Indeed.
But also think a little before accusing randos on the internet. Read Art. 304 of Swiss Criminal Code:
Also arts 173 about defamation. Unless someone talks about an ongoing criminal procedure, all accusations of events happening (or happened in the past) in the real world because “words on a forum” fit quite nicely the definition of defamation.
Considering most people are using made-up user names, I don’t believe any defamation laws can apply here.
You can’t damage the reputation of unknown user unless it is clear from their posts that it is a known person.
For example, if someone mentions that they used to be US president, lives in Florida and has a Slovenian wife, and you defame them, it’s pretty clear who it is even if their name is not mentioned.
But if you say that you saw user Kingkong having sex with a chicken last weekend then…so what.
I expect the moderators can confirm that is the case.
Exactly.
Up to a certain point, made-up user names minimize damage to another’s reputation. But, it’s minimization, not avoiding entirely.
People meets people in the real world. It’s completely feasible for you to see a made-up name as a complete stranger. But that doesn’t ensure the made-up name is also a stranger to other people. Other people can link it to a person with a real name, address, family, friends, customers, job, etc.
Fun thing is that I introduce myself this way: Hi, I’m Axa. Yes, same name as the handle in EF.
In case this is misconstrued, and to clarify, in light of this defamation discussion, I mean t that the moderators can confirm the defamation rules of the forum and not that they can confirm that user KingKong was having sex with a chicken last weekend.
Possibly.
Yes. It is also everyone’s right to look for ways to mitigate legal risk. It is what lawyers and courts are for. The police don’t get to decide.
You seem like the type who would have made a great inquisitor in the Middle Ages.
I guess mods went out for a beer a bit late last night.
Just use common sense. Of course, the made-up names protect people’s identity and reputation. But casually accusing people of crimes, you don’t know if they occurred or not, is already half of the ingredients for a consequences cocktail.
You ask mods to validate your take on the issue as if the forum was in another planet and we did not live in Switzerland. It seems like you want to talk as much as you want about people without any consequence. Ironically, it’s the same position between people on this thread and police controls.
Tom, welcome to the club of people looking for ways to mitigate consequences. As much as we disgust you, welcome bro!
It was my birthday so I was definitely out enjoying myself last night, I can’t speak for the other mods.
Maybe they shouldn’t casually mention that they commit those crimes…just saying:
Taking the job of police officer, prosecutor and judge is skipping the presumption of innocence. That comes on top of accusing people of crimes you don’t know were committed or not. So, unless convicted by a judge with a final and legally binding conclusion, people is innocent. Like it or not, that’s the local system.
It’s OK, sometimes we foreigners are not familiar with the laws and customs of the country we immigrated to.
Why write that you tailgate if you don’t?
If you do then what I wrote stands. I’m merely acknowledging what you wrote yourself.
Please can you report me for defamation? I’d to see how this pans out for you.
Isn’t wasting Police time a crime too?
Analysis of past actions? It may be a learning process. It may be bragging. It may be owning past mistakes. It may be fishing for likes from fellow psychos. It can be anything.
Only a judge can tell if it’s a crime after being fed with info by prosecutor and police.
We can talk about laws being broken, but the crime conviction talk comes after the judge has spoken.
I’m not filing a complaint. I’m just pointing the way to hot water (legal risk) as any other 2nd class immigrant in Switzerland.
Or possibly you wrote it expecting virtual back-slapping, acknowledgement from other forum users that they do the same, acknowledgement that you only did it because of these “special” road users…etc etc
You didn’t get that from me. Sorry.
The way I read it was that if someone is interrupting your journey, you tailgate them for 10-15 seconds and if they get out of your way, job done.
If they don’t then they are the ones with a problem and they are, in your words, “special”.
As a matter of fact though, “traffic crimes” often don’t go to a judge but are handled in an expeditious “Strafbefehl” by the district attorney. If the police has clear evidence (cameras mainly), the DA does not bother the court but issues a proposed verdict which you then have 10 days to appeal. Only then a proper court will look into the matter.
Typing this from the car, so don’t have a link for this procedure readily availablle.
Which is illegal (if you are driving or in traffic).
It’s a straight seczion of highway so its fine
As Axa likes quoting swiss laws, this one’s from Axa’s website:
Writing a message or similar while driving puts others at great risk and is categorized as a serious violation of traffic rules . Legal proceedings follow which lead to a term of imprisonment or a financial penalty (Art. 90 no. 2 of the Swiss Road Traffic Act;
I don’t think I fish for approval that often. But, does it looks like fishing for approval?
That’s a good interpretation. There’s not much thought or feelings involved. It works or it doesn’t work. No animosity if they don’t move.
Now that you ask and I reflect about it one more time, putting someone in the “special” bucket is a mental game to stay calm and focused. Weird, but dehumanizing serves the purpose of keeping road rage at bay.
Personally, I would like to think that I act opposite. I try and humanize other road users (the ones not trying to kill me).
I let a black BMW convertible driver go in front of me the other day down a mountain pass. He had his girlfriend with him and I’m sure he wanted to impress his girlfriend by his side with his driving skills.
I was happy to let him do that.
I got bored though as I was much faster than him and filtered past him after he stopped for the umpteenth time to squeeze past another car coming up.
I didn’t tailgate him though as bicycle brakes get hot on descents.
We can reach to the same objective (road safety) by taking different ways (humanizing/dehumanizing).
What do I achieve by thinking the driver ahead is a fully aware person that is consciously and willingly blocking the overtaking lane? The only thing I will achieve by assuming the willing intention to block the overtaking lane is rage…a very smart move.
I get it, we all were 16 YO once. Luckily, I had access to a bicycle and an 80 HP pickup truck…when new.
Time passes and we learn that no one appreciates that. Not even car enthusiasts.
The joy of driving comes from a personal and subjective experience, that stuff about impressing others is for teenagers.
PS. Hi, I’m Axa, a debauched utilitarian. Nice to meet you Tom, never had the pleasure to meet someone so deep into the Categorical Imperative.
