Page 5 of 6 [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Joeker
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: The Interwebs

19 Feb 2008, 2:40 am

This is the internet, and if NTspeaks can get protection internationally as parody, then anything created as parody is just as protected. Censorship is Censhorship. I tell you, those being parodied are pissed off that they're being mocked. You're obviously offended, like Autism Speaks was offended by NTspeaks. There's no substantial legal difference in terms of rights and parody, unless you're promoting censorship.

Legal recourse against parody must be set in motion before it is denied the status of parody. Also, the case you cited was not of determining parody, but of libel. There is a clear difference, where it must be proven to not be parody, and until such time, is parody. It's parody, and you saying it's not has no influence on the word of law whatsoever.

Was Nixon offended by the parodies of him? How about any of today's politicians? Read the editorial, look for a cartoon mocking a politician. Are the Newspapers being sued for their parody? No. The only ones who get offended are the politicians, and perhaps those who support what is being lampooned. You're in the same position as a politician being lampooned. Are you going to get all self-righteous, and set out to have a fight, or are you going to laugh it off, and not let it bother you?

You let it get under your skin, and it's driving you to distraction.

SilverProteus, absolutely. The sites parody everything, and have even contributed assistance to the law. ED has been named as a force for good by Toronto Police. http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/In ... ante_Group
Nice, eh? :lol:

TLPG wrote:
I'm not laughing, Silver. I like a joke. I like parody. These two sites are neither.


Just because you don't like a joke, doesn't mean it not funny to others. If it bothers you so much, take it to court. If you want to promote censorship, that's your prerogative. We're not going to leap into the fray on your behalf, because you feel offended by something we just laughed off. Until you have an official court document proving that the sites aren't parody, stop saying they aren't, before someone from the sites takes you to court for defamation and libel. That's the way it goes, and just because you feud with them, does not mean that they're fair game.


_________________
1234
FOUR
Four is the only number which is itself has the same number of letters as it itself is.


TLPG
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 693

19 Feb 2008, 7:21 am

Joeker wrote:
This is the internet, and if NTspeaks can get protection internationally as parody, then anything created as parody is just as protected. Censorship is Censhorship. I tell you, those being parodied are pissed off that they're being mocked. You're obviously offended, like Autism Speaks was offended by NTspeaks. There's no substantial legal difference in terms of rights and parody, unless you're promoting censorship.


There you go again, assuming there is one single interpretation of parody. Sorry - but you're wrong. What's funny in one place is not funny in another. Such is the way of the world. That is why when there's a legal action taken, the law of the offended person's country applies.

Joeker wrote:
TLPG wrote:
I'm not laughing, Silver. I like a joke. I like parody. These two sites are neither.


Just because you don't like a joke, doesn't mean it not funny to others. If it bothers you so much, take it to court. If you want to promote censorship, that's your prerogative.


Censorship and personal legal action are two different things. I can't take ED or Uncyclopedia to court myself because they've done nothing to me personally. There is an article about my website on ED, but it would be a waste of time going after the site for just one article - it would be better to go after the creator of the article. Having said that, I'll let the current version go because it's so wrong it actually gave me a chortle (a rarity for that site believe me!)

But bluntly, I am all for censorship in certain circumstances. And all those other examples you gave do not involve the gutter of humour, or uncensored hardcore pornography. One day, ED will get theirs.



Joeker
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: The Interwebs

19 Feb 2008, 8:07 am

You're not getting it. Then, in Australia, NTspeaks would be able to be shut down. Australia would be able to force NTspeaks to shut down by their laws, if accessed in Australia. So that means that Australia, having a different definition of parody, has the right to police the entire internet and shut down any parodies they come across that are offensive to someone in Australia. No, that's not how the world works. If that's true, then if someone has a dual citizenship for Canada and the USA, they could have a death sentence imposed in a Canadian crime. Sorry, but no.

Sure they are... Censorship, censoring things which someone doesn't want to be seen. Personal legal action, removing a parody site from the internet over something that someone doesn't want seen. You're just angry at them, after all, you declared them enemies. Any legal action you file would be considered harassment, due to your openly stated enmity with them.

Well, it really depends, especially since the articles are open to edit. Besides, going after the creator of an article created for parody purposes is silly, especially if the parody article made you laugh. As well, the contributions are open to anyone with an account on ED, even vamp-I mean, umpires. So in the end, the article no longer belongs to the creator anyways. It's the free-wiki way.

They do disclaim that if you are viewing the site, you must be 18 years of age. And I don't think ED has much to fear. The Toronto police even consider them a force for good. Must have been over them catching a pedophile. Oh well.


_________________
1234
FOUR
Four is the only number which is itself has the same number of letters as it itself is.


Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

19 Feb 2008, 8:55 am

ddrapayo wrote:
Check out "Neurotypical Syndrome" too at http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical_syndrome once again, it's entirely satirical, yet true.


Like Machiavelli's "The Prince", the best satires are true.

I can't stand Autism Speaks after I read about the way that they beat that boy down over NTSpeaks.



SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

19 Feb 2008, 10:05 am

Joeker wrote:
SilverProteus, absolutely. The sites parody everything, and have even contributed assistance to the law. ED has been named as a force for good by Toronto Police. http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/In ... ante_Group
Nice, eh? :lol:


LOL!


_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki


Joeker
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: The Interwebs

19 Feb 2008, 1:16 pm

The best kind of parody is one that actually makes a difference. :D


_________________
1234
FOUR
Four is the only number which is itself has the same number of letters as it itself is.


neurodeviant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,182
Location: Britland

19 Feb 2008, 1:43 pm

I'm not offended by Uncyclopedia or ED. If you're offended, then don't read that article again, or find an article of something you don't like, and read that instead. ED insults almost everyone and everything, but it's free speech, so any attempts to shut it down will fail.


_________________
Aspies: Because great minds think alone.


SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

19 Feb 2008, 2:11 pm

Joeker wrote:
The best kind of parody is one that actually makes a difference. :D


I agree.

Satire will always offend someone. You just have to let it go, TLPG.

Uncyclopedia's "Neurotypical syndrome" is pretty offensive too, and, like I said, I'm almost certain it was written by an aspie.


_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki


TLPG
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 693

19 Feb 2008, 4:32 pm

Joeker wrote:
You're not getting it. Then, in Australia, NTspeaks would be able to be shut down. Australia would be able to force NTspeaks to shut down by their laws, if accessed in Australia. So that means that Australia, having a different definition of parody, has the right to police the entire internet and shut down any parodies they come across that are offensive to someone in Australia. No, that's not how the world works. If that's true, then if someone has a dual citizenship for Canada and the USA, they could have a death sentence imposed in a Canadian crime. Sorry, but no.


No, you are the one who isn't getting it - because you're doing it again. Assuming that there is one single worldwide interpretation of what constitutes parody. You mention NT Speaks. THAT is parody. ED is not. And dual citizenship has nothing to do with anything.

neurodeviant wrote:
ED insults almost everyone and everything, but it's free speech, so any attempts to shut it down will fail.


Free speech is a myth, because it's open to abuse. Eventually there will be a level of censorship to keep the peace - there has to be in my view. It won't catch NT Speaks and the other things Joeker tried to use as examples - but it will catch ED and Uncyclopedia. It'll also prevent a repeat of the cartoon the Danish put out awhile ago that infuriated Muslims worldwide.

SilverProteus wrote:
Satire will always offend someone. You just have to let it go, TLPG.


I deal with it in my own way, Silver. That meant doing the article on ED on my Wiki to express what I think of them. And Joeker provided a perfect example of rubbish - would it be parody if the difference is an Aspie killing themselves after reading the ED article? Would that be funny? Of course it wouldn't! Same applies to the Uncyclopedia article.

I will never approve of mocking someone who is worse off that you. It's rude and it's offensive. There are ways and means of dealing with them - and the best way is to vent about them, and then just leave them be. Regular editors of both are generally attention seekers who thrive on bullying - especially at ED. They latch onto a target and milk it for all it's worth no matter what the other party thinks. They thrive on inflicting maximum pain. I call that disgusting and a waste of webspace.

I wouldn't even be looking now if it wasn't for what had happened to a friend on ED, and if it wasn't for the article on my website. In it's present form, I'm happy to leave it. But if it's original form was still there I'd be acting against the creator of it and getting it removed. And there is a procedure to achieve that as well - Arbchat. I still might one day, but it's not high on my list of priorities.

I do know this - one day they will go too far, and karma will get them. The same more or less applies to Uncyclopedia.



SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

19 Feb 2008, 4:39 pm

TLPG wrote:
SilverProteus wrote:
Satire will always offend someone. You just have to let it go, TLPG.


I deal with it in my own way, Silver. That meant doing the article on ED on my Wiki to express what I think of them. And Joeker provided a perfect example of rubbish - would it be parody if the difference is an Aspie killing themselves after reading the ED article? Would that be funny? Of course it wouldn't! Same applies to the Uncyclopedia article.

I will never approve of mocking someone who is worse off that you. It's rude and it's offensive. There are ways and means of dealing with them - and the best way is to vent about them, and then just leave them be. Regular editors of both are generally attention seekers who thrive on bullying - especially at ED. They latch onto a target and milk it for all it's worth no matter what the other party thinks. They thrive on inflicting maximum pain. I call that disgusting and a waste of webspace.

I wouldn't even be looking now if it wasn't for what had happened to a friend on ED, and if it wasn't for the article on my website. In it's present form, I'm happy to leave it. But if it's original form was still there I'd be acting against the creator of it and getting it removed. And there is a procedure to achieve that as well - Arbchat. I still might one day, but it's not high on my list of priorities.

I do know this - one day they will go too far, and karma will get them. The same more or less applies to Uncyclopedia.


Oh well, I won't argue over it anymore. I think it's harmless, but I understand you might not think so. I just think if you were to feel this way over every aspie/autie- related satire, you'll feel like cr*p. Sure, there's a lot of misinformation and a lot of prejudice, but who takes Uncyclopedia and ED seriously?

I do agree with you on the karma thing however. It might have already bitten them in the a**, but they don't know it yet. ;)


_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki


TLPG
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 693

19 Feb 2008, 4:54 pm

SilverProteus wrote:
Oh well, I won't argue over it anymore. I think it's harmless, but I understand you might not think so. I just think if you were to feel this way over every aspie/autie- related satire, you'll feel like cr*p. Sure, there's a lot of misinformation and a lot of prejudice, but who takes Uncyclopedia and ED seriously?

I do agree with you on the karma thing however. It might have already bitten them in the a**, but they don't know it yet. ;)


Thanks on the second paragraph.

On the first - I saw an article on Uncyclopedia that indicated that someone did appear to take it seriously. It's called "The Great Aspie War of Ought Six" (I did an article that parodied that title, although it was on more serious subject matter on my Wiki). I never looked into it properly, but someone certain got pissed off at the AS article presumably.

I don't feel that way over every parody or satire. It can be done cleverly. For example, if someone mocks our tendency to take things literally (as long as it's not personal of course) I'll laugh in a split second. You know - the old "hop to it" or "walk this way" style gag. "Give him a hand" is another one. The Goon Show (I don't know if you have heard of that) is a great example of this sort of humour. The point is nowadays unfortunately people don't laugh as much at that anymore - the most popular humour is the derogatory sort. Toilet humour. That's not funny - and that's what (by and large) both those websites represent. Of course they go beyond that but then that will just start me off again about why I hate them and I've said more than enough about that!



Joeker
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: The Interwebs

19 Feb 2008, 11:11 pm

No, technically, I have found faults in it like the faults that you found with ED, in the Australian definition. It was made with the UK definition, and those differ as well. So long as the definition differs, anyone in Australia with a mind to it could take issue with a parody, and institute that legal action you keep prattling on about, yet won't initiate. You're the one that's offended over the AS article, YOU do something about it. It's on you to file that suit if it's you that's offended. It won't file itself, and no one here shows much interest in it other than you.

There's a difference between a libel case, with the libel read in a different country than it came from, and parody on the internet, which is an international entity in and of itself. As the internet is international, the laws that apply are the ones that apply in the country where the offence occured. This then means that this has to be tried first, and as it has NOT been tried, you are wholly incorrect in declaring that ED and Uncyclopedia aren't parody/satire. Until it's proven in a court of law, then it's not true. After all, you've been speaking to several people who agree, that yes, ED and Uncyclopedia are satire and parody.

There already is in newspapers, television, movies, and music. But the internet? It's an internation thing, a series of servers, computers, and people from every nation in the world. It is not policable in terms of things like parody and satire. Preventing things like fraud, pedophilia, human organ trafficking, and other illegal activites which occur on the internet are far more important than people offended by satire, waggling fingers and saying that something isn't funny.

No one is going to commit suicide over an article on Aspergers, no matter how offensive. It ether gets laughed off, or pisses off the offended party to the point where they accuse the article as possibly causing an Aspie to kill themselves, and trying to get a group of Aspies to try to do something about it, and argue legal matters on how it could be stopped. If someone wants information on AS, they're not going to go looking for it among memes and satire. Of course, the argument could also be made on how much more illegal things would be if someone committed suicide because of it. Like, for example, being harassed and told to kill yourself. Everyone involved would get Manslaughter in the very least.

You have to understand something though. When it comes to blanking articles, it's not out of the blue. They know they're attacking the site, and made their own mistake. It's their fault for vandalism, and if they aren't sorry for doing it, then they aren't a victim. Especially when they challenge them, insult them, and give a proverbial "Bring it on!" If the person was foolish enough to start a fight, they don't have the right to cry when ED finishes it.

Your friend did the crime, and now he's paying for it. It was his actions which broguht it about, and his attitude about it which made things the way they are. If he had dropped it, apologized, and stopped, he wouldn't have the problems he does now. He pushed, and they pushed back. It should come as no surprise. And he can hardly say he's the victim when he was the one to pick the fight. He should use grace, and request an end to hostilities, and just be glad that they'll lose interest after he surrenders.

SilverProteus, apparently TLPG does. It's not ED or Uncyclopedia who're being serious.

TLPG, I looked into that actually, the Great Aspie War of Ought Six. Surprising too. It was some guy called Anonymous Slashy. He was diagnosed with AS in the late nineties, was born in the sixties, lives in Australia, isn't working due to a lack of protection in the workplace, knows quite a bit about offensive Danish cartoons and the reaction by Muslims, practices eye-for-an-eye, loves a metaphor of pots and kettles, is well aware of the international law governing this kind of thing(almost as well as you understand it, TLPG), thinks their article isn't funny either, believes that free speech is a myth because it can be abused, reacts strongly to being told to "get over it," and just so happens to echo the arguments you made.

Coincidence? One or two of those, yeah, it'd be coincidence. Several lines of near exact repetition, perfect match for age, beliefs, and the fact that you parodied the title? Less so.

I think this means that you're hardly in any position to declare that they aren't parody, since you've fought a "war" with them. I believe that's what they call bias. I'm going to save this post, for posterity.

So much for that, TLPG.

Cheers.


_________________
1234
FOUR
Four is the only number which is itself has the same number of letters as it itself is.


TLPG
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 693

20 Feb 2008, 5:02 am

Interesting! I wonder if I have a twin! Or a copycat!

Nah - the sixties is a wide period of time, and the reason I'M not working is because of a medical officer's report - not lack of protection in the workplace (although that doesn't help of course, and I know several people who are in that situation - and of my generation as well including NT's!). As for pots and kettles - that is used by all and sundry across Aspies AND Nt's!

Nice try - but that wasn't me. But it would be worth looking into it further now that you've mentioned all that. If I have time.

Joeker wrote:
No, technically, I have found faults in it like the faults that you found with ED, in the Australian definition.


Uh huh - and you're an expert on Australian law I suppose? Where are your qualifications and experience in this area? I doubt you even come close to my experience on the subject.

Joeker wrote:
So long as the definition differs, anyone in Australia with a mind to it could take issue with a parody, and institute that legal action you keep prattling on about, yet won't initiate.


Only if the parody is personal - as I previously explained. And yes, the AS article offends me, but because my name (either real or otherwise - like TLPG for example) is not on the article there isn't a thing I can do about it.

Joeker wrote:
There's a difference between a libel case, with the libel read in a different country than it came from, and parody on the internet, which is an international entity in and of itself.


If the article is libellous, it doesn't matter if it's parody or not. The trick though is to prove libel. THAT is the potential problem. Incidentally - parody on the Internet is NOT an international entity because that goes against the sovereignty of any nation you care to name. There is no international entity anywhere unless there is a worldwide agreement without exception. And no such thing exists - even within the United Nations (which is about as close as one will get to such a thing).

Joeker wrote:
This then means that this has to be tried first, and as it has NOT been tried, you are wholly incorrect in declaring that ED and Uncyclopedia aren't parody/satire.


I am perfectly entitled to state my opinion that ED and Uncyclopedia are not satire or parody. Don't try to dictate to me otherwise. I stand by my view - and I demand respect for it. Note that I am NOT demanding that you agree with me (they are two seperate things).

Joeker wrote:
No one is going to commit suicide over an article on Aspergers, no matter how offensive.


You don't know that for sure. I've seen lesser things cause suicidal thoughts and potential actions.



TLPG
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 693

20 Feb 2008, 5:18 pm

TLPG wrote:
Nice try - but that wasn't me. But it would be worth looking into it further now that you've mentioned all that. If I have time.


Initial report - Anonymous Slashy believes that Autism and Aspergers are different, which is definitely wrong for a start! He or she also made a blanket claim that mockery equals destructive criticism, which takes paranoia to a very high level! The mockery has to be personal for that to be right.

Seems to me that this person may have Aspergers rather badly, certainly worse than I have it. But he or she certainly appears to be Australian.



NovaFlame
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 109

22 Feb 2008, 1:24 am

ED is great, and Uncyclopedia is great.

By the way, they BOTH have pages telling the user that the sites are satrical, meaning DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY ;)



TLPG
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 693

22 Feb 2008, 3:58 am

Nova, I'm of the view that neither of them are satirical - no matter what they claim otherwise.