How can a poster know what will be deemed as pornography?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Robittybob1, Oct 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    That is a partial quote. So what is this referring to? "in the course of that person's involvement in any of the areas to which this subsection is applied by subsection (3)"
    I doubt very much if it applies to internet forums.
    Is that NZ law?
    So which country does it apply to?
    Bells is in the USA, I think you are in Australia and I'm somewhere in NZ. So who is going to write a law that goes across all continents?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Failed again.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I'm not implying anything of the sort. Why do you jump to such bizarre conclusions? Do you admit that we have had prior communication to the PMs that you posted today? If so those are the PMs I referred to. That is all, for someone tried to make out all our PMs have been published but that isn't so, is it?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I will ask around? I will ask them first, it surely won't be harassment then. There have been 25,265 site views on the Beautiful Christian Song thread so there is a strong possibility that people will read whatever is posted.
    I think your continual use of abusive language needs to stop Bells. All the words about sexual dreams, seems to be coming from you. You have no idea what I intend to write about. I feel you are harassing me in fact, it is quite clear you are from the posts you have made in the last 12 hours. The amount of innuendo is just ridiculous and unbecoming to you.
    It is definitely not coming from me, for I respect you, but you continue to rant and abuse me.
    I have a lot of respect for you, and really no matter what words you use against me, you can't get me angry. For I'm not angry at you. But I am concerned for you.
    Take care Bells.
    This is a very serious allegation. You are obviously referring to .... for there is no other that could fit that description. At no time did she say to me to stop writing to her other than stop writing out prayers on her behalf. Anything you say about ..... and I must be just hearsay or if she told you a different story than she told me, who knows and we will never know for the PMs have been deleted in most cases, either that or not saved.
    OK she must have closed her PM box to me 20 times over that period, and every time she would reopen it and begin communication again. It was bizarre to me as well but it was as much her as it was myself.
    So really you don't know the full story so it would be best to leave her out of this argument. Please.
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Subsection 3 covers the areas which subection 2 applies for, including "Access to goods and service: as well as "Access to places, vehicles, and facilities."

    You'd be wrong - a forum provides a service.
    When you access the forum, you access a service.
    When you access a service to use written language of a sexual nature to subject any other person to behaviour that is unwelcome or offensive to that person (regardless of whether or not this is conveyed to you) that is repeated or significant enough in nature to have a detrimental effect on that person, that constitutes sexual harrasment under the s62 of the Human Rights Act 1993.

    Oh my god. You actually need to ask that?

    Hmm. Let me see. We're discussing the behaviour of a New Zealander. Where do you think it applies to?

    Bzzzzzzt.
     
  9. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    You've got really limited credibility Trippy.
    Sorry it doesn't cover internet forums.
     
  10. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    You are wrong about his credibility.
    I would consider what he says very carefully before dismissing it.
     
  11. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Had you looked up the Human Rights Act 1993? Look Captain I know I am innocent of all these silly things they are accusing me of.
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    You are very very wrong

    Not only does the law cover internet forums, but your Telecommunications Act, which governs your use of telephone lines (for phone and internet usage) can also be used against you. In other words, your actions on this site, is in contravention of the laws of New Zealand, your place of residence.

    Judge David Harvey wrote an excellent essay, explaining just how the laws in New Zealand apply, citing legislation and case law. As Trippy correctly explained, it doesn't have to happen more than once.
     
  13. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I think you have harassed me to be honest. I admitted in my emails to you I was flirting with you, and even James became aware of that, but when you said "stop it", I did. This latest issue had nothing to do with flirting, as I was just trying to understand how you determined something was pornographic and even now you have not been able to explain your decision making process.
    I would like you to make this a test case for it will bring the required attention to the forum. Maybe I would get the readership of the Beautiful Christian Songs thread up to the magical 1 million mark!
    Surely then someone reading it will believe that Jesus was a twin and we then could go to stage two of the "proving God is real" process.
    With all the revenue from my royalties from my book, I then could pay any penalty the court awards you, for my little flirtation with you, that occurred long before I knew you were married.
    It sounds a bit like a win, win, win situation.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    exactly.
    he wants to see just how far he can push the issue while posing under the guise of christianity.
    for THAT he should be gutted like a deer.

    rob,
    i think bells wants another of those PMs from you.
    she won't ban you, i promise.
     
  15. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    No, I haven't looked it up, but when Trippy makes a statement he is usually right.
    Not 100%. But near as dammit.
     
  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Too busy today sorry I'm writing my book.
     
  17. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    You might be right but this time he took on the wrong piece of legislation, I'll help them find the right law later, so they can go ahead with their case.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the ones she posted, yes.
    whether you know it or not, most jobs are "at will" which means you could be fired for almost ANY reason.
    the reason most employers come up with a "valid" reason is to keep from paying you unemployment.
    correct.
    the gender of a person is unimportant with science discussions.
    it's kind of obvious to anyone that reads the thread.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    They all became aware of it because I was complaining about your behaviour and your spamming me with PM's for a long time.

    Which is why the administrator of this site told you to stop it. You did not. Instead, you kept spamming me with PM's. When you tried to ask me personal information about myself, such as where I lived, I told you that under no circumstances would I ever divulge such information to you and advised you what I had posted on the open forum is all the information I would ever divulge on this site. In the same post where you tried to find out where I lived, you then went on a spiel about your personal life. Which I refused to address or acknowledge. In that same PM, you also told me that you had been trying to flirt with me but had sensed I was not welcoming it. To which I replied that I had chosen to not acknowledge it - ie, I was not interested, nor was your attention wanted. I also explained the inappropriateness of your behaviour towards another member and advised you to cease and desist in stalking her - a subject matter which you spammed me about a lot and to which my response was always the same, which was to stop. You did not. It got so bad that she was forced to file a complaint, whereupon you were banned and she shut down her PM's. Having seen her ask you to just stop, numerous times in the forum, I would repeat the request that you stopped harassing her whenever your PM spam got too much and I was forced to respond. My colleagues can attest to this because each time, I let them know just how perverted and creepy you are.

    Your last PM to me is a clear indication of that despite repeated requests to stop posting such things on the forum, you then took to PM'ing it to me, and then asking me about how I felt about it.

    We are not friends. You have no right to PM me such things, especially after I had repeatedly advised you that it was inappropriate and unacceptable. Which means that you were well aware and had been advised by me that your posts and what you had been posting was unacceptable.

    I know the law. Very well. The fact that you cannot even read and comprehend very simply written statutes concerning your current predicament says more about you than your attempts to project your behaviour onto me could ever do.

    I am not harassing you. If you mean demanding you stop posting such posts and demanding you not send "a moderator" your writings about your dreams for vetting, which as I was unfortunate to have been told by you via PM, it would mean vetting what you write about your sexual dreams, is harassment, then it is clear you also have no idea what harassment even means.

    You were told no. And instead of respecting the wishes of this site, you have persisted in this farcical troll, threatening the staff here with your pornographic writing for vetting, because you have a pathological need to find God through your sexual dreams. As I advised you, no one here wants to read it and you are not allowed to post it here. And instead of respecting that, you threatened to sexually harass even more people on this site.

    All of which is unacceptable.

    I will be requesting that your Christian song thread be closed and sent to the Cesspool. Not only does it not live up to its title, since you have taken to posting everything but Christian religious songs in it, but it has also served as a platform for your obscene and perverted posts on this site and you have used it to harass and stalk other members of this site.

    This is wholly unacceptable.

    I and others have also voted for you to be banned from this site permanently. The warning and ban pattern is something we usually try to adhere to. But since you have clearly said that you will continue to post as you do here, willfully ignoring the request of this site to not do so, and you have instead threatened to post more of it and sexually harass even more members, then frankly, there is no reason for you to remain on this site.

    Have I made myself clear?
    '
    There is no win/win/win situation for you here.
     
  20. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Okay, after some discussion between moderators, it has been decided that this... farce... has one on long enough.

    Robittybob, not only are you out of line with your posting/pm'ing of offensive content, you have also shown time and again that you wish only to push the boundaries of this site and its moderation staff to see what you can get away with. Well, I'll answer the question for you... nothing, anymore. Consider this your last hurrah...

    Posting content in which underage children are sexualized in any aspect is akin to opening Pandora's box, especially with the newest additions to cybercrime laws. It is something this website has decided it does not wish to dally in and as such, it will not be tolerated. Period. Full stop, no discussion.

    You have been told this several times, you have been PM'ed this and given warnings for this, and you still persist. I am sorry Rob, but you will not be missed.
     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Bravo, Sciforums moderators! Job well done.
     
  22. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,314
    It was entirely accurate.

    I took some offence to your comment, but meh. I could see every parallel to his previous forum shenanigans to what he was doing here. He was found guilty once already.

    The only difference is the sexual harassment. If he posted the same things to me there as he did here, I'm 100% sure he would have been permabanned right away.

    The really stupid one is, I'm the one that suggested to him along time ago to write a book and stop posting about Life on Mercury. Now he said he's writing a book and using the Christian Music thread as his platform.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page