Lets not stop at that, lets just make trolling illegal, clean up the internet. No one will miss them
Duende Del Internet Jailed
- Thread starter The_root_of_all_evil
- Start date
Yeah... it's like I always say. If you think black people are the same as anyone else, you should not say so while living in a KKK household. So as much as I am for free speech and rational approach to punishment and crime prevention, I can't say he didn't bring it on himself, as irrational and paranoid as the law might be in this case. While in Rome, do as Romans do.
BTW, what the hell happened to banishment? If someone insists on doing something most others consider unacceptable, barring any real free speech laws, he should be banished to find or found a place where he can do and say what he wants (or until he changes his mind and submits to the rest of society). Instead he is just punished so he gets even more pissed, and then he's let go back into the society he apparently hates... Seems counter-productive somehow.
BTW, what the hell happened to banishment? If someone insists on doing something most others consider unacceptable, barring any real free speech laws, he should be banished to find or found a place where he can do and say what he wants (or until he changes his mind and submits to the rest of society). Instead he is just punished so he gets even more pissed, and then he's let go back into the society he apparently hates... Seems counter-productive somehow.
Wait a second, I don't see anywhere in there that he was the one that actually burned the flag. I could find a picture of a Spanish flag being burned and post it, but that doesn't mean I burned it. If he burned it, or even claimed that he did, then yes, he broke the law. But if he just posted a picture of it I don't think that would break a law. Just like you could post a picture of a dead person and not be arrested for murder.
Lol. Daniel Floyd reference. "My name is this, and I'm here to talk about these."ElArabDeMagnifico said:
/offtopic
EDIT:
Yes, but if the flag is "holy" to Spaniards, then even posting the picture would mean disrespect and therefore, to them at least, sacrilege.xitel said:
EDIT #2:
I've never understood that either.Erana said:
Sorry, but as a spaniard I find that this post is misunderstanding the situation: The main cause this flamer was condemned was for insult some of the most known terrorism victims in the history of Spain: Politician Miguel Angel Blanco who was kidnapped for days and murdered later, Irene Villa who lives on a wheelchair since a bomb attack when she was a teenager and Gregorio Ordóñez, another politician murdered two days before the local elections. He did not stop here, but also he insults their families and the many policemen murdered by this terrorism group ETA. Oh, he also states things like "We're fucking his widows, and we are proud of it". Imagine someone saying such things about the September 11 victims, their families and the cops...
All this actions are punished by the Spanish Terrism Law (can't remember the real name though) but burning the national flag is not. That is stated in the Spanish Constitution, but almost nobody who has done it has been condemned to prison. Anyway, it doesn't help when you do it after posting such atrocities.
All this actions are punished by the Spanish Terrism Law (can't remember the real name though) but burning the national flag is not. That is stated in the Spanish Constitution, but almost nobody who has done it has been condemned to prison. Anyway, it doesn't help when you do it after posting such atrocities.
Yeah, but jailing someone for merely saying something, no matter how offensive, is incredibly backward.YawP said:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it - Voltaire (possibly)
The judge felt his statements weren't an opinion on a political discussion, but a constant insult (3 months) to the victims, calling them for their own names (no "I piss on the victims" but "I piss on Miguel Angel Blanco"). That's something against the person's honor, out of bounds of free speech and so, punishable. It's jail too much for that? Maybe, but it isn't an attack to free speech, hey! here we have no beeps on TV when someone swears!. And stop that inquisition crap, it was 600 years ago! we inveted the siesta in compensation!AuntyEthel said:
It was posted on a forum, so not actually a direct harassment of the people. It definately does contradict free speech, as the whole point of free speech is that as long as it's words and not actions, it should be protected, no matter how vile they may be. I agree that saying "I piss on Miguel Angel Bianco" is tasteless and against his honour, but I still believe that he has a right to express his opinion.YawP said:The judge felt his statements weren't an opinion on a political discussion, but a constant insult (3 months) to the victims, calling them for their own names (no "I piss on the victims" but "I piss on Miguel Angel Blanco"). That's something against the person's honor, out of bounds of free speech and so, punishable. It's jail too much for that? Maybe, but it isn't an attack to free speech, hey! here we have no beeps on TV when someone swears!. And stop that inquisition crap, it was 600 years ago! we inveted the siesta in compensation!AuntyEthel said:
I don't know if someone publishing lies and insults about me on a local newspaper for 3 months is direct harassment, but it's definitely something I'll try to legally fight against. Can't find a reason why a forum may be diferent, on the internet you are "publishing", not "saying".AuntyEthel said:
Harming someone is an action. This is not a console fanboy who wakes up on a bad day and swears in a forum. This guy was causing the victim's relatives real pain for 3 months and was enjoing it. Free speech it's a right, but as all of them, if you abuse it to the point when you harm someone intentionally and repeatedly, you should face the consequences.AuntyEthel said:
Fair enough, but could the families not simply have ignored it all? Not visited the forums?YawP said: