my trophy case

Chess boards . Champions . Future champions ?
All I need. Was a chance to experience it myself.
And I have.

Just remember not to "do as you say" - a bully that provokes bullying. The law itself in effect doesn't answer to the fact: How do you stop a bully?

This is about the Internet in question. I answered based on the truth, that the despondence each response made in our current dialogue has? What IS it? What does this represent?

The reason for this is simple-minded in the context of a World Cup stage. I used it in metaphor, because the world cup is an opportune time that many people congregate and cheer for their teams nationalistically. Therefore, it's symbolic if not ritualisitic in the traditional sense. We're not trying to define what the term symbolism - such as the world cup - exists.

People refuse to cheer for their teams against it. The world cup (think Internet) is a unity. Like rules must follow, any hatred, if any, has happened. . . that the laws are supposed to withstand? There are no laws that can regulate the world cup. (i.e. Internet)

Respecting an argument against these laws that prevent people from expressing their views in my personal opinion, is an exectution of cultural norms.

THIS FOLLOWS:

To be honest I'm inquiring to the truth demonstrating what about the law is protecting individuals.

Back to my [original] argument, it's rather astounding that any American / laws. . . should be based realtively speaking on grounds of (let's say) anti-American sentiment. How far will the law be stretched in the effect of freedom of speech, that all people under the rights fundamental to consitution breeched. I argue the law is a multi-national type of present day ultra conservative ideology.

Do people everywhere outside the USA believe that future people affected by this new Internet (i.e. bullying) law protect? The kind of thoughts that economically funding the justice system to uphold perpetrators/violations this law will incur be worth it.

Think about Canada.

In our lives - in a free country with a consitution, such a law is dogmatic. In light of my personal opinion. . . we have passed laws against child-porn and same-sex marriage. Where on this side of the continent would people go to share such legality. I know that Amsterdam comes to mind. (e.g. hannibus) The US are so far beyond it's technically baseless to compare the rest of the world against US interests. The US automatically says, "Oh don't back us into a corner. You'll be the victims if you do." I'm arguing that there's common sense involved. Which I as a Canadian philosopher provide herein with this argument. Yet, the average American ignorant to values outside their own? That's the wireless revolution working in favor of a majority audience, without the regulation of something important as the Internet.

Finally, to counter your side of my own beliefs on the subject, you began by asking me: about Jess's interest in supporting Portugal. I didn't. Which I can explain as I have already. And to resort to such 'bullying' using the Internet as my example. There are reasonable/responsible individuals who do not need the laws of another unilateral position (think America in Iraq) to make our own voices heard. This is a key thinking type of behavior I suggest makes the US remote to an electronic page. I accuse anyone American that comply's to such nationalistic tendencies to intervene with my own thought process. Which is such you challenged mine in mind, by asking, "Why would Jess cheer for Portugal." Obviously, you're an example of such insecurity on the American obliteration of giving the Internet a black eye.

Sij, you're cheering for Portugal in the world cup this year? Yeah, I'm bullying you. I'm going to beat anyone else up who doesn't too. Even the US. Please. The law is ludicrous to a certain degree that is impervious to factual evidence. The key term is : impervious to factual evidence. Like unicef pointed out that "unintentional" threatened behavior.

X - feels threatened by someone.

Y - chooses NOT to ignore the "bullying" and reciprocates.

I'm sure somehow an a\American consensus would provide this sort of behaving is missed... in one word. Bias. Bias on the internet can form in many different ways, groups wouldn't be a common factor. Take the ib for instance, are we subjected to other points of view that are intruding on another belief of choice. Absolutely not. Therefore, consider the motives of one individual that participates in isolation, without implicating any one person, place or thing. The Internet!!!! How about registering our own vehicles and forget about why accidents happen in society. Are we going to regulate how individuals function based on our opinions over technology. The matter is an ethical one.