Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 06:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14894576
I'm kind of torn here... he didn't really 'do' anything, it's just words so it's hard for me to see him dragged out in public and sent to jail, but at the same time if someone did this to my family I'd probably want to beat them senseless and I'd be glad to see them go to jail for 18 weeks.
This particular case, with all these families touched -and because he intentionally sought them out and sent things to them sepcifically, rather than someone trolling in a public place like here- I think it's justice but I also think it's definitely fair to also call it a slippery slope. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 07:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
The way the system was intended to work, from English Common Law up to US Constitutional principles, was "no victim no crime".
Unfortunately these laws were written on paper and paper won't protect your rights from bad government any more than it would from a thug trying to rip your eyes out and pee in the sockets.
Governments tend to treat such laws in the same manner. On paper and useless.
Off to jail he goes....
|
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 08:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
I think this is a ridiculous action.
Does the man have a right to be an *******? Yes.
Does the family/friend have a right to not have to listen to him? Yes.
The appropriate action would be for Facebook to allow owners of pages to be able to censor and edit their own pages. (do they? It seems stupid if not... I don't know I don't use Facebook it's stupid)
If this man wants to be a complete ass clown, let him do it on his own page. If he wants to do it anonymously, let him do it on his own anonymous page, where people can look and read, or ignore depending on their desire.
In my opinion, you have a right to not like me. You have a right to say terrible things about me as long as it falls short of libel/character assassination. But you DON'T have a right to come into my home and do it in my living room. This seems to be the internet equivalent of what happened.
Tracking him down and arresting him is a joke. Sentencing him to jail is a joke. That 'cyberbullying' like this is possible is a failure of the application/platform it occurred on.
A bit of "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it" combined with "there is a time and a place for everything"
But then again, you people in the UK always have had a ham-fisted idea of justice. (Not saying we haven't developed our own ham-fisted reactions on the other side of the pond but that doesn't validate the actions) |
baltec1
38
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 08:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
He got what he deserved. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
44
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 09:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:He got what he deserved.
YOUS TROLLIN'!1111one [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Nyio
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 09:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Good to see, he should have had a longer sentence though.
I don't have any kids myself but grew up being bullied and later on got engaged in helping other younger kids. Lucky for us we didn't have all these mobile phones and conncted computers everywhere, back then it was a more "hands on" and verbal abuse.
It's good to see this debate is starting to take off everywhere, atleast in the EU.
(This must be the most serious post I ever made on here, sorry.) Features & Ideas Discussion: Agent Finder, Black Holes Needs a banner here.. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 09:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:The way the system was intended to work, from English Common Law up to US Constitutional principles, was "no victim no crime".
The families were the victim of actions that left them emotionally harmed to an extent that they consider criminal. A jury agreed. Now you think there's no victim so there must be no crime...?
Trying to deny one purely on the grounds that you deny the other is the definition of circular logic
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:I think this is a ridiculous action.
Does the man have a right to be an *******? Yes.
Does the family/friend have a right to not have to listen to him? Yes.
Under what circumstances does the act of pushing your 'free speech' on others become a crime?
Quote:In my opinion, you have a right to not like me. You have a right to say terrible things about me as long as it falls short of libel/character assassination. But you DON'T have a right to come into my home and do it in my living room. This seems to be the internet equivalent of what happened.
If he'd spray painted a memorial we'd call it vandalism. If he held them captive we'd call it kidnapping. If he'd showed up at their house we'd cal it harassment. Should there not also be an internet equivalent LAW when people seek out people to enrage? |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 10:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote: Under what circumstances does the act of pushing your 'free speech' on others become a crime?
In my opinion, when that free speech is both damaging/threatening and unavoidable beyond reasonable actions.
After reading the story more carefully (I mearly skimmed it through first time) it seems he went out of his way to repeatedly harass these people so, some action against him does seem just.
VKhaun Vex wrote: If he'd spray painted a memorial we'd call it vandalism. If he held them captive we'd call it kidnapping. If he'd showed up at their house we'd cal it harassment. Should there not also be an internet equivalent LAW when people seek out people to enrage?
Yes and no. I think there is a gray area where we should leave room for people to voice opinions that others may not agree with or want. In the states we have these assholes called the Westboro Baptist Church that like to protest military funerals.
I'd be lying if I didn't have a side that said I wish someone would just spray these bastards with bullets, or police come and haul the lot of them to jail, but the reason we do not is that there is a place for free speech whether we agree with the speech or not. It's better to allow borderline inappropriate speech than to take drastic legal measure that might stifle more appropriate speech down the road.
The line in the sand from an Americans point of view is traditionally: Your rights end where another persons begin. That is to say, in the case of these WBC basterds they can protest, but they can't outright disrupt the actual funeral.
In the case of the man in the article (again after another review) it seems apparent that he did go out of his way to disrupt these other people. But then again (devils advocate) facebook is a public forum.
My opinion stands. An ideal outcome would have been to give the victims the abilitiy to ignore this man. If he then took further action (created another account soley to further harass) lock him up.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over the guy being in jail. And it was done according to the legal process of your nation. But I always err on the side of caution when it comes to punishing people for words and speech. Barring the ability to censor this man from their facebook page, yes, it was most certainly harassment and criminal.
|
Gibbeous Moon
Perkone
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 10:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
I am happy with the sentence. He got wat he deserved; not only for the comments he made but also for the cowardly way in which he attempted to post them anonymously. |
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 11:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
Gibbeous Moon wrote:I am happy with the sentence. He got wat he deserved; not only for the comments he made but also for the cowardly way in which he attempted to post them anonymously.
So now you should be jailed for being an *******?
Enjoy your police state :) |
|
Scorpionidae
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 11:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
I think its good he got jailed. It aint funny. And if that prick lived anywhere near me he'd get the crap kicked out of him (In game).
Scorpionidae If you see my sig... Like me plz? I feel unloved.
Every Day I be Trolling |
Gibbeous Moon
Perkone
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 11:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nothing wrong with being a backpassageHole at all. Just don't inflict it on others.
Furthermore, if one does this anonymously then it could argued that the person did this with afore-thought and malice.
If the person in question isn't willing to behave in society then he should be excluded from it.
Too many people think that it is perfectly acceptable to bahave appalingly on the internet and think that they can get away with it by being anonymous. That cowardly behanour should not be tolerated and is no better, if not worse, than bullying.
This has nothing to do with a police state it's all about social responsibilities. Personally, I am dead against police state (as anyone who know my history of protest since the 70s would know) but I am a firm believer in peple have a greater responsibility to themselves and to others.
(Real name not given here because of the structure of the fourms but I have never hidden it away if anyone asked via private mesage) |
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 11:23:00 -
[13] - Quote
That guy shouldn't have been sent in jail for a few months. he should have been sent to a psychiatric facility for much longer.
This isn't even trolling. Trolling is moking someone and being unconstructive. What that guy has done, was a display of sadism, using the death of girls to hurt their families as much as he could. He's clearly short a few bricks. |
Shirley Serious
The Khanid Sisters of Athra
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 11:32:00 -
[14] - Quote
not "trolling", it was "sending a communication of an indecent or offensive nature". Going to the effort of making youtube videos about it is pretty extreme.
I think the law that covers that, also covers the malicious phone calls, malicious letters, and other such things.
however, I think in order for it to be malicious and prosecutable, it has to be aimed at a private setting.
E.g. it wouldn't be prosecutable to write to Tesco's customer services and include drawings of Tesco employees being pornographically assaulted by baboons or something like that. It would be prosecutable to write to Tesco employees home addresses with the same material.
So, are facebook "memorial" pages a private setting? I honestly don't know.
Iirc, you can set groups and pages to private though. Or at least you could. I don't know anymore, never used it, only have vague ideas about it, reading things in which facebook executives say things like "everything should default to public" or "users shouldn't be able to say no" or "if you have nothing to hide" and other similar such things. i.e. if some person you don't like sends you a "friend request", you shouldn't be able to decline it, according to facebook executives. Which is a good reason to avoid facebook, imo.
Though, cemeteries and gravestones are also public places where there's an expectation not to have to encounter abusive comments, e.g. messages written on the headstones, shouting abuse at people, and so on, where there isn't the same freedom of expression as there is in other public places.
so should facebook "memorial" pages be considered equivalent to headstones? I don't know. Maybe. I don't know enough about how easy it is to administer a facebook page, compared to how easy it is to create it. (I suspect it's very, very easy to set up, and difficult to administer). |
Cpt Placeholder
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 12:30:00 -
[15] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote:If he'd spray painted a memorial we'd call it vandalism. If he held them captive we'd call it kidnapping. If he'd showed up at their house we'd cal it harassment. Should there not also be an internet equivalent LAW when people seek out people to enrage? No, because the current laws are taking care of it right now apparently.
As far as this case is concerned, I agree with #13, he should've been sent to a therapy. |
Cpt Placeholder
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 12:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ugh... meant to edit instead of quoting myself. |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
21
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 13:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
It does set a precedence now, that's the bigger problem.
As other have suggested, he does need therapy and will only get worse in time. So much that I suspect he'll either go back to prison after this for child molestation, animal cruelty, **** and any other number of crimes that revolve around causing psychological distress to other beings.
He's very ill and as much as hurts to say it, he needs help, not imprisonment - all that will do is give him a grade A course in how to be a criminal.
I pity him - his future is bleak and meaningless.
"Few have found anger in solace, than solace in anger."
"Sincerity is a game best played by the insincere"
|
Gibbeous Moon
Perkone
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 14:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
Well, his future is less bleak than if he were Sectioned. That really messes up one's future prospects more than a custodial sentence and I am reliably informed that lobbing Pink Slips at people is really the last option.
Also do bear in mind that a lot of mental health issues (as I am reliably informed by my better half: a keyholding mental health nurse) isn't treatable. So 'therapy' most often isn't the answer. |
Bane Necran
39
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 14:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility.
And i'm really starting to hate the way 'trolling' is used to define things like this. The guy is not just playing around. He's got serious mental problems. |
baltec1
40
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 14:52:00 -
[20] - Quote
Sidus Isaacs wrote:Gibbeous Moon wrote:I am happy with the sentence. He got wat he deserved; not only for the comments he made but also for the cowardly way in which he attempted to post them anonymously. So now you should be jailed for being an *******? Enjoy your police state :)
Got more freedom than you do buddy |
|
Gibbeous Moon
Perkone
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 15:10:00 -
[21] - Quote
I wonder what would happen if Sidus Isaacs wrote something similar to the famies of the tragically bereaved where he lives?
Would he feel so assured in his right of 'Freedom of Speech' that he would put his name and address on such messages? |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 19:15:00 -
[22] - Quote
Gibbeous Moon wrote:I wonder what would happen if Sidus Isaacs wrote something similar to the famies of the tragically bereaved where he lives?
Would he feel so assured in his right of 'Freedom of Speech' that he would put his name and address on such messages?
He would probably say that the state would not respect that right. I would instead ask if he and Herzog would say those things to those people, if promised immunity... I think they're both sane and well spoken enough to never want to do that to a family even if they could get away with it.
An action, known to be wrong, which causes harm.
Once they acknowledge that much, I'd be interested to see how they justify not agreeing with bringing the man to court. |
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 01:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sidus Isaacs wrote:Gibbeous Moon wrote:I am happy with the sentence. He got wat he deserved; not only for the comments he made but also for the cowardly way in which he attempted to post them anonymously. So now you should be jailed for being an *******? Enjoy your police state :) Got more freedom than you do buddy
Sure about that? ;) |
SpaceSquirrels
Scordite Excavating Xenaphobe
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 02:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
What happened to the days of beating someone with a sack full of knobs? Or stockade and tomatoes thrown at you?
So many lulz in this. |
Lois Chenet
Banana Airlines
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 03:18:00 -
[25] - Quote
ITT
UK man gets 18weeks in jail for harassment. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 03:41:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lois Chenet wrote:ITT
UK man gets 18weeks in jail for harassment.
Meanwhile in the U.S. people can go to the actual funeral of a dead soldier, chant that he was a *** loving servant of the devil and that God hates him, and no one can lift a finger. They can't even make them leave.
Quote:On September 24, 2009, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church and reversed the lower court's award. It found their picket near the funeral is protected speech because it involves "matters of public concern, including the issues of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens", and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family.[100] On March 30, 2010, the appeals court ordered Albert Snyder to pay the church's court costs of over $16,000, a move that Snyder's attorney's referred to as "adding insult to injury"
Call me a sheep all you like, but speech shouldn' t be quite THAT free in my humble opinion. |
BLACK-STAR
71
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 04:09:00 -
[27] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote:Meanwhile in the U.S. people can go to the actual funeral of a dead soldier, chant that he was a *** loving servant of the devil and that God hates him, and no one can lift a finger. They can't even make them leave. Quote:On September 24, 2009, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church and reversed the lower court's award. It found their picket near the funeral is protected speech because it involves "matters of public concern, including the issues of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens", and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family.[100] On March 30, 2010, the appeals court ordered Albert Snyder to pay the church's court costs of over $16,000, a move that Snyder's attorney's referred to as "adding insult to injury" Call me a sheep all you like, but speech shouldn' t be quite THAT free in my humble opinion. people take it upon the first amendment.
There is just some really miserable dysfunctional people that try and pass their sadness onto others. Some are just raised poorly, or bent in the head. This WBC cult has a hilariously ignorant website. The triple-K is still around too.
Sean Duffy dbag needs to seek out some serious help for his mental illnesses after his jail time. [img]http://www.imgbox.de/users/S7AR/star.png[/img] |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 05:12:00 -
[28] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote: Meanwhile in the U.S. people can go to the actual funeral of a dead soldier, chant that he was a *** loving servant of the devil and that God hates him, and no one can lift a finger. They can't even make them leave.
I could have sword I explained this very same topic (in direct response to you) on the 8th post of the first page. Including why, despite their disgusting behavior, it is permitted and protected.
VKhaun Vex wrote:Call me a sheep all you like, but speech shouldn' t be quite THAT free in my humble opinion.
Thankfully, we based our society off the humble opinions of much wiser men than you.
That's the problem with freedoms, they come with a price. If a society can't take the bitter with the sweet in regards to civil rights you can quickly find yourself with no rights at all.
There are many who would scrap rights like these, usually in favor of some ideological pursuit to remove elements they personally find distasteful from society. Thus the axiom that freedom requires eternal vigilance against such fools.
|
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
13
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 05:45:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sounds like they were just a tad hasty to me.
An appropriate first action would be a legal order to leave these people alone first, and THEN jail him for contempt of court if he violates the order. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 07:07:00 -
[30] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:That's the problem with freedoms, they come with a price. If a society can't take the bitter with the sweet in regards to civil rights you can quickly find yourself with no rights at all.
Bitter with the sweet is a ridiculous analogy. The law is complicated for exactly this reason, to become specific when it needs to be. It's purely your choice to link the two together, and nothing stops a law from separating them or giving a judge the tools to do so.
The way it works here is by leaving the law open to the judge to decide if intent was malicious. Specifically, an attempt to harm people (Criminal) rather than an attempt to exercise their first amendment rights which resulted in people being distressed by what they had to say (Not criminal.). Your arguments assume the latter and circumvent the system you think you're defending.
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Thankfully, we based our society off the humble opinions of much wiser men than you.
You're doing your sleight of keyboard stuff again. My opinion was regarding the decision not the law as I stated above. I'll draw this thought out all the way, since I guess I need the disclaimer.
I disagree with the judge's decision that they were purely speaking on a political subject which is protected. I feel their protests are organized and carried out with the intent to cause harm. The locations they choose, language and conduct they use... it doesn't make sense in the context of political motivation, it's clearly someone trying to berate someone else.
People shouldn' t be free to harm others by hiding behind anything, especially not the constitution and I feel that's what they're letting these guys do. |
|
baltec1
41
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 07:14:00 -
[31] - Quote
Sidus Isaacs wrote:
Sure about that? ;)
We dont block a semi religious building because of terrorist attacks. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
156
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 07:44:00 -
[32] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sidus Isaacs wrote:
Sure about that? ;)
We dont block a semi religious building because of terrorist attacks.
You do arrest people for internet trolling, have draconian libel laws, have no right to a modern means of self defense, and live in the world's poster child for a surveillance socieity.
And the state hasn't blocked the 911 Victory Mosque. Quite the opposite, much to the disgust of many concerned citizens who have rightfully protested, and construction workers don't want to build it.
But hey, I know the Brits are eager to hand their country over and build as many mosques as possible. More power to you - have fun with that.
Lemme know how it's going for you in 20-30 years. |
baltec1
41
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 07:56:00 -
[33] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sidus Isaacs wrote:
Sure about that? ;)
We dont block a semi religious building because of terrorist attacks. You do arrest people for internet trolling, have draconian libel laws, have no right to a modern means of self defense, and live in the world's poster child for a surveillance socieity. And the state hasn't blocked the 911 Victory Mosque. Quite the opposite, much to the disgust of many concerned citizens who have rightfully protested, and construction workers don't want to build it. But hey, I know the Brits are eager to hand their country over and build as many mosques as possible. More power to you - have fun with that. Lemme know how it's going for you in 20-30 years.
Acctually we do have the right of self defence, we just dont need guns to do it. As for CCTV, nothing wrong with itunless you are breaking the law.
Also, I do laugh at the states that are trying to ban teaching evolution in classrooms |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 08:53:00 -
[34] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote: Bitter with the sweet is a ridiculous analogy. The law is complicated for exactly this reason, to become specific when it needs to be. It's purely your choice to link the two together, and nothing stops a law from separating them or giving a judge the tools to do so.
The way it works here is by leaving the law open to the judge to decide if intent was malicious. Specifically, an attempt to harm people (Criminal) rather than an attempt to exercise their first amendment rights which resulted in people being distressed by what they had to say (Not criminal.). Your arguments assume the latter and circumvent the system you think you're defending.
You're doing your sleight of keyboard stuff again. My opinion was regarding the decision not the law as I stated above. I'll draw this thought out all the way, since I guess I need the disclaimer.
I disagree with the judge's decision that they were purely speaking on a political subject which is protected. I feel their protests are organized and carried out with the intent to cause harm. The locations they choose, language and conduct they use... it doesn't make sense in the context of political motivation, it's clearly someone trying to berate someone else.
People shouldn' t be free to harm others by hiding behind anything, especially not the constitution and I feel that's what they're letting these guys do.
I'm going to do my best here with what you've dealt.
-I'm not sure you understand what an analogy is.
-laws are made more specific when the need arises. however they can never run counter to the founding documents with provide them their authority. No Judges actions can either. "Giving them the tools" to do so would be that circumventing you thought you identified.
-sleight of keyboard? Is this your automatic reaction when you run into a mental wall? Don't attempt to understand the logic, just think of it as a magic act?
-what is this disclaimer I don't even
-no they shouldn't. that's why one persons rights end exactly where another persons begin. No one is hiding behind the constitution, but we are careful we don't trample over it when we go to get the 'bad guys'.
baltec1 wrote:Acctually we do have the right of self defence, we just dont need guns to do it. As for CCTV, nothing wrong with itunless you are breaking the law. Also, I do laugh at the states that are trying to ban teaching evolution in classrooms
3 things
-do people that shouldn't have guns in your country have them? if so, you are severely hampered from defending yourself against them. No matter how strong your kung fu or cricket bat is.
-If your innocent you have nothing to fear? Holy poo-poo if you think this is a smart statement there is no hope for you.
-No one is actually going to ban teaching evolution, it's just the rantings of a very stupid but very vocal minority. These ridiculous topics are only entertained by those who make the laws because those corrupt rotten SOBs love when their constituents occupy their time with distractions. If these morons got lathered up about making witchcraft illegal you'd find a Republican politician that would smile make that his platform. All that aside, please do continue laughing at them, the rest of us do!
Jada Maroo wrote: You do arrest people for internet trolling, have draconian libel laws, have no right to a modern means of self defense, and live in the world's poster child for a surveillance socieity.
And the state hasn't blocked the 911 Victory Mosque. Quite the opposite, much to the disgust of many concerned citizens who have rightfully protested, and construction workers don't want to build it.
But hey, I know the Brits are eager to hand their country over and build as many mosques as possible. More power to you - have fun with that.
Lemme know how it's going for you in 20-30 years.
So wait, first you taunt their principles of freedom, then you make a mockery of ours?
Pro tip: the mooselims aren't out to get you. An organization built by people we used as cannon fodder against the Russians and then turned our backs on in the 70's are. The only people that think we are in a religious war are idiots and people (consciously or unconsciously) itching for a religious war.
|
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
156
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 09:35:00 -
[35] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
So wait, first you taunt their principles of freedom, then you make a mockery of ours?
Criticizing that mosque's construction isn't making a mockery of freedom, it is the act of exercising it. They still have the right to build it. But they don't have the right to build it absent scrutiny and protest.
If they can't handle that, then maybe they should build it in Europe where self preservation is frowned upon and offending people is the greatest crime against humanity (unless you're a Muslim or some other protected class offending people). |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 09:46:00 -
[36] - Quote
A common error that I can speak for in the USA regarding the "right to free speech" is that people often forget that everybody posses an equal right to ignore whatever is being said.
It only becomes dangerous when ignorance is applied to democracy, thus weaponizing it. And that's why people will get worked up over things like evolution and other non-issues while the banksters continue to rob the world blind.
|
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 09:59:00 -
[37] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
So wait, first you taunt their principles of freedom, then you make a mockery of ours?
Criticizing that mosque's construction isn't making a mockery of freedom, it is the act of exercising it. They still have the right to build it. But they don't have the right to build it absent scrutiny and protest. If they can't handle that, then maybe they should build it in Europe where self preservation is frowned upon and offending people is the greatest crime against humanity (unless you're a Muslim or some other protected class offending people).
Not what I was talking about, I should have been more clear. I agree people had a right to protest it. Workers had a right to not participate in the construction. But do you recognize that for freedom to be freedom, it goes both ways?
Jada Maroo wrote:But hey, I know the Brits are eager to hand their country over and build as many mosques as possible. More power to you - have fun with that.
Lemme know how it's going for you in 20-30 years.
It was that you lauded the freedoms of the people when the outcome is that a building isn't built, but then make a mockery of that principle when the outcome is that a building IS built. You seem to come to two different conclusions when they are really two sides of the same coin. That somehow when the outcome isn't anti-Muslim that it's wrong and they will live to regret it. I would label that somewhere between hypocritical and cognitive dissonance. |
SpaceSquirrels
Scordite Excavating Xenaphobe
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 14:32:00 -
[38] - Quote
With the westboro thing many states made laws so they have to protest a certain distance away instead of right up in their faces like before. ****** up thing about that case though was westboro counter sued the father, and won, and I believe the guy owes them money now...
Really one just needs to not give them attention. Protests only work when someone pays attention! Stop feeding them!
But thinking about it really trolling like this guy was doing is just a form of harassment/stalking. It just so happens its in a digital form.
Lesson from this is....dont be a jackass.
|
Dray
Euphoria Released HYDRA RELOADED
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 16:02:00 -
[39] - Quote
Is it too harsh? I don't know but if it was any of mine that suffered it I'd be happy to see him as a prison shower princess for 18 months.
Either way the first rule of making a c**t of yourself is not to get caught, he got caught.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 16:34:00 -
[40] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sidus Isaacs wrote:
Sure about that? ;)
We dont block a semi religious building because of terrorist attacks.
I do not think we have doen aything like that. |
|
Shmuel Astucius
Ramdon Industries corporation
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 17:07:00 -
[41] - Quote
slippery slope, but I don't agree with what he did. It's a shame that people can do these things and not feel any sort of remorse or common decency. Our society influenced this person to do these actions. I don't believe a custodial sentence is the key here, he needs to change from the inside out not the outside in. In times gone by people people would not of even thought about doing this but with the collapse of social morals on all fronts get used to this becoming the norm or rather get prepared for worse to come. |
SpaceSquirrels
Scordite Excavating Xenaphobe
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 18:05:00 -
[42] - Quote
^ Lol what are you talking about dude? Decline in morals? (I never really bought the "we're worse now than before." argument Look at history rather cylindrical I would say. ) People have harassed others throughout time. The only difference now is an added medium, and that medium has anonymity to it. Thus making it more apt for this kind of behavior.
I suppose a theory could be. "Did the internet create more assholes? Or does it just give us a means to be said *******?" |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 19:09:00 -
[43] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:A common error that I can speak for in the USA regarding the "right to free speech" is that people often forget that everybody posses an equal right to ignore whatever is being said.
Logically backwards, and patently false. How would any of these topics even come up if others could just 'not listen'? Protests wouldn't work in the first place, much less be able to reach the point of this conversation. Harassment would be moot and no laws would be needed. Vandalism to write messages on things wouldn't happen because people would just 'ignore' their damage.
I'm sure if the WBC showed up at a family funeral with your kids there, you'd just tell them to walk around the nice people screaming at them because they're fags. Your kids start crying so you just tell them to 'ignore' the angry women chanting that they're going to hell and their dead relatives are being burned alive over and over while waiting for them.
If you reduced speech to only be allowed when others could 'not listen' this would be the most controlling country in the world, where almost nothing would ever be allowed to be expressed.
No. Sorry. You once again pop into the thread to make a statement that might sound okay at first, but goes no where and makes no sense in the context of the real world, like a comedian dropping one liners that aren't funny. |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 01:52:00 -
[44] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:A common error that I can speak for in the USA regarding the "right to free speech" is that people often forget that everybody posses an equal right to ignore whatever is being said. Logically backwards, and patently false. How would any of these topics even come up if others could just 'not listen'? Protests wouldn't work in the first place, much less be able to reach the point of this conversation. Harassment would be moot and no laws would be needed. Vandalism to write messages on things wouldn't happen because people would just 'ignore' their damage. I'm sure if the WBC showed up at a family funeral with your kids there, you'd just tell them to walk around the nice people screaming at them because they're fags. Your kids start crying so you just tell them to 'ignore' the angry women chanting that they're going to hell and their dead relatives are being burned alive over and over while waiting for them. If you reduced speech to only be allowed when others could 'not listen' this would be the most controlling country in the world, where almost nothing would ever be allowed to be expressed. No. Sorry. You once again pop into the thread to make a statement that might sound okay at first, but goes no where and makes no sense in the context of the real world, like a comedian dropping one liners that aren't funny.
Herzog is correct on this one.
The very concept of harassment is that it removes any reasonable ability for you to ignore what would otherwise be the free speech of another person.
This is the very reason the WBC is still doing what it's doing and not rotting in a jail somewhere. Again, as I said earlier, they have a right to protest the funerals, but not to outright disrupt said funerals. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 02:11:00 -
[45] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote: Herzog is correct on this one.
The very concept of harassment is that it removes any reasonable ability for you to ignore what would otherwise be the free speech of another person.
That's not what he said... he doesn't even think the topic poster should have been sent to jail. You and I seem to differ on where the line is, but it seems he thinks there is no line at all and anyone can say anything to anyone regardless of what harm it causes.
At least that's how I read it, I won't put words in his mouth if that's not what he meant I'm sure he'll clear it up. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
206
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 07:59:00 -
[46] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sidus Isaacs wrote:
Sure about that? ;)
We dont block a semi religious building because of terrorist attacks. You do arrest people for internet trolling...
This has happened in the US as well. Last year, IIRC.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
baltec1
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 08:28:00 -
[47] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
Herzog is correct on this one.
The very concept of harassment is that it removes any reasonable ability for you to ignore what would otherwise be the free speech of another person.
This is the very reason the WBC is still doing what it's doing and not rotting in a jail somewhere. Again, as I said earlier, they have a right to protest the funerals, but not to outright disrupt said funerals.
In the uk we have the right to not be harrased by arsewipes, over here they would have been arrested and fined every single time under the public order act. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 08:44:00 -
[48] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:In the uk we have the right to not be harrased by arsewipes, over here they would have been arrested and fined every single time under the public order act.
Actually IIRC they didn't even let them enter the U.K. to begin with...
Totalitarian police state: 1 Free speech utopia: 0 |
baltec1
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 08:50:00 -
[49] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Actually IIRC they didn't even let them enter the U.K. to begin with...
Why would we want to, you can keep them |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 09:05:00 -
[50] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:VKhaun Vex wrote:
Actually IIRC they didn't even let them enter the U.K. to begin with...
Why would we want to, you can keep them
I like cool weather, tough laws, and the sound of rain.
London is probably too expensive for me, but I suddenly feel I belong over there.
|
|
Froz3nEcho Sarain
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 14:11:00 -
[51] - Quote
Why is everyone talking about trolling here? Everything this guy has said/done has nothing to do with trolling or freedom of speech for that matter. I am for freedom of speech...to some degree at least. Some things just shouldn't be said because it is just verbal violence which in some cases can be more severe than a punch to the teeth.
But apparently the internet brings up the worst of humanity and another douche-bag thought his life would be less empty by saying and making these horrible things. If I was the father of this poor girl I would have shot him in the head but you can't have everything. This is just plain Darwinism, scum like this are at the bottom of the human ladder and it is just a matter of time until they fall down. ~ When everything fades away, an echo is the only sound that will remain ~ -á-á~ Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds ~ |
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 14:58:00 -
[52] - Quote
Froz3nEcho Sarain wrote: If I was the father of this poor girl I would have shot him in the head .
How mature of you... |
Froz3nEcho Sarain
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 15:30:00 -
[53] - Quote
Sidus Isaacs wrote:Froz3nEcho Sarain wrote: If I was the father of this poor girl I would have shot him in the head . How mature of you...
Call it freedom of speech like everyone else in this thread. ^^ ~ When everything fades away, an echo is the only sound that will remain ~ -á-á~ Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds ~ |
Marwood Ford
Pink Sunshine Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 03:04:00 -
[54] - Quote
I'm entirely happy that the sentencing in this case was appropriate. While "trolling" is the sort of neologism that the media love to cram into a headline, it's a word that doesn't really cover the malicious psychological abuse of a dead girl's family. I'm actually quite shocked, VKhaun, that you can read that story and come to the conclusion that the man didn't "do" anything. |
Mudkest
Adventurers Matari Visionary Coalition
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 08:38:00 -
[55] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
Yes and no. I think there is a gray area where we should leave room for people to voice opinions that others may not agree with or want. In the states we have these assholes called the Westboro Baptist Church that like to protest military funerals.
true, but did he only made a comment once on their facebook or w/e he did it, or did he spam post them? there's a difference between leaving a single post saying "I'm glad she's dead"(still tasteless btw) or spamming the page with messages like that. one is voicing an opinion, the other is harrassing.
Off course if he would do this face-to-face or hang banners in the street and such he'd probably get a restraining order but doing that for the internet is almost impossible to enforce(if not completely) |
baltec1
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 09:11:00 -
[56] - Quote
Mudkest wrote:
true, but did he only made a comment once on their facebook or w/e he did it, or did he spam post them? there's a difference between leaving a single post saying "I'm glad she's dead"(still tasteless btw) or spamming the page with messages like that. one is voicing an opinion, the other is harrassing.
Off course if he would do this face-to-face or hang banners in the street and such he'd probably get an, hmr, don't go near them again or face jail thing(cant remember the name) but doing something like that for the internet is almost impossible to enforce(if not completely)
Not only did he spam but he also took the time to make a facebook page and several vids he put up on youtube. |
Marwood Ford
Pink Sunshine Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 11:10:00 -
[57] - Quote
Mudkest wrote:true, but did he only made a comment once on their facebook or w/e he did it, or did he spam post them?
Er... you could try reading the article linked in the OP.
|
Bane Necran
49
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 17:52:00 -
[58] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:the 911 Victory Mosque.
Isn't that the mosque which is in fact several blocks away from the WTC site, but the media keeps distorting facts to troll you? |
baltec1
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 18:44:00 -
[59] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:Jada Maroo wrote:the 911 Victory Mosque. Isn't that the mosque which is in fact several blocks away from the WTC site, but the media keeps distorting facts to troll you?
Its not even really a mosque. The vast bulk of the building was going to be a community center open to everyone with a prayer room on one of the lower floors. |
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 22:15:00 -
[60] - Quote
Froz3nEcho Sarain wrote:Sidus Isaacs wrote:Froz3nEcho Sarain wrote: If I was the father of this poor girl I would have shot him in the head . How mature of you... Call it freedom of speech like everyone else in this thread. ^^
I am all for free speech, but does not mean I have to repect you or what you say in any way :) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |