Skarlette said:
There's a difference between respecting Free Speech and promoting harassment.
Therumancer said:
What's more, freedom of speech, doesn't just mean "freedom of speech you like or agree with" but the freedom to say what you want without these kinds of consequences. Once you start regulating the jerks, it turns into people simply wanting to regulate anyone they don't agree with.
There is no requirement that you have to be nice to anyone, that you have to like everyone, or that you have to remain silent about those you don't like. That's what freedom is all about.
Yes, words can hurt, and do a lot of damage, but as Heinlan put it "You can either have freedom or safety, never both".
....the police shoulx not have been involved, and sending him to jail was both overkill, and an affront to human rights.
So whose rights is more important, those of the man, or of those he harassed?
What about Article 5 -"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"? Or Article 29 section 2 -- "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
If you believe that he's entirely innocent of denying the grieving families their rights to Article 5 and 29.2, that there was no malevolence intended, then okay, I can respect YOUR right to that opinion. But I wouldn't go tell it to them, if I was you.
(As a side note, necrophilia IS illegal under UK law and holds misdemeanour/felony status in over 20 states in the US. He could be held on that charge alone, even if it was only an allegation.)
The right to free speech is more important than any individual or group.
As far as the protection against cruel and unusual punishment goes, that right there is sort of an example of why we need to avoid slippery slopes. The reason being is that given the way that paticular part of the constitution was worded it's lead to precedents that make it seem like a good example to compare to things that it shouldn't be.
To put things into perspective, our founding fathers believed very firmly in things like flogging, the stocks, racks, pressing, tar and feathering, and other similar forms of torture and punishment. Such things were practiced even after the constitution, by the people who wrote it, which provides context through example. The idea of that paticular right was to prevent something like an "Inquisition" where new and innovative forms of torture would be being developed daily, or to prevent some magistrate from say deciding he wanted to develp new ways to torture people that broke his laws. The idea was that the torture had to be cruel and unusual in comparison to what was already being used. For example it's fine to kill someone by pressing (putting a board on top of them and then stacking rocks on top until they die) which is plenty horrible and painful on it's own, but making some kind of custom machine that flays someone alive while injecting acid into theit bloodstream or whatever would be excessive.
As people hae made arguements getting further and further away from the point, tbings like firing squads, hanging, and even the conditions of prisons have all been argued based on what is "cruel and unusual", with many people argueing that punishment of any sort could arguablly be banned by precedent. The gist of your arguement is based on flawed assumptions.
The right to free speech was comparitively well written, because unlike "cruel and unusual punishment" it didn't rely on "common knowlege" for it's definition to be understood.
At any rate, above and beyond all that, understand that our society is based around a principle that it would rather see a guilty person go free, than an innocent man be punished. Hence American ideas like "innocent until proven guilty" and putting the burden of proof on the prosecutor. This compared to other countries where the accused is instead expected to prove their innocence, and themselves take on the burden of proof.
When you think in those terms and the mentality behind things like that, it follows why something like a "freedom of speech" can exist despite the potential for people to be victimized by it.
It's also a valid point that the freedom works both ways, someone being verbally assaulted by someone like this Troll is not forced to sit there and take it, they are capable of retaliating in kind. It's a two way street, it's not like they are being held back and forced to endure the thrashing with no right to retaliate. This is an important point to consider as well. On a lot of levels complaining here is like saying "this guy should be arrested because in his verbal attacks he's wittier than I am and I can't get under his skin in kind". It loses a lot of "oomph" when expressed like that, but if you think about it, that's what it comes down to.
-
As far as Necrophilia goes, it's just like making any other criminal comments, unless you have some reason to believe (via context or whatever) that there is truth to it, it's kind of meaningless. If the corpse had been violated and he said that it might be differant, but otherwise it's just talking sh@t an I doubt you (or anyone) has never done that.
If you were to argue that they should prosecute for that, they would have to arrest the members of "Monty Python" for doing things like their "There is no cannibalism or necrophillia in the Royal Navy!" skits which could be considered both insulting to the Royal Navy and confessions of having committed (or planning to committ) both of those offenses by the routine.
Again it comes down to the law being impartial, you can't say that because you don't like Mr. Troll and the way he's using his right to free speech, but you DO like Monty Python and "get" their jokes at the expense of the Navy, that you'll choose to apply the law differantly in each case. That defeats the entire purpose of having laws.
In reality what this Troll is from a legal perspective no worse than Monty Python. It's just aimed at a smaller group, not on a stage, and intended to be nasty rather than entertaining a third party (well it might be intended to entertain a third party, if he's an Internet Troll there is no telling if he's documenting his antics for the amusement of some web site or other...)
