be stupid to do so and that go with very special force for anyone still in their working life.


I understand completely. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE GUTS TO DO IT.

We are 5 x 5 on this, Bill.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 676
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/19/2018 at 02:18:11