Blessings, comfort and protection for this man, his family and others having to go through this new style of harassment. I see the same inflicted upon families who have suffered with the virus during this pandemic, too. Instead of mercy, there are abysmal attacks and illogical conspiracy theories justifying a profound lack of mercy or compassion.
@@LisaLGruman Hey..I can see that side of it is cruel..but the conspiracy theorist side was began by the CIa to suppress whistle blowers after JFK was murdered. THis way it keeps people from exposing corrupt govt..and when you degrade whilstle blowers likd you did in that statement you send a message to criminals in govt that that part is ok to do. So ou are defeating your purpose as you mention the cruelty to those being hurt. Whilstleblowers are what help keep bad things exposed. SO tell me why are you against people who are for the good of things like conspiracy theorists?
A comspiracy theorist is just someone sees that there could something that may need investigated that could be harmful. It began in the 1960's after JFK was mudered. for thoses steping up and saying that something with this Lee oswald situation just never looedk right.. and it didnt . The foreensics were all covered up..many things.
@@LisaLGruman COnspiracy theorists are thosw who want corruption exposed for the good of things. They are simply peo;e who feel good for doing tht right thing. by working hard to make sure others dont have to deal with criminal acts on others.
_"Life was SO much simpler before the internet. "_ It was. We can't go back but it's clear companies like Facebook have made this world a lot more unpleasant than it's helped it and made billions hurting millions of folks. There needs to be some regulation which is why we need to repeal section 230. Facebook et al can still let people post whatever they want on their service, they just have to take responsibility for it. Why should book publishing companies be regulated where electronic comment publishing companies, i.e.: Facebook, Yelp, etc., are not [regulated]?
@@thedudegrowsfood284 Religion is man’s story (history or his story) of following God’s message. God’s message and man’s message will never be the same.
You left out a key word at the end of that statement...action. From one article... ""The first amendment is only a protection against governmental action," said R.H. Pohlman, Dickinson University professor. He says, while the First Amendment protects you from being punished by the government for what you say, private schools; businesses and citizens could take action against you." This article might be more informative www.agonybooth.com/free-speech-doesnt-only-apply-to-government-23710
Since when does freedom of speech have anything to do with death threats? That’s one of those unjustifiable and baseless absurdities that makes one glad not to live in the US...
When were death threats considered free speech? They have nothing to do with censuring political speech, which is what 60 minutes would like you to believe.
There are sometimes good crimes. IF they are the kind some can get rich from..Those are good ones aren't they? I mean someone is richer than before and they aren't starving. as they pikc up the fork that's used to serve the pork!
Alex Jones said Sandy Hook was a conspiracy engineered to increase gun restrictions. Obviously, it didn't increase gun restrictions, but what's the fun in owning a gun, if you can't use it to intimidate people? (sarcasm)
@@christophercampbell4671 I edited the comment to make it clear that I was being sarcastic at the end. I honestly find it disturbing that this guy who has already suffered terribly is being made to suffer some more. I just also find it ironic that people who want gun rights tend to threaten others. These folks seem like they were bullied as children and are using guns to work through their own insecurities in the worst way possible, and in a way that makes me even _more_ inclined to want stricter gun laws.
@@funkmasterc2 I replayed the video, I was hoping it was mentioned why this lady was going after him. I guess it's the same group that shows up to military members funerals & protest.
The only way to stop these is to ban and prevent use of VPNs or ability to hide IP address and require all online social media registrations to use your real name which can be linked back to you personally ( which will require work from companies to verify your identity). That way section 230 stays in place but now individuals can be easily personally sued and liable for the language they use online. Accountability is now an option for those who are victims.
Wow this has me worried and is a issue we need committees and experts in the field really digging into and figuring out feasible and proper solutions. Also that mask is insane, a little creepy once you realize
Gangstalking, internet bullying? I now understand why some are so threatened by my lack of fear. One has to take notes on activity, then think as they think. I have gotten notifications of dead bodies found in my town?😂😂😂 Oh thats not a threatning, dead bodies are found all over , each minute of the day but in my case, they will be forced to do damage openly, I am able to carry protection, so it's another day, and god sees all.😉 interesting stuff, thanks.
Absolutely astonished at how poorly researched this piece is. You guys don't know anything about how the RUclips advertising algorithm works, and you're blatantly lying when you say (obviously without any research done) that sidebar advertisements go to the people who post videos. That's 100% false. You are lying. You have a RUclips channel and should know this, and by stating sidebar ads go to content creators is concrete evidence you are deliberately misleading your audience. You know why those ads exist. You know that advertising revenue goes to the RUclips infrastructure to pay for the bandwidth, servers, and facilities that make the fundamental RUclips systems work. You know that, but matter-of-factly report it goes to the channel's owner because you know your rapidly diminishing television audience doesn't know otherwise. They trust you, and you're abusing their trust. This piece is a blatant hit-piece manufactured on the behest of your Viacom owners to discredit and attack advertisers on RUclips and Facebook because they are competitive platforms to Viacom's corporate television empire, and the only way you can compete is by tearing down their advertising revenue. Television is dying. And instead of adapting to the present, you're attacking the present to preserve your outdated jobs in the past. You say RUclips is doing nothing, but anybody who exists on this platform has been fighting for the last five years to preserve their livelihood in the wake of RUclips's indiscriminate carpet bombing of channels in response to corporate hit pieces like this. You say Facebook is doing nothing, when every month we hear stories of them purging hundreds of thousands of bot accounts spreading misinformation. And you claim that current laws can't keep up with the rapidly changing "cyber age" but your presented solutions are hyperaggressive affronts to free speech that punish the masses at large for the actions of a fringe minority. What kind of "journalists" promote fighting crime by stripping free speech from the people? If you want to fight deliberately misleading sources by stripping free speech, start with yourselves. Not that we have to wait long. How are those TV ratings going, guys?
Section 230 basically allows internet companies to totally ignore harm to victims from online harassment that they are in the best position to prevent. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter actively even ignore court orders for removal of harmful or defamatory content. Victims who are harassed by perpetrators located in another country have zero legal recourse to absolve them from their harms given the asininely outdated nature of our legal system and the vested interests of Silicon valley to put profits before safety and duty of care. It is mind boggling that the USA would allow online terrorism to fester under Section 230. This law needs to be put out of commission today.
Inciting hate, violence is NOT a free speech. No discussion !
Happy new year
Tyler Evans why bro
@@Primitivekonpove what do you mean "why"
Christ that's EXACTLY what the 1st amendment was created to protect
lockandloadlikehell oh I’m sorry
Amen, Danny. Amen.
Blessings, comfort and protection for this man, his family and others having to go through this new style of harassment. I see the same inflicted upon families who have suffered with the virus during this pandemic, too. Instead of mercy, there are abysmal attacks and illogical conspiracy theories justifying a profound lack of mercy or compassion.
@@jockoharpo2622 Seems many get a charge out of being cruel online.
@@LisaLGruman Hey..I can see that side of it is cruel..but the conspiracy theorist side was began by the CIa to suppress whistle blowers after JFK was murdered. THis way it keeps people from exposing corrupt govt..and when you degrade whilstle blowers likd you did in that statement you send a message to criminals in govt that that part is ok to do. So ou are defeating your purpose as you mention the cruelty to those being hurt. Whilstleblowers are what help keep bad things exposed. SO tell me why are you against people who are for the good of things like conspiracy theorists?
A comspiracy theorist is just someone sees that there could something that may need investigated that could be harmful. It began in the 1960's after JFK was mudered. for thoses steping up and saying that something with this Lee oswald situation just never looedk right.. and it didnt . The foreensics were all covered up..many things.
@@LisaLGruman COnspiracy theorists are thosw who want corruption exposed for the good of things. They are simply peo;e who feel good for doing tht right thing. by working hard to make sure others dont have to deal with criminal acts on others.
Life was SO much simpler before the internet.
I think the internet is neutral...
Wherever humans show up, is the problem.
Can you say? Hate
@@geekmeee second only to organised religion for spreading hate and ignorance.
kinda makes ya wanna loot a store n whip a statue.... . . . and poop on the sidewalk.
_"Life was SO much simpler before the internet.
"_
It was. We can't go back but it's clear companies like Facebook have made this world a lot more unpleasant than it's helped it and made billions hurting millions of folks.
There needs to be some regulation which is why we need to repeal section 230. Facebook et al can still let people post whatever they want on their service, they just have to take responsibility for it. Why should book publishing companies be regulated where electronic comment publishing companies, i.e.: Facebook, Yelp, etc., are not [regulated]?
@@thedudegrowsfood284
Religion is man’s story (history or his story) of following God’s message.
God’s message and man’s message will never be the same.
Freedom of speech is for protection of speech against the government, not private citizens. FYI.
You left out a key word at the end of that statement...action.
From one article... ""The first amendment is only a protection against governmental action," said R.H. Pohlman, Dickinson University professor. He says, while the First Amendment protects you from being punished by the government for what you say, private schools; businesses and citizens could take action against you."
This article might be more informative
www.agonybooth.com/free-speech-doesnt-only-apply-to-government-23710
Really? where does it say that?
What is wrong with people?
This country has way too many disturbed sickos
What is wrong with people? 🤔 Everything
Since when does freedom of speech have anything to do with death threats? That’s one of those unjustifiable and baseless absurdities that makes one glad not to live in the US...
When were death threats considered free speech? They have nothing to do with censuring political speech, which is what 60 minutes would like you to believe.
Yes you’re right and I totally agree with you....can I be your friend
A death threat already is a crime and a tort and, can result in either criminal or civil liability.
@@brendanwoods7399 The reporting shows that it’s no crime when it’s done on the internet. As for the tort, it’s never worth it in cost-benefit terms.
@@lucaslouzada44 WHERE??? DOES THIS VIDEO show that a death threat is not a crime when done on the web? Are you hallucinating?
The internet has brought on so many different crimes
There are sometimes good crimes. IF they are the kind some can get rich from..Those are good ones aren't they? I mean someone is richer than before and they aren't starving. as they pikc up the fork that's used to serve the pork!
thats right! people think free speech is free speech "without consequence" and its not its free speech "with consequences"
Happy new year
Accountability
Cyber harassment and trolling should be against the law.
Why was the nutball woman harassing the guy who lost his child?
Alex Jones said Sandy Hook was a conspiracy engineered to increase gun restrictions. Obviously, it didn't increase gun restrictions, but what's the fun in owning a gun, if you can't use it to intimidate people? (sarcasm)
@@funkmasterc2 so what's the issue with this guy? The guy"s child was murdered. So he had his child murdered for more gun control?
@@christophercampbell4671 I edited the comment to make it clear that I was being sarcastic at the end. I honestly find it disturbing that this guy who has already suffered terribly is being made to suffer some more. I just also find it ironic that people who want gun rights tend to threaten others. These folks seem like they were bullied as children and are using guns to work through their own insecurities in the worst way possible, and in a way that makes me even _more_ inclined to want stricter gun laws.
@@funkmasterc2 I replayed the video, I was hoping it was mentioned why this lady was going after him. I guess it's the same group that shows up to military members funerals & protest.
What is a nutball?
I pray protection over him and his family!
thank u
I’ll fight beside Lenny always and for all others that have to go through these atrocities
Get armed and then invite them over ...anytime and when they flinch.....well, fill in the blanks.
The only way to stop these is to ban and prevent use of VPNs or ability to hide IP address and require all online social media registrations to use your real name which can be linked back to you personally ( which will require work from companies to verify your identity). That way section 230 stays in place but now individuals can be easily personally sued and liable for the language they use online. Accountability is now an option for those who are victims.
Singer MYA harrassed me online then had me set up and assaulted in real life.
Scary stuff
Using this awful situation to try to repeal section 230, is sick and manipulating.
can someone download this onto the internet its not available in other countries.
So good
Wow this has me worried and is a issue we need committees and experts in the field really digging into and figuring out feasible and proper solutions.
Also that mask is insane, a little creepy once you realize
A mask? I drink mine out of a flask! and if you like to know..don't ask!
What in the world?
Gangstalking, internet bullying? I now understand why some are so threatened by my lack of fear. One has to take notes on activity, then think as they think. I have gotten notifications of dead bodies found in my town?😂😂😂 Oh thats not a threatning, dead bodies are found all over , each minute of the day but in my case, they will be forced to do damage openly, I am able to carry protection, so it's another day, and god sees all.😉 interesting stuff, thanks.
Why was that boy's phto used in that Pakistan shooting? and is that considered harassment as well? and if so..why wasn't there any justice?
What is it that motivates people to do bad things to those who had bad things happen to them is my thought. Why?
Cuando las víctimas de las amenazas de Internet buscan ayuda, a menudo encuentran que la ley no se ha puesto al día con la era cibernética.
What? English please 😊
Happy new year
@@lulamamie8524 , use Google translation app, please. You can learn a new language like that. ☺️
@@jenmar9428 Thank You. Will do.
Menudo?😋🍲
Lenny Posner fought back and lost.
Absolutely astonished at how poorly researched this piece is. You guys don't know anything about how the RUclips advertising algorithm works, and you're blatantly lying when you say (obviously without any research done) that sidebar advertisements go to the people who post videos. That's 100% false. You are lying. You have a RUclips channel and should know this, and by stating sidebar ads go to content creators is concrete evidence you are deliberately misleading your audience. You know why those ads exist. You know that advertising revenue goes to the RUclips infrastructure to pay for the bandwidth, servers, and facilities that make the fundamental RUclips systems work. You know that, but matter-of-factly report it goes to the channel's owner because you know your rapidly diminishing television audience doesn't know otherwise. They trust you, and you're abusing their trust. This piece is a blatant hit-piece manufactured on the behest of your Viacom owners to discredit and attack advertisers on RUclips and Facebook because they are competitive platforms to Viacom's corporate television empire, and the only way you can compete is by tearing down their advertising revenue.
Television is dying. And instead of adapting to the present, you're attacking the present to preserve your outdated jobs in the past. You say RUclips is doing nothing, but anybody who exists on this platform has been fighting for the last five years to preserve their livelihood in the wake of RUclips's indiscriminate carpet bombing of channels in response to corporate hit pieces like this. You say Facebook is doing nothing, when every month we hear stories of them purging hundreds of thousands of bot accounts spreading misinformation. And you claim that current laws can't keep up with the rapidly changing "cyber age" but your presented solutions are hyperaggressive affronts to free speech that punish the masses at large for the actions of a fringe minority. What kind of "journalists" promote fighting crime by stripping free speech from the people?
If you want to fight deliberately misleading sources by stripping free speech, start with yourselves. Not that we have to wait long. How are those TV ratings going, guys?
Calm down
Section 230 basically allows internet companies to totally ignore harm to victims from online harassment that they are in the best position to prevent. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter actively even ignore court orders for removal of harmful or defamatory content. Victims who are harassed by perpetrators located in another country have zero legal recourse to absolve them from their harms given the asininely outdated nature of our legal system and the vested interests of Silicon valley to put profits before safety and duty of care. It is mind boggling that the USA would allow online terrorism to fester under Section 230. This law needs to be put out of commission today.