Quickly said, this guy went to jail for 4months, banned for 5 years of socials networks and need to tell the police if he buys a mobile with internet on it.
This guy trolled post-mortem a girl that he didn't even knew(Tasha, I guess its Natasha) on the facebook page created by her mother after her suicide. Going as far as treating her as a "bitch"
He also did an editing of the "movie" Thomas et ses amis but putting the girl's photography instead. (And this, is going really far knowing she suicided by jumping under a train)
After the sand prank etc, there REALLY is weird pepole in this world. RIP to the girl.
Uhh, I wouldn't have jailed him, he is probably quite a sad case himself after all. But then again acting like a dick isn't nice, even if it isn't the real world.
Hope he learns, learning the hard way or not he is a social reject who likes attention plain and simple.
5 months, some people may not seem it is long enough.
I am from Worcester, where the girl was from who killed herself on valentines day i beleive. I dont know the girl, but i have seen pictures and read numerous storys and heard stuff from my friends about her. To mock someone who killed themselves because of social aspects inside her school life (she was a well off girl who went to private school, but her parents had recently split up which is reason for her suicide i beleive)
But to ban him from social networks for 5 years is a bit weak, if you cruel to animals your nomally banned from having them completely, let alone 5 years. Kind of stupid.
On September 14 2011 20:21 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Uhh, I wouldn't have jailed him, he is probably quite a sad case himself after all. But then again acting like a dick isn't nice, even if it isn't the real world.
excuse me but how you can say it's not the real world... Of course it is. If he had insulted her by telephone instead of internet you would have said it's not the real world?
On September 14 2011 20:25 Sea_Food wrote: So this is like internet privacy. There are millions of people doing what he did, but only he got punished for it.
Btw, couldnt the mother just like banned him from the facebook page?
I doubt there are millions of people doing what he did. If you cherry pick parts instead looking at everything he did sure, but that's not how he got judged.
It's like the difference between sending one creepy note to a girl and sending several each day for months while following her around. Get the difference?
On September 14 2011 20:25 Sea_Food wrote: So this is like internet privacy. There are millions of people doing what he did, but only he got punished for it.
Btw, couldnt the mother just like banned him from the facebook page?
Wait, what? Millions of people? oh dude...
Yes of course there are many trolls. But what he did was on a complete different level.
And if u were her mother, would u just ban him? Wouldnt u prefer to see him in jail?
I feel like this kind of behavior is completely wrong and unnecessary, but I'm also not really sure how you can punish this because I'm not really sure what crime this would be.
It's kinda equivalent to people that picket at soldier's funerals, except those people "technically" have a cause they are representing, whereas this guy was just being a douche. I'm not really sure how you would be able to criminalize this other than harassment of the surviving family members.
On September 14 2011 20:25 Sea_Food wrote: So this is like internet privacy. There are millions of people doing what he did, but only he got punished for it.
Btw, couldnt the mother just like banned him from the facebook page?
Wait, what? Millions of people? oh dude...
Yes of course there are many trolls. But what he did was on a complete different level. ?
Ok, maybe only thousands.
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.
Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
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.
Yes. But just try to think like the mother/parents. Wouldnt you try everything to see this idiot paying for what he's done?
Who cares what the mother wants, that has absolutely no relevance. I want a million dollars, I want idiots to die, I want to know how to pilot an F-16. What the hell is your point? Really?
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
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.
Well I didnt realise "sending malicious communications" was a thing but I guess im relatively happy it is. What level does it have to be before its policed? Obviously this guy deserved it, im just curious about where the lines are drawn.
On September 14 2011 20:38 HereticSaint wrote: Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
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.
Yes. But just try to think like the mother/parents. Wouldnt you try everything to see this idiot paying for what he's done?
Who cares what the mother wants, that has absolutely no relevance. I want a million dollars, I want idiots to die, I want to know how to pilot an F-16. What the hell is your point? Really?
You can drop the tough guy act. No one cares what you go through or how bad ass you think you are for toughing it out.
This is also the first time Ive ever seen someone compare a 14 year old stealing music to someone harassing the families of dead children
On September 14 2011 20:38 HereticSaint wrote: Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
On September 14 2011 20:37 syno 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.
Yes. But just try to think like the mother/parents. Wouldnt you try everything to see this idiot paying for what he's done?
Who cares what the mother wants, that has absolutely no relevance. I want a million dollars, I want idiots to die, I want to know how to pilot an F-16. What the hell is your point? Really?
You can drop the tough guy act. No one cares what you go through or how bad ass you think you are for toughing it out.
This is also the first time Ive ever seen someone compare a 14 year old stealing music to someone harassing the families of dead children
And no one gives a shit how tough you are. Congratulations on completely overlooking everything I said because you are a big enough moron to think I'm acting like a hardass when I'm not.
Looking at him, I can just tell that he is a loser at life and an ugly as fuck troll. I'm just filled with disgust, got this urge to do a flying kick at him~
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.
Thats called internet rage. It happens once or twice, but you dont hear from the guy ever again after 10 minutes.
This guy repeatedly tried to contact the families with malicious intent.
Yeah, I heard about some people on 4chan trying to get people to stick up for his 'rights'. What the guy did is wrong, not sure what would posses someone to take something like this so far. I'm glad they punished this dirtbag, if only for being a slap on the wrist.
People should actually read the god damn article. This wasn't some dude that wrote a one-off comment like "lol derp she sux dix!!" on her tribute page. The shit that he posted was pretty sickening.
Not sure how I feel about this. I wonder if the guy would have been given an equivalent punishment had he harassed the family in real life rather than through the internet. Something tells me no. Of course I have no idea to what degree he was harassing them, but if it was just general offensive material then the authorities shouldn't be involved at all. Telling someone their daughter sucked after she killed herself is a horrible thing to do for sure, but it's not illegal.
Edit: Hmm... I read the article and it seems some of the stuff he did was pretty horrible... But a criminal offence? I feel like this could have been easily resolved by the FB staff by simply IP banning him. His posts surely go against the terms and conditions of the site. I'm not comfortable with the idea that a few inappropriate comments can get you a jail sentence.
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.
Saying "it happens a lot" is a poor argument. There is a lot of obvious illegal things that happens a lot, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong to convict him but I just hate people saying this over and over again, especially when it comes to online issues. I feel we should base our laws on what we deem as right or wrong, not what the police have resources to enforce.
Also I feel that people fail to take into account the whole picture. Harrassement is one obvious example of this. If you take a part out of a harrasemnt case it might not be illegal but as a whole it is.
On September 14 2011 20:48 yandere991 wrote: People should actually read the god damn article. This wasn't some dude that wrote a one-off comment like "lol derp she sux dix!!" on her tribute page. The shit that he posted was pretty sickening.
I personally find "Tasha the Tank Engine" pretty funny. It's in god awful, atrociously bad taste, but still...
EDIT: All depends on if the execution is as good as I'm imagining it.
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.
Thats called internet rage. It happens once or twice, but you dont hear from the guy ever again after 10 minutes.
This guy repeatedly tried to contact the families with malicious intent.
No, I have on more than one occasion been trolled consistently by people telling me I should die, commit suicide, made fun of dead family members for several weeks for beating them in Arenas in World of Warcraft. Yes, weeks, yes ignored them and they made new characters to continue to do this for hours and hours on end. Want to know the difference? You ban a Facebook account or whatever it at least takes 10-15 mins to make a new one with a new email and what have you, creating a new character in WoW takes about 5 seconds.
Now just so you don't misunderstand, I don't really care if you give a shit how I feel. The point is it happens, a lot.
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.
Saying "it happens a lot" is a poor argument. There is a lot of obvious illegal things that happens a lot, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong to convict him but I just hate people saying this over and over again, especially when it comes to online issues. I feel we should base our laws on what we deem as right or wrong, not what the police have resources to enforce.
My point is, making an example of someone doesn't help on today's World. People generally know, either it's a big enough deal that things will consistently be done about it or it isn't. In this case it falls under the latter description, not because it's entirely unimportant necessarily, but because there are a thousand other, more important issues that aren't even fully under control.
On September 14 2011 20:38 HereticSaint wrote: Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
On September 14 2011 20:37 syno 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.
Yes. But just try to think like the mother/parents. Wouldnt you try everything to see this idiot paying for what he's done?
Who cares what the mother wants, that has absolutely no relevance. I want a million dollars, I want idiots to die, I want to know how to pilot an F-16. What the hell is your point? Really?
You can drop the tough guy act. No one cares what you go through or how bad ass you think you are for toughing it out.
This is also the first time Ive ever seen someone compare a 14 year old stealing music to someone harassing the families of dead children
And no one gives a shit how tough you are. Congratulations on completely overlooking everything I said because you are a big enough moron to think I'm acting like a hardass when I'm not.
lol i never tried to act like a hardass, why did you tell me that no one gives a shit how tough i am?
youre the one coming in here being all confrontational and spouting random shit about people making fun of your dead family members. you posted twice in a row about people making fun of your dead family members. i dont see how you feel that this is a common occurrence on the internet unless you go around advertising how you have dead family members online
On September 14 2011 20:38 HereticSaint wrote: Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
On September 14 2011 20:37 syno 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.
Yes. But just try to think like the mother/parents. Wouldnt you try everything to see this idiot paying for what he's done?
Who cares what the mother wants, that has absolutely no relevance. I want a million dollars, I want idiots to die, I want to know how to pilot an F-16. What the hell is your point? Really?
You can drop the tough guy act. No one cares what you go through or how bad ass you think you are for toughing it out.
This is also the first time Ive ever seen someone compare a 14 year old stealing music to someone harassing the families of dead children
And no one gives a shit how tough you are. Congratulations on completely overlooking everything I said because you are a big enough moron to think I'm acting like a hardass when I'm not.
lol i never tried to act like a hardass, why did you tell me that no one gives a shit how tough i am?
youre the one coming in here being all confrontational and spouting random shit about people making fun of your dead family members. you posted twice in a row about people making fun of your dead family members. i dont see how you feel that this is a common occurrence on the internet unless you go around advertising how you have dead family members online
You realize that the people in question who got, "trolled" advertised online that their family members were dead, does that all of a sudden make what the troll did okay? What?
Also, it isn't random at all, it's completely relevant to the topic at hand. You're the one who quoted me and immediately became confrontational including saying, "I don't really give a shit how you feel or that your family members are dead." I think if anything you are closer to that internet troll than me. Just saying.
On September 14 2011 20:54 Phyrigian wrote: It's not appropriate at all, and I do think he went too far, but I don't see exactly why he should be jailed over it. Freedom of speech still exists; even if it is used inappropriately. I don't know how he can be jailed over using his freedom of speech in a "free world".
True freedom of speech died a long, long time ago. It's been a long time since you could say whatever you want in America at least.
On September 14 2011 20:54 Phyrigian wrote: It's not appropriate at all, and I do think he went too far, but I don't see exactly why he should be jailed over it. Freedom of speech still exists; even if it is used inappropriately. I don't know how he can be jailed over using his freedom of speech in a "free world".
I'm against this guy being jailed, but uh...freedom of speech doesn't mean you aren't accountable for your words. If you went up to a cop and said "FUCK YOU FAGGOT GO KILL YOURSELF HEY HEY I *insert lots and lots of inappropriate stuff here*" you would be in trouble. You can't say "CAN'T DO ANYTHING, IT'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH!"
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.
Thats called internet rage. It happens once or twice, but you dont hear from the guy ever again after 10 minutes.
This guy repeatedly tried to contact the families with malicious intent.
No, I have on more than one occasion been trolled consistently by people telling me I should die, commit suicide, made fun of dead family members for several weeks for beating them in Arenas in World of Warcraft. Yes, weeks, yes ignored them and they made new characters to continue to do this for hours and hours on end. Want to know the difference? You ban a Facebook account or whatever it at least takes 10-15 mins to make a new one with a new email and what have you, creating a new character in WoW takes about 5 seconds.
Now just so you don't misunderstand, I don't really care if you give a shit how I feel. The point is it happens, a lot.
So if you had the option of getting the people harassing you to stop harassing you, youre saying you wouldnt do it? Youre saying that you should just ignore it and tough it out?
You seem to think that people reacting to harassment is a sign of weakness. Sure, depending on the situation. Others will look at you and see your unwillingness to stand up for your own well being as a sign of weakness.
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.
Thats called internet rage. It happens once or twice, but you dont hear from the guy ever again after 10 minutes.
This guy repeatedly tried to contact the families with malicious intent.
No, I have on more than one occasion been trolled consistently by people telling me I should die, commit suicide, made fun of dead family members for several weeks for beating them in Arenas in World of Warcraft. Yes, weeks, yes ignored them and they made new characters to continue to do this for hours and hours on end. Want to know the difference? You ban a Facebook account or whatever it at least takes 10-15 mins to make a new one with a new email and what have you, creating a new character in WoW takes about 5 seconds.
Now just so you don't misunderstand, I don't really care if you give a shit how I feel. The point is it happens, a lot.
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.
Saying "it happens a lot" is a poor argument. There is a lot of obvious illegal things that happens a lot, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong to convict him but I just hate people saying this over and over again, especially when it comes to online issues. I feel we should base our laws on what we deem as right or wrong, not what the police have resources to enforce.
My point is, making an example of someone doesn't help on today's World. People generally know, either it's a big enough deal that things will consistently be done about it or it isn't. In this case it falls under the latter description, not because it's entirely unimportant necessarily, but because there are a thousand other, more important issues that aren't even fully under control.
I just don't think it should matter if it happens a lot or if there are more important issues. If it's wrong (in the legal sense) it's wrong and people should expect to be accountable for it. What the law enforcement agencies have the resources for is a side matter.
On September 14 2011 20:41 RPR_Tempest wrote: Someone made fun of someone else over the internet. What a shocking tragedy.
He went to jail for that? That's fucking ridiculous.
Someone made fun of someone on the internet? Did you read what the guy did? He wasn't exactly trolling about SC2 imbalance whine or something.
I think it's great that they're showing you can't do whatever the fuck you want on the internet.
Yeah, it's not that bad...that's nothing, certainly nothing he should be jailed for. There's a LOT of worse stuff that could have been said, that would have been crossing the line. But the line was not crossed.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, it was still a dick move.
All the mother had to do was remove him from friends or block him.
There is no doubt he is a weirdo, but if he doesn't threaten to kill someone or hurt someone then I don't see how any kind of speech is against the law !
The saddest part about all of this is that the mother created a fucking facebook group for her daughter, I just don't understand shit like this. You daughter kills herself and she thinks its appropriate to jump on Facebook and create a group so people will "Like" it.. stupid shit.
Anyway imo the troll didn't deserve what he got, it's the internet, man up or fuck off tbh, of course he should be banned from Facebook but seriously jail-time, a cash fine and having to alert the police if he buys a phone with the internet? Lol.
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.
Thats called internet rage. It happens once or twice, but you dont hear from the guy ever again after 10 minutes.
This guy repeatedly tried to contact the families with malicious intent.
No, I have on more than one occasion been trolled consistently by people telling me I should die, commit suicide, made fun of dead family members for several weeks for beating them in Arenas in World of Warcraft. Yes, weeks, yes ignored them and they made new characters to continue to do this for hours and hours on end. Want to know the difference? You ban a Facebook account or whatever it at least takes 10-15 mins to make a new one with a new email and what have you, creating a new character in WoW takes about 5 seconds.
Now just so you don't misunderstand, I don't really care if you give a shit how I feel. The point is it happens, a lot.
On September 14 2011 20:49 gruff 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.
Saying "it happens a lot" is a poor argument. There is a lot of obvious illegal things that happens a lot, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong to convict him but I just hate people saying this over and over again, especially when it comes to online issues. I feel we should base our laws on what we deem as right or wrong, not what the police have resources to enforce.
My point is, making an example of someone doesn't help on today's World. People generally know, either it's a big enough deal that things will consistently be done about it or it isn't. In this case it falls under the latter description, not because it's entirely unimportant necessarily, but because there are a thousand other, more important issues that aren't even fully under control.
I just don't think it should matter if it happens a lot or if there are more important issues. If it's wrong (in the legal sense) it's wrong and people should expect to be accountable for it. What the law enforcement agencies have the resources for is a side matter.
The law enforcement agencies obviously don't have the money to go after everyone who has done this in the past or who is going to do this in the future, there are also places where the money used for things such as this could be better spent. Furthermore, if they were going to choose someone to make an example of they could have gone after someone that didn't have a social disorder such as Aspergers.
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.
Thats called internet rage. It happens once or twice, but you dont hear from the guy ever again after 10 minutes.
This guy repeatedly tried to contact the families with malicious intent.
No, I have on more than one occasion been trolled consistently by people telling me I should die, commit suicide, made fun of dead family members for several weeks for beating them in Arenas in World of Warcraft. Yes, weeks, yes ignored them and they made new characters to continue to do this for hours and hours on end. Want to know the difference? You ban a Facebook account or whatever it at least takes 10-15 mins to make a new one with a new email and what have you, creating a new character in WoW takes about 5 seconds.
Now just so you don't misunderstand, I don't really care if you give a shit how I feel. The point is it happens, a lot.
So if you had the option of getting the people harassing you to stop harassing you, youre saying you wouldnt do it? Youre saying that you should just ignore it and tough it out?
You seem to think that people reacting to harassment is a sign of weakness. Sure, depending on the situation. Others will look at you and see your unwillingness to stand up for your own well being as a sign of weakness.
I would probably stop them from doing it, if I could. But I wouldn't punish them with jail time (or if I did it would be a spur of the moment emotional reaction, which isn't how you intelligently judge such things off of) and I certainly wouldn't do so to someone with Aspergers, that isn't helping him at all.
It's not necessarily weak to react to these situations, but if you start caring a lot every time this happens, well, you are the one who is losing in the end. Pity the person doing it to you, laugh at them, but if you feel incredibly offended every time it happens you are kind of screwed if you intend to continue to use the internet. (Not speaking of if that's how it should be, but the point is you can't prosecute and jail everyone who does this.)
Also, I'm inclined to agree with DDkz to a degree.
On September 14 2011 20:41 RPR_Tempest wrote: Someone made fun of someone else over the internet. What a shocking tragedy.
He went to jail for that? That's fucking ridiculous.
Someone made fun of someone on the internet? Did you read what the guy did? He wasn't exactly trolling about SC2 imbalance whine or something.
I think it's great that they're showing you can't do whatever the fuck you want on the internet.
Yeah, it's not that bad...that's nothing, certainly nothing he should be jailed for. There's a LOT of worse stuff that could have been said, that would have been crossing the line. But the line was not crossed.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, it was still a dick move.
Apparently the line was crossed in the eyes of the law.
On September 14 2011 20:58 DDKz wrote: The saddest part about all of this is that the mother created a fucking facebook group for her daughter, I just don't understand shit like this. You daughter kills herself and she thinks its appropriate to jump on Facebook and create a group so people will "Like" it.. stupid shit.
On September 14 2011 20:58 DDKz wrote: The saddest part about all of this is that the mother created a fucking facebook group for her daughter, I just don't understand shit like this. You daughter kills herself and she thinks its appropriate to jump on Facebook and create a group so people will "Like" it.. stupid shit.
Even though what he did is quite disgusting i don't really see why he should get jail time. I mean it's kinda subjective what people find hurting. Muslims was hurt by the Muhammad pictures yet that was called freedom of speech by the news papers
Let's assume he's banned from the facebook page. He makes a youtube video, and I'm guessing it's got around ~3 views or so. So basically that's it? He has no platform from which he can troll, and nobody would watch his videos... what am I missing here?
On September 14 2011 20:41 RPR_Tempest wrote: Someone made fun of someone else over the internet. What a shocking tragedy.
He went to jail for that? That's fucking ridiculous.
Someone made fun of someone on the internet? Did you read what the guy did? He wasn't exactly trolling about SC2 imbalance whine or something.
I think it's great that they're showing you can't do whatever the fuck you want on the internet.
it's not right to do something like that, but to be jailed for it? seriously? I can only reemphasize freedom of speech, because its ridiculous in the "free" countries we live in today he can still be jailed for expressing his freedom of speech, which he should have a right to.
On September 14 2011 20:55 Keitzer wrote: So this guy must have had less going on than anyone else in the world to be that bored to create such content... what a loser...
he wasn't exactly mentally stable, and hadn't had a good upbringing it seems. he has autism for crying outloud, and not to use that as an excuse for why he did it, but that may be more of a reason combined with his obviously dysfunctional upbringing/lifestyle it seems it was a sad outcome for both parties.
If you wrote a message (email, letter, who knows) to a person who just lost a daughter on Mother's day that "it feels hot in hell" or "I can't get out of my coffin, I have scratched my nails to the bone" it would probably fall more on the harassment side rather than just distasteful trolling.
Is he a huge dick who completely deserves it? Most definitely. But I don't like the idea of police prosecuting internet speech, no matter how hurtful it is or how out of line it might be.
And before anyone opens their mouth to say "you don't know how it feels" - I was a student at Virginia Tech during the April 16th shootings here and there was (and still is) a whole range of insensitivity out there to something that cut deep into me as a person. I know how it feels. It fucking sucks. And the more public your tragedy, the more jackasses will chase that spotlight to get eyes on themselves.
But there are always going to be people out there who are going to do hurtful stuff far beyond what can be labeled as "just a joke", and the best thing to do is dismiss it and move on. I really think things like this will just attract more assholes to the next tragedy (brighter spotlight, remember), and the only difference will be some extra steps to conceal their identity.
Edit: For clarification, I'm totally side-stepping the legal and moral issues here - we can debate endlessly about what situations are analogous, where lines should be drawn, what is an infringement of freedom of speech, what is part of already-existing laws against harassment, etc. My stance is entirely about the practical side of things - people are going to continue saying hurtful things to and about those who suffer a public tragedy, they are going to keep finding new ways of doing it, and in my opinion, giving them attention (even by prosecution) only feeds them what they want and makes it a bigger problem in the future.
Even if what he did is awful, I don't believe he should be jailed for it. Really good quote by a poster above me: "If victims would be judges, the human race would have ended in extinction already."
4 months in prison for typing words on a website, no matter how hateful the words, is complete bullshit. Forms of moderation on said website exist solely for this reason. Ban him from Facebook forever, but don't put him in prison. I don't care how much of an asshole he is, he does not deserve this.
People troll my stream all the time, throw all sorts of personal attacks at me, so what? My child didn't just kill herself, but why should that matter to the word of the law? If I called the police and said people were harassing me, they would laugh and maybe charge ME with wasting their time. Trolls are trolls, ignore them and move on, unless it is persistent or unavoidable.
On September 14 2011 21:04 Doomwish wrote: I find the defensive stance taken by some of posters in this thread quite hilarious.
UNITE TROLLS!! We must stand up for our right to spread spite and malicious intent over the internet!
Mocking the other sides opinions over the discussion isn't much better, in all honesty. It's just as flameful for some people.
. Wasn't that bad. Disagreeing with someones opinion and pointing out their motivation for sticking up for this guy/ having the perspective they do doesn't even come close to the kind of sick abuse this guy has committed towards someone in a vulnerable position.
What this guy did was indefensible , it's about time consequences are put in place for people such as this. He deserves his punishment.
Also I don't know if its a coincidence but this guys picture is like the exact mental image I had of an average internet troll.
While he is obviously acting like an asshole, jailing him for this feels kind of weird, he wasn't threatening anyone, he was simply being an asshole. I just hope they're only making an example out of him and not actually persuing everyone on the internet that's mean, before you know it these laws will extent and you can't mock christians without getting jailed, and the list goes on. It's a slippery slope.
On September 14 2011 20:41 RPR_Tempest wrote: Someone made fun of someone else over the internet. What a shocking tragedy.
He went to jail for that? That's fucking ridiculous.
Someone made fun of someone on the internet? Did you read what the guy did? He wasn't exactly trolling about SC2 imbalance whine or something.
I think it's great that they're showing you can't do whatever the fuck you want on the internet.
it's not right to do something like that, but to be jailed for it? seriously? I can only reemphasize freedom of speech, because its ridiculous in the "free" countries we live in today he can still be jailed for expressing his freedom of speech, which he should have a right to.
On September 14 2011 20:55 Keitzer wrote: So this guy must have had less going on than anyone else in the world to be that bored to create such content... what a loser...
he wasn't exactly mentally stable, and hadn't had a good upbringing it seems. he has autism for crying outloud, and not to use that as an excuse for why he did it, but that may be more of a reason combined with his obviously dysfunctional upbringing/lifestyle it seems it was a sad outcome for both parties.
If you wrote a message (email, letter, who knows) to a person who just lost a daughter on Mother's day that "it feels hot in hell" or "I can't get out of my coffin, I have scratched my nails to the bone" it would probably fall more on the harassment side rather than just distasteful trolling.
Also he has Aspergers, not classical autism.
Apologies on the autism/aspergers part but the point still stands that I'm trying to make, although that does make me sound ignorant and I will apologise for that ^^.
I do acknowledge that it is harrassment, and I will admit I don't know much about the law and when it crosses the line on a legal sense, but I still don't think or understand why he deserves to get jailed when it doesn't seem from my knowledge that he crossed the line. It's petty that he's doing something like that, but it's also petty the punishment he deserves for doing something so.. petty. If we didn't have freedom of speech in place and we had laws and were regulated for things like this yes, I could understand but it's hard just to use this in the modern day world we live in as a reason to jail him.
Let's face it, the only reason he was jailed is the sentimental circumstances surrounding what happened to this woman's daughter. If, for example, this guy was sending his ex-girlfriend hundreds of harassing/threatening texts and e-mails, what would happen? The police would tell the girl to get a restraining order, block him on phone/email, and be done with it. Would he go to jail? Hell no, unless he persisted after the restraining order.
And on top of that, he has a mental disorder which causes him to act like an ass. I think this is a real double standard and a disgrace to the justice system.
On September 14 2011 21:13 Deekin[ wrote: I hope he dies in jail.
Comments like these are worse than what he did in my opinion. To be fair most of them are made in the spur of the moment but I wouldn't be surprised that many would still hold the view if we asked them again after a few weeks.
On September 14 2011 21:17 hypnoxide wrote: Don't understand why this is jailable. So pointless.
Pointless? I have to disagree. A large part of crime and punishment is for the example set to others as a possible consequence.
You commit a crime and get caught, you go to jail. Making the perpetrator chose if he/she actually wants to take the risk of dealing with the punishment.
It's not just about rehabilitation for the criminal and justice for the victim, it actually prevents people from crossing that line.
On September 14 2011 21:17 hypnoxide wrote: Don't understand why this is jailable. So pointless.
Pointless? I have to disagree. A large part of crime and punishment is for the example set to others as a possible consequence.
You commit a crime and get caught, you go to jail. Making the perpetrator chose if he/she actually wants to take the risk of dealing with the punishment.
The point is that this really isn't a crime by modern standards.
On September 14 2011 21:17 hypnoxide wrote: Don't understand why this is jailable. So pointless.
Pointless? I have to disagree. A large part of crime and punishment is for the example set to others as a possible consequence.
You commit a crime and get caught, you go to jail. Making the perpetrator chose if he/she actually wants to take the risk of dealing with the punishment.
The point is that this really isn't a crime by modern standards.
On September 14 2011 21:17 hypnoxide wrote: Don't understand why this is jailable. So pointless.
Pointless? I have to disagree. A large part of crime and punishment is for the example set to others as a possible consequence.
You commit a crime and get caught, you go to jail. Making the perpetrator chose if he/she actually wants to take the risk of dealing with the punishment.
The point is that this really isn't a crime by modern standards.
Well apparently authorities in this case disagree with your standards. As do I.
Quickly said, this guy went to jail for 4months, banned for 5 years of socials networks and need to tell the police if he buys a mobile with internet on it.
This guy trolled post-mortem a girl that he didn't even knew(Tasha, I guess its Natasha) on the facebook page created by her mother after her suicide. Going as far as treating her as a "bitch"
He also did an editing of the "movie" Thomas et ses amis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_3B2lG_gA but putting the girl's photography instead. (And this, is going really far knowing she suicided by jumping under a train)
After the sand prank etc, there REALLY is weird pepole in this world. RIP to the girl.
ironically the man looks like he should be a troll IRL. but on a serious note, what a terrible thing to do. its never nice to see the underbelly of the internet :/
Don't forget this also isn't the first and only time the guy did this.
For those too lazy to read the actual article, it was a repeated thing for this guy.
Joanne Belsey, prosecuting, said Duffy's series of online attacks began following the death of 16-year-old Hayley Bates, from Staffordshire, who died in a car crash in September 2010.
Duffy defaced pictures of her, adding crosses over her eyes and stitches over her forehead. One caption underneath a picture of flowers at the crash site read: "Used car for sale, one useless owner."
He then went on to focus on Lauren Drew, a 14-year-old who died from an epilepsy attack at her home in Gloucester in January.
Duffy posted offensive and upsetting images relating to her death and for Mother's Day created a YouTube video with a picture of a coffin saying "Happy Mothers Day".
Public schoolgirl Natasha MacBryde was his next target. She killed herself after she was sent a message by an anonymous bully on a social networking website. She had also been teased by members of an all-girl clique at school.
Duffy set up a fake tribute page on Facebook called Tasha the Tank Engine.
On the official memorial page set up by her brother James he wrote: "I fell asleep on the track lolz," and posted images of her with text saying she was spoilt. Other trolls joined the abuse.
Duffy's final target was Jordan Cooper, 14, from Washington, Newcastle upon Tyne, who was stabbed to death.
Duffy created a group called "Jordan Cooper in pieces" with a profile picture of a knife with blood dripping off it. A further YouTube video was also made which contained pictures of his eyes crossed out and slashes across his face.
If your actions would be illegal in real life, what makes them less so on the internet? Until what you do is illegal, you have every right to be anonymous. Once it is illegal, all bets are off.
On September 14 2011 21:17 hypnoxide wrote: Don't understand why this is jailable. So pointless.
Pointless? I have to disagree. A large part of crime and punishment is for the example set to others as a possible consequence.
You commit a crime and get caught, you go to jail. Making the perpetrator chose if he/she actually wants to take the risk of dealing with the punishment.
The point is that this really isn't a crime by modern standards.
Do you think it should be?
I realize you were asking him and not me and you already probably know where I stand, but I really can't see -this- being an issue important enough to spend law enforcement funds on with other more important issues being around, especially because there are other measures in place to prevent this, such as banning the individual.
I mean if we were going for a utopia and this was one of the last few issues along with jaywalking and illegally downloading internet porn, then okay, let's stop it.
On September 14 2011 21:29 xBillehx wrote: Don't forget this also isn't the first and only time the guy did this.
For those too lazy to read the actual article, it was a repeated thing for this guy.
Joanne Belsey, prosecuting, said Duffy's series of online attacks began following the death of 16-year-old Hayley Bates, from Staffordshire, who died in a car crash in September 2010.
Duffy defaced pictures of her, adding crosses over her eyes and stitches over her forehead. One caption underneath a picture of flowers at the crash site read: "Used car for sale, one useless owner."
He then went on to focus on Lauren Drew, a 14-year-old who died from an epilepsy attack at her home in Gloucester in January.
Duffy posted offensive and upsetting images relating to her death and for Mother's Day created a YouTube video with a picture of a coffin saying "Happy Mothers Day".
Public schoolgirl Natasha MacBryde was his next target. She killed herself after she was sent a message by an anonymous bully on a social networking website. She had also been teased by members of an all-girl clique at school.
Duffy set up a fake tribute page on Facebook called Tasha the Tank Engine.
On the official memorial page set up by her brother James he wrote: "I fell asleep on the track lolz," and posted images of her with text saying she was spoilt. Other trolls joined the abuse.
Duffy's final target was Jordan Cooper, 14, from Washington, Newcastle upon Tyne, who was stabbed to death.
Duffy created a group called "Jordan Cooper in pieces" with a profile picture of a knife with blood dripping off it. A further YouTube video was also made which contained pictures of his eyes crossed out and slashes across his face.
If anything I think that just reinforces his mental disorder. Besides, a crime shouldn't all of a sudden be punishable because you do it more. You don't have to steal items from other people four times before it becomes an offense. Either it's a crime or it isn't.
Wow, some pretty ridiculous comments here. The guy acted like a complete ass but I think the punishment is pretty crazy. The parents could have easily ended it by blocking him, and the guy ended up getting five months and a five year ban from all social networks?
Everything about this was a waste of time and money. And to people saying you hope he dies in jail or he should have gotten a significantly longer sentence, can you please explain what justifies that?
On September 14 2011 20:38 HereticSaint wrote: Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
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.
Yes. But just try to think like the mother/parents. Wouldnt you try everything to see this idiot paying for what he's done?
Who cares what the mother wants, that has absolutely no relevance. I want a million dollars, I want idiots to die, I want to know how to pilot an F-16. What the hell is your point? Really?
Interesting argument. "What's the point of prosecution if a guilty outcome is highly unlikely to deter others in the future.". I .. have to agree with you as long as deterrence isn't achieved, and as long as he's banned from doing this and is monitored, or something.
On September 14 2011 21:33 Lafali wrote:And to people saying you hope he dies in jail or he should have gotten a significantly longer sentence, can you please explain what justifies that?
I wouldn't worry about it, they are just reinforcing the idea that reacting to things emotionally is the incorrect thing to do. I mean, hell we had some people comment on his weight as if that had anything to do with anything.
On September 14 2011 20:38 HereticSaint wrote: Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
On September 14 2011 20:37 syno 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.
Yes. But just try to think like the mother/parents. Wouldnt you try everything to see this idiot paying for what he's done?
Who cares what the mother wants, that has absolutely no relevance. I want a million dollars, I want idiots to die, I want to know how to pilot an F-16. What the hell is your point? Really?
Interesting argument. "What's the point of prosecution if a guilty outcome is highly unlikely to deter others in the future.". I .. have to agree with you as long as deterrence isn't achieved, and as long as he's banned from doing this and is monitored, or something.
Here's the thing, beside the whole, "There are bigger issues to worry about" argument I put into place earlier which I stand by. Let's address this case specifically, it's a guy with Aspergers, that means he can't really understand what he's doing is wrong because he can't empathize with these individuals. What's my point? Banning him from social networks is just punishment for his, "crime" (Although once again, he's just an example and a bad one at that with his disorder), but giving him jail time does absolutely nothing to fix the problem, especially with his disorder, it more falls under the area of, "revenge" which a lot of TL'rs bring up as what capital punishment is and are against, yet more seem okay with it here, why?
I realize you weren't necessarily taking that position but I just wanted to use your post to illustrate some more issues with this whole fiasco.
Re the judges comment - it is a strongh assertion and you backed it up ... back when victims where judges it was anarchy .. that is why we created law and had judges and then later jury. This is the point though, these people are posting shit adn someone trolled them ... hard. If that person was in another country there would be no police case. the point being that it is exceptional to be able to enforce so why post anything that *ANYONE* can contribute to if you want it to remain sacrosanct. One of the terms of posting on facebook is that you give up that copyright, they should really read and understand the TOS. Why not set up a website? They invited trolls by posting it the way they did.
This is wierd
why a jail sentance for something that clearly shows hes damaged? he should be getting councilling.
The problem is that there is no clear line between someone writting a flippant comment ... eg i wish cameron was dead ... and someone actually wanting it. I do think that is someone went out and smacked him top side of the head i would approve but right now saying so is being tret as incitement - which it isnt. Most people assume everything they read on internet is bollocks - except the law.
What you have is people coming onto the internet and assuming that everything abides by their nice little safe enclave of rules and that they are safe. That is not the case - it is global, nor should it be the case. the internet was a fun place where you could do what you like, now you have a shit ton of people online who have no idea of its rich history and bringing their physical world assumptions to it.
The fact is that someone in another country could do exactly the same thing and you would have no recourse to jail for that person because they are in a different legal system. Because of this sentancing people to jail because they just happened to be in the same country is contradictory. The problem is with the behaviour of the people who posted it. They could of posted it anywhere but they chose to use facebook and the 'criminal' was simply operating the application according to its rules.
If you posted a picture in the street and someone wrote cunt accross it you wouldnt be suprised.
People shouldnt be running to the police over a fucking facebook page. That is so depressing that so much of their lives is on the internet and that they require that to be sacrosanct. Gone have the days when they would of been laughed at for posting about the suicide and people begin to feel sympathy. The fact is that someone killed themselves and it is probably the fault of the very people who made that page for not being there enough. Way too many gushing sentamentalists these days - and they need to be trolled into shutting the fuck up about their trivial problems and start doing something about them.
Freedom of speech and expression means that if your daughter kills herself and i think you caused it i am allowed to go upto you and say 'I think you should be dead instead, you caused this' without wondering wherther i have incited murder and will be brought up for harassment. the guy made a video, so what? Sticks and stones bitches, grow a pair. Making videos and saying stuff is not a crime (untill the thought police in the UK took over). Even then those rules were for 'terrorism' allegedly but havent been used for that purpose as far as i can tell.
Its like saying reading something incites extremeism. How dare you tell me what i am legally allowed to read, I have a brain and i am responsible for my own decisions - this is all part of the same problem. People think its a crime if i tell them that yes they are obese and need to lose weight because its rude. Because following the logic that sent him to jail, it soon will be.
It's interesting to see so many people defending free speech to the death and saying this guy shouldn't be jailed.
Free speech is a right, but it shouldn't be taken dogmatically. At what point is one person's right to free speech outweighed by someone else's right not to be harmed by that speech?
For me personally I'd rather draw the line somewhere higher up than lower. People should have the right to speak their opinions freely but not have the right to be assholes. This is the precise reason why the Team Liquid forum is held in such high regard, because the moderators draw the line so high. There are some who do not like it, but most people here do realize that they can perfectly express their opinions liberally without having to resort to making bannable comments.
Joanne Belsey, prosecuting, said Duffy's series of online attacks began following the death of 16-year-old Hayley Bates, from Staffordshire, who died in a car crash in September 2010.
Duffy defaced pictures of her, adding crosses over her eyes and stitches over her forehead. One caption underneath a picture of flowers at the crash site read: "Used car for sale, one useless owner."
He then went on to focus on Lauren Drew, a 14-year-old who died from an epilepsy attack at her home in Gloucester in January.
Duffy posted offensive and upsetting images relating to her death and for Mother's Day created a YouTube video with a picture of a coffin saying "Happy Mothers Day".
Public schoolgirl Natasha MacBryde was his next target. She killed herself after she was sent a message by an anonymous bully on a social networking website. She had also been teased by members of an all-girl clique at school.
Duffy set up a fake tribute page on Facebook called Tasha the Tank Engine.
On the official memorial page set up by her brother James he wrote: "I fell asleep on the track lolz," and posted images of her with text saying she was spoilt. Other trolls joined the abuse.
Duffy's final target was Jordan Cooper, 14, from Washington, Newcastle upon Tyne, who was stabbed to death.
Duffy created a group called "Jordan Cooper in pieces" with a profile picture of a knife with blood dripping off it. A further YouTube video was also made which contained pictures of his eyes crossed out and slashes across his face.
I have trolled people atleast as bad as he did, on the starcraft 2 game alone probably twise as much as the things listed he did on the whole article. The ones I trolled were more clever than the mother and used the nice ignore feature on me, that also exist on facebook. I have never got the authority on my ass for that.
Anyone who plays dota, or anything like that will not find anything weird at what I do.
Sure, the ones I trolled didnt probably just loose their daugther but still.
Yet another loser who isn't happy with his own life decides to belittle others, what a wanker, im glad that he was sent down, aspergers has nothing to do with his behavior btw.
On September 14 2011 21:17 hypnoxide wrote: Don't understand why this is jailable. So pointless.
Pointless? I have to disagree. A large part of crime and punishment is for the example set to others as a possible consequence.
You commit a crime and get caught, you go to jail. Making the perpetrator chose if he/she actually wants to take the risk of dealing with the punishment.
It's not just about rehabilitation for the criminal and justice for the victim, it actually prevents people from crossing that line.
Hardly a crime. If I get in your face on the street I'm not going to jail for it, no matter what I say. Over crowded jail systems, people drunk driving barely get 2-3 years if they kill someone. And this kid gets 4 or 5 months because some woman is putting sensitive crap on the internet. So stupid.
I wonder how these comments would be different if the article said he got his hands chopped off as punishment. In fact, I bet they wouldn't differ at all.
Does he deserve it? Maybe.
Does that make it justifiable via our society's legal system? No way.
This is a civilized society, where we forgive and offer the benefit of the doubt. His intent was to harm, certainly, but he's basically just guilty of being an idiot (something which is rewarded in other circles of life). There were measures in place to stop what he was doing without resorting to the law. He caused grief to a woman who was already grieving, but who is the law to say that her pain is great enough to warrant a sentence in jail? What happened to the bully who caused the one girl to kill herself in the first place? I bet the law didn't spend a single fucking cent on tracking down that guy, but they're so willing to jail the guy that they can catch without using any taxpayer dollars. This is just a classic scapegoat scenario.
On September 14 2011 21:40 CursedRich wrote: Yet another loser who isn't happy with his own life decides to belittle others, what a wanker, im glad that he was sent down, aspergers has nothing to do with his behavior btw.
Oh dear, I wasn't aware we had an expert on Aspergers, would you care to take a minute to explain how it isn't relevant to this case at all?
Also, you called the guy a wanker, you should go to jail!
On September 14 2011 21:36 Newbistic wrote: It's interesting to see so many people defending free speech to the death and saying this guy shouldn't be jailed.
Free speech is a right, but it shouldn't be taken dogmatically. At what point is one person's right to free speech outweighed by someone else's right not to be harmed by that speech?
For me personally I'd rather draw the line somewhere higher up than lower. People should have the right to speak their opinions freely but not have the right to be assholes. This is the precise reason why the Team Liquid forum is held in such high regard, because the moderators draw the line so high. There are some who do not like it, but most people here do realize that they can perfectly express their opinions liberally without having to resort to making bannable comments.
Thats exactly it people DO have the right to be assholes ... that is why the banhammer comes out ... and you dont phone the police.
the point of free speech is that you don't have to like it - and you can walk away from it.
IE the video and his posts should be removed ... he shouldnt goto jail.
People are just being vindictive ... everyone is like 'huuur punish him!!' forgetting that when the tables are turned it'l be someone like me you turn to - I don't like the death penalty because of its lack of creativity in causing suffering. Fairness is paramount but people are horribly extreme now ... everyones view on everything seems hopelessley polarised.
This is utterly shocking, this is one sonuva bitch.
I wouldn't call him a troll though, I mean this in all seriousness, I think that's an insult to trolls.
Cyber bullying and harassment online is something totally different to being a troll.
Calling him a troll undermines exactly what it is he has done, a troll is some moron on a forum, not criminal bully/stalker harassing someone.
I think it's just the British media capitalising on a term that has just recently surfaced in to main stream dialogue.
RIP to the kids he mocked and wishes to the families and friends he harassed, there's no place for his behaviour in society and it is right that he has been excluded from participating in social media because he has proven how utterly unready he is to use it responsibly.
Although he does look like something I'd find under a bridge.
There seems to be some people on here who thinks that absolute freedom of speech exists. It doesn't. Every single country in the world has restrictions to it.
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
I think it's ridiculous that they are even making anything of the fact he was a "troll" They should have just said that it was due to harrassment of family members of the girl over the internet. I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to send someone to jail over something they said over the internet.
However, he is a prick and deserves some kind of punishment. Jail isn't exactly going to help him though is it.
On September 14 2011 21:57 Holgerius wrote: Can't believe people make comparisons to idiots trolling on battle.net.
You're right, that time I had this person troll me for two and a half months at random intervals every time I played Arena on World of Warcraft talking about dead family members, how I should kill myself, dragging it into trade and whispering my friends about the same things.
That's so much different. Oh... wait...
On September 14 2011 21:59 Otak wrote: I think it's ridiculous that they are even making anything of the fact he was a "troll" They should have just said that it was due to harrassment of family members of the girl over the internet. I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to send someone to jail over something they said over the internet.
However, he is a prick and deserves some kind of punishment. Jail isn't exactly going to help him though is it.
The banning of using social networks would've been punishment enough, maybe the 5 years isn't sufficient, then you could go, "Well, if you use social networks, then we CAN jail you" <--- That would make sense and be reasonable. At the same time counseling and maybe further assistance with his Aspergers. What actually happened is a joke and makes the mother look bad if anything.
On September 14 2011 21:51 Deleuze wrote: This is utterly shocking, this is one sonuva bitch.
I wouldn't call him a troll though, I mean this in all seriousness, I think that's an insult to trolls.
Cyber bullying and harassment online is something totally different to being a troll.
Calling him a troll undermines exactly what it is he has done, a troll is some moron on a forum, not criminal bully/stalker harassing someone.
I think it's just the British media capitalising on a term that has just recently surfaced in to main stream dialogue.
RIP to the kids he mocked and wishes to the families and friends he harassed, there's no place for his behaviour in society and it is right that he has been excluded from participating in social media because he has proven how utterly unready he is to use it responsibly.
Although he does look like something I'd find under a bridge.
No, that'd be ignorant of you. This is originally what trolling was before all the kids came along and it turned into stupid shit like "This is my first game. LOLOL TROLLLED LOL TROLLED SO HARD LOL." or making up stupid ass stories and adding Bel Air or some retarded bullshit like Rickrolling. That's not trolling, it's stupid. Does anyone even get mad at that shit?
On September 14 2011 20:38 HereticSaint wrote: Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
I don't know if your analogy works that well. There are probably tens of millions of people who download music, which individually doesn't do much damage, but collectively does a lot...but compare that to the number of people who attack those who have died in a public way, I think the numbers are very small in the latter case, and they do significant damage individually, making them more worthwhile for the courts to deal with.
Secondly, if this does qualify as some sort of hate speech, then people have a right to defend themselves and take others to court because of it; its irrelevant whether a lot of people do it or not. I think its only the United States that still defends hate speech under their constitution...but other than that there is apparently "international consensus" that hate speech should be prohibited by law.
That leads into your next point...telling people to "toughen up". I think you should consider that hate speech and verbal abuse in general can be psychologically traumatizing to certain people, and obviously the most vulnerable would be grieving parents. Mental/emotional pain can leave more long lasting damage than a simple physical attack can.
And in this case I think the ruling was an appropriate one...18 weeks is proportional to the pain that was caused, and really sets an example that that sort of thing shouldn't be accepted in society.
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
In all fairness, he didn't challenge the laws, or the right of the state to prosecute him. He pleaded guilty.
This goes under "harassment", in which there are laws against. So don't go around saying "you should be allowed to say whatever you want", "jail is too much for trolling" etc.
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
What part about it being harassment do you not get? So according to you I can come to your house, stand just outside the front yard and yell "YOUR MOM IS A SLUT AND YOUR DEAD BROTHER IS RETARDED" all day long? Free speech bro.
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
What part about it being harassment do you not get? So according to you I can come to your house, stand just outside the front yard and yell "YOUR MOM IS A SLUT AND YOUR DEAD BROTHER IS RETARDED" all day long? Free speech bro.
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
What part about it being harassment do you not get? So according to you I can come to your house, stand just outside the front yard and yell "YOUR MOM IS A SLUT AND YOUR DEAD BROTHER IS RETARDED" all day long? Free speech bro.
Sure if you want, I don't care. You'd be the moron standing outside my house shouting stupid shit, not me. Why would I care if you make a fool of yourself?
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
What part about it being harassment do you not get? So according to you I can come to your house, stand just outside the front yard and yell "YOUR MOM IS A SLUT AND YOUR DEAD BROTHER IS RETARDED" all day long? Free speech bro.
That's not free speech, that's verbal harassment and trespassing, how can you compare your scenario to writing shit on the internet in a Facebook group..
On September 14 2011 21:40 CursedRich wrote: Yet another loser who isn't happy with his own life decides to belittle others, what a wanker, im glad that he was sent down, aspergers has nothing to do with his behavior btw.
Oh dear, I wasn't aware we had an expert on Aspergers, would you care to take a minute to explain how it isn't relevant to this case at all?
Also, you called the guy a wanker, you should go to jail!
Aspergers is as of this year being taken off the autistic spectrum scale(http://summit-education.com/ce-news/aspergers-to-be-removed-from-dsm/)) since the only real problem for this group of people is that they have problem with body language and speech. Since these are the only real problems, and they can 99% of the cases be trained to more fit the norm, for the group of people that suffers from Aspergers they saw no reason to keep it as an autistic disorder. Some people who are perfectly "normal" do bad shit all the time. People with aspergers are no different. Some are just assholes, regardless of their mental state.
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
What part about it being harassment do you not get? So according to you I can come to your house, stand just outside the front yard and yell "YOUR MOM IS A SLUT AND YOUR DEAD BROTHER IS RETARDED" all day long? Free speech bro.
*thumbs up*
You sure can!
haha...it depends on the situation and the type of speech. Do none of you guys ever consider that there are some types of hate speech that causes serious mental/emotional damage, that could lead to psychological disorders? Especially for vulnerable people like those grieving for their dead family members? You people are aware that some teenagers commit suicide because of bullying?
Calling someone a slut, or a retard, is *slightly* different from the other types of debilitating hate speech out there.
Which is why there needs to be a bar set, with a high limit as another wise user said on this thread.
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
What part about it being harassment do you not get? So according to you I can come to your house, stand just outside the front yard and yell "YOUR MOM IS A SLUT AND YOUR DEAD BROTHER IS RETARDED" all day long? Free speech bro.
*thumbs up*
You sure can!
haha...it depends on the situation and the type of speech. Do none of you guys ever consider that there is some types of hate speech that causes serious mental/emotional damage
No, sorry, I really don't. Let's take some personal responsibility, the world is full of assholes. If you think you'll get upset by some assholes, do your best to avoid them.
The word ''troll'' really shouldn't be used to describe this person. He didn't troll, he harassed people. The UK (where this happened) has pretty straight forward laws against harassment, and it really shouldn't make any difference at all whether you harass someone IRL or via the internet. It can cause just as much emotional distress and psycological damage.
On September 14 2011 21:40 CursedRich wrote: Yet another loser who isn't happy with his own life decides to belittle others, what a wanker, im glad that he was sent down, aspergers has nothing to do with his behavior btw.
Oh dear, I wasn't aware we had an expert on Aspergers, would you care to take a minute to explain how it isn't relevant to this case at all?
Also, you called the guy a wanker, you should go to jail!
Aspergers is as of this year being taken off the autistic spectrum scale(http://summit-education.com/ce-news/aspergers-to-be-removed-from-dsm/)) since the only real problem for this group of people is that they have problem with body language and speech. Since these are the only real problems, and they can 99% of the cases be trained to more fit the norm, for the group of people that suffers from Aspergers they saw no reason to keep it as an autistic disorder. Some people who are perfectly "normal" do bad shit all the time. People with aspergers are no different. Some are just assholes, regardless of their mental state.
Just because Asperger is not considered a syndrome of Autism does not make it any less valid. It does not fit with autism by proper definition, and I've agreed with this for years, but it is still a very real problem, and eventually it will probably get its own entry into the DSM. It is biological in nature and therefore is not something the individual can control.
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
What part about it being harassment do you not get? So according to you I can come to your house, stand just outside the front yard and yell "YOUR MOM IS A SLUT AND YOUR DEAD BROTHER IS RETARDED" all day long? Free speech bro.
*thumbs up*
You sure can!
haha...it depends on the situation and the type of speech. Do none of you guys ever consider that there are some types of hate speech that causes serious mental/emotional damage, that could lead to psychological disorders?
You mean like...the kind of hate speech that caused the girl to kill herself in the first place? I wonder what happened to the guy who spewed that hate speech.
Oh wait, nothing. Because the government wasn't willing to spend the money to track down the individuals responsible, so they just punished the most convenient guy available to them.
take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok and I think the freedom of speech should end there. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
In all fairness, he didn't challenge the laws, or the right of the state to prosecute him. He pleaded guilty.
If he didn't, it would have been just worse for him. Yet, so what? He probably knows unless he is just too crazy he is "guilty" of being an absolute asshole. The question is wether it makes any sense sending somebody to jail just for being an asshole and making someone else feel bad.
If i cheat on my girlfriend and then leave her for her best friend and tell her i couldn't stand being with a girl with such a fat ass, and so then she commits suicide because of it, should i be sent to jail? There is no doubt i would be an absolute asshole and caused a huge ammount of pain, but should i be sent to jail?
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
The baller above me from Uruguay wrote: If he didn't, it would have been just worse for him. Yet, so what? He probably knows unless he is just too crazy he is "guilty" of being an absolute asshole. The question is wether it makes any sense sending somebody to jail just for being an asshole and making someone else feel bad.
If i cheat on my girlfriend and then leave her for her best friend and tell her i couldn't stand being with a girl with such a fat ass, and so then she commits suicide because of it, should i be sent to jail? There is no doubt i would be an absolute asshole and caused a huge ammount of pain, but should i be sent to jail?
On September 14 2011 21:51 Deleuze wrote: This is utterly shocking, this is one sonuva bitch.
I wouldn't call him a troll though, I mean this in all seriousness, I think that's an insult to trolls.
Cyber bullying and harassment online is something totally different to being a troll.
Calling him a troll undermines exactly what it is he has done, a troll is some moron on a forum, not criminal bully/stalker harassing someone.
I think it's just the British media capitalising on a term that has just recently surfaced in to main stream dialogue.
RIP to the kids he mocked and wishes to the families and friends he harassed, there's no place for his behaviour in society and it is right that he has been excluded from participating in social media because he has proven how utterly unready he is to use it responsibly.
Although he does look like something I'd find under a bridge.
No, that'd be ignorant of you. This is originally what trolling was before all the kids came along and it turned into stupid shit like "This is my first game. LOLOL TROLLLED LOL TROLLED SO HARD LOL." or making up stupid ass stories and adding Bel Air or some retarded bullshit like Rickrolling. That's not trolling, it's stupid. Does anyone even get mad at that shit?
Trolling used to get on the news. Now it's gay.
I was under the impression that the term troll originated from usenet (?) where the l33t members of the community would 'troll for noobs' by raising topics that have been discussed repetively to catch out who was new to the forum? Anyone like to correct me?
Two questions to you hypnoxide:
1) When was trolling on the news before? Source please, I'd genuinely like to know.
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
In all fairness, he didn't challenge the laws, or the right of the state to prosecute him. He pleaded guilty.
If he didn't, it would have been just worse for him. Yet, so what? He probably knows unless he is just too crazy he is "guilty" of being an absolute asshole. The question is wether it makes any sense sending somebody to jail just for being an asshole and making someone else feel bad.
If i cheat on my girlfriend and then leave her for her best friend and tell her i couldn't stand being with a girl with such a fat ass, and so then she commits suicide because of it, should i be sent to jail? There is no doubt i would be an absolute asshole and caused a huge ammount of pain, but should i be sent to jail?
If you made a website full of image macros solely dedicated to her "fat ass" and then the court judged that the sole intent of the website was to harrass then you probably could.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
On September 14 2011 21:40 CursedRich wrote: Yet another loser who isn't happy with his own life decides to belittle others, what a wanker, im glad that he was sent down, aspergers has nothing to do with his behavior btw.
Oh dear, I wasn't aware we had an expert on Aspergers, would you care to take a minute to explain how it isn't relevant to this case at all?
Also, you called the guy a wanker, you should go to jail!
Aspergers is as of this year being taken off the autistic spectrum scale(http://summit-education.com/ce-news/aspergers-to-be-removed-from-dsm/)) since the only real problem for this group of people is that they have problem with body language and speech. Since these are the only real problems, and they can 99% of the cases be trained to more fit the norm, for the group of people that suffers from Aspergers they saw no reason to keep it as an autistic disorder. Some people who are perfectly "normal" do bad shit all the time. People with aspergers are no different. Some are just assholes, regardless of their mental state.
Just because Asperger is not considered a syndrome of Autism does not make it any less valid. It does not fit with autism by proper definition, and I've agreed with this for years, but it is still a very real problem, and eventually it will probably get its own entry into the DSM. It is biological in nature and therefore is not something the individual can control.
Any less valid in conjunction to what exactly? Name ONE THING that isn't biological in nature when it comes to behavior and psychology. and Please explain how something that is biological equals impossibility to change or to control.
imo the mother shouldn't have made that facebook page in the first place.. trolls are everywhere on the internet, so there wasn't anything else to expect than rude ppl making fun of what happened to her daughter.
On September 14 2011 21:51 Deleuze wrote: This is utterly shocking, this is one sonuva bitch.
I wouldn't call him a troll though, I mean this in all seriousness, I think that's an insult to trolls.
Cyber bullying and harassment online is something totally different to being a troll.
Calling him a troll undermines exactly what it is he has done, a troll is some moron on a forum, not criminal bully/stalker harassing someone.
I think it's just the British media capitalising on a term that has just recently surfaced in to main stream dialogue.
RIP to the kids he mocked and wishes to the families and friends he harassed, there's no place for his behaviour in society and it is right that he has been excluded from participating in social media because he has proven how utterly unready he is to use it responsibly.
Although he does look like something I'd find under a bridge.
No, that'd be ignorant of you. This is originally what trolling was before all the kids came along and it turned into stupid shit like "This is my first game. LOLOL TROLLLED LOL TROLLED SO HARD LOL." or making up stupid ass stories and adding Bel Air or some retarded bullshit like Rickrolling. That's not trolling, it's stupid. Does anyone even get mad at that shit?
Trolling used to get on the news. Now it's gay.
I was under the impression that the term troll originated from usenet (?) where the l33t members of the community would 'troll for noobs' by raising topics that have been discussed repetively to catch out who was new to the forum? Anyone like to correct me?
Two questions to you hypnoxide:
1) When was trolling on the news before? Source please, I'd genuinely like to know.
2) What/who is gay?
youtube.com/128IR21ZQa0 is the first that comes to mind and I know I've seen several other DIFFERENT news stories on TV or articles in written media both in America and my own country. I don't think you're ignorant enough to truly believe this shit doesn't make the news when some retard and her equally retarded off-spring cry to anyone that'll listen about evil people on the internet.
2) If I say you, is that verbal harassment and can I face a reprimand for it? Stop trying to be a smart ass.
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
In all fairness, he didn't challenge the laws, or the right of the state to prosecute him. He pleaded guilty.
If he didn't, it would have been just worse for him. Yet, so what? He probably knows unless he is just too crazy he is "guilty" of being an absolute asshole. The question is wether it makes any sense sending somebody to jail just for being an asshole and making someone else feel bad.
If i cheat on my girlfriend and then leave her for her best friend and tell her i couldn't stand being with a girl with such a fat ass, and so then she commits suicide because of it, should i be sent to jail? There is no doubt i would be an absolute asshole and caused a huge ammount of pain, but should i be sent to jail?
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
What part about it being harassment do you not get? So according to you I can come to your house, stand just outside the front yard and yell "YOUR MOM IS A SLUT AND YOUR DEAD BROTHER IS RETARDED" all day long? Free speech bro.
If you set foot on my property, then no, because that would be trespassing. If you were doing it incredibly loud, then also no, because that would be disturbing the peace. If, however, you wanted to say at a reasonable decibel what you just said over and over all day and all night then go right ahead man. You are just going to lose your voice and look like an asshat while I laugh at you.
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
The law probably would apply if you are called a bitch, but noneone sues you for that kind of thing although you probably could do that. I don't know how it's defined and I just googled for "insultin + law" (in german) to get the right quote. Maybe theres another paragraph that's explaining that, like 185.1 or 185.a or whatever or it's just up to the judged I really don't know. The german part I quoted isn't explaining more than the english one I just did :p
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
In all fairness, he didn't challenge the laws, or the right of the state to prosecute him. He pleaded guilty.
If he didn't, it would have been just worse for him. Yet, so what? He probably knows unless he is just too crazy he is "guilty" of being an absolute asshole. The question is wether it makes any sense sending somebody to jail just for being an asshole and making someone else feel bad.
If i cheat on my girlfriend and then leave her for her best friend and tell her i couldn't stand being with a girl with such a fat ass, and so then she commits suicide because of it, should i be sent to jail? There is no doubt i would be an absolute asshole and caused a huge ammount of pain, but should i be sent to jail?
Are you telling me you can't go to jail for driving someone to suicide? If a person harrass/manipulate someone to suicide and it's severe enough you bet you'd go to jail. And I'd hardly compare this case with calling someone else a fat ass. In contrary to what people seem to believe, people are partly judged on the concequences of their actions not only the intent.
Harassment on that level probably should be punishable in the U.S. if you can prove it, that's pretty disgusting. Glad to see he got what he deserved, what a fucking prick.
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
In all fairness, he didn't challenge the laws, or the right of the state to prosecute him. He pleaded guilty.
If he didn't, it would have been just worse for him. Yet, so what? He probably knows unless he is just too crazy he is "guilty" of being an absolute asshole. The question is wether it makes any sense sending somebody to jail just for being an asshole and making someone else feel bad.
If i cheat on my girlfriend and then leave her for her best friend and tell her i couldn't stand being with a girl with such a fat ass, and so then she commits suicide because of it, should i be sent to jail? There is no doubt i would be an absolute asshole and caused a huge ammount of pain, but should i be sent to jail?
people are making the dumbest comparisons ive ever seen. how is downloading music and breaking up with your girlfriend comparable to making fun of a dead girl to her mother? seriously?
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
The law probably would apply if you are called a bitch, but noneone sues you for that kind of thing although you probably could do that. I don't know how it's defined and I just googled for "insultin + law" (in german) to get the right quote. Maybe theres another paragraph that's explaining that, like 185.1 or 185.a or whatever or it's just up to the judged I really don't know. The german part I quoted isn't explaining more than the english one I just did :p
And I'm not trying to be an asshole or start a fight but as a German, how do you feel about that law and how do you feel about possibly being prosecuted for saying something that insults someone (with such a broad definition), leading to you facing jail time?
On September 14 2011 21:40 CursedRich wrote: Yet another loser who isn't happy with his own life decides to belittle others, what a wanker, im glad that he was sent down, aspergers has nothing to do with his behavior btw.
Oh dear, I wasn't aware we had an expert on Aspergers, would you care to take a minute to explain how it isn't relevant to this case at all?
Also, you called the guy a wanker, you should go to jail!
Aspergers is as of this year being taken off the autistic spectrum scale(http://summit-education.com/ce-news/aspergers-to-be-removed-from-dsm/)) since the only real problem for this group of people is that they have problem with body language and speech. Since these are the only real problems, and they can 99% of the cases be trained to more fit the norm, for the group of people that suffers from Aspergers they saw no reason to keep it as an autistic disorder. Some people who are perfectly "normal" do bad shit all the time. People with aspergers are no different. Some are just assholes, regardless of their mental state.
You might very well be right with most of what you say, but you seem to misunderstand the article you linked to. It's not "taken off the autistic spectrum scale", the term "aspergers disorder" is just planned to be removed from the DSM, so it wont have its own term anymore and instead will for example just be called a mild case of autism.
I guess it's England so I'm not as concerned, but I do find it odd that the government has the power to ban you from social networking sites. The fact they suddenly have the right to define what you do in your spare time and where you can go on the internet (in more specifics, not broad internet censorship, that's another topic) is somewhat unsettling.
The guy's a douche, but he deserved to have his ass kicked, not legal trouble. Opens too many doors for me to be comfortable with.
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
On September 14 2011 22:05 Thorakh wrote: He was harassing the family, this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Absolute free speech is absurd anyway.
I agree man. How dare people be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions no matter how many people agree or disagree with them? Lets take it to the next logical step and ban talking all together, it'd prevent anyone from getting offended and we wouldn't have to argue over what is protected by pesky free speech.
What part about it being harassment do you not get? So according to you I can come to your house, stand just outside the front yard and yell "YOUR MOM IS A SLUT AND YOUR DEAD BROTHER IS RETARDED" all day long? Free speech bro.
*thumbs up*
You sure can!
haha...it depends on the situation and the type of speech. Do none of you guys ever consider that there are some types of hate speech that causes serious mental/emotional damage, that could lead to psychological disorders?
You mean like...the kind of hate speech that caused the girl to kill herself in the first place? I wonder what happened to the guy who spewed that hate speech.
Oh wait, nothing. Because the government wasn't willing to spend the money to track down the individuals responsible, so they just punished the most convenient guy available to them.
Your logic process is sort of weak here. You seem to be suggesting that the government should totally ignore potential illegal actions of one (the troll) in favor of pursuing legally unrelated, alleged action of someone else. Just because the government "isn't willing" to "spend money" to "track down the guy" responsible for bringing about the teen's death does not suggest that the government should simply ignore the blatantly wrong actions of an unrelated troll.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
nothing more to add.. just lol at all the band wagoners "zomg he should get lifetime for it, poor family". LOL.
I am not sure which is more disturbing, the fact that he got jail time for this? or the fact that people (presumably rational thinking individuals) actually support that he got jail time for this. Do you people not hear what you are saying? You are advocating support for essentially police state type activities. "If you don't think and act as we tell you too, you got to jail". That is honestly more frightening then anything this guy did.
Is he a massive asshole douchebag? You bet he is. However being a massive asshole douchebag is not and should NEVER be jail worthy. All that requires is someone finding him and proceeding to give him a proper ass kicking. Honestly any of you supporting jail time for this should be ashamed of yourselves as individuals.
On September 14 2011 22:38 deth2munkies wrote: I guess it's England so I'm not as concerned, but I do find it odd that the government has the power to ban you from social networking sites. The fact they suddenly have the right to define what you do in your spare time and where you can go on the internet (in more specifics, not broad internet censorship, that's another topic) is somewhat unsettling.
The guy's a douche, but he deserved to have his ass kicked, not legal trouble. Opens too many doors for me to be comfortable with.
it depends on each government policies and their definition of what the internet is, in some country, like sweden they think that it is everyone rights to be able to use internet, that's why they have free internet.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
In all fairness, he didn't challenge the laws, or the right of the state to prosecute him. He pleaded guilty.
If he didn't, it would have been just worse for him. Yet, so what? He probably knows unless he is just too crazy he is "guilty" of being an absolute asshole. The question is wether it makes any sense sending somebody to jail just for being an asshole and making someone else feel bad.
If i cheat on my girlfriend and then leave her for her best friend and tell her i couldn't stand being with a girl with such a fat ass, and so then she commits suicide because of it, should i be sent to jail? There is no doubt i would be an absolute asshole and caused a huge ammount of pain, but should i be sent to jail?
people are making the dumbest comparisons ive ever seen. how is downloading music and breaking up with your girlfriend comparable to making fun of a dead girl to her mother? seriously?
a·nal·o·gy
noun /əˈnaləjē/ analogies, plural
1. A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification * - an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies * - he interprets logical functions by analogy with machines
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
What he did was troll, the end. It happens thousands of times a day on the internet, from people without Aspergers, to a more severe extent. You could argue, "But murders happen every day too, we prosecute them!" Well, the thing is there are a thousand things you can do to prevent, lessen or completely circumvent this type of behavior, in addition to it being far less damaging than killing someone. But you know, you guys are right, who needs to stop drug trafficking, arms trafficking, gangs, murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, that money is much better spent stopping one kid with Aspergers from trolling on the internet when you could easily just ban him or realize how stupid it is to flip out over that. Or you could attempt to just have him locked from social networking, as per part of the sentence. In this case since we don't have the funds to prosecute everything (nor should we, but that's another debate) some things are mutually exclusive of one another and it's stupid as hell to be spending money on this when they just could have blocked him. Can we also ban them from the internet to save everyone some heartache and money?
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
The law probably would apply if you are called a bitch, but noneone sues you for that kind of thing although you probably could do that. I don't know how it's defined and I just googled for "insultin + law" (in german) to get the right quote. Maybe theres another paragraph that's explaining that, like 185.1 or 185.a or whatever or it's just up to the judged I really don't know. The german part I quoted isn't explaining more than the english one I just did :p
And I'm not trying to be an asshole or start a fight but as a German, how do you feel about that law and how do you feel about possibly being prosecuted for saying something that insults someone (with such a broad definition), leading to you facing jail time?
was about to make an edit to just add that and now I saw that so I'll just add it. Btw google translator isn't that bad actually, googles translation sound much more "english" than my german-english + Show Spoiler +
The offense is punished with imprisonment up to one year or a fine, and if the offense is committed by means of an assault, punishable by imprisonment up to two years or a fine.
My thoughts about it: I guess jail really overdid it and it's probably just there for real extrem cases( even more than this). So I guess I would appreciate a fine instead of jail but I think punishing him at all is ok. On the law itself: For common usage it's probably stupid. I don't want to be sued just because I call someone a bitch. In my opinion it needs some addition that it's only applying in extrem cases. Don't know if there are additions that explain when you can sue someone for insulting and when you can't.
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
wtf for jail?!?! and most people seem to totally support this decision. i cant believe this, its just a video, just words. words shouldnt get you in prison. being a stupid asshole shouldnt declare you dangerous in public, specially when your just an asshole on the internet. the idea behind jail was to lock people away which are dangerous. this is just redicoulus.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
And once again, how is ''unlawful application of force'' clearly defined? What amount of force does it take to reach the requirements?
On September 14 2011 21:51 Deleuze wrote: This is utterly shocking, this is one sonuva bitch.
I wouldn't call him a troll though, I mean this in all seriousness, I think that's an insult to trolls.
Cyber bullying and harassment online is something totally different to being a troll.
Calling him a troll undermines exactly what it is he has done, a troll is some moron on a forum, not criminal bully/stalker harassing someone.
I think it's just the British media capitalising on a term that has just recently surfaced in to main stream dialogue.
RIP to the kids he mocked and wishes to the families and friends he harassed, there's no place for his behaviour in society and it is right that he has been excluded from participating in social media because he has proven how utterly unready he is to use it responsibly.
Although he does look like something I'd find under a bridge.
No, that'd be ignorant of you. This is originally what trolling was before all the kids came along and it turned into stupid shit like "This is my first game. LOLOL TROLLLED LOL TROLLED SO HARD LOL." or making up stupid ass stories and adding Bel Air or some retarded bullshit like Rickrolling. That's not trolling, it's stupid. Does anyone even get mad at that shit?
Trolling used to get on the news. Now it's gay.
I was under the impression that the term troll originated from usenet (?) where the l33t members of the community would 'troll for noobs' by raising topics that have been discussed repetively to catch out who was new to the forum? Anyone like to correct me?
Two questions to you hypnoxide:
1) When was trolling on the news before? Source please, I'd genuinely like to know.
2) What/who is gay?
youtube.com/128IR21ZQa0 is the first that comes to mind and I know I've seen several other DIFFERENT news stories on TV or articles in written media both in America and my own country. I don't think you're ignorant enough to truly believe this shit doesn't make the news when some retard and her equally retarded off-spring cry to anyone that'll listen about evil people on the internet.
2) If I say you, is that verbal harassment and can I face a reprimand for it? Stop trying to be a smart ass.
Um, would you mind mannering up please?
I read the papers and read the online news, of course there are regular stories of online harassment and bullying in the mass media, as well as the notorious SlayerS related cyberbullying discussed on TL - I am not disputing this. What I was hoping to discuss was the use of the term 'troll' to describe it.
As I said, I was aware that the term troll originated from forum use rather than outright harassment.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
And once again, how is ''unlawful application of force'' clearly defined? What amount of force does it take to reach the requirements?
It really is simple. Generally you need a reason to use force, otherwise it's unlawful, and the severity of force also has to be reasonable (I can't attack you with a bat if you stand on my lawn if simply asking you to move on would work), otherwise it's unlawful.
EDIT: Lol, I actually read the article and I pretty much repeat what it says about unlawful force.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
To all those above who say "So? This is the internet, this happens all the time. Get used to it":
Get. A. Fucking. Life. Seriously.
If you are so far disconnected from reality that you think that there should be no action taken against someone who repeatedly and intentionally seeks out grieving family members to insult them, then you really, seriously need to turn off the computer more often to interact with the real world.
Internet anonymity issues? Not really, considering I think this kid was dumb enough to use his REAL fb account with his personal information. Then again, nobody knows the truth about fb's privacy policy.
Btw, 4chan has done this too, and without any punishment either, from Nikki Catsouras to Mitchell Henderson, but nobody was ever caught/charged with anything.
On September 14 2011 22:38 deth2munkies wrote: I guess it's England so I'm not as concerned, but I do find it odd that the government has the power to ban you from social networking sites. The fact they suddenly have the right to define what you do in your spare time and where you can go on the internet (in more specifics, not broad internet censorship, that's another topic) is somewhat unsettling.
The guy's a douche, but he deserved to have his ass kicked, not legal trouble. Opens too many doors for me to be comfortable with.
it depends on each government policies and their definition of what the internet is, in some country, like sweden they think that it is everyone rights to be able to use internet, that's why they have free internet.
In America, it's still an open issue. I think restraining orders have been broadened to include stuff like facebook stalking, but I have never heard of a ban from "social networking sites", which is hugely vague in its own right.
Is TL a "social networking site"? I can talk to other people, plan meetings, upload photos and videos, etc. That goes for every single website that has even a prefab forum or comment bar. Is Youtube "social networking"? Broad strokes here could be just bad for everyone, not just this asshole.
On September 14 2011 22:38 deth2munkies wrote: I guess it's England so I'm not as concerned, but I do find it odd that the government has the power to ban you from social networking sites. The fact they suddenly have the right to define what you do in your spare time and where you can go on the internet (in more specifics, not broad internet censorship, that's another topic) is somewhat unsettling.
Think of it as a restraining order. There's no reason why the internet should be controlled any differently from public grounds.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
Also respect is another fundamental thing that you need to know in life, you could got to jail for disrespecting the court you know? so why not going to jail by disrespecting dead people?
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
your response makes me lose hope in humanity
I like how you clearly define why you feel that way. It lets me know your opinion is of worth. Nowadays the word "respect" is thrown around too often and people expect it to be automatically given instead of earned.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
Also respect is another fundamental thing that you need to know in life, you could got to jail for disrespecting the court you know? so why not going to jail by disrespecting dead people?
You can face jail for contempt because you're disrupting and mocking an institution in place to keep order in society, it is to be taken seriously. Contempt for a dead person disrupts no one. Depending upon your ideas about life and death it may not even be serious.
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
In all fairness, he didn't challenge the laws, or the right of the state to prosecute him. He pleaded guilty.
If he didn't, it would have been just worse for him. Yet, so what? He probably knows unless he is just too crazy he is "guilty" of being an absolute asshole. The question is wether it makes any sense sending somebody to jail just for being an asshole and making someone else feel bad.
If i cheat on my girlfriend and then leave her for her best friend and tell her i couldn't stand being with a girl with such a fat ass, and so then she commits suicide because of it, should i be sent to jail? There is no doubt i would be an absolute asshole and caused a huge ammount of pain, but should i be sent to jail?
people are making the dumbest comparisons ive ever seen. how is downloading music and breaking up with your girlfriend comparable to making fun of a dead girl to her mother? seriously?
a·nal·o·gy
noun /əˈnaləjē/ analogies, plural
1. A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification * - an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies * - he interprets logical functions by analogy with machines
2. A correspondence or partial similarity
He knows what an analogy is, friend. The fact is that it's a fucking terrible analogy.
If you break up with your girlfriend and tell her the reason why once, and she then runs off and kills herself, you are not responsible for her death. On the other hand, to more readily establish the proper analogy, if you break up with your girlfriend by verbally abusing the shit out of her, accosting her for all her faults, spend the next few weeks showing up at her house/work/favourite places so that you can harass her about how terrible a person she is/how ugly you now find her, go out of your way to put yourself and the new girlfriend in front of her to increase her discomfort, write letters to her friends to tell them how shit she is in bed, etc etc.... then you would have the intent to harass and cause harm through your actions. That is what this guy did.
This is not just being an asshole. This is a concerted effort to harass and evoke specific reactions. To cause apprehension, discomfort and pain. It can and does result in psychological harm. THIS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN THEIR JURISDICTION. And is in many others (such as my own).
Freedom of speech is not absolute. It has not been for centuries. It is not a shield for dickheads to hide behind when they commit criminal offences. Prime example: Threat to kill. A threat to kill can be just words too. But they are words which for centuries have been prohibited. Want further examples?
Further, it would appear that there were other uncharged acts present on his indictment which the presiding judge was required, and indeed requested by defence counsel, to take into account. This is not some sort of shithead behaviour in isolation.
Although, as a defence lawyer myself, there was a part of that article which seemed rather nonsensical to me..
"Duffy's lawyer Lance Whiteford said: "In terms of mitigation there is none. I cannot imagine the trauma and anxiety caused to the families of these horrible, despicable offences."
She said his condition meant he was not aware of the effect he was having on his victims."
If his condition affects his perception of the consequences of his offending, then typically that would be a mitigatory factor...
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
your response makes me lose hope in humanity
I like how you clearly define why you feel that way. It lets me know your opinion is of worth. Nowadays the word "respect" is thrown around too often and people expect it to be automatically given instead of earned.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
why the fuck would i step on the corpse of my own grandfather? what the fuck is wrong with you?
it was disrepect, yes, sure, but thats not jail worthy. people are assholes all the time and theres been worse than this. you need to learn the difference between breaking the law and being an asshole.
what i want to know is why the fuck did the mother put it on FACEBOOK. its like she couldnt even be bothered to do anything correctly.
i feel sorry for the daughter 110%, but the mother is plain retarded.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Don't be stupid. Gain an understanding of the offence and the state of the law, or you should probably stay out of this discussion. Your overexaggeration is not assisting you in making any relevant counter argument.
How is this different from that crazy church that protests thje funerals of gay people? they have been doing it for years and they actually get in the familys faces and say shit like god hates fags and they are going to hell, also carry giant signs saying the same.
While I dont think its good at all, this should nto be a crime. Free speach shouldnt end until inciting voilence. As long as you are not being voilent you should be able to say whatever you want to who ever you want, long live the republic.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
your response makes me lose hope in humanity
I like how you clearly define why you feel that way. It lets me know your opinion is of worth. Nowadays the word "respect" is thrown around too often and people expect it to be automatically given instead of earned.
your point sir?
That I hope you don't expect me to dwell on your opinion if you can't justify or reason it.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Don't be stupid. Gain an understanding of the offence and the state of the law, or you should probably stay out of this discussion. Your overexaggeration is not assisting you in making any relevant counter argument.
No, the point being made is that people feel insulted and become offended for different things. What if he was legitimately upset about the comments posted? The definition being so flimsy and people getting insulted by an array of different things make this so ridiculous.
First of all, to the people saying just block him, how is that going to work??
All he has to do is create another account, its facebook, it takes a minute to do! Ban his IP address? He can still go to an internet cafe or anything like that.
Why does everyone always make these situations seem like the solution is so simple??
wtf for jail?!?! and most people seem to totally support this decision. i cant believe this, its just a video, just words. words shouldnt get you in prison. being a stupid asshole shouldnt declare you dangerous in public, specially when your just an asshole on the internet. the idea behind jail was to lock people away which are dangerous. this is just redicoulus.
If you walk up to a policeman and say "F*CK YOU, YOU STUPID IDIOT..." etc, etc. Sure its just words, but do you think he's just going to stand there and smile??
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
why the fuck would i step on the corpse of my own grandfather? what the fuck is wrong with you?
it was disrepect, yes, sure, but thats not jail worthy. people are assholes all the time and theres been worse than this. you need to learn the difference between breaking the law and being an asshole.
what i want to know is why the fuck did the mother put it on FACEBOOK. its like she couldnt even be bothered to do anything correctly.
i feel sorry for the daughter 110%, but the mother is plain retarded.
the problem is not the mother is retarded or not, what the man did was completely unacceptable and it is up to you to decide it is jail worthy or not. But fyi, you can go to jail by screwing up a person's grave, might was well go to jail by insulting the dead
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
Also respect is another fundamental thing that you need to know in life, you could got to jail for disrespecting the court you know? so why not going to jail by disrespecting dead people?
while searching for some specific definations about that german insulting law I found out we actually have that kind of law, too:
§ 189 Denigrating the memory of the dead Whoever denigrates the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years or a fine.
We even got a law against insulting, even if the insult is proven to be right (§ 192 - Insult, despite proof of truth). We really are the kings of bureaucracy :p
Google says you can go to jail for insulting someone in france too, don't know about the uk. Guess it's not that uncommon, is it?
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
your response makes me lose hope in humanity
I like how you clearly define why you feel that way. It lets me know your opinion is of worth. Nowadays the word "respect" is thrown around too often and people expect it to be automatically given instead of earned.
your point sir?
That I hope you don't expect me to dwell on your opinion if you can't justify or reason it.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Don't be stupid. Gain an understanding of the offence and the state of the law, or you should probably stay out of this discussion. Your overexaggeration is not assisting you in making any relevant counter argument.
No, the point being made is that people feel insulted and become offended for different things. What if he was legitimately upset about the comments posted? The definition being so flimsy and people getting insulted by an array of different things make this so ridiculous.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
And once again, how is ''unlawful application of force'' clearly defined? What amount of force does it take to reach the requirements?
It really is simple. Generally you need a reason to use force, otherwise it's unlawful, and the severity of force also has to be reasonable (I can't attack you with a bat if you stand on my lawn if simply asking you to move on would work), otherwise it's unlawful.
EDIT: Lol, I actually read the article and I pretty much repeat what it says about unlawful force.
No, it isn't simple. Why do you think there are such extensive amount of studies required to work with legislation? It's is complicated stuff.
It IS hard as fuck to define and decide what falls under illegal harassment or not, but that doesn't mean we should just let everything in that area slide.
The attitude and lack of empathy of some people in this thread is saddening.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
Also respect is another fundamental thing that you need to know in life, you could got to jail for disrespecting the court you know? so why not going to jail by disrespecting dead people?
while searching for some specific definations about that german insulting law I found out we actually have that kind of law, too:
§ 189 Denigrating the memory of the dead Whoever denigrates the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years or a fine.
We even got a law against insulting, even if the insult is proven to be right (§ 192 - Insult, despite proof of truth). We really are the kings of bureaucracy :p
Google says you can go to jail for insulting someone in france too, don't know about the uk. Guess it's not that uncommon, is it?
There's a difference between defiling the dead and denigrating them. I'd hate to be in Germany although you do have those sick highways with no speed limits.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
And once again, how is ''unlawful application of force'' clearly defined? What amount of force does it take to reach the requirements?
It really is simple. Generally you need a reason to use force, otherwise it's unlawful, and the severity of force also has to be reasonable (I can't attack you with a bat if you stand on my lawn if simply asking you to move on would work), otherwise it's unlawful.
EDIT: Lol, I actually read the article and I pretty much repeat what it says about unlawful force.
No, it isn't simple. Why do you think there are such extensive amount of studies required to work with legislation? It's is complicated stuff.
It IS hard as fuck to define and decide what falls under illegal harassment or not, but that doesn't mean we should just let everything in that area slide.
The attitude and lack of empathy of some people in this thread is saddening.
Wow, stop trying to fight. It's clearly written in law what the definition of battery is and the elements required to be proven are to take a case to court. With these German laws the only definition seems to be "insult or criticise someone" = jail.
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.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:24 Toadesstern wrote: take into consideration that this did not happen in the us guys... We all know you guys love freedom and most of you guys are more liberal than everyone else.
However Insulting IS a crime in some places. I don't know what it's like in the us but reading this makes me think it isn't so I'm going to quote german law for example (cause I'm from ger). I know it did not happen in germany but I'm guessing we're not the only ones who got something like this in europe. First one is the german one, the second one is my rough translation: + Show Spoiler +
§ 185 Beleidigung
Die Beleidigung wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Beleidigung mittels einer Tätlichkeit begangen wird, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
The act of Insulting is punished with (by?) prison sentence by up to one year or a fine. If this is happening as/with and act of violence it is punished with prison sentence by up to two years or a fine
So I don't see a problem here. It's not exactly common that those things get sued, dealt with or whatever you want to call it but I think it's perfectly fine. Basicly: If you're insulting for the purpose of insulting it's not ok. However, you obviously won't get sued if you call someone a bitch and even if it would happen, probably nothing would happen or you'd have to pay a fine. Never actually heard of someone going to jail for that kind of stuff.
That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
your response makes me lose hope in humanity
I like how you clearly define why you feel that way. It lets me know your opinion is of worth. Nowadays the word "respect" is thrown around too often and people expect it to be automatically given instead of earned.
your point sir?
That I hope you don't expect me to dwell on your opinion if you can't justify or reason it.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Don't be stupid. Gain an understanding of the offence and the state of the law, or you should probably stay out of this discussion. Your overexaggeration is not assisting you in making any relevant counter argument.
No, the point being made is that people feel insulted and become offended for different things. What if he was legitimately upset about the comments posted? The definition being so flimsy and people getting insulted by an array of different things make this so ridiculous.
The obvious and relevan counter point which largely settles this issue and makes his point stupid is that the law and the experience of the people making law has not come down in the last shower. Law makers in this instance and many others world wide have seen fit to make it illegal to make malicious communications to others via various means. What constitutes a malicious communication is determined either by statutorily defined limits or CENTURIES of case law being interpreted by experienced practitioners of the law.
Do not sit here and try to argue that it is reasonable for Fir3fly to be 'offended, shocked, and almost in tears' for this man to be called a fat little dwarf, the law and those charged with upholding it are not so daft. And please dont sit there and insinuate that that one comment correlates to the parents of deceased children receiving continued communications designed (or at the very least known or understood) to illicit such emotional reaction... Your arguments are weak enough as it is.
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.
you might also take the results of his trolls into consideration, let's say there are two men, one attempted murder a person and one actually killed a person, the one who only attempted murder will always get a lower consequences. Let's apply it into this situation, if the man in the story troll the mother, but she was not offended and let it slide, nothing will happens, but if she was offended (which she was) then consequences will be carry out to the man, it is just the way it works, which better than banning every single trolls like you suggested
On September 14 2011 23:05 Conti wrote: To all those above who say "So? This is the internet, this happens all the time. Get used to it":
Get. A. Fucking. Life. Seriously.
If you are so far disconnected from reality that you think that there should be no action taken against someone who repeatedly and intentionally seeks out grieving family members to insult them, then you really, seriously need to turn off the computer more often to interact with the real world.
Your insinuation that I don't have a life is very insulting and inflammatory towards me and by another poster from your countries definition of your legal system is against the law where you are from. I'll see you in court.
On September 14 2011 21:33 ElPeque.fogata wrote: he is an asshole.
but what the fuck. just close his account and be done with it.
jail? wtf
Your solution is not well thought out. The guy can make another account, or go to an internet cafe and do it there.
So be it, close the new account. as it happens with hackers on battle.net. And go to privacy settings and dissalow him from contacting you or whatever.
Ignore him, then it is not fun anymore and he moves on.
There are so many trolls because trolled people are usually pretty retarded dealing with it.
Jail for insulting?
You take freedom away from being verbaly offensive?
Oh yeah, we are much more human than him.
Verbal offense is a very fuzzy area. Will you include making fun of religion?
God damnit we live in a fascist world. There is the left, the right, but in the end we are all fascists.
In all fairness, he didn't challenge the laws, or the right of the state to prosecute him. He pleaded guilty.
If he didn't, it would have been just worse for him. Yet, so what? He probably knows unless he is just too crazy he is "guilty" of being an absolute asshole. The question is wether it makes any sense sending somebody to jail just for being an asshole and making someone else feel bad.
If i cheat on my girlfriend and then leave her for her best friend and tell her i couldn't stand being with a girl with such a fat ass, and so then she commits suicide because of it, should i be sent to jail? There is no doubt i would be an absolute asshole and caused a huge ammount of pain, but should i be sent to jail?
people are making the dumbest comparisons ive ever seen. how is downloading music and breaking up with your girlfriend comparable to making fun of a dead girl to her mother? seriously?
a·nal·o·gy
noun /əˈnaləjē/ analogies, plural
1. A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification * - an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies * - he interprets logical functions by analogy with machines
2. A correspondence or partial similarity
He knows what an analogy is, friend. The fact is that it's a fucking terrible analogy.
If you break up with your girlfriend and tell her the reason why once, and she then runs off and kills herself, you are not responsible for her death. On the other hand, to more readily establish the proper analogy, if you break up with your girlfriend by verbally abusing the shit out of her, accosting her for all her faults, spend the next few weeks showing up at her house/work/favourite places so that you can harass her about how terrible a person she is/how ugly you now find her, go out of your way to put yourself and the new girlfriend in front of her to increase her discomfort, write letters to her friends to tell them how shit she is in bed, etc etc.... then you would have the intent to harass and cause harm through your actions. That is what this guy did.
This is not just being an asshole. This is a concerted effort to harass and evoke specific reactions. To cause apprehension, discomfort and pain. It can and does result in psychological harm. THIS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN THEIR JURISDICTION. And is in many others (such as my own).
Freedom of speech is not absolute. It has not been for centuries. It is not a shield for dickheads to hide behind when they commit criminal offences. Prime example: Threat to kill. A threat to kill can be just words too. But they are words which for centuries have been prohibited. Want further examples?
Further, it would appear that there were other uncharged acts present on his indictment which the presiding judge was required, and indeed requested by defence counsel, to take into account. This is not some sort of shithead behaviour in isolation.
Although, as a defence lawyer myself, there was a part of that article which seemed rather nonsensical to me..
"Duffy's lawyer Lance Whiteford said: "In terms of mitigation there is none. I cannot imagine the trauma and anxiety caused to the families of these horrible, despicable offences."
She said his condition meant he was not aware of the effect he was having on his victims."
If his condition affects his perception of the consequences of his offending, then typically that would be a mitigatory factor...
Here's the thing man, I completely understand why in an otherwise utopian society this would be such a big deal, however we aren't in such a society. I understand laws and how laws and laws and if you break them you should be punished (Again, whether this should be punishable is another issue), however that isn't the direct issue here. The direct issue here is this is such a rampant problem, (AKA: If I game online not a day goes by that I don't get a death threat, mocked about someone in my family dying, attacks that are racist or homophobic in nature, etc) that when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, you aren't going to stop it or really even slow it down by prosecuting one individual.
Either ramp it up, or knock it off and I'm inclined to say knock it off when you consider that there are a million other larger issues that could use those funds in a better way but instead are being wasted on this issue which has methods of stopping it or at least significantly slowing it down already, such as banning the accounts and or IP's of the individuals, are there ways around it? Sure, at least until those start getting circumvented this shouldn't even be considered a "maybe" court issue.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote: [quote] That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
your response makes me lose hope in humanity
I like how you clearly define why you feel that way. It lets me know your opinion is of worth. Nowadays the word "respect" is thrown around too often and people expect it to be automatically given instead of earned.
your point sir?
That I hope you don't expect me to dwell on your opinion if you can't justify or reason it.
On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:
On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Hell yeah. Be sanctimonious, take the moral high ground and insult people just like those you're getting mad about.
On September 14 2011 23:11 Brett wrote:
On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Don't be stupid. Gain an understanding of the offence and the state of the law, or you should probably stay out of this discussion. Your overexaggeration is not assisting you in making any relevant counter argument.
No, the point being made is that people feel insulted and become offended for different things. What if he was legitimately upset about the comments posted? The definition being so flimsy and people getting insulted by an array of different things make this so ridiculous.
The obvious and relevan counter point which largely settles this issue and makes his point stupid is that the law and the experience of the people making law has not come down in the last shower. Law makers in this instance and many others world wide have seen fit to make it illegal to make malicious communications to others via various means. What constitutes a malicious communication is determined either by statutorily defined limits or CENTURIES of case law being interpreted by experienced practitioners of the law.
Do not sit here and try to argue that it is reasonable for Fir3fly to be 'offended, shocked, and almost in tears' for this man to be called a fat little dwarf, the law and those charged with upholding it are not so daft. And please dont sit there and insinuate that that one comment correlates to the parents of deceased children receiving continued communications designed (or at the very least known or understood) to illicit such emotional reaction... Your arguments are weak enough as it is.
All I'm going to say regarding you is that your side of the debate already appears to be the minority and yet you are contradicting one another in what seems every other post, you say it's "centuries of case law" and yet someone else says "it's because the mother was offended". Well bub, until every single troll is going to court you're wrong.
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.
There is a difference between calling me a moron or saying my dead mother is a slut, and flat out harassing me about my dead daughter. How the fuck does this has anything to do with "other peoples opionions and morals."?
And please dont sit there and insinuate that that one comment correlates to the parents of deceased children receiving continued communications designed (or at the very least known or understood) to illicit such emotional reaction...
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:26 hypnoxide wrote: [quote] That's ridiculous. How do you define being insulted? Why does the law not apply if you are called a bitch? What if I'm insulted by that law and it's infringement on my right to free speech? I hope the German translation is a lot more specific or it's a rather empty law that's open to exploitation.
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
your response makes me lose hope in humanity
I like how you clearly define why you feel that way. It lets me know your opinion is of worth. Nowadays the word "respect" is thrown around too often and people expect it to be automatically given instead of earned.
your point sir?
That I hope you don't expect me to dwell on your opinion if you can't justify or reason it.
On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:
On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Hell yeah. Be sanctimonious, take the moral high ground and insult people just like those you're getting mad about.
On September 14 2011 23:11 Brett wrote:
On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Don't be stupid. Gain an understanding of the offence and the state of the law, or you should probably stay out of this discussion. Your overexaggeration is not assisting you in making any relevant counter argument.
No, the point being made is that people feel insulted and become offended for different things. What if he was legitimately upset about the comments posted? The definition being so flimsy and people getting insulted by an array of different things make this so ridiculous.
The obvious and relevan counter point which largely settles this issue and makes his point stupid is that the law and the experience of the people making law has not come down in the last shower. Law makers in this instance and many others world wide have seen fit to make it illegal to make malicious communications to others via various means. What constitutes a malicious communication is determined either by statutorily defined limits or CENTURIES of case law being interpreted by experienced practitioners of the law.
Do not sit here and try to argue that it is reasonable for Fir3fly to be 'offended, shocked, and almost in tears' for this man to be called a fat little dwarf, the law and those charged with upholding it are not so daft. And please dont sit there and insinuate that that one comment correlates to the parents of deceased children receiving continued communications designed (or at the very least known or understood) to illicit such emotional reaction... Your arguments are weak enough as it is.
I never said he was justified in his over-exaggeration, I was saying that the German law posted by the user (whose name I don't remember) was open to interpretation and, in my opinion it is thus a poor law. If every moron thinks they can seek legal recourse because some asshole insulted them on the internet it would likely result in a slowed down justice system which is, depending on where you are from, slow enough as it is. Just because a legal practitioner isn't completely stupid and knows that it has no grounds doesn't mean that some random on the street is going to know that.
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.
I believe that it is right that this troll has been put to justice. What he has done is very messed up, and I can only wonder what has happened with humankind. Where are we heading in this world?
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?
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.
On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote: oh god oh god.
dont even get me started.
all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo.
this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies"
if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse)
some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from)
this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now.
and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +
hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c
what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say.
I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated?
On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote: [quote] So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree.
1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.
Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching.
How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD
You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury.
your response makes me lose hope in humanity
I like how you clearly define why you feel that way. It lets me know your opinion is of worth. Nowadays the word "respect" is thrown around too often and people expect it to be automatically given instead of earned.
your point sir?
That I hope you don't expect me to dwell on your opinion if you can't justify or reason it.
On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:
On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Hell yeah. Be sanctimonious, take the moral high ground and insult people just like those you're getting mad about.
On September 14 2011 23:11 Brett wrote:
On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:
On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote: He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year.
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.
Don't be stupid. Gain an understanding of the offence and the state of the law, or you should probably stay out of this discussion. Your overexaggeration is not assisting you in making any relevant counter argument.
No, the point being made is that people feel insulted and become offended for different things. What if he was legitimately upset about the comments posted? The definition being so flimsy and people getting insulted by an array of different things make this so ridiculous.
The obvious and relevan counter point which largely settles this issue and makes his point stupid is that the law and the experience of the people making law has not come down in the last shower. Law makers in this instance and many others world wide have seen fit to make it illegal to make malicious communications to others via various means. What constitutes a malicious communication is determined either by statutorily defined limits or CENTURIES of case law being interpreted by experienced practitioners of the law.
Do not sit here and try to argue that it is reasonable for Fir3fly to be 'offended, shocked, and almost in tears' for this man to be called a fat little dwarf, the law and those charged with upholding it are not so daft. And please dont sit there and insinuate that that one comment correlates to the parents of deceased children receiving continued communications designed (or at the very least known or understood) to illicit such emotional reaction... Your arguments are weak enough as it is.
I never said he was justified in his over-exaggeration, I was saying that the German law posted by the user (whose name I don't remember) was open to interpretation and, in my opinion it is thus a poor law. If every moron thinks they can seek legal recourse because some asshole insulted them on the internet it would likely result in a slowed down justice system which is, depending on where you are from, slow enough as it is. Just because a legal practitioner isn't completely stupid and knows that it has no grounds doesn't mean that some random on the street is going to know that.
well as mentioned. It just isn't that easy as quoted in the law. The definition of this isn't dealt with in the law itself cause this would probably fill a couple of books and is dealt with by experts who've been argueing about that kind of stuff for ages and at last by the judges. I do agree that it's not transparent for the general public to understand it, because it's not even explained there. However, it's just not that simple that you could add it to the paragraph within a couple pages.
On September 14 2011 23:43 RA wrote: Just 5 months? Well I'm glad he got at least that and I hope he gets his tough ass handled there.
^ You heard it first here folks, rape the kid with Aspergers in jail and give him more than five months for saying some shit.
How is it all these people are of this state of mind yet a majority of TL seems to be against capital punishment? (Yet I agree with it in some cases and still think this is stupid?!)
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.
I disagree that this should be against the law in the first place. I do think all those other things you mentioned should be against the law and they don't even have the easily places safeguard that a banstick is.
Again though, let's see you prosecute everyone who tells someone else to die over the internet, because that's clearly the best use of law enforcement funds.
On September 14 2011 23:43 RA wrote: Just 5 months? Well I'm glad he got at least that and I hope he gets his tough ass handled there.
^ You heard it first here folks, rape the kid with Aspergers in jail and give him more than five months for saying some shit.
How is it all these people are of this state of mind yet a majority of TL seems to be against capital punishment? (Yet I agree with it in some cases and still think this is stupid?!)
Here's the thing man, I completely understand why in an otherwise utopian society this would be such a big deal, however we aren't in such a society. I understand laws and how laws and laws and if you break them you should be punished (Again, whether this should be punishable is another issue), however that isn't the direct issue here. The direct issue here is this is such a rampant problem, (AKA: If I game online not a day goes by that I don't get a death threat, mocked about someone in my family dying, attacks that are racist or homophobic in nature, etc) that when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, you aren't going to stop it or really even slow it down by prosecuting one individual.
Either ramp it up, or knock it off and I'm inclined to say knock it off when you consider that there are a million other larger issues that could use those funds in a better way but instead are being wasted on this issue which has methods of stopping it or at least significantly slowing it down already, such as banning the accounts and or IP's of the individuals, are there ways around it? Sure, at least until those start getting circumvented this shouldn't even be considered a "maybe" court issue.
That's also neglecting his Aspergers. All I'm going to say regarding you is that your side of the debate already appears to be the minority and yet you are contradicting one another in what seems every other post, you say it's "centuries of case law" and yet someone else says "it's because the mother was offended". Well bub, until every single troll is going to court you're wrong.
Well, with respect, the fact of the matter is that the criminal law, in some way, shape or form, has been in place for thousands of years. Crime continues to exist despite this fact. But nobody else seems to think that we should stop prosecuting all those other crimes. Why? Because there are other factors to be considered in the prosecution of crime other than the concept of general deterrence. Go and look into sentencing principles. It will show you a myriad of reasons for prosecutions to continue despite inefficacy of criminal prosecutions with respect to the concept of general deterrence.
This sort of harassment has real, lasting psychological effects on those concerned. It is worthy of prosecution. That's not really up for discussion....
As to your last paragraph, sure, a minority in this very small internet forum thread. Step outside of this sphere however, particularly into the 18+ demographic away from the internet and I'm absolutely certain that I'm not in the minority.
Also, my reference to case law is not contradictory at all. It can be both. Case law often provides PRINCIPLES, not strict examples to be followed, because every case is different and the specific circumstances of each case need to be considered and applied to the elements of each offence.
On September 14 2011 23:43 RA wrote: Just 5 months? Well I'm glad he got at least that and I hope he gets his tough ass handled there.
^ You heard it first here folks, rape the kid with Aspergers in jail and give him more than five months for saying some shit.
How is it all these people are of this state of mind yet a majority of TL seems to be against capital punishment? (Yet I agree with it in some cases and still think this is stupid?!)
I think you will find that a vast majority of all the people who argue that it's right to prosecute this guy will agree that this guy's comment was dumb.
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.
Well I'd rather say that a lot of people get off on that stuff. You have those in basically every online community - usually a bunch of people who wouldn't dare to speak up the slightest bit outside. Anyways I was laughing just a couple weeks ago how ridiculous it was that they arrested people for clapping in Belarus. Now they arrest someone for something that is at best an insult in the uk. Great world here.
Here's the thing man, I completely understand why in an otherwise utopian society this would be such a big deal, however we aren't in such a society. I understand laws and how laws and laws and if you break them you should be punished (Again, whether this should be punishable is another issue), however that isn't the direct issue here. The direct issue here is this is such a rampant problem, (AKA: If I game online not a day goes by that I don't get a death threat, mocked about someone in my family dying, attacks that are racist or homophobic in nature, etc) that when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, you aren't going to stop it or really even slow it down by prosecuting one individual.
Either ramp it up, or knock it off and I'm inclined to say knock it off when you consider that there are a million other larger issues that could use those funds in a better way but instead are being wasted on this issue which has methods of stopping it or at least significantly slowing it down already, such as banning the accounts and or IP's of the individuals, are there ways around it? Sure, at least until those start getting circumvented this shouldn't even be considered a "maybe" court issue.
That's also neglecting his Aspergers. All I'm going to say regarding you is that your side of the debate already appears to be the minority and yet you are contradicting one another in what seems every other post, you say it's "centuries of case law" and yet someone else says "it's because the mother was offended". Well bub, until every single troll is going to court you're wrong.
Well, with respect, the fact of the matter is that the criminal law, in some way, shape or form, has been in place for thousands of years. Crime continues to exist despite this fact. But nobody else seems to think that we should stop prosecuting all those other crimes. Why? Because there are other factors to be considered in the prosecution of crime other than the concept of general deterrence. Go and look into sentencing principles. It will show you a myriad of reasons for prosecutions to continue despite inefficacy of criminal prosecutions with respect to the concept of general deterrence.
This sort of harassment has real, lasting psychological effects on those concerned. It is worthy of prosecution. That's not really up for discussion....
As to your last paragraph, sure, a minority in this very small internet forum thread. Step outside of this sphere however, particularly into the 18+ demographic away from the internet and I'm absolutely certain that I'm not in the minority.
Also, my reference to case law is not contradictory at all. It can be both. Case law often provides PRINCIPLES, not strict examples to be followed, because every case is different and the specific circumstances of each case need to be considered and applied to the elements of each offence.
Maybe I'm wrong but it still feels like even the people being more reasonable about this but still thinking he deserves harsher punishment than being banned from social networking are glazing over the issue that we don't have infinite space in our prison systems nor for investigations and prosecutions. There are bigger issues out there, sure we still prosecute robberies even though there are murders and assaults, but I dunno to me it just feels that this is a minor enough issue with other safeguards in place (such as banning accounts and IP's) that unless someone circumvents those measures that this shouldn't even be considered a possible court case.
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.
touche, sir. i simply did not think about it like that.
however, i do believe that "telling the police whenever he gets a mobile with internet" is a bit overdramatic, same as the 4 months of prison. although i suppose it does depend on how far he took it, if it was just defacing some facebook page, then that is nothing really of concern in my honest opinion, coninuing with your analogy, its as though she put the paint cans right next to the wall, or left the keys in the car and put a sign up: "free car", sure it doesnt MEAN that they HAD TO TAKE IT, but its purely asking for it. what more is there to expect?. unless he was seriously stalking the woman, a fine or such, would be more than enough.
@hypnoxyde : you realize there's a difference between being willingly witty and acting like a douche ? Because it seems not and it makes the reading of this topic extremly uninteresting.
On September 14 2011 23:54 jace32 wrote: I don't think he should be jailed, what he did isn't a crime, instead they could just let the girl's father have a go at him
Yeah, society would be real great if we used methods like that...
On September 14 2011 23:54 jace32 wrote: I don't think he should be jailed, what he did isn't a crime, instead they could just let the girl's father have a go at him
Yeah, society would be real great if we used methods like that...
It accomplishes just as much as jailing the guy with Aspergers for doing it, especially with some peoples lovely comments about how they hope he gets raped and or beaten in prison.
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".
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.
touche, sir. i simply did not think about it like that.
however, i do believe that "telling the police whenever he gets a mobile with internet" is a bit overdramatic, same as the 4 months of prison. although i suppose it does depend on how far he took it, if it was just defacing some facebook page, then that is nothing really of concern in my honest opinion, coninuing with your analogy, its as though she put the paint cans right next to the wall, or left the keys in the car and put a sign up: "free car", sure it doesnt MEAN that they HAD TO TAKE IT, but its purely asking for it. what more is there to expect?. unless he was seriously stalking the woman, a fine or such, would be more than enough.
Sure, I can understand that.
But that's an issue regarding his sentencing. Not whether this is a crime or not. Frankly I think a lot of people saw the penalty and revolted against the whole idea just because he was gaoled. I actually agree, I think 5 months gaol is excessive in the circumstances, absent any knowledge of his prior history... I also suspect his defence lawyer is pretty shit. For god's sake, she was just about prosecuting the matter herself... Calling him despicable and the like. I sure as fuck wouldn't hire her.
On September 14 2011 23:05 Conti wrote: To all those above who say "So? This is the internet, this happens all the time. Get used to it":
Get. A. Fucking. Life. Seriously.
If you are so far disconnected from reality that you think that there should be no action taken against someone who repeatedly and intentionally seeks out grieving family members to insult them, then you really, seriously need to turn off the computer more often to interact with the real world.
Your insinuation that I don't have a life is very insulting and inflammatory towards me and by another poster from your countries definition of your legal system is against the law where you are from. I'll see you in court.
Luckily, our court system (unlike you) knows the difference between an insinuation (which never addressed you personally in the first place) and repeated, specific harassment. That you cannot tell the difference - in addition to everything else I read from you in this thread - makes me feel very, very sorry for you.
If I would call you an asshole on the internet, nobody will give a shit. If I would do the shit that guy did, then yes, I would end up in front of a German court, and my best guess is that I would end up serving a few months on probation or something while having to pay a nice sum of money to the families of the deceased, depending on the severity of the case. And that's how it fucking should be.
On September 14 2011 23:05 Conti wrote: To all those above who say "So? This is the internet, this happens all the time. Get used to it":
Get. A. Fucking. Life. Seriously.
If you are so far disconnected from reality that you think that there should be no action taken against someone who repeatedly and intentionally seeks out grieving family members to insult them, then you really, seriously need to turn off the computer more often to interact with the real world.
Your insinuation that I don't have a life is very insulting and inflammatory towards me and by another poster from your countries definition of your legal system is against the law where you are from. I'll see you in court.
Luckily, our court system (unlike you) knows the difference between an insinuation (which never addressed you personally in the first place) and repeated, specific harassment. That you cannot tell the difference - in addition to everything else I read from you in this thread - makes me feel very, very sorry for you.
If I would call you an asshole on the internet, nobody will give a shit. If I would do the shit that guy did, then yes, I would end up in front of a German court, and my best guess is that I would end up serving a few months on probation or something while having to pay a nice sum of money to the families of the deceased, depending on the severity of the case. And that's how it fucking should be.
And that's why I think your court system is awful and would fight tooth and nail to avoid it ever being like yours.
On September 14 2011 23:05 Conti wrote: To all those above who say "So? This is the internet, this happens all the time. Get used to it":
Get. A. Fucking. Life. Seriously.
If you are so far disconnected from reality that you think that there should be no action taken against someone who repeatedly and intentionally seeks out grieving family members to insult them, then you really, seriously need to turn off the computer more often to interact with the real world.
Your insinuation that I don't have a life is very insulting and inflammatory towards me and by another poster from your countries definition of your legal system is against the law where you are from. I'll see you in court.
Luckily, our court system (unlike you) knows the difference between an insinuation (which never addressed you personally in the first place) and repeated, specific harassment. That you cannot tell the difference - in addition to everything else I read from you in this thread - makes me feel very, very sorry for you.
If I would call you an asshole on the internet, nobody will give a shit. If I would do the shit that guy did, then yes, I would end up in front of a German court, and my best guess is that I would end up serving a few months on probation or something while having to pay a nice sum of money to the families of the deceased, depending on the severity of the case. And that's how it fucking should be.
And that's why I think your court system is awful and would fight tooth and nail to avoid it ever being like yours.
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".
So you're basicly saying the facebook page maybe wasn't the smartest move. That's ok, but it still has nothing to do with his charge. Sure he would not have committed the crime if there was no facebook page but are you going to tell me I'm not allowed to build a house because that could make someone paint my walls with graffiti? Because that's what it looks like Again. I too think jail is overdoing it and a fine would be perfectly fine, but a punishment is needed.
Here's the thing man, I completely understand why in an otherwise utopian society this would be such a big deal, however we aren't in such a society. I understand laws and how laws and laws and if you break them you should be punished (Again, whether this should be punishable is another issue), however that isn't the direct issue here. The direct issue here is this is such a rampant problem, (AKA: If I game online not a day goes by that I don't get a death threat, mocked about someone in my family dying, attacks that are racist or homophobic in nature, etc) that when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, you aren't going to stop it or really even slow it down by prosecuting one individual.
Either ramp it up, or knock it off and I'm inclined to say knock it off when you consider that there are a million other larger issues that could use those funds in a better way but instead are being wasted on this issue which has methods of stopping it or at least significantly slowing it down already, such as banning the accounts and or IP's of the individuals, are there ways around it? Sure, at least until those start getting circumvented this shouldn't even be considered a "maybe" court issue.
That's also neglecting his Aspergers. All I'm going to say regarding you is that your side of the debate already appears to be the minority and yet you are contradicting one another in what seems every other post, you say it's "centuries of case law" and yet someone else says "it's because the mother was offended". Well bub, until every single troll is going to court you're wrong.
Well, with respect, the fact of the matter is that the criminal law, in some way, shape or form, has been in place for thousands of years. Crime continues to exist despite this fact. But nobody else seems to think that we should stop prosecuting all those other crimes. Why? Because there are other factors to be considered in the prosecution of crime other than the concept of general deterrence. Go and look into sentencing principles. It will show you a myriad of reasons for prosecutions to continue despite inefficacy of criminal prosecutions with respect to the concept of general deterrence.
This sort of harassment has real, lasting psychological effects on those concerned. It is worthy of prosecution. That's not really up for discussion....
As to your last paragraph, sure, a minority in this very small internet forum thread. Step outside of this sphere however, particularly into the 18+ demographic away from the internet and I'm absolutely certain that I'm not in the minority.
Also, my reference to case law is not contradictory at all. It can be both. Case law often provides PRINCIPLES, not strict examples to be followed, because every case is different and the specific circumstances of each case need to be considered and applied to the elements of each offence.
Maybe I'm wrong but it still feels like even the people being more reasonable about this but still thinking he deserves harsher punishment than being banned from social networking are glazing over the issue that we don't have infinite space in our prison systems nor for investigations and prosecutions. There are bigger issues out there, sure we still prosecute robberies even though there are murders and assaults, but I dunno to me it just feels that this is a minor enough issue with other safeguards in place (such as banning accounts and IP's) that unless someone circumvents those measures that this shouldn't even be considered a possible court case.
I understand where you're coming from, but that's a sentencing issue. I agree, I think 5 months gaol is excessive. But people in this thread are arguing all this other nonsense such as freedom of speech, inability to prosecute, slippery slope etc, to assert that he shouldn't even be prosecuted... That's nonsense. What he did is pathetic... And thankfully, a criminal offence in his jurisdiction.
On September 14 2011 23:05 Conti wrote: To all those above who say "So? This is the internet, this happens all the time. Get used to it":
Get. A. Fucking. Life. Seriously.
If you are so far disconnected from reality that you think that there should be no action taken against someone who repeatedly and intentionally seeks out grieving family members to insult them, then you really, seriously need to turn off the computer more often to interact with the real world.
Your insinuation that I don't have a life is very insulting and inflammatory towards me and by another poster from your countries definition of your legal system is against the law where you are from. I'll see you in court.
Luckily, our court system (unlike you) knows the difference between an insinuation (which never addressed you personally in the first place) and repeated, specific harassment. That you cannot tell the difference - in addition to everything else I read from you in this thread - makes me feel very, very sorry for you.
If I would call you an asshole on the internet, nobody will give a shit. If I would do the shit that guy did, then yes, I would end up in front of a German court, and my best guess is that I would end up serving a few months on probation or something while having to pay a nice sum of money to the families of the deceased, depending on the severity of the case. And that's how it fucking should be.
And that's why I think your court system is awful and would fight tooth and nail to avoid it ever being like yours.
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".
So you're basicly saying the facebook page maybe wasn't the smartest move. That's ok, but it still has nothing to do with his charge. Sure he would not have committed the crime if there was no facebook page but are you going to tell me I'm not allowed to build a house because that could make someone paint my walls with graffiti? Because that's what it looks like Again. I too think jail is overdoing it and a fine would be perfectly fine, but a punishment is needed.
I don't know why people keep talking about graffiti and houses but yes, I believe without opportunity he would not have actively sought out a victim. That is why, in my opinion, banning him from social networking was the best choice. To all these people postulating that he'd go to a internet cafe to continue; do you really think he gives a shit enough to go down to a net cafe to piss someone off? The easiest way to stop a troll is just to block them, if you don't respond with instant gratification then it's boring.
Maybe this is a different type of thing but it's not that far from people who flame you on sc2 on hoping you die etc, making that vid just shows he's got problems.
I am pretty sure this guy needs different help then jail.. He probably has some other problems.. What he did was pretty fucking sad but I think he should get a different treatment.
Therapy and like a 5 year ban on any social network but jailling people like him won't help anyone. If they do this to make a statement I feel it's still not the best thing for the future.. I don't believe in an authoritarian society, this is an entire different thing then real life threats in actual reality.
Is this guy a criminal? No. Is what he did wrong and he should be punished and helped at the same time? Yes.
On September 14 2011 23:05 Conti wrote: To all those above who say "So? This is the internet, this happens all the time. Get used to it":
Get. A. Fucking. Life. Seriously.
If you are so far disconnected from reality that you think that there should be no action taken against someone who repeatedly and intentionally seeks out grieving family members to insult them, then you really, seriously need to turn off the computer more often to interact with the real world.
Your insinuation that I don't have a life is very insulting and inflammatory towards me and by another poster from your countries definition of your legal system is against the law where you are from. I'll see you in court.
Luckily, our court system (unlike you) knows the difference between an insinuation (which never addressed you personally in the first place) and repeated, specific harassment. That you cannot tell the difference - in addition to everything else I read from you in this thread - makes me feel very, very sorry for you.
If I would call you an asshole on the internet, nobody will give a shit. If I would do the shit that guy did, then yes, I would end up in front of a German court, and my best guess is that I would end up serving a few months on probation or something while having to pay a nice sum of money to the families of the deceased, depending on the severity of the case. And that's how it fucking should be.
And that's why I think your court system is awful and would fight tooth and nail to avoid it ever being like yours.
I'm very happy not to know you personnaly.
Thanks for your absolutely wonderful addition to this topic. If you'd like to further discuss just how much you love me may I suggest you make a thread about it or send me some private messages. I promise not to sue you or wish prison rape upon you if you say something nasty towards me.
This is fucking ludicrous. They might as well throw just about 90% of every middle and high schooler in jail, because the stuff that goes down between teenagers in real life is far more scarring than some dumb kid on the internet.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand the policies on "internet bullying". Is this just old men making legislation based on things they don't understand? And why on earth doesn't real life bullying, which is a million times more prevelant and impactful, get treated the same way - if not with a far less lenient policy?
Call me crazy for feeling this way, and while it's certainly far from a nice thing that he did, I can't help but feel this is just completely backwards. When is the last time a teacher took a bullying charge seriously? Someone getting the shit kicked out of them for being an outcast? Ever try stepping to other authorities with that? Good luck. Hell, most of the time the teachers treat the kid getting bullied worse than the others, but that's flown for dozens of years now, why is internet bullying suddenly so important?
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
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.
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.
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.
On September 15 2011 00:15 HoldenR wrote: This is fucking ludicrous. They might as well throw just about 90% of every middle and high schooler in jail, because the stuff that goes down between teenagers in real life is far more scarring than some dumb kid on the internet.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand the policies on "internet bullying". Is this just old men making legislation based on things they don't understand? And why on earth doesn't real life bullying, which is a million times more prevelant and impactful, get treated the same way - if not with a far less lenient policy?
Call me crazy for feeling this way, and while it's certainly far from a nice thing that he did, I can't help but feel this is just completely backwards. When is the last time a teacher took a bullying charge seriously? Someone getting the shit kicked out of them for being an outcast? Ever try stepping to other authorities with that? Good luck. Hell, most of the time the teachers treat the kid getting bullied worse than the others, but that's flown for dozens of years now, why is internet bullying suddenly so important?
I'll second this, can't count the number of times I got the shit kicked out of me and didn't even fight back because half the time there was more than one person. Yet any time this was brought up to a higher up authority I was basically laughed at. Being on the end of both of these, I can tell you getting the shit kicked out of you is both emotionally and physically more scarring.
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 pretty sure if you asked inControl himself if people should get jailed for trolling he'd disagree, then again I could be completely wrong...but from his overall personality the only person he'd do that to is maybe CombatEx.
if he does this kind of thing over the internet couldn't the mother just ban him? ask facebook to ip ban?
i mean jailing someone over something like this... i know that what he did was wrong but still the internet is free ground, even for things of that nature. if it crosses the boundary of internet-real life and became a problem then jail should be a serious option, otherwise things should be kept cyber.
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 pretty sure if you asked inControl himself if people should get jailed for trolling he'd disagree, then again I could be completely wrong...but from his overall personality the only person he'd do that to is maybe CombatEx.
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 pretty sure if you asked inControl himself if people should get jailed for trolling he'd disagree, then again I could be completely wrong...but from his overall personality the only person he'd do that to is maybe CombatEx.
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 pretty sure if you asked inControl himself if people should get jailed for trolling he'd disagree, then again I could be completely wrong...but from his overall personality the only person he'd do that to is maybe CombatEx.
dont do the crime if u cant do the time.
Implying what he did is actually worthy of any amount of "time".
Personally, making a public facebook mourn page is fucking dumb and just screaming for trolls. I don't really have much sympathy for people who commit suicide, so all mourning should be done in real life or at least between people who care about the girl.
Although it was immature for the guy to troll like that I don't think the troll deserves such harsh punishment.
On September 15 2011 00:15 HoldenR wrote: This is fucking ludicrous. They might as well throw just about 90% of every middle and high schooler in jail, because the stuff that goes down between teenagers in real life is far more scarring than some dumb kid on the internet.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand the policies on "internet bullying". Is this just old men making legislation based on things they don't understand? And why on earth doesn't real life bullying, which is a million times more prevelant and impactful, get treated the same way - if not with a far less lenient policy?
Call me crazy for feeling this way, and while it's certainly far from a nice thing that he did, I can't help but feel this is just completely backwards. When is the last time a teacher took a bullying charge seriously? Someone getting the shit kicked out of them for being an outcast? Ever try stepping to other authorities with that? Good luck. Hell, most of the time the teachers treat the kid getting bullied worse than the others, but that's flown for dozens of years now, why is internet bullying suddenly so important?
Soooooooooooooooo instead of fixing the problem with idiot teachers not taking bullying seriously, let's just let people be fucking morons?
In any event, the whole concept of bullying IS being taken more seriously around the world. See for example what is dubbed "Broadie's Law", which is a significant overhaul of criminal legislation here in Victoria specifically targeting the type of behaviour you're describing.
There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
Should we stick with your piss weak car unlocked and a thief stealing it analogy instead?
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
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 pretty sure if you asked inControl himself if people should get jailed for trolling he'd disagree, then again I could be completely wrong...but from his overall personality the only person he'd do that to is maybe CombatEx.
dont do the crime if u cant do the time.
Implying what he did is actually worthy of any amount of "time".
look you got to take responsibility for youre actions. in united states we might not be as sophisticated as korea or europe but hopefully well get there. cyberbullying is not acceptable. as a prominant member of slayers pointed out you dont have to hit someone for it to be assault.
look you got to take responsibility for youre actions. in united states we might not be as sophisticated as korea or europe but hopefully well get there. cyberbullying is not acceptable. as a prominant member of slayers pointed out you dont have to hit someone for it to be assault.
Sticks and stones...ahh I am sure you know the rest.
On September 15 2011 00:15 HoldenR wrote: This is fucking ludicrous. They might as well throw just about 90% of every middle and high schooler in jail, because the stuff that goes down between teenagers in real life is far more scarring than some dumb kid on the internet.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand the policies on "internet bullying". Is this just old men making legislation based on things they don't understand? And why on earth doesn't real life bullying, which is a million times more prevelant and impactful, get treated the same way - if not with a far less lenient policy?
Call me crazy for feeling this way, and while it's certainly far from a nice thing that he did, I can't help but feel this is just completely backwards. When is the last time a teacher took a bullying charge seriously? Someone getting the shit kicked out of them for being an outcast? Ever try stepping to other authorities with that? Good luck. Hell, most of the time the teachers treat the kid getting bullied worse than the others, but that's flown for dozens of years now, why is internet bullying suddenly so important?
Soooooooooooooooo instead of fixing the problem with idiot teachers not taking bullying seriously, let's just let people be fucking morons?
In any event, the whole concept of bullying IS being taken more seriously around the world. See for example what is dubbed "Broadie's Law", which is a significant overhaul of criminal legislation here in Victoria specifically targeting the type of behaviour you're describing.
But it's ass backwards. Literally, you cannot possibly compare people being mean online(and at what point do you even draw the line? You might as well say flaming on a forum deserves jailtime - that's malicious and shows clear intent to harass, too) to what happens in real life, which despite some law in Australia, is a horrible overlooked "flaw in the system" that everyone knows happens, but no one really wants to acknowledge it exists.
I might support this, although obviously not as heavily as in this case, if people would actually try to fix the broken system in the real world. But let's face it, this isn't even a tenth as impactful as real life bullying.
On September 15 2011 00:06 mr_tolkien wrote: I'm very happy not to know you personnaly.
Dear Mr. Tolkien:
The man you insulted is very super sad because some life event just happened to him that has clouded his logical thinking. Your insult was horribly malicious. You will be getting a court summons in a few days.
To any victims: do not worry! In the next couple of days we will be going after anyone who chooses to say the government is bad. They are being horribly malicious by this statement, as in fact, the government is amazing!
There's a difference between trolling and what happened here imo. What happened here was harassment and I feel the time in jail is justified. If the girl was psychologically fragile what he did there might have had dangerous repercussions. Besides what he did was uncalled for and even if the sentence was a little "harsh", it can't go unpunished.
It's not like it was an accident or anything, or weird circumstances. He did everything with the intent of causing harm.
On September 14 2011 20:38 HereticSaint wrote: Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
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.
Yes. But just try to think like the mother/parents. Wouldnt you try everything to see this idiot paying for what he's done?
Who cares what the mother wants, that has absolutely no relevance. I want a million dollars, I want idiots to die, I want to know how to pilot an F-16. What the hell is your point? Really?
Yes, but at least they're doing something about it. It's a start. I do want to see certain abuses of internet anonymity punished; such as his. Let's hope enforcement becomes better.
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
Should we stick with your piss weak car unlocked and a thief stealing it analogy instead?
I'd love to see you post a reasonable argument that counters anything I've said. I've been disappointed thus far...
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?
While it was a dick move, I can't help but think we don't have all the facts.
If all he did was post on a facebook page and make a fake video, then obviously he doesn't deserve to go to jail... There are dicks on the internet everywhere, and you can't stop that.
He must have done other things besides this... if he made phone calls / sent letters, or things like that, then yes I can see this as justified.
But just trolling isn't punishable by jail. And to be honest, I giggled a little bit when I read that he edited that video with the girls face. Yes, I may be a terrible person, but still, many people online are.
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
How is that a terrible analogy ?
Because you can't fucking compare making a joke or a one time insult, to continued harassment with the sole intent of causing emotional harm to the victim. Is this really that hard to understand?
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
How is that a terrible analogy ?
Because a comedian making a joke about Irishmen does not specifically target an irish man and set out on a course of action to cause harm, anguish or grief..
Pretty sick, sure, but so is making a page to tell the entire world your mother committed suicide. No-one's in the right here, in my opinion, not even the court. What law did he break?
look you got to take responsibility for youre actions. in united states we might not be as sophisticated as korea or europe but hopefully well get there. cyberbullying is not acceptable. as a prominant member of slayers pointed out you dont have to hit someone for it to be assault.
Sticks and stones...ahh I am sure you know the rest.
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...
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
How is that a terrible analogy ?
Because you can't fucking compare making a joke or a one time insult, to continued harassment with the sole intent of causing emotional harm to the victim. Is this really that hard to understand?
pleaded guilty to two counts of sending malicious communications relating to Natasha. so continued harassment equals two. Good to know.
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
How is that a terrible analogy ?
Because a comedian making a joke about Irishmen does not specifically target an irish man and set out on a course of action to cause harm, anguish or grief..
My favorite cabaret artists specifically targets a couple of the great politicians my country has to offer and I am pretty sure he is dead serious about what he is saying.
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
How is that a terrible analogy ?
Because you can't fucking compare making a joke or a one time insult, to continued harassment with the sole intent of causing emotional harm to the victim. Is this really that hard to understand?
pleaded guilty to two counts of sending malicious communications relating to Natasha. so continued harassment equals two. Good to know.
I'm pretty sure there's more to this story because if he only sent two messages his punishment is completely ridiculous.
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
How is that a terrible analogy ?
Because you can't fucking compare making a joke or a one time insult, to continued harassment with the sole intent of causing emotional harm to the victim. Is this really that hard to understand?
pleaded guilty to two counts of sending malicious communications relating to Natasha. so continued harassment equals two. Good to know.
No it doesn't. Please learn a bit about the law... Two charges, which would be regarded as "representative counts", and a prosecution summary which alluded to numerous instances, including uncharged acts, wherein this man participated in the malicious behaviour...
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
How is that a terrible analogy ?
Because you can't fucking compare making a joke or a one time insult, to continued harassment with the sole intent of causing emotional harm to the victim. Is this really that hard to understand?
pleaded guilty to two counts of sending malicious communications relating to Natasha. so continued harassment equals two. Good to know.
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
How is that a terrible analogy ?
Because a comedian making a joke about Irishmen does not specifically target an irish man and set out on a course of action to cause harm, anguish or grief..
My favorite cabaret artists specifically targets a couple of the great politicians my country has to offer and I am pretty sure he is dead serious about what he is saying.
I'm just taking a guess here although I haven't seen the thing: There were probably more than 2 specific "insults", but only 2 were harsh enough to get punished for.
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.
On September 15 2011 00:06 mr_tolkien wrote: I'm very happy not to know you personnaly.
Dear Mr. Tolkien:
The man you insulted is very super sad because some life event just happened to him that has clouded his logical thinking. Your insult was horribly malicious. You will be getting a court summons in a few days.
To any victims: do not worry! In the next couple of days we will be going after anyone who chooses to say the government is bad. They are being horribly malicious by this statement, as in fact, the government is amazing!
On September 15 2011 00:27 Desirous wrote: There are many jokes at the expense of the less fortunate. Should we jail them all?
If we're going to lock up people for stupid shit that doesn't affect anyone anymore than they'll let it, then let's lock up all the idiots who think no Jews died in WW2. I think that would be a lot more justified than some guy editing videos and trolling.
Can people stop with the terrible analogies?
....
Fuck me..
How is that a terrible analogy ?
Because a comedian making a joke about Irishmen does not specifically target an irish man and set out on a course of action to cause harm, anguish or grief..
so what youre saying is you can be racist, homophobic and an all around ass as long as you dont mention any names and put 'comedian' in your job section on the census?
doing what he did doesnt warrent a jail sentence, hes been scape goated by the anti internet media craze.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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:
Trolls who post pointless stuff on the already trash internet, whose actions has about 0 effect contrary what the families say, and whose posts and accounts can be deleted with a few clicks, face jail time and severed rights in the name of a poorly defined "anti-social" offense which conflicts with freedom of speech among other things,
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.
Am I the only one who finds this strange?
Sure, the stuff the guy did is of bad taste, but it is blown way out of proportion, it is more of a simple banworthy offense than a court case. Jail is for criminals, not retards.
Seems like authorities have too much time and money on their hands if they can pursue cases like "sending malicious communications" and "posting offensive messages". It is quite absurd if you ask me. "The offences are so serious...", "harm and damage" - YEAH SURE MR SUPERFLUOUS OFFICER or whoever you are. Welcome to the internet, enjoy your stay.
I vaguely remember a case where 4chan repeatedly called the parents of a kid who committed suicide (basis of the "an hero" meme I believe), sometimes thousands of phone calls and letters. Now THAT'S fucking harassment, yet the authorities didn't even lift a finger.
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.
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:
"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.
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'.
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 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 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.
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 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".
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?
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.
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.
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 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 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?
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.
Its moments like this I wish he would get help for his mental disorder and addiction instead of being simply put in a jail where his aspergers will only lead to more sadness, confusion and frustration. when he gets out of jail he will have learned nothing and only be more bitter and potentially do worse IF he doesn't become suicidal while in prison first. Seriously, while its wrong that he did what he did its more wrong that society doesn't realise that his mental condition is a strong factor in his actions and instead of helping him society instead locks him away.
Meanwhile people post things saying he deserves it without understanding the way the criminal justice system works and the effects it has on those who enter it. This man won't get any help and sending him to prison is only going to cause more problems. He needs psychological treatment and help to overcome addiction and learn how to cope with his aspergers syndrome so that he can move on with his life, become productive and never do this kind of thing again.
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.
What the ****? So you know exactly how prisons work and that there's a good chance it will destroy him, potentially he may wind up dead and probably get raped and you are okay with this? Over something he said? Over what someone with Aspergers said? And the Americans pay the bill for this? What the hell....? Are you really serious, really?
Screw it, just give him the death penalty.
This isn't even the equivalent to capital punishment, this is like if someone murdered someone else (In a way that didn't involve torture) and you didn't just kill them, you tortured them, then killed them, then killed their whole family.
Wow, he has aspergers, it's a form of AUTISM, which is a SOCIAL DISORDER.
I really think it should be illegal to prosecute someone like that for this. My best friend has two younger brothers, both of which are autistic and yeah, sometimes they do go too far, but it's not their fault. This is just such a shame, what is wrong with people these days?
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.
CCTVs taking hundreds of pictures of you daily as you walk around london beg to differ that its not a police state.
On September 14 2011 20:25 Pandemona wrote: Hope he learns, learning the hard way or not he is a social reject who likes attention plain and simple.
5 months, some people may not seem it is long enough.
I am from Worcester, where the girl was from who killed herself on valentines day i beleive. I dont know the girl, but i have seen pictures and read numerous storys and heard stuff from my friends about her. To mock someone who killed themselves because of social aspects inside her school life (she was a well off girl who went to private school, but her parents had recently split up which is reason for her suicide i beleive)
But to ban him from social networks for 5 years is a bit weak, if you cruel to animals your nomally banned from having them completely, let alone 5 years. Kind of stupid.
Article said she was depressed from being bullied by a group of girls at her school and then being sent an offensive anonymous message the day that she took her life.
On September 15 2011 01:25 Frigo wrote: Trolls who post pointless stuff on the already trash internet, whose actions has about 0 effect contrary what the families say, and whose posts and accounts can be deleted with a few clicks, face jail time and severed rights in the name of a poorly defined "anti-social" offense which conflicts with freedom of speech among other things,
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.
Am I the only one who finds this strange?
Sure, the stuff the guy did is of bad taste, but it is blown way out of proportion, it is more of a simple banworthy offense than a court case. Jail is for criminals, not retards.
Seems like authorities have too much time and money on their hands if they can pursue cases like "sending malicious communications" and "posting offensive messages". It is quite absurd if you ask me. "The offences are so serious...", "harm and damage" - YEAH SURE MR SUPERFLUOUS OFFICER or whoever you are. Welcome to the internet, enjoy your stay.
I vaguely remember a case where 4chan repeatedly called the parents of a kid who committed suicide (basis of the "an hero" meme I believe), sometimes thousands of phone calls and letters. Now THAT'S fucking harassment, yet the authorities didn't even lift a finger.
obviously because there were too many and it was generalized. if there was a leader they could go after, someone who clearly led if the harassment, they could. As it was 1000's of people, they just don't have the manpower, and what are you going to do? Send 10000 police out to canvas the world for them?
On September 15 2011 00:44 Asday wrote: What law did he break?
He was persecuted under the Malicious Communications Act.
I'm English and I've never heard of this. If I call you some nasty words on facebook could I be potentially sent to prison? I don't get it, where's the line and what does the law actually say?
On September 15 2011 02:43 VirgilSC2 wrote: Wow, he has aspergers, it's a form of AUTISM, which is a SOCIAL DISORDER.
I really think it should be illegal to prosecute someone like that for this. My best friend has two younger brothers, both of which are autistic and yeah, sometimes they do go too far, but it's not their fault. This is just such a shame, what is wrong with people these days?
lmao, people with aspergers shouldn't be out of the boundaries of the law. a person with aspergers still understands morality.
On September 15 2011 00:44 Asday wrote: What law did he break?
He was persecuted under the Malicious Communications Act.
I'm English and I've never heard of this. If I call you some nasty words on facebook could I be potentially sent to prison? I don't get it, where's the line and what does the law actually say?
If you cause distress or anxiety with those words. Just because you dumb down a law to something simple doesn't mean its silly or dumb.
On September 15 2011 02:43 VirgilSC2 wrote: Wow, he has aspergers, it's a form of AUTISM, which is a SOCIAL DISORDER.
I really think it should be illegal to prosecute someone like that for this. My best friend has two younger brothers, both of which are autistic and yeah, sometimes they do go too far, but it's not their fault. This is just such a shame, what is wrong with people these days?
lmao, people with aspergers shouldn't be out of the boundaries of the law. a person with aspergers still understands morality.
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.
Hardly a relevant argument. You could say that about anything you disagree with. Cool, that doesn't change the fact that harassment is a serious crime. There's nothing negligent whatsoever about this, as I already stated, the police department doesn't deal with crimes in the order they were reported, but rather the severity of the crime. Something like this would never detract from resources spent investigating rapes, murders, etc.
All I see is you saying that harassment, especially in the case of causing extreme anguish, isn't a big deal. I see no reason to distinguish between internet vs phone vs in person.
EDIT: I hope we're just arguing about the validity of the investigation, etc. and not whether or not the punishment is appropriate. I'm not saying jail time is the best solution, but I do think he should be prosecuted and at minimum fined.
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.
Hardly a relevant argument. You could say that about anything you disagree with. Cool, that doesn't change the fact that harassment is a serious crime. There's nothing negligent whatsoever about this, as I already stated, the police department doesn't deal with crimes in the order they were reported, but rather the severity of the crime. Something like this would never detract from resources spent investigating rapes, murders, etc.
All I see is you saying that harassment, especially in the case of causing extreme anguish, isn't a big deal. I see no reason to distinguish between internet vs phone vs in person.
I don't distinguish between them. If I call your dead mother all sorts of nasty names and then say I hope you die, I shouldn't go to jail for it whether I say it in real life or on the internet. That's stupid.
Furthermore you say it isn't detracting from other areas, but at the same time it would increase the national debt. We don't have unlimited funds, any funds they save not looking into these cases, at least all but the most severe ones (AKA: The ones who actually circumvent IP bans/etc) is more money they have the next quarter or whatever that they don't need to borrow towards.
Edit: Of course Jail time isn't the best solution, it isn't even a solution, if anything he's going to be worse off psychologically when he gets out. I know if I said some random bs on the internet and ended up getting sent to jail and raped for it that if anything I'd be more likely to do not only that but even more messed up shit.
Bottom line is of course opinion just like yours but: I don't believe this is anymore an issue than saying shit to people in real life which as long as you aren't invading their property, constantly screaming it, staying on another persons property against their will (such as like at a restaurant, etc) then it's a non-issue. Then whether you want to look at it as an issue or not, we don't have unlimited funds, if we start pursuing these at some point there's going to be more borrowing which means more debt. (Unless things take a 180 degree turn)
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.
Hardly a relevant argument. You could say that about anything you disagree with. Cool, that doesn't change the fact that harassment is a serious crime. There's nothing negligent whatsoever about this, as I already stated, the police department doesn't deal with crimes in the order they were reported, but rather the severity of the crime. Something like this would never detract from resources spent investigating rapes, murders, etc.
All I see is you saying that harassment, especially in the case of causing extreme anguish, isn't a big deal. I see no reason to distinguish between internet vs phone vs in person.
I don't distinguish between them. If I call your dead mother all sorts of nasty names and then say I hope you die, I shouldn't go to jail for it whether I say it in real life or on the internet. That's stupid.
Furthermore you say it isn't detracting from other areas, but at the same time it would increase the national debt. We don't have unlimited funds, any funds they save not looking into these cases, at least all but the most severe ones (AKA: The ones who actually circumvent IP bans/etc) is more money they have the next quarter or whatever that they don't need to borrow towards.
Edit: Of course Jail time isn't the best solution, it isn't even a solution, if anything he's going to be worse off psychologically when he gets out. I know if I said some random bs on the internet and ended up getting sent to jail and raped for it that if anything I'd be more likely to do not only that but even more messed up shit.
There's a difference between merely saying something and harassment. What you're essentially saying is that harassment shouldn't be a crime. Because that is the definition of harassment.
— vb ( tr ) to trouble, torment, or confuse by continual persistent attacks, questions, etc
Keyword in there is persistent. If you continually told me you wanted me to die, wanted to rape my mother, etc. then I do think you should be fined and I don't think that's within your rights of free speech. If you wanted to write your own blog on why I should die, etc. that's fine. But to actively go out and harass someone is an entirely different matter.
Lastly, there's an endless stream of cases. Certain ones, of less severity, would be neglected to be looked at because of these. For that exact reason, they are LESS severe. It would not cause an increase in national debt, but rather a reallocation (if you can even call it that, as it's already been happening) of resources to focus on different matters.
Why are they sentencing this guy to jail time is beyond me given his mental condition. It's almost as wrong as putting a retarded person, even a murderer, to death
I really find it hilarious the whole "rape shield law".
This is the same way people justify paparazzi going after celebs and stalking them.
If harassment is a forceable unpleasant intrusion into someone's life, that they can't use any means to stop you, isn't that a bit like rape? The main reason for the psychological damage from rape is the helplessness aspect. Paparazzi do the same thing butting into celebrity's lives constantly, at their home, the beach, etc.
Yet we as a public say "its their own fault for being celebrities". You see the problem? For being themselves, they get to be harassed? thats the same line of reasoning when people say "but she was dressing slutty and asking for it".
She probably was, just not from the rapist but from someone they had their eye on for sex.
So society is at once denying that this type of thinking allows people to get away with crimes, and at the same time imposes this type of thinking on whether what some people with cameras do is right or wrong. Do you know many paparazzi are just self employeed people that pick out particular celebs to stalk and photograph? How is it any different?
Moral of the story:
People are fine with a behavior thats immoral or unethical as long as they profit from it, or when it has a large number of supporters so it can be called a group (A single person throwing trash and yelling at people going to a soldier funeral vs a huge group picketing it). people condemn that same behavior (the justification for an action thats usually criminal, "rape shield law"), in people who do not give us any benefits when they commit an action, Or when they're solitary.
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.
CCTVs taking hundreds of pictures of you daily as you walk around london beg to differ that its not a police state.
I know freedom of speech isnt a popular idea anymore, what with the horrors of peoples hurt feelings and all [ people can become sad if you are a meanie!!! </3 ] but this is ridiculous and Britain should be ashamed. What he did was wrong, but it should not be against the law in any civilized country.
On September 15 2011 03:48 lizzard_warish wrote: I know freedom of speech isnt a popular idea anymore, what with the horrors of peoples hurt feelings and all [ people can become sad if you are a meanie!!! </3 ] but this is ridiculous and Britain should be ashamed. What he did was wrong, but it should not be against the law in any civilized country.
Since when should harassment not be against the law in any civilized country?
The whole thing comes down to who puts up a facebook for someone who commited suicide. In the social world today if you put up a social page about someone who commited suicide your going to get trolled by someone regardless.
On September 15 2011 00:44 Asday wrote: What law did he break?
He was persecuted under the Malicious Communications Act.
I'm English and I've never heard of this. If I call you some nasty words on facebook could I be potentially sent to prison? I don't get it, where's the line and what does the law actually say?
If you cause distress or anxiety with those words. Just because you dumb down a law to something simple doesn't mean its silly or dumb.
There are implications to what your words do and it all depends on the effect or intent to cause with them.
It is silly and it is dumb, there is absolutely no way on god's green earth you should be sent to jail for this. How does it help to spend huge amounts of my tax money locking people like this up instead of simply fining them and cutting off their internet/mobile phone access?
Sure there should be some punishment for extreme harassment (not sure this is extreme as I don't know how persistent he was) but no way a jail sentence.
Oh my god, I read the whole OP and all I was thinking about was "Man, you gotta add 'haters gonna hate' to the pic". This just blew my mind. Punishment is needed, but jail? Its a twisted case imo...
Sadly enough, you get jailed for trolling a dead girl on facebook but not for committing actual crimes against humanity. The justice system is beyond fucked.
While he absolutely deserved what he got, how can someone be arrested on charges of malicious communication? Like, don't get me wrong, I think what he did is disgusting and he deserves every bit of it, but I'm just worried about this setting a precedent for violation of...freedom of speech. And I'm not defending him at all, I really don't mean to.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
On September 15 2011 00:44 Asday wrote: What law did he break?
He was persecuted under the Malicious Communications Act.
I'm English and I've never heard of this. If I call you some nasty words on facebook could I be potentially sent to prison? I don't get it, where's the line and what does the law actually say?
If you cause distress or anxiety with those words. Just because you dumb down a law to something simple doesn't mean its silly or dumb.
There are implications to what your words do and it all depends on the effect or intent to cause with them.
It is silly and it is dumb, there is absolutely no way on god's green earth you should be sent to jail for this. How does it help to spend huge amounts of my tax money locking people like this up instead of simply fining them and cutting off their internet/mobile phone access?
Sure there should be some punishment for extreme harassment (not sure this is extreme as I don't know how persistent he was) but no way a jail sentence.
For me, this law should be a case by case scenario.. It depends on the situation and how much distress or anxiety your words, actions or message caused to the person.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
On September 15 2011 00:44 Asday wrote: What law did he break?
He was persecuted under the Malicious Communications Act.
I'm English and I've never heard of this. If I call you some nasty words on facebook could I be potentially sent to prison? I don't get it, where's the line and what does the law actually say?
If you cause distress or anxiety with those words. Just because you dumb down a law to something simple doesn't mean its silly or dumb.
There are implications to what your words do and it all depends on the effect or intent to cause with them.
It is silly and it is dumb, there is absolutely no way on god's green earth you should be sent to jail for this. How does it help to spend huge amounts of my tax money locking people like this up instead of simply fining them and cutting off their internet/mobile phone access?
Sure there should be some punishment for extreme harassment (not sure this is extreme as I don't know how persistent he was) but no way a jail sentence.
For me, this law should be a case by case scenario.. It depends on the situation and how much distress or anxiety your words, actions or message caused to the person.
Nobody would argue that I'm sure. But is jail a fair/reasonable punishment considering the cost to the tax payer and the benefit gained?
Definitely for violent crimes jail is the best option, get them out of society asap, but for (albeit severe) internet trolling?
On September 15 2011 03:48 Cloud9157 wrote: Maybe I'm missing something/overlooking the obvious, but this guy should not be jailed.
Mocking someone is now a jailable offense? Not sure when that started...
Um no, if you read through the whole article, you would have read that he was doing much more then "mocking" this mother from a recently deceased daughter. He was harassing more then one person, and it wasn't like your everyday trolls he was going to a whole other level. BTW hardly ever do you see people going and trolling people who just committed suicide so we can throw that out the window right now.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
Bullshit.
Go look up the defamation laws of European countries. Jail time for any offenders.
While most civilized groups are in consensus that a person should never be jailed on account of his mere speech, the following European countries currently jail people for making defamatory statements:
Albania Austria Belgium Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Italy Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland
You call that freedom of speech? No country which sends people to jail on account of what they said can ever be considered to protect speech.
Wow, a kid with a SOCIAL HANDICAP is mean to someone on the internet (no, this is not harrassment, he posted a couple of posts on a public facebook page and made a video of a train), and somehow people find it acceptable to send him to jail for 6 months? Are people really THAT petty and vindicative? "Justice" no matter the cost, right? We should probably just execute anyone for small scale robbery, right?
No, this is going to make society better, you're right, take anyone that is mean on the internet or with social handicaps and lock them up for 6 months along with rapists and murderers. This is clearly a logical answer to the problem and will prevent any future problems with this person. Sure. Straight thinking there buddy. So clever.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
You have no clue. A lot of countries have laws protecting speech in a similar fashion. It's usually not seen as some holy law as some Americans would make you believe.
On September 15 2011 00:44 Asday wrote: What law did he break?
He was persecuted under the Malicious Communications Act.
I'm English and I've never heard of this. If I call you some nasty words on facebook could I be potentially sent to prison? I don't get it, where's the line and what does the law actually say?
If you cause distress or anxiety with those words. Just because you dumb down a law to something simple doesn't mean its silly or dumb.
There are implications to what your words do and it all depends on the effect or intent to cause with them.
It is silly and it is dumb, there is absolutely no way on god's green earth you should be sent to jail for this. How does it help to spend huge amounts of my tax money locking people like this up instead of simply fining them and cutting off their internet/mobile phone access?
Sure there should be some punishment for extreme harassment (not sure this is extreme as I don't know how persistent he was) but no way a jail sentence.
For me, this law should be a case by case scenario.. It depends on the situation and how much distress or anxiety your words, actions or message caused to the person.
Nobody would argue that I'm sure. But is jail a fair/reasonable punishment considering the cost to the tax payer and the benefit gained?
Definitely for violent crimes jail is the best option, get them out of society asap, but for (albeit severe) internet trolling?
I do agree with you how much of our Tax money is going to that but since he went to jail its not that significant BUT if he would of went to prison then I think there would be way to much tax payers money going to waste. Plus he was not in there for that long so I mean, not that big of a deal. Prolly learned his lesson
Heh they should have just put his address and telephone on an Internet forum lol. Hes clearly a douchebag but this isn't something that the state should be actively punishing.
On September 15 2011 00:44 Asday wrote: What law did he break?
He was persecuted under the Malicious Communications Act.
I'm English and I've never heard of this. If I call you some nasty words on facebook could I be potentially sent to prison? I don't get it, where's the line and what does the law actually say?
If you cause distress or anxiety with those words. Just because you dumb down a law to something simple doesn't mean its silly or dumb.
There are implications to what your words do and it all depends on the effect or intent to cause with them.
It is silly and it is dumb, there is absolutely no way on god's green earth you should be sent to jail for this. How does it help to spend huge amounts of my tax money locking people like this up instead of simply fining them and cutting off their internet/mobile phone access?
Sure there should be some punishment for extreme harassment (not sure this is extreme as I don't know how persistent he was) but no way a jail sentence.
For me, this law should be a case by case scenario.. It depends on the situation and how much distress or anxiety your words, actions or message caused to the person.
Nobody would argue that I'm sure. But is jail a fair/reasonable punishment considering the cost to the tax payer and the benefit gained?
Definitely for violent crimes jail is the best option, get them out of society asap, but for (albeit severe) internet trolling?
I think jailing in this case is meant for a scare tactic and a way of scaring others into not doing it (I forget the criminological terminology for this, it's one of the five forms of correction or something. Let me get my book and recall).
In this case, one person gets a harsh punishment to scare and deter others from doing it. As you can see, the outrageousness of it is causing quite a stir :B!
If we punished or used correctional tools in regards to how much it would cost, we'd have a lot more deviants on the streets and less in the correctional facilities. While that isn't such a bad idea in many situations or countries, it's very difficult to ensure the balance of on aspect of society (law enforcement, judicial system, etc.) and then keep in mind of a financial situation of an entire country and their people. It's just not something feasibly reasonable to talk about when speaking of one specific crime or doer.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
Bullshit.
Go look up the defamation laws of European countries. Jail time for any offenders.
While most civilized groups are in consensus that a person should never be jailed on account of his mere speech, the following European countries currently jail people for making defamatory statements:
Albania Austria Belgium Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Italy Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland
You call that freedom of speech? No country which sends people to jail on account of what they said can ever be considered to protect speech.
I don't think there is any consensus that nobody should be sent to jail for mere speech. I think it's a consensus that people should be sent to jail for things like bomb threats. But you are right that Europeans typically have stricter laws on things like hate speech or offensive speech.
On September 14 2011 20:38 HereticSaint wrote: Completely stupid and pointless case and a waste of money for everyone involved.
This is the equivalent to prosecuting a random 14 year old girl for illegally downloading music, sure it stirs up some press and may make it into the paper but in the end it deters absolutely no one from doing said action because in the end they aren't going to go after everyone doing it and you are just as likely to win the lottery as you are to get prosecuted for it.
As for the family and parents? They need to toughen up, I've had people comment about family members of mine that are dead probably thousands of times, you don't see me sitting in a courtroom every time that happens, even the especially bad times.
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.
Yes. But just try to think like the mother/parents. Wouldnt you try everything to see this idiot paying for what he's done?
Who cares what the mother wants, that has absolutely no relevance. I want a million dollars, I want idiots to die, I want to know how to pilot an F-16. What the hell is your point? Really?
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
Bullshit.
Go look up the defamation laws of European countries. Jail time for any offenders.
While most civilized groups are in consensus that a person should never be jailed on account of his mere speech, the following European countries currently jail people for making defamatory statements:
Albania Austria Belgium Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Italy Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland
You call that freedom of speech? No country which sends people to jail on account of what they said can ever be considered to protect speech.
You should have read the part of that article on the U.S.
Apparently there is criminal defamation in a number of states (more than 10). Certainly there are countries in Europe where censorship still exists (Germany), but countries like Denmark essentially have the same level of freedom of speech as the US. I definitely think a lot of European countries need to reform their laws, though. Hate speech should not be a crime. I'll just quote Wikipedia to show that the US is not impeccable when it comes to freedom of speech:
In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several statutory and common law exceptions including obscenity,[73][74] defamation,[73][74] incitement,[74] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[73][74] fighting words,[73] information decreed to be related to national security such as classified information,[75] false advertising,[74] perjury,[74] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, patents, military conduct, and time, place and manner restrictions.
So you are both exaggerating the lack of free speech throughout Europe and the presence of free speech in America. Either way they both need more free speech.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
no country "truly" has freedom of speech.
the constitution does not cover fighting words. another example, is the courts ruled that you can't apply freedom of speech to advertising because it would damage the economy; in this case, the courts ruled that the smooth regulation of money flow outweighs freedom of speech.
i guess this case fell under "fighting words" and hence the guy was jailed.
That's ridiculous. So now it's against the law to hurt someone's feeling on a public forum?
It'd be one thing if he was emailing harassment constantly, directly and privately to someone, but he did it on a public forum.
Free speech, you know the whole argument. People shouldn't be punished by the government just because someone else got offended, no matter how offensive it is. What's to say someone can't go to jail for saying "LOL BRONZE" on a forum to someone.
If someone were to find his actions appalling but also darkly and sadisticly humourous (I mean OP reposting the youtube video only gives it more prominence...) and make a post expressing such feelings possibly including an "lol", would they be penalized for it?
On September 15 2011 04:15 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: Wow, a kid with a SOCIAL HANDICAP is mean to someone on the internet (no, this is not harrassment, he posted a couple of posts on a public facebook page and made a video of a train), and somehow people find it acceptable to send him to jail for 6 months? Are people really THAT petty and vindicative? "Justice" no matter the cost, right? We should probably just execute anyone for small scale robbery, right?
No, this is going to make society better, you're right, take anyone that is mean on the internet or with social handicaps and lock them up for 6 months along with rapists and murderers. This is clearly a logical answer to the problem and will prevent any future problems with this person. Sure. Straight thinking there buddy. So clever.
Yes, it is harassment, he repeatedly did it on the site. Not to mention he had done it to countless others. He didn't just post some video of a train, he took the time to go out of his way, edit the video, post her face on the front of it, etc.
How in the world you could criticize the family for being vindictive is beyond me. Your only daughter is killed suddenly and you experience immense emotional trauma, while someone torments you behind a computer screen by mocking the fact she's dead, making completely horrendous comments about her, and even goes out of his way to post a friggin' edited video of how hilarious it is that she got hit by a train with her FACE on the front of it. Really? You find it over the top that they wanted to prosecute him? LOL.
On September 15 2011 05:06 Chriscras wrote: So related question about TL moderation.
If someone were to find his actions appalling but also darkly and sadisticly humourous (I mean OP reposting the youtube video only gives it more prominence...) and make a post expressing such feelings possibly including an "lol", would they be penalized for it?
Completely different. This isn't the memorial site. The guy would have been free to make his OWN blog about it, I'm sure. It's when you're actively going about to communicate to the victims of the family that it becomes an issue. If he was fully aware that hte family frequented TL.net and posted it here with the intention of causing distress (in other words, he knew they would see it and he's posting it so they can't escape the trauma they're experiencing), that's when it's an issue.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
Bullshit.
Go look up the defamation laws of European countries. Jail time for any offenders.
While most civilized groups are in consensus that a person should never be jailed on account of his mere speech, the following European countries currently jail people for making defamatory statements:
Albania Austria Belgium Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Italy Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland
You call that freedom of speech? No country which sends people to jail on account of what they said can ever be considered to protect speech.
You should have read the part of that article on the U.S.
Apparently there is criminal defamation in a number of states (more than 10). Certainly there are countries in Europe where censorship still exists (Germany), but countries like Denmark essentially have the same level of freedom of speech as the US. I definitely think a lot of European countries need to reform their laws, though. Hate speech should not be a crime. I'll just quote Wikipedia to show that the US is not impeccable when it comes to freedom of speech:
In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several statutory and common law exceptions including obscenity,[73][74] defamation,[73][74] incitement,[74] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[73][74] fighting words,[73] information decreed to be related to national security such as classified information,[75] false advertising,[74] perjury,[74] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, patents, military conduct, and time, place and manner restrictions.
So you are both exaggerating the lack of free speech throughout Europe and the presence of free speech in America. Either way they both need more free speech.
Denmark definitely has much stricter laws regarding hate speech than the U.S. Look at the people that have been fined for insulting Islam, in some cases just for stating facts. e.g. + Show Spoiler +
This guy definitely doesn't deserve jail time or any other form of criminal punishment. I'm not going to explain my opinion because everyone else in the universe thinks otherwise, so it would be a waste of time.
Community service and maybe a 4-figure fine would have sufficed. But Britain's idiotic judges elevated Facebook to real world level and felt they had to make an example out of him.
Suicides happen all the time and Facebook pages aren't made. They don't need to be made and they can be deleted.
A lot of internet restriction laws in our future. We could have prevented it, but no we feel entitled to say whatever we want in the name of free speech. It might be fun now, and we won't miss it until we've lost it.
On September 14 2011 20:20 spaZzNx-` wrote: Wow, mocking someone on the internet is bad enough, mocking someones facebook page created for someone who has just suicide is just sad..
There is a difference between a troll and a antisocial person. The man jailed seems to be the latter. I don't understand why the court did not decide to put him in a mental institution.
The court should invest more time into doing investigation about his condition. If it is true that this troll is antisocial and that he has Asperger's syndrome, jail time will prove to be of no use whatsoever.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? You really think he should go to jail for hurting some ones feelings? He mocked a dead girl but so the fuck what?
If you mock the WTC bombing do you go to jail? If you mock the death of ANY one should you go to jail for it? That's an insane president to set that, if you mock some thing that hurts some ones feelings, you can go to jail. It's just downright frightening.
I suspect we'll see more of this sort of thing. In this case, the girl was already dead, but the police are starting to take a harder look at online harassment. I know most internet tough guys are all 'lulz, it's the internet,' but the police are starting to deal with a lot more suicide cases of students.
One of my practicum schools had an officer come to talk about their online activity (For a demonstration of how easy students are with their information, I think through social engineering, he starting a day or two before and he had become facebook friends with 50 students and had the cell number of 10 or so.) His talk was pretty balanced and really centred around all the creative uses of the internet. However, the one thing that really got him riled up was having to deal with the aftermath of young students committing suicide over online (and real-life) harassment.
I also don't think he has the 'right' to deface someone's memorial page anymore then he would have the right to disrupt a funeral at a cemetery. Both are public places, but it just isn't done, son.
as much as I enjoy idiots being kicked off the internet for lack of respect i think its a joke that he is sent to jail while people in this thread talking about physically attacking the idiot aren't going to be
This happens constantly in the states, especially to gay/ transgender kids and their families, and there's no way to really win a case against these people. At least Britain does the right thing.
If posting hateful things about an underage girl is illegal then half the people in the Rebecca Black thread should be thrown in jail. Perhaps that law doesn't protect people that produce terrible music.
On September 15 2011 05:25 Owarida wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you people? You really think he should go to jail for hurting some ones feelings? He mocked a dead girl but so the fuck what?
If you mock the WTC bombing do you go to jail? If you mock the death of ANY one should you go to jail for it? That's an insane president to set that, if you mock some thing that hurts some ones feelings, you can go to jail. It's just downright frightening.
I think there is a growing movement toward accountability for internet speech. Believe it or not, LOTS of western countries don't think words should be as consequence free as Americans do. Many western countries regulate hate speech and verbal harassment with an understanding that they can be distinguished from criticism and art.
Jail time for bad manner is ridiculous, even if it was extreme. I agree with the ban on social networking sites though, you shouldn't be able to do stuff like this with no consequences. Also he has aspergers, which doesn't excuse him but still, I know a guy with aspergers and his grasp of social norms is somewhat impaired. If anything he should be getting counseling instead of jail time.
Britain has the most craziest laws, and they are way to harsh. The fundamental rights we used to have, which took hundreds of years to incorporate are rapidly disintegrating in every western country. What this douchebag did was wrong, but jail? No way.
@MozzarellaL:In Denmark, and several other European countries, you will only be jailed if you threaten someone seriosly and repeadetly or if you scream "IVE GOT A BOMB" when youre at the airport. Just saying.
Isn't the real wtf of the story that the mother did create a facebook site for her dead daughter? Whats that facebook story all about? Poor boy, 4 months of jail is hard...
On September 15 2011 05:25 Owarida wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you people? You really think he should go to jail for hurting some ones feelings? He mocked a dead girl but so the fuck what?
If you mock the WTC bombing do you go to jail? If you mock the death of ANY one should you go to jail for it? That's an insane president to set that, if you mock some thing that hurts some ones feelings, you can go to jail. It's just downright frightening.
If you mock it by writing your own blog, ok, you're a dick but yeah it's protected.
If you mock it by deliberately going about and saying "LOL LOOK AT YOUR DAD/HUSBAND JUMP OUT OF THIS BUILDING IN FLAMES ARRR SO HOT" while posting a .gif to the children/wife's facebook of said Dad that jumped out, you are deliberately going out of your way to cause mental anguish by contacting them and harassing them. Especially if you do it repeatedly. If you did it once you might be able to get away with it, since harassment is usually defined as having it be "persistent" with said intent, which was the case in this particular situation.
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.
CCTVs taking hundreds of pictures of you daily as you walk around london beg to differ that its not a police state.
lol no
orly? CCTVs monitored by police exist everywhere in london. get some facts.
Honestly I feel no sympathy for Tasha, she suicided over something easily remedied and pales in comparison to what many other people in this world have to live with each day.
I say 3 months in jail and then 1-3 years in rehab/some sort of institution for his mental condition.
On September 15 2011 05:06 Chriscras wrote: So related question about TL moderation.
If someone were to find his actions appalling but also darkly and sadisticly humourous (I mean OP reposting the youtube video only gives it more prominence...) and make a post expressing such feelings possibly including an "lol", would they be penalized for it?
definitely. You have to abide by the public sense of morals here, and they will play by that book, regardless of their personal feelings whether its funny or not.
On September 15 2011 05:53 ambient_orange wrote: he made girl kill herself? he should be hanged.
Can you not read? He just made fun of the girl that killed herself. Nothing more. If this is considered jail worthy I guess we should just kiss most comedians goodbye.
On September 15 2011 05:29 BlackJack wrote: If posting hateful things about an underage girl is illegal then half the people in the Rebecca Black thread should be thrown in jail. Perhaps that law doesn't protect people that produce terrible music.
this is a win post, regardless of the fact RB didnt kill herself over it. guess some are tougher than others with criticism, or have been well taught to ignore a very human trait of schadenfreude.
I agree that what he did is terrible. I also agree that it goes on every day. I think that its an inherent part of human nature to seek the feeling of powerfulness. Nietzche "Human All too human", is a good book describing this method of "so called 'evil' actions" and why they're done. The bigger picture says the is an inherent trait of humans.
But he still did something terrible and needs t orecompense for it in some way. jailtime will not help anyone, and will make him worse. Something he can do actively for the family and then the community, now that would help everyone.
On September 15 2011 05:50 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Honestly I feel no sympathy for Tasha, she suicided over something easily remedied and pales in comparison to what many other people in this world have to live with each day.
I say 3 months in jail and then 1-3 years in rehab/some sort of institution for his mental condition.
Personally I think the ban from social networks and netphones is a better choice, cost wise and in terms of trying to actually solve the situation of someone who clearly thought he could abuse the anonymity of the internet. I argue this because I find that, based on the degree I'm assuming this guy commits to the internet rather then real life, by spending less time on facebook he can regain his sense of empathy for others by interacting in a world with people he can physically see and and speak with.
Justice for the facebook nerds woot... on another note thou... Why was he jailed instead of issued a court order to revoke any and all Internet privies for the next few years, I shouldn't have to pay tax's for him to be jailed ... damn the system.
On September 15 2011 05:58 Nazarid wrote: Justice for the facebook nerds woot... on another note thou... Why was he jailed instead of issued a court order to revoke any and all Internet privies for the next few years, I shouldn't have to pay tax's for him to be jailed ... damn the system.
him living in the U.K. Im sure you don't pay those taxes. Or are you speaking in the generalized sense, as if it were to happen in your own country?
On September 15 2011 05:58 Nazarid wrote: Justice for the facebook nerds woot... on another note thou... Why was he jailed instead of issued a court order to revoke any and all Internet privies for the next few years, I shouldn't have to pay tax's for him to be jailed ... damn the system.
him living in the U.K. Im sure you don't pay those taxes. Or are you speaking in the generalized sense, as if it were to happen in your own country?
Generalized ... of course why the hell would you think otherwise..guess i should put disclaimers in my posts to ensure people can read past the lines.
He's a dbag but didn't deserve to go to jail. Same with the imbeciles who raided a WoW funeral years ago
Deal with it, the world is a rough place, people.
He did what many people think anyway. If I saw a Facebook tribute page for a suicide "victim", I'd eyeroll. Keep your tragedies to yourself, people. I don't condone that he did in the slightest by the way, I also don't condone smoking but people should be allowed to be stupid.
On September 15 2011 05:28 Verator wrote: This happens constantly in the states, especially to gay/ transgender kids and their families, and there's no way to really win a case against these people. At least Britain does the right thing.
The US does a lot of stuff wrong, including putting people in jail for petty bullshit like selling weed, but thankfully they don't put folks in jail for hurting people's feelings. (Well I'm sure they do sometimes but yeah...)
Britain doesn't do the right thing, it's wasting taxpayer money with bullshit.
I read the full article. This is actually really fucked up and his defense attorney continued to make excuses that conflicted with one another
One one occasion he was confronted about similar behavior and his lawyer said something along the lines of him not being aware of the actions he was making because he has a social disorder.
Then he later goes on to say that the offender himself was bullied as a child. Like what the fuck?!?!?!? Honestly, there's only a few possible scenarios. First, he was bullied and didn't mind it or enjoyed it cause he's so fucked in the head and can't tell the difference between what makes people feel good and what makes them feel miserable. In order for you to be subject to abuse and suffer from it, you have to be aware that abuse = suffering, so that's not a valid argument on the lawyer's part. Secondly, and more likely, he and the lawyer are full of shit. He's just a disturbed fuck who takes his lack of social skills and tries to glean attention by being a dick in the worst way possible.
this is what happens when your invincible internet shield of anonymity fails lol. now he's a felon and going to jail for some good old government style rehabitation.
On September 15 2011 06:26 Jawmare wrote: wbc funeral protest = A O.K. trolling on facebook = 5 months of jail time
sounds good.
Not saying it wouldn't happen in the U.S. as well and that your point wouldn't hold, but this didn't happen in the U.S. And the protest does have to take place a minimum distance from the funeral, they cannot actively protest AT the funeral, although the distance is so incredibly small (I believe they're working on extending the distance?).
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore... I think non-physical harassement should NEVER be punished like that, especially online. In real life where you can't always stop it when you want it's ok to give a small fine or smth, but FFS ONLINE where you don't HAVE to deal with someone unless you are a dick about it yourself...
This are things that make so depressed and thinking death will become a good thing. I feel so sorry for the girl that happen to get this person "stalking" her until she couldn't handle more. I hope people like him should get more punishment.
I can't think of one good thing in this world anymore, except my parents. World is filled with trolls!
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
This post was never made... it never happened... fml
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
Before you make a post in this thread please read the actual story. He did not stalk her or cause her to kill herself. All he did was make a bad joke on the page after her death, and made a stupid youtube video.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
Every western liberal democracy engages in censorship. Google "<country name> censorship" to find out what you can and cannot say in each country.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
I support this guy, he shouldn't be in jail and and there's nothing thats so bad that you have to kill yourself, i can imagine trying to get out of something but just dying in the process but killing yourself is just stupid
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
um... really?
I always thought it was self-regulated by the industry, such as video games and movies. Regardless, I openly admit I was retarded.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
Have you never heard of the FCC?
You know that APPOINTED body that dictates what can and cannot be put on network television.
Yea...them...they regulate stuff like TV channels.
You've already been told all this. My problem with the FCC is that they aren't elected at all, kinda by passing the whole governmental check system we have in place. It bothers me.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
On September 15 2011 03:43 Voltaire wrote: I'm glad I don't live in Britain. I can't believe being sentenced to jail over speech still happens in the 21st century western world.
It happens in Europe all the time.
The USA is the only country that truly has freedom of speech, everyone else pretends to, while the rest of the world doesn't even make any pretense.
lolol, you cant even say "fuck" on TV in your country, I know its not exactly the same topic and the legislative might be better in some states of the US, but in Germany people dont sue shit over anything unless its dead serious so theres really no problem. Americans overall are definitely way more sensitive about language.
Excuse me? Please point me to any law that says this, or even addresses what you can say on TV in my country. I don't believe our TV channels are regulated by the government whatsoever.
Have you never heard of the FCC?
You know that APPOINTED body that dictates what can and cannot be put on network television.
Yea...them...they regulate stuff like TV channels.
You've already been told all this. My problem with the FCC is that they aren't elected at all, kinda by passing the whole governmental check system we have in place. It bothers me.
On September 15 2011 07:42 firehand101 wrote: What an asshole i know, but is jail really necessary for being a troll on facebook, even if it was that harsh?
Yes. Just because you have a keyboard and this supposed thing called "freedom of speech" you should still be expected to control yourself when using it. This guy crossed that line when jail time is an option. I don't feel sorry for him.
Its really fucked up that someone actually went to jail for something like this. Not defending his actions but there isn't anything you could possibly say on facebook that should send you to jail. Not sure wtf exactly "malicious communications" is supposed to be but any kind of communication , regardless of how offensive it might be, is protected under the 1st amendment aside from those that constitute very specific kinds of harassment (i.e. repeated and incessant to the point of being unavoidable) and slader/defamation type things.
An example of that kind of harassment would be spam emailing them every night or following them around yelling stuff at them or something like that. This was nothing near that level. Morally wrong isnt the same as illegal, no matter how messed up some assface judge might think it is.
edit- All the people saying he should be in jail or saying there should be harsher/more punishments for things like this have no morals whatsoever and clearly dont believe in any kind of freedom, frankly im embarrassed to like the same video game as you. take a history class
On September 15 2011 07:55 funnybananaman wrote: Its really fucked up that someone actually went to jail for something like this. Not defending his actions but there isn't anything you could possibly say on facebook that should send you to jail. Not sure wtf exactly "malicious communications" is supposed to be but any kind of communication , regardless of how offensive it might be, is protected under the 1st amendment aside from those that constitute very specific kinds of harassment (i.e. repeated and incessant to the point of being unavoidable) and slader/defamation type things.
An example of that kind of harassment would be spam emailing them every night or following them around yelling stuff at them or something like that. This was nothing near that level. Morally wrong isnt the same as illegal, no matter how messed up some assface judge might think it is.
jailing people for internet trolling while we're struggling to pay taxes to fund our jail system. smart idea. no wonder we have so many early parole for hard criminals right?
On September 15 2011 07:55 funnybananaman wrote: Its really fucked up that someone actually went to jail for something like this. Not defending his actions but there isn't anything you could possibly say on facebook that should send you to jail. Not sure wtf exactly "malicious communications" is supposed to be but any kind of communication , regardless of how offensive it might be, is protected under the 1st amendment aside from those that constitute very specific kinds of harassment (i.e. repeated and incessant to the point of being unavoidable) and slader/defamation type things.
An example of that kind of harassment would be spam emailing them every night or following them around yelling stuff at them or something like that. This was nothing near that level. Morally wrong isnt the same as illegal, no matter how messed up some assface judge might think it is.
It happened in the U.K.
oh missed that, still equally messed up though. UK really needs to get their shit on board with a first amendment of their own
On September 15 2011 07:55 funnybananaman wrote: Its really fucked up that someone actually went to jail for something like this. Not defending his actions but there isn't anything you could possibly say on facebook that should send you to jail. Not sure wtf exactly "malicious communications" is supposed to be but any kind of communication , regardless of how offensive it might be, is protected under the 1st amendment aside from those that constitute very specific kinds of harassment (i.e. repeated and incessant to the point of being unavoidable) and slader/defamation type things.
An example of that kind of harassment would be spam emailing them every night or following them around yelling stuff at them or something like that. This was nothing near that level. Morally wrong isnt the same as illegal, no matter how messed up some assface judge might think it is.
edit- All the people saying he should be in jail or saying there should be harsher/more punishments for things like this have no morals whatsoever and clearly dont believe in any kind of freedom, frankly im embarrassed to like the same video game as you. take a history class
not everyone shares the same conception of free speech as the US. in fact, rarely any other country does. and even if, not everyone shares the same prioritization of it over other things
the guy was obviously a goverment operative, i knew it was all fake as soon as i read "a girl he didn't even know" that was the red flag right there. its just raising the bar on the police state gentlemen, get ready for it. 1984 here we come
On September 15 2011 08:07 Nothingtosay wrote: I don't agree with putting people in jail for the things that they say. I think that maybe a hefty fine is appropriate.
So to get this straight, if someone was to go around all day every day at maybe cancer wards/burials or something and does nothing other than mocking people, there should be no consequences for that? I know its an extreme example but I think at some point there is a line to be drawn.
Edit: sorry forgot the fine part, if it really is a hefty fine and he doesnt continue thats fine. Edit 2: lol pun not intended >_>
On September 15 2011 08:07 Nothingtosay wrote: I don't agree with putting people in jail for the things that they say. I think that maybe a hefty fine is appropriate.
So to get this straight, if someone was to go around all day every day at maybe cancer wards/burials or something and does nothing other than mocking people, there should be no consequences for that? I know its an extreme example but I think at some point there is a line to be drawn.
You can't just say anything you want and hide behind "freedom of speech". People were jailed in the UK for facebook pages inciting violence in the recent riots. I think that, and this case are fine.
The line of thought that says "why should he get punished when so many get away with it" is also invalid. Lots of people get away with murder, that doesn't make it ok.
I'm glad he got punished and I hope that people that do other things that are comparable get punished too.
i disagree with going to jail for this. consequences should be handed out by banning his facebook/ip maybe even disconnecting his internet but not jail.
you can ban for malicious content or w/e and thats how you can draw a line, but you shouldn't cross it to real life. punish him over the internet and restrict internet use maybe, not go to jail.
i'd rather have it so that people can say w/e the fuck they want than for people to be scared of saying something. it's a slippery slope either way. if someone goes pass the line to purposely harm someone then punish him, but don't throw him in jail
As disgusting as his actions are, I support freedom of speech and could never support him being jailed for saying something over the internet. It truly is sad that the UK is headed in the direction of being a police state.
He should obviously be banned from facebook for being an utter prick, but jailtime? What the hell...
On September 15 2011 08:27 Tektos wrote: As disgusting as his actions are, I support freedom of speech and could never support him being jailed for saying something over the internet. It truly is sad that the UK is headed in the direction of being a police state.
He should obviously be banned from facebook for being an utter prick, but jailtime? What the hell...
Would you think differently if he had done something like that in "real life" though? Words can be hurtful either way, doesnt really matter how they are delivered.
On September 15 2011 08:27 shawster wrote: i disagree with going to jail for this. consequences should be handed out by banning his facebook/ip maybe even disconnecting his internet but not jail.
you can ban for malicious content or w/e and thats how you can draw a line, but you shouldn't cross it to real life. punish him over the internet and restrict internet use maybe, not go to jail.
i'd rather have it so that people can say w/e the fuck they want than for people to be scared of saying something. it's a slippery slope either way. if someone goes pass the line to purposely harm someone then punish him, but don't throw him in jail
Why is there a distinction in this situation when it comes to internet vs "real life." This very much so affected the family's real lives, as it would affect 99% of the population's lives in this time of emotional distress.
In Mexico 2 persons went to jail for tweeting concerns about attacks/kidnaps from narcos. They are waiting for sentence, but its between 5 and 30 years. They are accused of "Terrorism".
Can't believe dude actually went to jail for this. It's not like he did any physical harm, just emotional. Sure it was wrong but to go as far as to jail him seems a little fucked up in my opinion. The system is trying to take away your right of freedom of speech on the internet as well. He was within his legal rights to do that, why he would want to is another question. Seems a bit un-constitutional.
Edit: Just saw that this was in the UK. Guess they don't have rights over there.
On September 15 2011 08:47 Frantic wrote: Can't believe dude actually went to jail for this. It's not like he did any physical harm, just emotional. Sure it was wrong but to go as far as to jail him seems a little fucked up in my opinion. The system is trying to take away your right of freedom of speech on the internet as well. He was within his legal rights to do that, why he would want to is another question. Seems a bit un-constitutional.
Edit: Just saw that this was in the UK. Guess they don't have rights over there.
I think emotional trauma can be far worse than physical trauma in many situations.
Tricky situation since he clearly has an illness. If anything I believe community service may have been in order along with some help, in regards to his social ineptness.
On September 15 2011 08:27 Tektos wrote: As disgusting as his actions are, I support freedom of speech and could never support him being jailed for saying something over the internet. It truly is sad that the UK is headed in the direction of being a police state.
He should obviously be banned from facebook for being an utter prick, but jailtime? What the hell...
Would you think differently if he had done something like that in "real life" though? Words can be hurtful either way, doesnt really matter how they are delivered.
No, I wouldn't. There would be consequences but I wouldn't support jailtime for his actions.
There are non-legal consequences in real life, just like there is getting your facebook account banned if you do it over the internet.
jailtime is too much imo... What if I leave my computer on and my roommate walks over and writes random stuff? I also have a few friend's facebook login... Does that mean I can put them in jail? o_O
On September 15 2011 06:04 Djzapz wrote: He's a dbag but didn't deserve to go to jail. Same with the imbeciles who raided a WoW funeral years ago
Deal with it, the world is a rough place, people.
He did what many people think anyway. If I saw a Facebook tribute page for a suicide "victim", I'd eyeroll. Keep your tragedies to yourself, people. I don't condone that he did in the slightest by the way, I also don't condone smoking but people should be allowed to be stupid.
On September 15 2011 05:28 Verator wrote: This happens constantly in the states, especially to gay/ transgender kids and their families, and there's no way to really win a case against these people. At least Britain does the right thing.
The US does a lot of stuff wrong, including putting people in jail for petty bullshit like selling weed, but thankfully they don't put folks in jail for hurting people's feelings. (Well I'm sure they do sometimes but yeah...)
Britain doesn't do the right thing, it's wasting taxpayer money with bullshit.
Wait, what? You're acting like the facebook page is some persistent telemarketer telling you to be sad for the girl or it's spamming ads at you. You can decide to click on the page or not, if you even knew about it in the first place. Facebook is a social network and people tend to have a lot more international friends or keep in touch with friends that have gone internationally. A memorial page on facebook would make sense then in a day and age of instant communication and online social networking. Rather than demanding people resort to snail mail or travel in person to offer condolences. It's just a way of people expressing their grief and for that reason they are a dumb group target. (Just like those Westboro crazies at military funerals.)
On September 15 2011 06:04 Djzapz wrote: He's a dbag but didn't deserve to go to jail. Same with the imbeciles who raided a WoW funeral years ago
Deal with it, the world is a rough place, people.
He did what many people think anyway. If I saw a Facebook tribute page for a suicide "victim", I'd eyeroll. Keep your tragedies to yourself, people. I don't condone that he did in the slightest by the way, I also don't condone smoking but people should be allowed to be stupid.
On September 15 2011 05:28 Verator wrote: This happens constantly in the states, especially to gay/ transgender kids and their families, and there's no way to really win a case against these people. At least Britain does the right thing.
The US does a lot of stuff wrong, including putting people in jail for petty bullshit like selling weed, but thankfully they don't put folks in jail for hurting people's feelings. (Well I'm sure they do sometimes but yeah...)
Britain doesn't do the right thing, it's wasting taxpayer money with bullshit.
Wait, what? You're acting like the facebook page is some persistent telemarketer telling you to be sad for the girl or it's spamming ads at you. You can decide to click on the page or not, if you even knew about it in the first place. Facebook is a social network and people tend to have a lot more international friends or keep in touch with friends that have gone internationally. A memorial page on facebook would make sense then in a day and age of instant communication and online social networking. Rather than demanding people resort to snail mail or travel in person to offer condolences. It's just a way of people expressing their grief and for that reason they are a dumb group target. (Just like those Westboro crazies at military funerals.)
That is the thing, Facebook is a Social Network. It is not an exclusive social club where only people with your public opinions and social etiquette are allowed. If you make a public group on Facebook then there will be people with different opinions, thoughts, beliefs, etiquette and personalities. Just because one person's etiquette is polar opposite to the majority it doesn't take away from the fact that this was a public Facebook group where ANYONE can voice their opinion. Throwing him in jail for being an asshole shouldn't be how things are handled.
On September 15 2011 09:51 W2 wrote: jailtime is too much imo... What if I leave my computer on and my roommate walks over and writes random stuff? I also have a few friend's facebook login... Does that mean I can put them in jail? o_O
This has me curious, what is the process if I leave my computer on and someone uses my computer to search for things like how to make bombs / kill people, posts hoax terrorist threats on social networks or downloads/distributes kiddie porn? Does the owner of the computer get prosecuted? How do you prove if it was / wasn't you at the computer at the time these things were searched?
They would probably prosecute the owner of the computer where these illegal acts occurred or else it would give everyone on the internet carte blanche to say "well, that wasn't me at the computer".
On September 15 2011 06:04 Djzapz wrote: He's a dbag but didn't deserve to go to jail. Same with the imbeciles who raided a WoW funeral years ago
Deal with it, the world is a rough place, people.
He did what many people think anyway. If I saw a Facebook tribute page for a suicide "victim", I'd eyeroll. Keep your tragedies to yourself, people. I don't condone that he did in the slightest by the way, I also don't condone smoking but people should be allowed to be stupid.
On September 15 2011 05:28 Verator wrote: This happens constantly in the states, especially to gay/ transgender kids and their families, and there's no way to really win a case against these people. At least Britain does the right thing.
The US does a lot of stuff wrong, including putting people in jail for petty bullshit like selling weed, but thankfully they don't put folks in jail for hurting people's feelings. (Well I'm sure they do sometimes but yeah...)
Britain doesn't do the right thing, it's wasting taxpayer money with bullshit.
Wait, what? You're acting like the facebook page is some persistent telemarketer telling you to be sad for the girl or it's spamming ads at you. You can decide to click on the page or not, if you even knew about it in the first place. Facebook is a social network and people tend to have a lot more international friends or keep in touch with friends that have gone internationally. A memorial page on facebook would make sense then in a day and age of instant communication and online social networking. Rather than demanding people resort to snail mail or travel in person to offer condolences. It's just a way of people expressing their grief and for that reason they are a dumb group target. (Just like those Westboro crazies at military funerals.)
That is the thing, Facebook is a Social Network. It is not an exclusive social club where only people with your public opinions and social etiquette are allowed. If you make a public group on Facebook then there will be people with different opinions, thoughts, beliefs, etiquette and personalities. Just because one person's etiquette is polar opposite to the majority it doesn't take away from the fact that this was a public Facebook group where ANYONE can voice their opinion. Throwing him in jail for being an asshole shouldn't be how things are handled.
On September 15 2011 09:51 W2 wrote: jailtime is too much imo... What if I leave my computer on and my roommate walks over and writes random stuff? I also have a few friend's facebook login... Does that mean I can put them in jail? o_O
This has me curious, what is the process if I leave my computer on and someone uses my computer to search for things like how to make bombs / kill people, posts hoax terrorist threats on social networks or downloads/distributes kiddie porn? Does the owner of the computer get prosecuted? How do you prove if it was / wasn't you at the computer at the time these things were searched?
They would probably prosecute the owner of the computer where these illegal acts occurred or else it would give everyone on the internet carte blanche to say "well, that wasn't me at the computer".
Yes, I believe the owner gets prosecuted unless he can prove it wasn't him.
On September 15 2011 04:11 Shrubbles wrote: This is one of the most fucked up minds to ever walk on earth period.
Godwin's law inc. Hitler.
I'm pretty sure that you just fulfilled Godwin's law, it doesn't really work if you call it first anyway also
On September 15 2011 08:47 Frantic wrote: Can't believe dude actually went to jail for this. It's not like he did any physical harm, just emotional. Sure it was wrong but to go as far as to jail him seems a little fucked up in my opinion. The system is trying to take away your right of freedom of speech on the internet as well. He was within his legal rights to do that, why he would want to is another question. Seems a bit un-constitutional.
Edit: Just saw that this was in the UK. Guess they don't have rights over there.
Yes clearly it means that the UK doesn't have rights not that this guy was doing what amounted to harassment over YEARS to multiple families, seriously, I'm just, I'm actually having trouble finding words for how annoying people like you are who I guarantee did not read the article before posting this and came to the retarded conclusion that this means that the UK doesn't have rights.
His words have no redeeming value. They do not deserve to be protected. His only intention was not merely to mock, but to hurt. Grievously.
The opinion that says that in no way should improper speech be punished by incarceration seems to me to be the product of a modern society that babies its citizens. "He's a victim of his times!" No, idiot. He's just a massive dick.
On September 15 2011 08:47 Frantic wrote: Can't believe dude actually went to jail for this. It's not like he did any physical harm, just emotional. Sure it was wrong but to go as far as to jail him seems a little fucked up in my opinion. The system is trying to take away your right of freedom of speech on the internet as well. He was within his legal rights to do that, why he would want to is another question. Seems a bit un-constitutional.
Edit: Just saw that this was in the UK. Guess they don't have rights over there.
I think emotional trauma can be far worse than physical trauma in many situations.
The opposite could be said just as easily. There is no accurate generalization you can make about which type of harm is worse. Every case is different.
On September 15 2011 10:31 BarbieHsu wrote: The opinion that says that in no way should improper speech be punished by incarceration seems to me to be the product of a modern society that babies its citizens. "He's a victim of his times!" No, idiot. He's just a massive dick.
On the contrary, locking someone away for name calling is the peak of babying citizens.
On September 15 2011 10:38 AlBundy wrote: It saddens me to note that some people in this thread are not aware of how powerful words can be.
Considering the sword has ruled over the pen for the vast majority of our history it saddens me when people think words are sometimes too powerful.
edit: I should say all of our history
You got it backwards. Why would people use swords in the first place? Because they've been told to. Not going to evoke Hitler and his speeches but there are a lot of guys who don't have to use swords in order to kill people. Heck, ever seen star wars episode 2? Fucking Jar jar "gives a speech to the assembled Senate in favor of granting Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) vast emergency powers (and arguably starting the wheel that led to the Clone Wars, Galactic Empire, Galactic Civil War, and all the deaths therein)." source; wikipedia
If I had to choose his punishment, id sentence him to 1 month. I agree that 18 is a little nuts, but there should be real consequences for what is essentially assault. I feel like a lot of people are acting like there is nothing someone could do or say to them that would be emotionally devastating. What this guy decided to do, just for the fuck of it, was extremely upsetting to this girl's family. I mean really. That's extremely fucked up. Deciding to give someone hell and poke fun at the fact that a little girl died is basically this guy trying to cause people as much sadness as possible without actually physically harming them. Think about how fucked up that is.
The fact that someone is capable of choosing to do that is beyond me. Anyone here lost a loved one? Anyone here had their parents get divorced at a period of their lives where they were somewhat young but still emotionally developed? What if someone tries to pound that event into your head and mock you over it?
This might be me giving too much information, but if someone were to do something like this to me in regards to my parents divorce when I was around 12 years old, I'd classify it as more severe than getting physically beat up. I dunno if people have never experienced something extremely emotionally traumatic or if they're just trying to act tough, but..it'd be really fucking painful for someone to do this to you under such circumstances.
On September 15 2011 08:47 Frantic wrote: Can't believe dude actually went to jail for this. It's not like he did any physical harm, just emotional. Sure it was wrong but to go as far as to jail him seems a little fucked up in my opinion. The system is trying to take away your right of freedom of speech on the internet as well. He was within his legal rights to do that, why he would want to is another question. Seems a bit un-constitutional.
Edit: Just saw that this was in the UK. Guess they don't have rights over there.
I think emotional trauma can be far worse than physical trauma in many situations.
The opposite could be said just as easily. There is no accurate generalization you can make about which type of harm is worse. Every case is different.
Um, so you agree with me? I just said "in many situations." Which clearly states it works both ways, and there are many different situations ---> each case is different.
On September 15 2011 10:38 AlBundy wrote: It saddens me to note that some people in this thread are not aware of how powerful words can be.
Considering the sword has ruled over the pen for the vast majority of our history it saddens me when people think words are sometimes too powerful.
edit: I should say all of our history
You got it backwards. Why would people use swords in the first place? Because they've been told to. Not going to evoke Hitler and his speeches but there are a lot of guys who don't have to use swords in order to kill people. Heck, ever seen star wars episode 2? Fucking Jar jar "gives a speech to the assembled Senate in favor of granting Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) vast emergency powers (and arguably starting the wheel that led to the Clone Wars, Galactic Empire, Galactic Civil War, and all the deaths therein)." source; wikipedia
You make a good point. After all, a prosecutor used speech to get a kid thrown in jail over some internet trolling.
On September 14 2011 20:21 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Uhh, I wouldn't have jailed him, he is probably quite a sad case himself after all. But then again acting like a dick isn't nice, even if it isn't the real world.
excuse me but how you can say it's not the real world... Of course it is. If he had insulted her by telephone instead of internet you would have said it's not the real world?
If you think the internet is the "real world" then look at 4chan. Now think about the people you know in real life. I would be willing to bet that you know nobody nearly fucked up enough to say in real life an average post from /b. You may think it's real life, but the fact of the matter is that a LOT of people don't and their refusal to treat it that way causes your point to be incorrect.
On September 15 2011 10:38 AlBundy wrote: It saddens me to note that some people in this thread are not aware of how powerful words can be.
Considering the sword has ruled over the pen for the vast majority of our history it saddens me when people think words are sometimes too powerful.
edit: I should say all of our history
You got it backwards. Why would people use swords in the first place? Because they've been told to. Not going to evoke Hitler and his speeches but there are a lot of guys who don't have to use swords in order to kill people. Heck, ever seen star wars episode 2? Fucking Jar jar "gives a speech to the assembled Senate in favor of granting Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) vast emergency powers (and arguably starting the wheel that led to the Clone Wars, Galactic Empire, Galactic Civil War, and all the deaths therein)." source; wikipedia
The difference being the examples you've given were from people in positions of power or responsibility. People trusted by those who followed them.
This was a kid posting on Facebook.
Can you imagine it? A douche posts on twitter "hai guys lets go2 war w/ Japan cause they beat us in the world cup LOLOLOL" and then actually going to war over it.
On September 15 2011 10:38 AlBundy wrote: It saddens me to note that some people in this thread are not aware of how powerful words can be.
Considering the sword has ruled over the pen for the vast majority of our history it saddens me when people think words are sometimes too powerful.
edit: I should say all of our history
You got it backwards. Why would people use swords in the first place? Because they've been told to. Not going to evoke Hitler and his speeches but there are a lot of guys who don't have to use swords in order to kill people. Heck, ever seen star wars episode 2? Fucking Jar jar "gives a speech to the assembled Senate in favor of granting Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) vast emergency powers (and arguably starting the wheel that led to the Clone Wars, Galactic Empire, Galactic Civil War, and all the deaths therein)." source; wikipedia
The difference being the examples you've given were from people in positions of power or responsibility. People trusted by those who followed them.
This was a kid posting on Facebook.
Can you imagine it? A douche posts on twitter "hai guys lets go2 war w/ Japan cause they beat us in the world cup LOLOLOL" and then actually going to war over it.
You know what happened when japan had its reactor issue? Thousands of people from the U.S. on facebook posted things such as "serves them right for WW2, this is justice/karma/whatever".
Seriously. and from ALL age groups. Offensive to me, even though Im U.S. cit. Offensive morally to me and ethically. Also grossly ignorant and wrong.
But its their right for these jackasses to say these things. And apparently they have lots of friends on facebook, so its not like their opinion makes them outcasts. People are dying and people say 'serves them right'.... how many people joked about the haiti earthquake? How many people joked about the Japanese crisis?
People are all disgusting, and we either have to bear with them, as much as we live and bear with ourselves, or judge ourselves and our friends and family just as harshly. Which one do you think creates a better society, in the long run? hrmm.
On September 15 2011 10:38 AlBundy wrote: It saddens me to note that some people in this thread are not aware of how powerful words can be.
Considering the sword has ruled over the pen for the vast majority of our history it saddens me when people think words are sometimes too powerful.
edit: I should say all of our history
You got it backwards. Why would people use swords in the first place? Because they've been told to. Not going to evoke Hitler and his speeches but there are a lot of guys who don't have to use swords in order to kill people. Heck, ever seen star wars episode 2? Fucking Jar jar "gives a speech to the assembled Senate in favor of granting Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) vast emergency powers (and arguably starting the wheel that led to the Clone Wars, Galactic Empire, Galactic Civil War, and all the deaths therein)." source; wikipedia
The difference being the examples you've given were from people in positions of power or responsibility. People trusted by those who followed them.
This was a kid posting on Facebook.
Can you imagine it? A douche posts on twitter "hai guys lets go2 war w/ Japan cause they beat us in the world cup LOLOLOL" and then actually going to war over it.
You know what happened when japan had its reactor issue? Thousands of people from the U.S. on facebook posted things such as "serves them right for WW2, this is justice/karma/whatever".
Seriously. and from ALL age groups. Offensive to me, even though Im U.S. cit. Offensive morally to me and ethically. Also grossly ignorant and wrong.
But its their right for these jackasses to say these things. And apparently they have lots of friends on facebook, so its not like their opinion makes them outcasts.
hrmm.
your right, since alot of people do it, it shouldnt matter O.o
On September 15 2011 10:38 AlBundy wrote: It saddens me to note that some people in this thread are not aware of how powerful words can be.
Considering the sword has ruled over the pen for the vast majority of our history it saddens me when people think words are sometimes too powerful.
edit: I should say all of our history
You got it backwards. Why would people use swords in the first place? Because they've been told to. Not going to evoke Hitler and his speeches but there are a lot of guys who don't have to use swords in order to kill people. Heck, ever seen star wars episode 2? Fucking Jar jar "gives a speech to the assembled Senate in favor of granting Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) vast emergency powers (and arguably starting the wheel that led to the Clone Wars, Galactic Empire, Galactic Civil War, and all the deaths therein)." source; wikipedia
The difference being the examples you've given were from people in positions of power or responsibility. People trusted by those who followed them.
This was a kid posting on Facebook.
Can you imagine it? A douche posts on twitter "hai guys lets go2 war w/ Japan cause they beat us in the world cup LOLOLOL" and then actually going to war over it.
You know what happened when japan had its reactor issue? Thousands of people from the U.S. on facebook posted things such as "serves them right for WW2, this is justice/karma/whatever".
Seriously. and from ALL age groups. Offensive to me, even though Im U.S. cit. Offensive morally to me and ethically. Also grossly ignorant and wrong.
But its their right for these jackasses to say these things. And apparently they have lots of friends on facebook, so its not like their opinion makes them outcasts.
hrmm.
your right, since alot of people do it, it shouldnt matter O.o
you're a bad troll, and I'll tell you why. You're prognosticating my view on the subject just to stir up trouble.
Its offensive, behavior does matter. But deal with it appropriately.
On September 15 2011 10:38 AlBundy wrote: It saddens me to note that some people in this thread are not aware of how powerful words can be.
Considering the sword has ruled over the pen for the vast majority of our history it saddens me when people think words are sometimes too powerful.
edit: I should say all of our history
You got it backwards. Why would people use swords in the first place? Because they've been told to. Not going to evoke Hitler and his speeches but there are a lot of guys who don't have to use swords in order to kill people. Heck, ever seen star wars episode 2? Fucking Jar jar "gives a speech to the assembled Senate in favor of granting Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) vast emergency powers (and arguably starting the wheel that led to the Clone Wars, Galactic Empire, Galactic Civil War, and all the deaths therein)." source; wikipedia
The difference being the examples you've given were from people in positions of power or responsibility. People trusted by those who followed them.
This was a kid posting on Facebook.
Can you imagine it? A douche posts on twitter "hai guys lets go2 war w/ Japan cause they beat us in the world cup LOLOLOL" and then actually going to war over it.
You know what happened when japan had its reactor issue? Thousands of people from the U.S. on facebook posted things such as "serves them right for WW2, this is justice/karma/whatever".
Seriously. and from ALL age groups. Offensive to me, even though Im U.S. cit. Offensive morally to me and ethically. Also grossly ignorant and wrong.
But its their right for these jackasses to say these things. And apparently they have lots of friends on facebook, so its not like their opinion makes them outcasts. People are dying and people say 'serves them right'.... how many people joked about the haiti earthquake? How many people joked about the Japanese crisis?
People are all disgusting, and we either have to bear with them, as much as we live and bear with ourselves, or judge ourselves and our friends and family just as harshly. Which one do you think creates a better society, in the long run? hrmm.
So your stance is words are more powerful than the sword, I'm going to assume this means you support this troll being jailed.
Does that mean you think that every single person who posted things that you referenced along the lines of "serves them right for WW2" should also be thrown in jail?
Im seriously tired of people being so telepathic and knowing exactly how I feel, and trying to tell me that I feel one extreme way or another. Tektos and Cojak. You two trolls can enjoy each other's company because I'm done with you idiots.
On September 15 2011 10:38 AlBundy wrote: It saddens me to note that some people in this thread are not aware of how powerful words can be.
Considering the sword has ruled over the pen for the vast majority of our history it saddens me when people think words are sometimes too powerful.
edit: I should say all of our history
You got it backwards. Why would people use swords in the first place? Because they've been told to. Not going to evoke Hitler and his speeches but there are a lot of guys who don't have to use swords in order to kill people. Heck, ever seen star wars episode 2? Fucking Jar jar "gives a speech to the assembled Senate in favor of granting Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) vast emergency powers (and arguably starting the wheel that led to the Clone Wars, Galactic Empire, Galactic Civil War, and all the deaths therein)." source; wikipedia
The difference being the examples you've given were from people in positions of power or responsibility. People trusted by those who followed them.
This was a kid posting on Facebook.
Can you imagine it? A douche posts on twitter "hai guys lets go2 war w/ Japan cause they beat us in the world cup LOLOLOL" and then actually going to war over it.
You know what happened when japan had its reactor issue? Thousands of people from the U.S. on facebook posted things such as "serves them right for WW2, this is justice/karma/whatever".
Seriously. and from ALL age groups. Offensive to me, even though Im U.S. cit. Offensive morally to me and ethically. Also grossly ignorant and wrong.
But its their right for these jackasses to say these things. And apparently they have lots of friends on facebook, so its not like their opinion makes them outcasts. People are dying and people say 'serves them right'.... how many people joked about the haiti earthquake? How many people joked about the Japanese crisis?
People are all disgusting, and we either have to bear with them, as much as we live and bear with ourselves, or judge ourselves and our friends and family just as harshly. Which one do you think creates a better society, in the long run? hrmm.
So your stance is words are more powerful than the sword, I'm going to assume this means you support this troll being jailed.
Does that mean you think that every single person who posted things that you referenced along the lines of "serves them right for WW2" should also be thrown in jail?
Steve is the best and so down to earh, i got his autograph on his cd a while back and he really believes in what he says, and just delivers his ideas in a unique way.
more on topic, he should not be able to use her image, but you should be free to say what you want.
On September 15 2011 12:15 Truedot wrote: Im seriously tired of people being so telepathic and knowing exactly how I feel, and trying to tell me that I feel one extreme way or another. Tektos and Cojak. You two trolls can enjoy each other's company because I'm done with you idiots.
I'm not a troll, I was asking for clarification on your opinion because you had not expressed it clearly!!!
Utterly ridiculous that you would respond like that and to be frank a little immature as well. Please understand I was unable to watch your youtube link (I'm at work, things are pretty quiet at the moment), which I suspect may be why you're mistaking me for a troll.
On September 15 2011 10:38 AlBundy wrote: It saddens me to note that some people in this thread are not aware of how powerful words can be.
Considering the sword has ruled over the pen for the vast majority of our history it saddens me when people think words are sometimes too powerful.
edit: I should say all of our history
You got it backwards. Why would people use swords in the first place? Because they've been told to. Not going to evoke Hitler and his speeches but there are a lot of guys who don't have to use swords in order to kill people. Heck, ever seen star wars episode 2? Fucking Jar jar "gives a speech to the assembled Senate in favor of granting Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) vast emergency powers (and arguably starting the wheel that led to the Clone Wars, Galactic Empire, Galactic Civil War, and all the deaths therein)." source; wikipedia
The difference being the examples you've given were from people in positions of power or responsibility. People trusted by those who followed them.
This was a kid posting on Facebook.
Can you imagine it? A douche posts on twitter "hai guys lets go2 war w/ Japan cause they beat us in the world cup LOLOLOL" and then actually going to war over it.
You know what happened when japan had its reactor issue? Thousands of people from the U.S. on facebook posted things such as "serves them right for WW2, this is justice/karma/whatever".
Seriously. and from ALL age groups. Offensive to me, even though Im U.S. cit. Offensive morally to me and ethically. Also grossly ignorant and wrong.
But its their right for these jackasses to say these things. And apparently they have lots of friends on facebook, so its not like their opinion makes them outcasts. People are dying and people say 'serves them right'.... how many people joked about the haiti earthquake? How many people joked about the Japanese crisis?
People are all disgusting, and we either have to bear with them, as much as we live and bear with ourselves, or judge ourselves and our friends and family just as harshly. Which one do you think creates a better society, in the long run? hrmm.
None of it's relevant because they weren't actively harassing the people, just making general comments on their OWN facebook.
"I hope his sentencing shows other trollers that they are not anonymous and they will be caught if they continue their vile games." - One of the victims' fathers.
I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh at this tough guy quote... if a troll truly wants to remain anonymous, they can. this guy just didn't.
On September 15 2011 12:43 iamahydralisk wrote: "I hope his sentencing shows other trollers that they are not anonymous and they will be caught if they continue their vile games." - One of the victims' fathers.
I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh at this tough guy quote... if a troll truly wants to remain anonymous, they can. this guy just didn't.
It's almost as bad as Jessi Slaughter's father.
Good to hear the cyberpolice backtraced and caught this guy though!
The guy is an asshole but he should absolutely not be in jail. Nor should he be charged or sentenced for any crime.
Trolling in my opinion is speech. Facebook is a privately owned website and they can allow or ban whatever behavior they want. The correct solution is for people to report trolls to facebook and ask that they be deleted. If they don't then stop using facebook and they lose tons of money. Alternatives sites with better mod policies will grow immediately.
This whole notion of cyber bullying, cyber police and charging people for trolling is dangerous and frightening.
At first I read the punishment for his actions and I was like "wow, this is bullshit, no way this guy should get sentenced this hard for just pissing off some kids." And then I read what he did...........
Needless to say, this is a completely deserved punishment for someone who's enough of an asshole to do something like that. I think people really need to realize that "trolling" on FB isn't really the same as trolling internet forums and not actually trolling; it's just being a horrible person.
the cyber police got to him man. But seriously.. I think jailing him goes way too far = / they need to teach kids how to deal with trolls at an early age in school. Much like the birds and the bees
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship.
Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does?
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship.
Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does?
I don't know. That particular slippery slope argument seems really out there. Like arguing if we shut people down for libel and slander it's a slippery slope till when we shut down people for telling the truth???
It seems to me the entire idea of no censorship is to prevent ideas, even unpopular ideas from getting shut down. But I fail to see what sort of ideas this fellow is propagating. It's like trying to protect a vandals right to destroy stuff. There's no core belief this guy is upholding except to make some else's life miserable.
Free speech on the internet seems to be championed on the behalf of a-holes for the right to be a-holes rather than championing on the behalf of people that hold actual, legitimate ideas however unpopular.
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship.
Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does?
Notice how this is exactly what you're doing? Notice how its recognized in philosophy as a fallacy and thus invalid? Argue the topic, not some wildly speculative result years down the line...
If you wouldn't say these things to them in person then don't say it at all. I wouldn't mind bashing a trolls face in for being a consistent pest. I think he should be put in jail for being a complete douche bag. Trolls are the most annoying thing on the internet next to spam. I have no remorse for this idiot, especially since it was on the page of somebody who died.
And this kids so sad, Louie Anderson must have been his role model. Judging by the way that fool be lookin.
This is a disgrace to be honest. We are talking about someone harassing someone else on a private online media site.
If this jugdement was delivered after he had done this in face to face, or sending real letters he would be breaking the law. But we're talking about a privately funded platform where people can leave whenever they want, and there ought to be some kind of moderator to stop him.
I sincerely hope that such state of court never happens in Denmark, as it's a clear violation of everything I believe in, and it would actually be very interesting if the convicted guy brought this case to the European Court of Human Rights.
The court heard that Duffy has Asperger's syndrome and lived a "miserable existence" drinking alcohol alone at his home in Reading.
Posting this because people here seem to think it's fine to punish the mentally ill like this (or didn't read the article).
posting this, because nowadays every average nerd and their mother claims to have aspies. and even if, asperger's in particular does not make you unliable
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship.
Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does?
Notice how this is exactly what you're doing? Notice how its recognized in philosophy as a fallacy and thus invalid? Argue the topic, not some wildly speculative result years down the line...
To quote your page
The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
How do you categorize what is acceptable and unacceptable on the internet in terms of free speech versus harassment? This is not a "Category A vs. Category B" discussion, it is a gray scale with no clearly defined categories. Until you can tangibly assess what is acceptable and unacceptable social etiquette the "slippery slope" argument is not fallacious.
Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid.
Minor action in my example would be a slightly less sever case of internet trolling being punished with a jail sentence. Repeat this minor action numerous times over a long period of time. Logically valid according to your Wikipedia article.
It is exactly like the pedophilia/child porn situation. In the 1950s boy scouts would strip off to go swimming on camps, children would run nude under sprinklers out on the front lawn. Nowadays? A parent can't take a photo or hire a professional photographer to take a photo of their half-nude baby (wearing a nappy) without the photo being deemed child pornography. Sure, you can just say "LOL SLIPPERY SLOPE = LOGICAL FALLACY" but both the Wikipedia article you linked and reality show that it is not always a logical fallacy.
Seems like you haven't even read the article you linked.
"Foot-in-the-door technique" seems more applicable to my argument than the slippery slope fallacy.
My brother was a sheriff who died on duty when his patrol car crashed into a tree while he was en-route to a scene. He pretty much lost control of his car and only he knows what really happened, but there was a lot of negativity saying that his kids/family shouldn't be given any assistance because he essentially caused it himself. Obviously because he was a cop a lot of people were making remarks to the effect of elation, but having grown up around the internet and know how people view police officers it was to be expected.
I think it's unfortunate that this went to court and the guy was punished for this. The internet is the only place I can go where I give 0 shits about what some hater says and by punishing this behavior they bring relevance to the trolls/haters.
I don't understand why anyone would be so foolish as to open the can of worms. They can't even police pirating when it's costing imaginary billions of dollars and they want to try to tackle bullying on the internet? Good luck sirs... good luck...
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship.
Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does?
Notice how this is exactly what you're doing? Notice how its recognized in philosophy as a fallacy and thus invalid? Argue the topic, not some wildly speculative result years down the line...
How do you categorize what is acceptable and unacceptable on the internet in terms of free speech versus harassment? This is not a "Category A vs. Category B" discussion, it is a gray scale with no clearly defined categories. Until you can tangibly assess what is acceptable and unacceptable social etiquette the "slippery slope" argument is not fallacious.
Like you'd do in "real life?"
On September 15 2011 15:02 starcraft911 wrote: I don't understand why anyone would be so foolish as to open the can of worms. They can't even police pirating when it's costing imaginary billions of dollars and they want to try to tackle bullying on the internet? Good luck sirs... good luck...
I've asked this before without a good answer. Why should it matter if they can or can not enforce it? I don't think you'd like it if we legalized everything that the police have a hard time enforcing... People like to use this argument for things like pot and piracy but conveniently ignores everything else that it would apply to.
I'm not saying I agree with the sentance I just don't get the reasoning.
It`s sad this has happened. While Nationalistic bullshit rhetoric in countries is allowed under the norm of Freedom of speech (which is also trolling) this isn`t .... I neither understand why people would even approve the state jailing someone for this.
It is becoming more and more like George Orwell predicted in Europe.
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship.
Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does?
Notice how this is exactly what you're doing? Notice how its recognized in philosophy as a fallacy and thus invalid? Argue the topic, not some wildly speculative result years down the line...
The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
How do you categorize what is acceptable and unacceptable on the internet in terms of free speech versus harassment? This is not a "Category A vs. Category B" discussion, it is a gray scale with no clearly defined categories. Until you can tangibly assess what is acceptable and unacceptable social etiquette the "slippery slope" argument is not fallacious.
Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid.
Minor action in my example would be a slightly less sever case of internet trolling being punished with a jail sentence. Repeat this minor action numerous times over a long period of time. Logically valid according to your Wikipedia article.
It is exactly like the pedophilia/child porn situation. In the 1950s boy scouts would strip off to go swimming on camps, children would run nude under sprinklers out on the front lawn. Nowadays? A parent can't take a photo or hire a professional photographer to take a photo of their half-nude baby (wearing a nappy) without the photo being deemed child pornography. Sure, you can just say "LOL SLIPPERY SLOPE = LOGICAL FALLACY" but both the Wikipedia article you linked and reality show that it is not always a logical fallacy.
Seems like you haven't even read the article you linked.
"Foot-in-the-door technique" seems more applicable to my argument than the slippery slope fallacy.
What? All you said to counter his point was that "there's a gray middle ground, thus it's not fallacious." You stated that it was a slippery slope and implied that if we don't keep completely protected from stuff like this (Category A), we could end up with speech as limited as China down the road (Category B). Which is ridiculous. I hate the slippery slope argument, I personally think it's terrible. The area is hardly as gray anyways as you're making it be.
I'm sorry, but in this case First Amendment rights protect him. Don't get me wrong, I served in the Marine Corps, and i got to see Westboro Baptist Church disgrace my fallen comrades. I still firmly believe in the right of freedom of speech and would have died for my country defending these clowns. It is not the place of any government to punish anyone for their right to be a trolling piece of shit, karma will take of it. People let simple words bother them way too much. As stated, this poor loser was living by himself and a drunk, let him go on his slow path to suicide, rather than give him attention.
On September 16 2011 01:32 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm sorry, but in this case First Amendment rights protect him. Don't get me wrong, I served in the Marine Corps, and i got to see Westboro Baptist Church disgrace my fallen comrades. I still firmly believe in the right of freedom of speech and would have died for my country defending these clowns. It is not the place of any government to punish anyone for their right to be a trolling piece of shit, karma will take of it. People let simple words bother them way too much. As stated, this poor loser was living by himself and a drunk, let him go on his slow path to suicide, rather than give him attention.
What country is he from? I didnt catch the whole thing, just the premise. In America, he should be protected, because he did not threaten anyone. Just imagine how sad of a person you'd have to be to make fun of a family whose daughter commited suicide, and how petty you'd have to be to pursue criminal charges. That is lowering yourself to his level.
On September 16 2011 01:39 ChampionZerg wrote: What country is he from? I didnt catch the whole thing, just the premise. In America, he should be protected, because he did not threaten anyone. Just imagine how sad of a person you'd have to be to make fun of a family whose daughter commited suicide, and how petty you'd have to be to pursue criminal charges. That is lowering yourself to his level.
Considering the link goes to a UK paper... and it's been pointed out in discussion many a times it happened in the UK... :p
On September 16 2011 01:32 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm sorry, but in this case First Amendment rights protect him. Don't get me wrong, I served in the Marine Corps, and i got to see Westboro Baptist Church disgrace my fallen comrades. I still firmly believe in the right of freedom of speech and would have died for my country defending these clowns. It is not the place of any government to punish anyone for their right to be a trolling piece of shit, karma will take of it. People let simple words bother them way too much. As stated, this poor loser was living by himself and a drunk, let him go on his slow path to suicide, rather than give him attention.
Betcha $10,000 it doesn't.
How does this constitute libel/obscenity, unless you have a super conservative judge?
Also, since when did the 1st amendment matter in the UK?
On September 14 2011 20:25 Pandemona wrote: But to ban him from social networks for 5 years is a bit weak, if you cruel to animals your nomally banned from having them completely, let alone 5 years. Kind of stupid.
I think police know that a perma ban from social media is unenforcable over the long term.
On September 16 2011 02:32 ChampionZerg wrote: well...thats why i said theres no right for any government to enforce punishment for free speech... UK or anywhere else
second off...
WHY...do pseudo intellectuals come in here and try to bring fallacies into arguements off of articles they looked up on wikipedia?
and why, why do you want to impose the US-only 1st amendment on the rest of the world? seems like other countries run just fine, no?
On September 16 2011 02:32 ChampionZerg wrote: well...thats why i said theres no right for any government to enforce punishment for free speech... UK or anywhere else
second off...
WHY...do pseudo intellectuals come in here and try to bring fallacies into arguements off of articles they looked up on wikipedia?
Personally, I think unrestricted free speech would be one of the worst things possible to implement in a modern society. Words have consequences. I'm glad there are libel/slander laws. And I don't think things like in the OP should be protected. I think free speech is valuable only up til a certain point, nor do I buy the slippery slope argument.
I'm not imposing, just exercising my opinion. Sorry if it offended anyone. Theres an example of free speech!
Nah, in all seriousness, words only should only be punished if you're threatening to harm someone or even yourself. THAT is my personal opinion and i wish not to impose it on anyone.
Just saw this story today about children as young as 3 being put on government databases over hate speech, such as saying "this homework is gay" (obvious homophobia)
so they jailed a guy for being a douchebag, even though he didn't hurt anyone physically, wasn't a threat to anyone. i wonder, if the guy trashtalked the girl in the same way ina bar with a police officer, would anything have happened?
On September 16 2011 03:25 Toxi78 wrote: so they jailed a guy for being a douchebag, even though he didn't hurt anyone physically, wasn't a threat to anyone. i wonder, if the guy trashtalked the girl in the same way ina bar with a police officer, would anything have happened?
If he did it repeatedly to multiple people, especially after already being warned from a similar offense, yeah, something would have happened.
Won't try to argue why some other people have done it before me, sure the guy is the douche and wicked and earth would be a better place if he never was born, but is that really illegal ? If you put your life on Facebook you know the risks.
How do you draw the limit then about what is allowed to be said or not ?
People saying this is too extreme yet not giving any alternative judgment.. -_-
If you died, and some scum bag was teasing your mother about it, what do you think should happen to them? Should they be allowed to at any time? How much emotional damage to your mother would you tolerate before you think they should be punished?
On September 16 2011 01:32 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm sorry, but in this case First Amendment rights protect him.
He lives in another country and they probably wouldn't. There are a number of restrictions on freedom of speech in the first amendment and what he was doing probably would violate them.
I'll get Captain Obvious on this: if a random guy went to jail, that's because he was convincted of doing something illegal.
There are laws against harassment, whether it is by mails, phone calls, or on the Internet. You can certainly go to jail even if you weren't a threat to anyone.
On September 16 2011 04:12 Jibba wrote: He lives in another country and they probably wouldn't. There are a number of restrictions on freedom of speech in the first amendment and what he was doing probably would violate them.
I don't think what he was doing would fall under any of the exceptions to 1st Amendment freedom of speech.
Fighting words? You cannot incite someone to 'fight you' over the Internet. fighting words doctrine has been restricted more or less to face-to-face communication (they must intend to incite immediate breach of peace. Internet use is more or less private and someone raging out in their home or crying because of mean words cannot be called, in any reasonable sense of the term, a breach of peace).
Obscenity? Obscenity only applies to sexually explicit material under US Constitutional law.
Other random exceptions? There is no compelling state interest to criminally regulate internet speech. Any attempt to criminally prosecute someone for mere trolling (mere trolling alone, i.e., not meant to incite any sort of illegal, immoral, or indecent act) falls flat and fails basic constitutionality tests. (Yes, the state could criminally regulate hateful internet speech that causes the recipient to commit suicide, since that sort of regulation protects lives and is therefore a compelling state interest.)
On September 14 2011 20:58 DDKz wrote: The saddest part about all of this is that the mother created a fucking facebook group for her daughter, I just don't understand shit like this. You daughter kills herself and she thinks its appropriate to jump on Facebook and create a group so people will "Like" it.. stupid shit.
Anyway imo the troll didn't deserve what he got, it's the internet, man up or fuck off tbh, of course he should be banned from Facebook but seriously jail-time, a cash fine and having to alert the police if he buys a phone with the internet? Lol.
This is exactly what I was thinking about...That mother is pretty stupid for putting up facebook group for the death of her daughter.. WTF?
Shouldn't have been jailed.. community service would have been a much better sentence for him... being jailed costs the tax payers money to feed/cloth him for the next few months for nothing that did any physical harm to any one... sure he made fun of a dead person and probably did this to others as well(im not defending his actions in any way so don;t think that idiots of TL) but honestly 4 months for poking fun at a dead person ... give me a break.. give the guy community service or a fine... i mean shit making fun of others can and is humorous obviously this kid took it a bit far but still 4 months in jail seems a bit over the top ...
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
From the article he made a video called "Tasha the tank engine" to mock the girl.
He is an asshole troll but he did not commit either slander or libel, nor was there anything obscene.
You should check the definitions of the terms you are using.
And if you look at the "Miller Test" you will see that this sort of "speech" is indeed protected in the United States. The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.[3] The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.
This is really fucked up, I agree, and my condolences go out to the family and friends. However, to be honest, isn't this just a tad much? To what extent do our freedoms get measured by an invisible measuring stick named society? I think it's terrible what he did, and he deserved a punishment, but this punishment is going too far in my opinion. People need to get a reality check and realize just how many people there are in this world - you can't be perfectly happy 24/7.
On September 16 2011 04:59 Malgrif wrote: how do you ban someone from being on a social network?
Quite easily. You hand down a court order enjoining him from being on a social network, and if he is found to be on a social network, he is found in contempt of court, fined an egregious amount and sent to jail (again). It's like a restraining order.
He wasn't just doing shit on the internet he actually went to the death site of that girl in the car crash and put that picture (which he had edited in a very disrespectful way) on the bed of flowers....there were so many more cases like this which he did.
This isn't about, "internet trolling" this guy was literally harassing families from the recently deceased NOT JUST ON FACEBOOK BUT ON MANY MORE SITES and obv. where the person died(if he could get to it).
This guy deserved every bit of his sentence. Plus its not like he went to prison he was in jail which has a HUGE difference. He wasn't even in there that long, plus when he is in jail they will prolly council him and see if there is anything wrong with this guy. (I personally don't think so, I truly believe he is just a douche who thought it was funny to do this shit and didn't realize the extent or how serious it really was.)
Edit: Just cause you get a ban on FB doesn't mean you can go to a diff ISP make a new name and start doing the same thing sooo...yea
On September 16 2011 04:43 gulati wrote: This is really fucked up, I agree, and my condolences go out to the family and friends. However, to be honest, isn't this just a tad much? To what extent do our freedoms get measured by an invisible measuring stick named society? I think it's terrible what he did, and he deserved a punishment, but this punishment is going too far in my opinion. People need to get a reality check and realize just how many people there are in this world - you can't be perfectly happy 24/7.
What has the worlds population and happiness got to do with this?
This guy got what he deserved. There should be some things that are just off limits. I fully respect people's free speech and all, but doing this to grieving families is a dick move. Same thing applies to the debt collectors that call up grieving families and those people that protest at military funerals. It's just uncalled for and unnecessary.
If you read the article and what he did, it's sickening. Jail time was appropriate and !
While it's true that there is a certain level of anonymity when it comes to the internet, that doesn't mean that there are no consequences when you abuse your ability to connect with people.
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship.
Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does?
Notice how this is exactly what you're doing? Notice how its recognized in philosophy as a fallacy and thus invalid? Argue the topic, not some wildly speculative result years down the line...
Slippery slope does not automatically mean invalid.
There are valid and logical slippery slope arguments. For example, I think, TV makes violence cool, children watch TV, they are desensitized to violence, they are more likely to find violence bad when they grow up, and are thus more likely to BE violent.
On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship
This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment.
He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship.
Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does?
Notice how this is exactly what you're doing? Notice how its recognized in philosophy as a fallacy and thus invalid? Argue the topic, not some wildly speculative result years down the line...
Slippery slope does not automatically mean invalid.
There are valid and logical slippery slope arguments. For example, I think, TV makes violence cool, children watch TV, they are desensitized to violence, they are more likely to find violence bad when they grow up, and are thus more likely to BE violent.
And since the advent of the television, and its hayday in the 1960s, crime rates have gone down. With zero evidence to back up that claim whatsoever, it holds little to no weight on its own, and is thus a fallacy.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.numerama.com/media/attach/seanduffy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://btr.michaelkwan.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/lifewithlouie.gif)
