Yet again, I've been pulled of homework to post here. (because, as you know, I'm the neutral one)

Recently, as you may or may not have noticed, the authors of this blog were accused and threatened by an anonymous person in a comment. Let us examine it as follows:

(and I quote)

omg. if you hate celeste so much why still open a blog and blog about her. go her blog non stop. and its really funny.. you guys dont know her you cant judge her like this. you say what by her face.. omfg.. you stupid or what. how to judge by a face.. its so obvious you guys are just finding fought with her. and going to her blog everyday? even her new video also you straight upload. ohmy what losers.why not show us your faces :) why still hide behind the com and blog about people. coz you pple are not as daring as her. you pple are just jealous that she dares to do what she likes and you cant. if you dare to blog about her. why not dare to show your faces too. coward dogs. do you actually think celeste give a shiat? more like you are giving her more fame.. making her more like a star.. just think about it. hate her den ignore her.. why still come blog about her non stop and all. more like you are her fucking fan. dont say no.

1) you always visit her blog
2) watch her videos
3) check if anynew updated pics or videos are uploaded
4) open a blog and talk about her

you are wasting your time blogging about her. WHAT JOKES.

you pple dare. show us your faces lah. at least she dare to scold pple and show her faces _|_

losers man. really .. ohmy .
anyway this blog is also reported to the police station already :) and they are searching for the IP address coz this is internet bully btw. :D

GOODLUCK!

July 29, 2007 1:17 PM

(endquote)

Well, first off, definitions for today's debate.

Internet Bullying *aka cyber bullying*: "bullying intends to cause emotional distress and has no legitimate purpose... threats, sexual remarks, pejorative labels (i.e., hate speech). They may attempt to assume the identity of a victim for the purpose of publishing material in their name that defames or ridicules them." (Wikipedia, 2007)

My three main points of contention are: 1) Is this blog a cyber-bullying blog? 2) Is this anonymous person a righteous critic? 3) Does his accusation/ threat stand? [Debaters out there, excuse the poor organisation, I'm new]

On to the first point of contention, whether this blog is in fact bullying Celeste.

We say this is not true, because we have not fulfilled the criteria of cyber bullying. On a most basic level, this blog does not fulfill the criteria for a cyber-bullying blog because it does have a purpose. As mentioned, " we're making a statement about the nature of many similar girls on the internet". As has been proven many times over, blogs can be used as a viable form of expression or critique, citing some examples such as Mr. Brown. This blog holds legitimate views which we to express, without going overboard and doing such drastic things as sending her hate mail, or other forms of 'bullying'.

Even if this blog falls into the catagory of cyber-bullying, we say that there is no viable way of ending such "cyber-bullying" by people of the world, unless governments/ law-enforcement agencies world-wide decide to shut down the internet in its entirety. There are simply too many of such blogs.

Furthermore, if a government can enforce such laws, other opinion/expression-driven bloggers like XiaXue would also have to be taken in. Even the 'anonymous' (and might I say, contradicting) person would have to be taken in, with his choice of commenting on our blog, which brings me to my second point.

Is this person a righteous and honest to goodness critic?

We say no, because a true critic would not sink to such vulgar means as this anonymous commentor has done. True, every person has the right to express to him/her-self, but as the government has constantly reminded us, this must be done responsibly, not through insults, ridicule and threats.

Even if this commentor does have a justified opinion, and the best interests of Celeste at heart, we say that through his vulgar means he has negated his right to expression, because he is doing exactly what he says we are doing. He has remained anonymous "not... show[ing] face", and insulted us collectively, with no evidence, judging us "...by face", and using defamatory and vulgar words like "jokes", "f***" and "coward dogs".

Furthermore, if what he says is true, and his point does stand, we say that he can by right be counter-sued or taken in by the police as well because he has (ironically) done everything, and some (threatening), that he himself has deemed 'internet bullying'. We think that this person does not infact hold a righteous view, or others' best interests at heart, but instead merely wishes to make a fool of himself in public by acting so dishonourably.

To my last point, and in conclusion, whether his threat/accusation stands

We say that it does not for two main reasons. First, as we have proven, because we have not fulfilled the criteria of 'internet bullying'. Second, we think it is unlikely that someone would have so carelessly chosen to do something so rash as to report us, because something like that has a variety of ill-effects, for both parties involved (especially because of his comment).

Even if it stands, we say that the chance of enforcement is reduced, because he (and countless others) has done exactly the same thing; if the police followed every threat, we would be getting robbed everyday because there wouldn't be any left to man the streets. We have also already proven that this blog holds legitimate views, and critiques the real and existing trend of so-called 'bimbo' bloggers.

Furthermore, if push comes to shove, we are prepared to face the consequences, because we know that expression of our opinions in the right way (albeit perhaps being a bit over-critical) is justified, and can be defending in a judicially-strong country like Singapore.

At the end of the day what have I proved to you? First, that this isn't an internet-bully blog in the first place. Next, that the anonymous commentor does not, in fact, have a righteous opinion to voice, and thus ought not hold weight with us. Last, that his threat cannot stand in the eyes of logic.

Thanks for reading (if you did, else you just scrolled to the bottom, hmm?)
ProfG