|
On September 15 2011 01:10 ChiffonAngel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 00:18 hypnoxide wrote:On September 15 2011 00:16 Juanald wrote:
their seems to be a strong devide between people from europe and the united statess about this and im suprised to say i gotta side with the euros... i cant tell you how many times ive seen someone attack top players like incontrol crunCher and machine for having an off day if there was a threat of jail for this kind of trolling maybe they wouldnt do it... just my 2 sense I'm amazed that you or anyone else actually believes that talking shit to people is worthy of jail time. I really hope that some of you never get to make decisions like this in the future. On September 15 2011 00:18 andrewlt wrote:On September 14 2011 23:58 hypnoxide wrote:On September 14 2011 23:53 Brett wrote:On September 14 2011 23:41 hypnoxide wrote:On September 14 2011 23:37 Brett wrote:On September 14 2011 23:21 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:
[quote]
im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year,
i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Grow the fuck up and realise that not everyone has an ironclad skin. Get some respect, honestly. Not every person can handle the most horrible verbal abuse you can think off. Great post Brett. Its not about having ironclad skin, its about cutting your losses and not getting in a vulnerable situation. you want internet? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to get anywhere in business? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work in a pub? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work as a policeman? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. dont be such a moron. :o, i called you a moron, are you going to cry about it? or are you going to think "hmm, he is an angry young man with clearly different morales and opinions than me" or "this is making me angry, i should ignore him before i get more angry" the only way you'll ever get anywhere and learn anything is if you put away your tear-ducts and learn about other peoples opionions and morals. Kids of today are growing up like pansys because "OH BETTER NOT HURT THE CHILDREN." Also, i agree, it is a good post by Brett, sheding some light on the legality of it. EDIT: so i dont have to double post. im still at loss of words for the facebook memorium, i mean, that IS what drew attention to it. what, did she want "50,000 [random] likes for my dead daughter plz" we dont need that shit on facebook. and if she didnt put it up there then none of this would've happened. Just because people will exhibit behaviour X, does not mean that society or the law can, will or should tolerate it, ignore it, or fail to prosecute it. If a person leaves their car unlocked, it should not be stolen. Sure, the dumbass should have locked the car, but it's still an offence to jump into another person's car and drive off with it without their permission. If a person doesn't erect 3 metre high fences around their property, their white feature wall should not be subjected to graffiti. Sure, it might be a good idea for them to take precautionary measures to protect their property, but it's still an offence to go and draw a big hairy dick on your neighbour's wall. If a person decides to make a facebook memorial page, and doesn't put certain restrictions on it for some reason or another, it should not be subjected to derogatory, offensive and malicious communications. Sure, it might have been a good idea to restrict it, but it's still an offence to harass the shit out of the page's author. The law does not require people to act to the n'th degree to protect their rights, property, freedoms and general enjoyment because the law is that protection and the person acting against that law DOES NOT HAVE TO PURSUE THEIR ACTIONS. They don't have to steal that car. They dont have to grafiti the wall. They dont have to harass grieving family members by shitting on the memory of the deceased. Sure, intelligent people will act to protect themselves from these criminals, but they shouldnt have to. They are doing nothing wrong. 100% Agree. Let's have people tell us how to behave and totally disregard personal responsibility because it's really working out so far. Besides, I'm pretty sure if you're negligent in securing your property you won't be covered by insurance. Isn't that based in law? WTF does the a person's insurance policy have to do with the criminality of the grafiti artist's actions? Nothing. Stay on topic. Further, you're right, this is entirely about personal responsibility. The responsibility of the criminal NOT to commit criminal offences... Nobody forced this idiot to pursue his course of action. I was referring to your first example. You try to assert that the owner of the vehicle assumes no responsibility to secure his car and instead it is left up to society to make sure it isn't stolen by choosing not to steal it. How about you just lock your fucking door? I'm not saying this kid shouldn't take responsibility, I'm saying that without an opportunity he wouldn't have committed a "crime". Your entire argument is blame the victim. Taking it to its logical conclusion, killing somebody who isn't wearing bulletproof armor isn't murder. A crime is a crime no matter how much the victim takes steps to protect themselves. That's not my argument at all. I'm not blaming the victim I'm saying the episode could be avoided if the victim took precautions against it, like not making it public or not creating it at all. Why do you need a memorial on facebook anyway? If we were to talk about someone getting murdered the only question I have is: Did the victim enter a bad area and did they take precautions to ensure their safety? Walking around in a bulletproof vest is impractical and illegal. Avoiding a known hazardous area is not. While I agree that this person should not be going to jail for what he did, I have to point out that, yes, you are doing the epitome of victim blaming. See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming#Rape_shield_laws"She shouldn't have been walking alone at night dressed that way."
Well this is somewhat applicable to law. Ever notice how there's a ton more leniency given to paparazzi that stalk and photograph celebrities? People that put themselves in the public spotlight open themselves up to that kind of behavior. The family of this daughter choose to put themselves in the public spotlight by creating a public facebook page that anyone could post on. Maybe it's victim blaming but there is also some basis for it in law.
|
United States5162 Posts
On September 15 2011 01:07 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 01:03 Myles wrote:On September 15 2011 00:59 HereticSaint wrote:On September 15 2011 00:55 BlackJack wrote:On September 15 2011 00:46 Brett wrote:On September 15 2011 00:38 BlackJack wrote:
If you're going to make an online public forum about your daughter then you should be prepared to handle public scrutiny. What if this were a memorial page for a serial killer and people went out of their way to call him a monster and a piece of scum. People should be sent to jail for that? Or does protection from trolling only extend to little girls? If the mother of a serial killer made a memorial page to her son to remember the times when he was a better person, and is unfortunately silly enough or technologically retarded enough to make it public, and is then subjected to this form of focused intense hatred, then yes, the perpetrators should be and could be prosecuted... Well I disagree. We don't need the police moderating facebook or teamliquid. In fact, I think that is about the last thing in the world this site needs. Police States are awesome dood, oh wait, I guess in this case it'd be Police World, even better! You don't have to monitor anything. Just like with real life harassment, when someone comes forward saying they feel they're being harassed, the police look into it and decide based on the evidence. How do you suggest they fund this? Also, assuming we take it from funds that would be dedicated towards other areas of investigation and prosecution such as murder, rape, drugs, robberies, kidnappings, etc, which one of those do we take away from?
I don't know anything about police funding, so I can't really say. There's always economic implications, but if you're getting harassed, whether it be over the phone or the internet, the police should be able to stop it.
I also don't think that if a bank is getting robbed and someone reported it that the police could ever say 'Yea, we already went over our robbery budget this month, so you're just going to get robbed'.
|
lol when i first saw the title I read it as facebook trolls jailed people.
|
On September 14 2011 20:41 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 20:39 Supamang wrote:On September 14 2011 20:32 Sea_Food wrote:On September 14 2011 20:29 syno wrote:
And if u were her mother, would u just ban him?
Wouldnt u prefer to see him in jail
If victims would be judges, the human race would have ended in extinction already. Thats quite a strong assertion, considering victims were judges back in the days when there wasnt society A lot of people will cry out in protest to this because of the arbitrary idea of "internet privacy", but what this guy did was far and beyond normal trolling. He was straight up harassing the victims and thats very punishable No, what he was doing happens on the internet every day. Death threats, mocking the death of family members, etc. Every day. In fact I bet if I actively played SC2 and WoW for the next 10 days I would get one of those two per day at bare minimum.
No, it doesn't. Jesus, you're comparing random "death threats" because someone lost at a video game, and clearly have no merit to then beyond "raging" for losing, to someone who's actively gone out of there way to edit/compile a video to mock someone's suicide, with the pure intention to intensify anguish in an already traumatic time? REALLY? Get a fucking grip. That's straight up harassment. Sorry your view on the world is so pessimistic that you think it happens everyday, and that you're so numb to things like this, but clearly the vast majority of society (as well as the UK's judicial system) seems to disagree with you.
|
On September 15 2011 01:25 Frigo wrote:
While ex-girlfriends stalking and harassing men (65000+ calls in one case), and women falsely accusing men of rape, causing very real distress, suffering and panic to the point of suicide among other heavy adverse effects, get no penalty, sometimes not even a slap on the wrist, not even if they continue their acts, which more than fulfill the definition of harassment.
If you'd change that you would get serious problems with real rapist victims.
Guilty in reality doesn't mean you did it, it just says the court is 99,9% sure you did it, while not guilty can be anything from "we just don't have enough proofs" to "He's not guilty".
After all, we can't look in someones head.
Now imagine a girl beeing raped by a classmate or whatever. Now most little girls don't come to their parents the next day and tell them what happend for numerous reasons. So in most cases it ends up beeing known a week later, maybe a month later or even years later.
Does she have to go to prison because she ended up telling their parents to late and the court wasn't able to proof it, and because they're not able to proof it it's defamation?
Again, this is just not as easy to just put it the way you did, just as it isn't as easy to say every troll on the web should be punished. It's a case to case scenario because else nobody would accuse someone, even if rape in fact happened.
Again you just can't look in someone's head so while some of those "bitches" that accuse men for raping them exist there probably are also a few who really were raped and just weren't able to proof it.
|
On September 15 2011 01:37 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 20:41 HereticSaint wrote:On September 14 2011 20:39 Supamang wrote:On September 14 2011 20:32 Sea_Food wrote:On September 14 2011 20:29 syno wrote:
And if u were her mother, would u just ban him?
Wouldnt u prefer to see him in jail
If victims would be judges, the human race would have ended in extinction already. Thats quite a strong assertion, considering victims were judges back in the days when there wasnt society A lot of people will cry out in protest to this because of the arbitrary idea of "internet privacy", but what this guy did was far and beyond normal trolling. He was straight up harassing the victims and thats very punishable No, what he was doing happens on the internet every day. Death threats, mocking the death of family members, etc. Every day. In fact I bet if I actively played SC2 and WoW for the next 10 days I would get one of those two per day at bare minimum. No, it doesn't. Jesus, you're comparing random "death threats" because someone lost at a video game, and clearly have no merit to then beyond "raging" for losing, to someone who's actively gone out of there way to edit/compile a video to mock someone's suicide, with the pure intention to intensify anguish in an already traumatic time? REALLY? Get a fucking grip. That's straight up harassment. Sorry your view on the world is so pessimistic that you think it happens everyday, and that you're so numb to things like this, but clearly the vast majority of society (as well as the UK's judicial system) seems to disagree with you.
Apparently this thread isn't included in society, or you need to read it again. Yes, stuff like this happens every day. Search for vent harassment that includes pictures of the individuals that include addresses and phone numbers and have several people yelling at one person, telling them to kill themselves, that they are going to come to their house and murder their family/sister, there
's a million other examples
Better yet, if you are such a staunch defender of investigating and prosecuting, I'll ask this again: "How do you suggest they fund this? Also, assuming we take it from funds that would be dedicated towards other areas of investigation and prosecution such as murder, rape, drugs, robberies, kidnappings, etc, which one of those do we take away from?"
(I'm guessing a majority of the people will say drugs, that or wont have an answer at all)
|
On September 15 2011 01:43 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 01:37 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2011 20:41 HereticSaint wrote:On September 14 2011 20:39 Supamang wrote:On September 14 2011 20:32 Sea_Food wrote:On September 14 2011 20:29 syno wrote:
And if u were her mother, would u just ban him?
Wouldnt u prefer to see him in jail
If victims would be judges, the human race would have ended in extinction already. Thats quite a strong assertion, considering victims were judges back in the days when there wasnt society A lot of people will cry out in protest to this because of the arbitrary idea of "internet privacy", but what this guy did was far and beyond normal trolling. He was straight up harassing the victims and thats very punishable No, what he was doing happens on the internet every day. Death threats, mocking the death of family members, etc. Every day. In fact I bet if I actively played SC2 and WoW for the next 10 days I would get one of those two per day at bare minimum. No, it doesn't. Jesus, you're comparing random "death threats" because someone lost at a video game, and clearly have no merit to then beyond "raging" for losing, to someone who's actively gone out of there way to edit/compile a video to mock someone's suicide, with the pure intention to intensify anguish in an already traumatic time? REALLY? Get a fucking grip. That's straight up harassment. Sorry your view on the world is so pessimistic that you think it happens everyday, and that you're so numb to things like this, but clearly the vast majority of society (as well as the UK's judicial system) seems to disagree with you. Apparently this thread isn't included in society, or you need to read it again. Yes, stuff like this happens every day. Search for vent harassment that includes pictures of the individuals that include addresses and phone numbers and have several people yelling at one person, telling them to kill themselves, that they are going to come to their house and murder their family/sister, there 's a million other examples Better yet, if you are such a staunch defender of investigating and prosecuting, I'll ask this again: "How do you suggest they fund this? Also, assuming we take it from funds that would be dedicated towards other areas of investigation and prosecution such as murder, rape, drugs, robberies, kidnappings, etc, which one of those do we take away from?" (I'm guessing a majority of the people will say drugs, that or wont have an answer at all)
Stuff to this extent isn't exactly common occurrence. Maybe I shouldn't have said "everyday" but rather "regularly" seeing as murders, rapes, etc. also occur everyday. My fault on the wording. Vent harassment is still harassment, and this case was an extreme extent of it. All of these already, at least in the U.S., qualify as harassment. It's already "in the budget" in the sense they already handle this shit. There isn't specific budgets for things, such as rape. It's not like if there was a sudden surge in rapes, the department would stop handling them. They merely investigate things on what they deem is a priority. Depending on the severity of the crime, it'll be put on the shelf for a bit or handled immediately. Trying to say it's a budget issue is an insanely weak argument.
|
Hopefully the inmates will teach him some lessons about real life.
|
On September 15 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 01:43 HereticSaint wrote:On September 15 2011 01:37 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 14 2011 20:41 HereticSaint wrote:On September 14 2011 20:39 Supamang wrote:On September 14 2011 20:32 Sea_Food wrote:On September 14 2011 20:29 syno wrote:
And if u were her mother, would u just ban him?
Wouldnt u prefer to see him in jail
If victims would be judges, the human race would have ended in extinction already. Thats quite a strong assertion, considering victims were judges back in the days when there wasnt society A lot of people will cry out in protest to this because of the arbitrary idea of "internet privacy", but what this guy did was far and beyond normal trolling. He was straight up harassing the victims and thats very punishable No, what he was doing happens on the internet every day. Death threats, mocking the death of family members, etc. Every day. In fact I bet if I actively played SC2 and WoW for the next 10 days I would get one of those two per day at bare minimum. No, it doesn't. Jesus, you're comparing random "death threats" because someone lost at a video game, and clearly have no merit to then beyond "raging" for losing, to someone who's actively gone out of there way to edit/compile a video to mock someone's suicide, with the pure intention to intensify anguish in an already traumatic time? REALLY? Get a fucking grip. That's straight up harassment. Sorry your view on the world is so pessimistic that you think it happens everyday, and that you're so numb to things like this, but clearly the vast majority of society (as well as the UK's judicial system) seems to disagree with you. Apparently this thread isn't included in society, or you need to read it again. Yes, stuff like this happens every day. Search for vent harassment that includes pictures of the individuals that include addresses and phone numbers and have several people yelling at one person, telling them to kill themselves, that they are going to come to their house and murder their family/sister, there 's a million other examples Better yet, if you are such a staunch defender of investigating and prosecuting, I'll ask this again: "How do you suggest they fund this? Also, assuming we take it from funds that would be dedicated towards other areas of investigation and prosecution such as murder, rape, drugs, robberies, kidnappings, etc, which one of those do we take away from?" (I'm guessing a majority of the people will say drugs, that or wont have an answer at all) Stuff to this extent isn't exactly common occurrence. Maybe I shouldn't have said "everyday" but rather "regularly" seeing as murders, rapes, etc. also occur everyday. My fault on the wording. Vent harassment is still harassment, and this case was an extreme extent of it. All of these already, at least in the U.S., qualify as harassment. It's already "in the budget" in the sense they already handle this shit. There isn't specific budgets for things, such as rape. It's not like if there was a sudden surge in rapes, the department would stop handling them. They merely investigate things on what they deem is a priority. Depending on the severity of the crime, it'll be put on the shelf for a bit or handled immediately. Trying to say it's a budget issue is an insanely weak argument.
Maybe they don't have their funding split in such a mundane way, that doesn't change the fact that if any funding that could otherwise go to another one of these issues goes towards this that it's a negligent misuse of funding. I'm not saying I'm in a position to do so or ever will be, but if I were ever in the position to redirect more funding towards the police departments, run fundraisers for them or otherwise donate towards them I wouldn't if I knew they were using part of this funding on such matters.
I'm sorry, everyone is talking about how serious this is, come the **** on guys, really? A lot of you have been on the internet just as long as I have, I'm not saying that because it's the internet it's okay, but just take five minutes intentionally searching for shit that's intended to actually hurt people and you'll find thousands of hits for stuff that is just as bad, if not worse. I don't see this being worth the cost of investigating, prosecuting and using up jail space (as well as all the associated costs there) for. At least not until other methods of stopping it have been used up, such as banning/IP banning, if they are circumventing these, then maybe, but from everything I've seen it's not like he was hiding behind proxies or making multiple accounts and changing his IP address.
On September 15 2011 01:31 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 01:07 HereticSaint wrote:On September 15 2011 01:03 Myles wrote:On September 15 2011 00:59 HereticSaint wrote:On September 15 2011 00:55 BlackJack wrote:On September 15 2011 00:46 Brett wrote:On September 15 2011 00:38 BlackJack wrote:
If you're going to make an online public forum about your daughter then you should be prepared to handle public scrutiny. What if this were a memorial page for a serial killer and people went out of their way to call him a monster and a piece of scum. People should be sent to jail for that? Or does protection from trolling only extend to little girls? If the mother of a serial killer made a memorial page to her son to remember the times when he was a better person, and is unfortunately silly enough or technologically retarded enough to make it public, and is then subjected to this form of focused intense hatred, then yes, the perpetrators should be and could be prosecuted... Well I disagree. We don't need the police moderating facebook or teamliquid. In fact, I think that is about the last thing in the world this site needs. Police States are awesome dood, oh wait, I guess in this case it'd be Police World, even better! You don't have to monitor anything. Just like with real life harassment, when someone comes forward saying they feel they're being harassed, the police look into it and decide based on the evidence. How do you suggest they fund this? Also, assuming we take it from funds that would be dedicated towards other areas of investigation and prosecution such as murder, rape, drugs, robberies, kidnappings, etc, which one of those do we take away from? I don't know anything about police funding, so I can't really say. There's always economic implications, but if you're getting harassed, whether it be over the phone or the internet, the police should be able to stop it. I also don't think that if a bank is getting robbed and someone reported it that the police could ever say 'Yea, we already went over our robbery budget this month, so you're just going to get robbed'.
Maybe not, but there would be a point where there was an unsolved robbery and they couldn't spend anymore funds towards finding out more about it without asking for more funding (Read: More debt) or getting a higher agency involved. While that's great, it's not like we have unlimited money even though a lot of Americans act like we do.
On September 15 2011 01:52 AlBundy wrote:
Hopefully the inmates will teach him some lessons about real life.
= Say shit, get raped/ brutally beaten/shanked. Very clearly this is reasonable. just wtf.
|
I read the news story, and I'm sorry, but I don't think he deserves a day of jail time. People like him exist, and that's why facebook has things like the ability to make a group or page private/invite only. He trolled hard, but there really wasn't any reason for the families to get so bootybothered about it. Sure he created a "Tasha the tank engine" group and did some photoshop, but the page's admins can always delete that shit, and report the malicious pages to facebook. "Sending malicious communications" sounds like a bullshit crime that was made so that crybabies can feel better when their children get picked on on the internet. If anything, he might have been guilty of a ToS breach with facebook. But nothing "so serious only a custodial sentence could be justified".
|
Wow, dang.
As far as I know this kind of activity is incredibly common on the Internet, and while it sucks, I'm not sure it deserves jailtime.
|
+ Show Spoiler [Answer to Toadesstern, offtopic] +On September 15 2011 01:41 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 01:25 Frigo wrote:
While ex-girlfriends stalking and harassing men (65000+ calls in one case), and women falsely accusing men of rape, causing very real distress, suffering and panic to the point of suicide among other heavy adverse effects, get no penalty, sometimes not even a slap on the wrist, not even if they continue their acts, which more than fulfill the definition of harassment. If you'd change that you would get serious problems with real rapist victims. And that justifies convicting, prosecuting or "just" arresting innocents how? As I said, effects of rape accusations are severe, much severe than rape actually, either they must be lessened by changing current laws and procedures, or false rape accusers should be held accountable for their actions. Guilty in reality doesn't mean you did it, it just says the court is 99,9% sure you did it, while not guilty can be anything from "we just don't have enough proofs" to "He's not guilty".
After all, we can't look in someones head. Guilty in reality often means the court has no fucking evidence whatsoever other than the dubious testimony of the accuser. These cases should be dropped like hot iron. Furthermore when the police discovers any malicious intent of the accuser, they should start prosecuting her immediately, also fining her heavily. Failing to do so would only encourage people to make a joke out of the authorities and hurt innocents. Now imagine a girl beeing raped by a classmate or whatever. Now most little girls don't come to their parents the next day and tell them what happend for numerous reasons. So in most cases it ends up beeing known a week later, maybe a month later or even years later.
Does she have to go to prison because she ended up telling their parents to late and the court wasn't able to proof it, and because they're not able to proof it it's defamation? Does a man have to go to prison because of an alleged crime he committed 37 years ago, with no chance to defend himself against false accusations due to time erasing all evidence that would support his innocence?If she had the malicious intent of erasing all evidence with the help of time and blocking all chance of the accused to defend himself (in clear violation of presumption of innocence), with the aim of wrecking the accused's life, then yes, she should fucking go to prison. False rape accusers often leave loads of evidence that would clearly show their malicious intent, only the laws and procedures are needed to be changed to prosecute them. Again, this is just not as easy to just put it the way you did, just as it isn't as easy to say every troll on the web should be punished. It's a case to case scenario because else nobody would accuse someone, even if rape in fact happened.
Again you just can't look in someone's head so while some of those "bitches" that accuse men for raping them exist there probably are also a few who really were raped and just weren't able to proof it. It is pretty easy actually, you just need to treat it just like any other crime (maintaining those pesky things like presumption of innocence and due process), or fix any problem resulting from treating it differently. Current systems do neither.
|
So he's getting jailed for hurting someone's feelings who didn't die? What is it about UK's legal system that make it so... ridiculous?
|
Am I the only one whose first thought was, "Boy, he is NOT going to do well in prison."
|
He was an asshole who deserved it, but society should really just stick to a big fine and a ban from social networks.
Sending him to prison is both very expensive and, in this case, overkill.
|
|
|
Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 01:52 AlBundy wrote:
Hopefully the inmates will teach him some lessons about real life. = Say shit, get raped/ brutally beaten/shanked. Very clearly this is reasonable. just wtf.
Yes this is reasonable because this is what prisons are for. I'm asking you, why is there overpopulation, promiscuity, violence, etc.? This is all done on purpose. They don't want convicts to have a good time in jail. It's pretty much common knowledge that prisons are made to punish people, to destroy them, not to help them. There's a reason why prisons have a bad reputation and why people would do anything NOT to go there.
|
A person with Asperger's Syndrome, doing something a person with Asperger's Syndrome are like to do.
What's next? Putting a person in a wheelchair in jail for not walking?
A simple reprimand and teaching of social conventions to him should have sufficed.
|
On September 15 2011 01:37 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 20:41 HereticSaint wrote:On September 14 2011 20:39 Supamang wrote:On September 14 2011 20:32 Sea_Food wrote:On September 14 2011 20:29 syno wrote:
And if u were her mother, would u just ban him?
Wouldnt u prefer to see him in jail
If victims would be judges, the human race would have ended in extinction already. Thats quite a strong assertion, considering victims were judges back in the days when there wasnt society A lot of people will cry out in protest to this because of the arbitrary idea of "internet privacy", but what this guy did was far and beyond normal trolling. He was straight up harassing the victims and thats very punishable No, what he was doing happens on the internet every day. Death threats, mocking the death of family members, etc. Every day. In fact I bet if I actively played SC2 and WoW for the next 10 days I would get one of those two per day at bare minimum. No, it doesn't. Jesus, you're comparing random "death threats" because someone lost at a video game, and clearly have no merit to then beyond "raging" for losing, to someone who's actively gone out of there way to edit/compile a video to mock someone's suicide, with the pure intention to intensify anguish in an already traumatic time? REALLY? Get a fucking grip. That's straight up harassment. Sorry your view on the world is so pessimistic that you think it happens everyday, and that you're so numb to things like this, but clearly the vast majority of society (as well as the UK's judicial system) seems to disagree with you.
actually, yes it does happen every day.
Every day, someone will post a facebook "dedication" to someone who died, over at 4chan. Every time this happen, its a pile on to leave comments making fun of the way they died, how they look, etc.
This does happen every day.
On September 15 2011 02:23 unoriginalname wrote:
A person with Asperger's Syndrome, doing something a person with Asperger's Syndrome are like to do.
What's next? Putting a person in a wheelchair in jail for not walking?
A simple reprimand and teaching of social conventions to him should have sufficed.
the issue is that the social networking ban is warranted, however jailtime? I think it would make a far bigger impact, and be far more likely to change his behavior, if he were sentenced to apologize to the family, and go to enforced counseling.
jailtime is not going to change the bad behaviors of someone, particularly with his disorder. What it will do is screw him up more. expect trouble down the road.
|
On September 15 2011 02:23 AlBundy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 01:52 AlBundy wrote:
Hopefully the inmates will teach him some lessons about real life. = Say shit, get raped/ brutally beaten/shanked. Very clearly this is reasonable. just wtf. Yes this is reasonable because this is what prisons are for. I'm asking you, why is there overpopulation, promiscuity, violence, etc.? This is all done on purpose. They don't want convicts to have a good time in jail. It's pretty much common knowledge that prisons are made to punish people, to destroy them, not to help them. There's a reason why prisons have a bad reputation and why people would do anything NOT to go there.
If thats the case, why not just sentence people to 6 months of rape and then theres a lottery for whether they get stabbed or not, and then release them after that time?
Sounds the same now, doesnt it? and it would save taxpayer money, because you can cause the bitterness and hatred in a far shorter amount of time in the inmates mind
On September 15 2011 02:18 Frigo wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Answer to Toadesstern, offtopic] +On September 15 2011 01:41 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 01:25 Frigo wrote:
While ex-girlfriends stalking and harassing men (65000+ calls in one case), and women falsely accusing men of rape, causing very real distress, suffering and panic to the point of suicide among other heavy adverse effects, get no penalty, sometimes not even a slap on the wrist, not even if they continue their acts, which more than fulfill the definition of harassment. If you'd change that you would get serious problems with real rapist victims. And that justifies convicting, prosecuting or "just" arresting innocents how? As I said, effects of rape accusations are severe, much severe than rape actually, either they must be lessened by changing current laws and procedures, or false rape accusers should be held accountable for their actions. Guilty in reality doesn't mean you did it, it just says the court is 99,9% sure you did it, while not guilty can be anything from "we just don't have enough proofs" to "He's not guilty".
After all, we can't look in someones head. Guilty in reality often means the court has no fucking evidence whatsoever other than the dubious testimony of the accuser. These cases should be dropped like hot iron. Furthermore when the police discovers any malicious intent of the accuser, they should start prosecuting her immediately, also fining her heavily. Failing to do so would only encourage people to make a joke out of the authorities and hurt innocents. Now imagine a girl beeing raped by a classmate or whatever. Now most little girls don't come to their parents the next day and tell them what happend for numerous reasons. So in most cases it ends up beeing known a week later, maybe a month later or even years later.
Does she have to go to prison because she ended up telling their parents to late and the court wasn't able to proof it, and because they're not able to proof it it's defamation? Does a man have to go to prison because of an alleged crime he committed 37 years ago, with no chance to defend himself against false accusations due to time erasing all evidence that would support his innocence?If she had the malicious intent of erasing all evidence with the help of time and blocking all chance of the accused to defend himself (in clear violation of presumption of innocence), with the aim of wrecking the accused's life, then yes, she should fucking go to prison. False rape accusers often leave loads of evidence that would clearly show their malicious intent, only the laws and procedures are needed to be changed to prosecute them. Again, this is just not as easy to just put it the way you did, just as it isn't as easy to say every troll on the web should be punished. It's a case to case scenario because else nobody would accuse someone, even if rape in fact happened.
Again you just can't look in someone's head so while some of those "bitches" that accuse men for raping them exist there probably are also a few who really were raped and just weren't able to proof it. It is pretty easy actually, you just need to treat it just like any other crime (maintaining those pesky things like presumption of innocence and due process), or fix any problem resulting from treating it differently. Current systems do neither.
I think what we can agree on is that society needs to change its way of thinking about holding onto the past, and enable people to work through things positively and be done with them. Im sure everyone wouild like to go into the past and bring a criminal to justice, but that's just not feasible if someone won't accuse them at the time of the incident. These people then grow up always wishing to change that past, and thats what creates the future victim. A society mentality thats structured so that people believe in moving forward would be far more beneficial to victims who can't prove their attackers guilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
