Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[Chimichanga]

I prefer freedom to be offensive over being confined to everyone else's oversensitivity.

So finding someone implying necrophilia with a child, on a website for said child a little disturbing,is just us being 'oversensitive'?

Damn straight. Sure - it's repulsive, but it's only a statement, and not even a true one at that (or at least I hope not). When you jail people for giving malicious statements, it opens the doors to jail people for telling any statement someone else doesn't agree with, and when you begin jailing people for saying things that aren't politically correct or not congruent with popular opinion, you start paving the road to oppression.

From that point, things tend to get worse.

If this was to arrest him for conspiracy of molesting corpses, or if he was sending them death threats with some intent to act on them, then I would be behind this ruling. But for the simple matter of hurting someone else's feelings, albeit doing it to an extreme, does not warrant this kind of punishment IMO.

*EDIT: Sorry, forgot to add the quote.

 

[MinionStarwind]

Troll got Trolled.

Did the judge put on his own trollface when sentencing? God I hope he did.

 

[Gigano]

...
I agree that with stuff like the Muhammed drawings should be legal. You make some great points here. To me, the line between what should be legal or not goes between what can be called a "statement" and what can't. The Muhammed drawings are statements - which I personally think are ineffective, but whatever. However with the example from this article, I don't think it can be called a statement, just an insult.

By the way, how great do you think the emotional harm should be for it to make it punishable? Let's say the people involved were either crying or raging over it for an hour, and it ruined their day, but they got over it within a week and it had no long-term effect on their mental health. Would it then be punishable or not?

I would say that as long as it is something that is clearly very offensive and not a statement, and the offended is upset enough to report it to the police, then it should be illegal.

That something has statement quality on a topic - and even more so if it has argumentative quality - would certainly raise the bar for what could be criminalized considerably. Depending on the topic sometimes to the point that nothing but direct incitement of violence should be outlawed. I don't think that that mere insults - at least which aren't also accusations - should be punishable though, unless they cause some objective harm; also because the courts would be flooded in no time, certainly in our culture where ideological - especially religious - disagreements is increasingly taken as personal attacks.

As for how much harm, I'd say that a medical psychological diagnosis or a physical reaction should be a requirement for penal law to come into play. Possibly also for awarding damages under punitive compensation law as well. The example you provided I would think to be way under what any law or court should concern itself with.

Being human is also to hit some bumps on the road, especially emotional ones, but the government and courts shouldn't - and in reality couldn't - safeguard us above a certain threshold of harm. We must be able to - or learn to become able to - deal with some lesser evils ourselves, or let the civilian community and society help us regulate such lesser evils through social measures. This is usually a far more effective method anyway; as my motto states, Reality can not be altered with the stroke of a pen. Nor into a law book.

And how would the law even begin to take into account all the different tones and language generally and commonly accepted in different cultures, community circles, forums, and contexts? What is friendly banter amongst locals might be grossly offensive to a passing outsider.

Of course, bear in mind that I'm certainly no diplomat myself; I'll be quite vocal in voicing my criticism, condemnation, and (at times quite colourful) contempt for all discrimination which fall below my coveted harm principle standards, against all ideologies and all who would knowingly and willingly choose them as their own.

 

[All_Aces]

Arguably one of the most successful trolls ever. It's a hilarious irony that he's only riling up more and more people with this news report, too.

 

[JDKJ]

You'd be amusing if your ignorance and scant-supported arrogance wasn't so frightening.

Courtesy of the poster Camarilla, here are the actual word as stated by Churchill as Home Secretary in the House of Commons on July 20th, 1910:


"A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it."

And if you had quoted that passage right at the start, you'd have saved yourself a whole lot of looking like a jackass. The fact is that you talked about it being common knowledge that the words regarding that one should judge a society by the treatment of its prisoners were Churchill's; when in fact, your first quote was almost exactly equal to the Dostoevsky quote and could, at best, be called a synopsis of the above passage, which - as LadyRhian pointed out - is STILL not à propos to the bloody topic at hand.

Let's see what the Home Secretary said.

"A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state [...]"

The topic of this conversation is, to quote the OP, "any society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed." - therefore, the problem here isn't whether the state recognises the rights of the accused/convict, but whether he should have been accused/convicted at all. The OP calls into question the criminalisation of offensive speech ITSELF, stating that it is symptomatic of underlying problems present in a society which does choose to make insults a punishable offence. Churchill's speech, however, does not deal with the letter or spirit of the law, but rather with its execution.

Next,

"[...] in the heart of every man these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation [...]"

Strength. Not degree of civilisation. I'm sure you see the difference. And also, as mentioned above, still dealing with the question on how to deal with existing laws and their execution, not the legality of a given law itself. Not à propos to the topic of whether this man should have been indicted/convicted in the first place.

Having read them, if you remain convinced and willing to assert that he's referring to society weakest members (which isn't at all what I either said or meant) and not clearly referring to society's accused and convicted criminals,

Just admit that you mis-quoted Dostoevsky and attributed that quote to Churchill. It's obvious to everybody, and not really hard to do. Try and say it, "you were right, and I was wrong"; not to mention, you brought Churchill into this, not me. Personally, I couldn't care less - and your trying to make everybody who knows the first thing about hermeneutics cringe (by forcing some quote to be about a topic to which it clearly is only tangentially relevant) is really pathetic.

then you, my friend, are not only ignorant but are more accurately an ignorant twit. I don't know what you do for a living and, truth be told, I don't particularly care. But if you bring to your vocation the same level of rhetorical skill and knowledge which you've brought to our discussion, I respectfully suggest that you shouldn't overreach in your vocational choices. I suspect that ticket-taker at your local cinema may be an entirely appropriate choice for you.

Nah, I prefer tenure at some point. Are you in the humanities? Maybe we'll meet at some conference at some point, and have a beer. Underneath your pathological inability to admit that you were wrong, you sound like a pretty smart person.

You're also a presumptuous twit. On what possible basis have you arrived at the conclusions that: (a) I am American and (b) I don't in fact hold a degree from Stanford? You know next to absolutely nothing about me and certainly nothing more than I'm willing to tell you. But I will correct your misapprehensions of me to the extent of informing you that: (a) I am not an American citizen and (b) I hold a degree not from Stanford but from Harvard (although I'm having difficulty seeing what relevance at all that should bear). Is there anything else about me that you're desirous of knowing? I'll try to indulge your feeble-minded inquisitiveness as best I can.

For all I care, you can be from Laos and be a post-doc fellow in molecular biology - it doesn't make your grandiloquent douche-baggery about the origins and interpretations of certain quotes and others any less silly.



How about I extend an olive branch of civility to you, and offer to get this back on topic and away from this foolishness, since I'm obviously right about the ancillary crap, whereas your original point and mine are very much open to debate - you talk about how the criminalisation of offensive speech is inidicative of a society lacking a certain "moral compass", as it were, whereas I contend, in a very simplified Hegelian sense, that there is no right of the individual to be an arsehole towards his fellow man - or that, to channel Hobbes, it is indeed the duty of the state to ensure a certain level of civility among its citizenry.

There is basis for civilised, on-topic discourse here, and I'd be glad to take it up with you.

While I appreciate the amount of text you've dedicated to your response, I have to honestly say that the position that:

"A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it"

doesn't accurately distill into:

"the measure of society's civilization is its treatment of its prisoners"

doesn't do too much to dissuade me of my nagging suspicion that you're an ignorant twit. And I don't say so to be petty or mean or insulting. And if you take it in that spirit, that's unfortunate but also fine as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather you be offended than I be anything less than honest.

And, yes, I'll admit that the quotation and attribution was way less than perfectly made. Indeed, I did so as soon as Camarilla brought that fact to my attention. But the essence of Churchill's speech was nevertheless accurately captured by the paraphrased quotation, I think.

 

[qbanknight]

I used to respect the UK. Now I REALLY respect the UK. Seriously, I'm glad trolls are going to jail.

Soooo...Does this mean we can sue /b/ now?

That might be a bad idea. I could see them turning to car bombs and assassination in that scenario.

Another reason for Yahtzee not to return to England

On a serious note, British slander laws are incredibly easy to hold a trial for and get CONVICTED for. They apparently don't have much tolerance for anyone saying anything. Shit, it's like 1984 over there

Yes, and reality is like Fallout because we have nuclear weapons. (Hint: that was sarcasm)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lets hope that he becomes some guy's girlfriend while in prison.

Wonderful that you think trolling on the internet should be punishable by jail time or sex-me-up with some burly psycho killer. The 1984 comment has been used by SEVERAL politicians and entertainment leaders in regards to the slander and libel laws of the UK. To give you an idea of how easy it is: Vanity Fair, an American tabloid, was sued by Roman Polanski (that dipshit child molesting director) SUCCESSFULLY in a British court while he sued from the comfort of his home in France. That shit would not fly in the US as this country's slander and libel laws are extraordinarily high and very few actually succeed. Furthermore you're only punished with a fine here, not jail time

 

[Snarky Username]

Snip

I didn't even know goat was an insult. Thanks for that, I guess. As for whether or not I'm oppressed, I can guess you can argue that we're all oppressed in some way, you giraffe you. But I can see that this is making you angry for reasons that I can not explain, so for all intents and purposes you're right. I am any livestock you want me to be.

angry oh no not at all.
i just feel sorry for your misinterpretation of our right to free speech as Americans(maybe not you and maybe you) your still a goat with the media as your sheepdog.

It's funny that you said that when I claimed that free expression of the media was one of the things that the first amendment was made for and that it's one of the greatest tools in creating a truly free government... And if you really must know, I speak up against the government more than almost anyone I know... That is the right guaranteed to me by the first amendment. Making fun of a grieving family is not a right guaranteed to me by any amendment. Perhaps you should read a post before throwing out random insults, you narwhal.

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

A U.K. man has been sentenced to 18 weeks in jail for being an internet troll.

Being a troll cost Colm Coss of Manchester more than just some hate mail and a flood of angry forum replies. The 36-year-old unemployed man will also have to give up a few months of freedom because he "preyed on bereaved families" by posting rude messages on websites dedicated to reality TV personality mauled to death [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Goody] by a dog. The court was told that among his comments, Coss claimed that he had "had sex with the victims' dead bodies."

"You preyed on bereaved families who were suffering trauma and anxiety," Chairwoman of the bench Pauline Salisbury told the defendant. "We know you gained pleasure and you aren't sorry for what you did."

Coss was charged with "sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive," which is apparently illegal in the U.K. under the Communications Act 2003. He would have got away with it, too, except he sent pictures of himself to his neighbors saying that he was an "internet troll," one of whom passed the pictures on to police for some reason. Coss admitted to being a troll during a subsequent police interview.

And now it's time for some audience participation. What do you think is most disturbing: The fact that being a troll is literally against the law in the U.K., the fact that Coss' neighbors felt it necessary to inform the police that there was a troll living down the street or the fact that the police thought the matter was important enough to warrant an interview and then formal charges?

I don't like trolls. They're attention-seeking jerks who will say anything to get a rise out of people. When they get demolished in a forum thread, or banned, or even punched in the mouth, I don't mind at all. But I'm having a hard time believing that someone is going to jail for it. Any society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed.

Source: Wordsmith [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11650593] for the tip.


Permalink

This man is more than a troll. He targets sites dedicated to people who have recently died. He did the same thing to sites dedicated to the memory of three other people who died - 'a dead American, the victim of a fatal car crash in Australia and a Canadian murder victim'. http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1353148_facebook_troll_jailed_after_targeting_jade_goody_tribute_page

 

[eyedonutkair]

Congratulations on the Epic win, internet troll. Sucks to have yet another fail, UK.

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

I would love the Westoro Baptist Church to be charged as they should be under the law. Just because wrong goes unpunished doesn't make it 'right'.

No, it doesn't. But just because it's not "right" doesn't mean it should be illegal.

And according to Wiki, which is as far as I'm willing to dig on Westboro, it had 71 members is 2007. Not exactly "numbers" in any meaningful sense.

I'm aware that the US and UK are vastly different in terms of their approaches to individual freedoms and the right to free expression. And while I think the US is on completely the wrong track in many ways, in this area I think it's got it right.

Westboro only has 71 members, but how many other organizations oppose gay rights? As I stated before, the number of groups who are against homosexuality, other than Westboro, is a large one - Parts of the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Islam, most of the other Protestant Denominations. You cannot be openly gay in the military. You cannot get married. All these, and the strong opposition to changes point out that while Westboro may be tiny, a lot of people at least agree partially with them.

 

[LadyRhian]

And now it's time for some audience participation. What do you think is most disturbing: The fact that being a troll is literally against the law in the U.K., the fact that Coss' neighbors felt it necessary to inform the police that there was a troll living down the street or the fact that the police thought the matter was important enough to warrant an interview and then formal charges?

I don't like trolls. They're attention-seeking jerks who will say anything to get a rise out of people. When they get demolished in a forum thread, or banned, or even punched in the mouth, I don't mind at all. But I'm having a hard time believing that someone is going to jail for it. Any society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed.

Conversely, as a European, I have no idea why Americans think that being a total douche or an utter imbecile is a God given right of all mankind, that one should be able to be a jackass to the entire world, and that such behaviour should be constitutionally protected, even. A society is defined by civility; what does that say about a society in which the right of the individual to be an incivil, uncouth arsehole is worth more than society's right not to be bothered by him?

It certainly explains a lot about America, though, doesn't it, such as Glenn Beck and idiocy à la "is evolution 'real'?" being a part of political discourse.

I know that the American definition of liberty is the puerile notion of "I can do whatever I want, and everyone who tells me different is a mean old poopiepants"; but here, we tend to look at things in a slightly more sophisticated fashion. Your freedom ends where the other's begins - and I would definitely say that being an arsehole to the point of causing others actual anguish fits the idea of encroaching on another's liberty. So yeah, fuck that guy. I am happy to live in a country where insults are part of the penal code. Being a dick isn't a high good, or something worth protecting.

I would add to your statement that "a society is defined by civility" the oft-quoted words of Winston Churchill, who said that "you can measure the civilization of a society by the way it treats its prisoners." And to incarcerate someone for 18 weeks as an internet troll isn't, in my opinion, a particularly flattering measure of that society's civilization.

You need to rethink that. What you said has nothing to do with how this guy is being treated in jail. You just made a giant non-sequitur. The fact that they jailed him at all says nothing about he is being treated as a prisoner in said jail. Personally, I'd have said take away the guy's internet access for a few years, so if he's gonna make comments like that, he'd have to do it face to face, where payback can be immediate and In your face as well.

If you want to spend the morning splitting hairs and debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, suit yourself. I'm game, if you are. That being said, length of incarceration is squarely a component of a prisoner's treatment at the hands of their government, if not among the defining components thereof. If he'd received a non-custodial sentence, he wouldn't be a prisoner.

It makes no difference. Talking about how one is treated as a prisoner while making a comment about the person even being a prisoner at all, is a non-sequitur. If the article mentioned how the soles of his feet were being beaten with a willow withe for an hour every day, then you could pull out the "treatment of prisoners" comment, as it is, it made no sense. I'm not "Splitting hairs", just pointing out you made a non-sequitur. From the nature of your comment, it seems that you are angry with me for merely pointing out it was a non-sequitur. Ramp down the attitude.

Here, courtesy of Camarilla, is the full text of Churchill's quote:

"A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it."

If after reading it, you remained convinced that Churchill intended his reference to treatment of criminals to refer only to post-incarceration treatment, then fine. Suit yourself. We'll just respectfully disagree on the point (after all, it's at best a niggling point).

And yes, Mum, I'll ramp down the attitude. Just don't send me off to bed without any supper, please.

Still not getting the point. Where did I say anything about "post-incaraceration treatment"? There are prisons where such beatings happen while you are in jail. And anyhow, your whole butthurt attitude about my comment is making you look ridiculous, especially the comments. Face it dude- you made a non-sequitur. Acting all pissy about it says more about you than I really wanted to know.

 

[JDKJ]

And now it's time for some audience participation. What do you think is most disturbing: The fact that being a troll is literally against the law in the U.K., the fact that Coss' neighbors felt it necessary to inform the police that there was a troll living down the street or the fact that the police thought the matter was important enough to warrant an interview and then formal charges?

I don't like trolls. They're attention-seeking jerks who will say anything to get a rise out of people. When they get demolished in a forum thread, or banned, or even punched in the mouth, I don't mind at all. But I'm having a hard time believing that someone is going to jail for it. Any society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed.

Conversely, as a European, I have no idea why Americans think that being a total douche or an utter imbecile is a God given right of all mankind, that one should be able to be a jackass to the entire world, and that such behaviour should be constitutionally protected, even. A society is defined by civility; what does that say about a society in which the right of the individual to be an incivil, uncouth arsehole is worth more than society's right not to be bothered by him?

It certainly explains a lot about America, though, doesn't it, such as Glenn Beck and idiocy à la "is evolution 'real'?" being a part of political discourse.

I know that the American definition of liberty is the puerile notion of "I can do whatever I want, and everyone who tells me different is a mean old poopiepants"; but here, we tend to look at things in a slightly more sophisticated fashion. Your freedom ends where the other's begins - and I would definitely say that being an arsehole to the point of causing others actual anguish fits the idea of encroaching on another's liberty. So yeah, fuck that guy. I am happy to live in a country where insults are part of the penal code. Being a dick isn't a high good, or something worth protecting.

I would add to your statement that "a society is defined by civility" the oft-quoted words of Winston Churchill, who said that "you can measure the civilization of a society by the way it treats its prisoners." And to incarcerate someone for 18 weeks as an internet troll isn't, in my opinion, a particularly flattering measure of that society's civilization.

You need to rethink that. What you said has nothing to do with how this guy is being treated in jail. You just made a giant non-sequitur. The fact that they jailed him at all says nothing about he is being treated as a prisoner in said jail. Personally, I'd have said take away the guy's internet access for a few years, so if he's gonna make comments like that, he'd have to do it face to face, where payback can be immediate and In your face as well.

If you want to spend the morning splitting hairs and debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, suit yourself. I'm game, if you are. That being said, length of incarceration is squarely a component of a prisoner's treatment at the hands of their government, if not among the defining components thereof. If he'd received a non-custodial sentence, he wouldn't be a prisoner.

It makes no difference. Talking about how one is treated as a prisoner while making a comment about the person even being a prisoner at all, is a non-sequitur. If the article mentioned how the soles of his feet were being beaten with a willow withe for an hour every day, then you could pull out the "treatment of prisoners" comment, as it is, it made no sense. I'm not "Splitting hairs", just pointing out you made a non-sequitur. From the nature of your comment, it seems that you are angry with me for merely pointing out it was a non-sequitur. Ramp down the attitude.

Here, courtesy of Camarilla, is the full text of Churchill's quote:

"A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it."

If after reading it, you remained convinced that Churchill intended his reference to treatment of criminals to refer only to post-incarceration treatment, then fine. Suit yourself. We'll just respectfully disagree on the point (after all, it's at best a niggling point).

And yes, Mum, I'll ramp down the attitude. Just don't send me off to bed without any supper, please.

Still not getting the point. Where did I say anything about "post-incaraceration treatment"? There are prisons where such beatings happen while you are in jail. And anyhow, your whole butthurt attitude about my comment is making you look ridiculous, especially the comments. Face it dude- you made a non-sequitur. Acting all pissy about it says more about you than I really wanted to know.

Where? Right about the point where you stated, "If the article mentioned how the soles of his feet were being beaten with a willow withe for an hour every day, then you could pull out the "treatment of prisoners" comment, as it is, it made no sense." That'd be where. And Churchill's verbatim commentary speaks to pre-conviction and post-conviction issues of treatment and issues of treatment during incarceration. You don't see that? Or are you giving an overly strict construction to the word "treatment" and one that only encompasses "treatment" during incarceration?

You don't see where "a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment" requires of those who impose punishments that their punishments fit the crimes? And how many posters here have opined that the punishment is this case nowhere near fits the crime? And where punishments that are disproportionate to the crimes reflect, as Churchill would argue, an uncivilized society? If you can't see any of this, then you're breeding suspicions in me that you're an ignorant twit. Either that or stone-cold blind.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Well, even though I find your reason unsatisfying and lacking any supporting thoughts, I do appreciate the time you put in to responding. That you would think about it at all was my primary objective.

The reality is that I'm not advocating violence in cases like these. I'm saying it's an understandable consequence - and yes, I'd prefer it to a legal system that puts people in jail for what they say. I'm not saying we need to take this guy out and kneecap him or put him in a wheelchair or wail on his skull until he can't feed himself anymore, but if he gets a punch in the head, maybe a knee in the nuts, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

What's wrong with civil courts? If what he did inflicted so much "emotional distress," and I'm not saying it didn't, then sue his ass off. Take him to court, show that the guy is a habitual shitbag and clean him out. I'm all for that. But criminalizing speech, even speech as abhorrent as this, is incredibly disturbing to me. "Malicious?" "Grossly offensive?" Who decides? Where's the line between being a jerkoff and being an inmate? If you get a little drunk one nice and rattle off a few racial jokes at the pub and the black guy you didn't notice in the seat behind you hears and is "grossly offended," should you go to jail?

I see where you guys are coming from and believe me, I'm all for a polite, respectful society. But I can't imagine ever supporting the imprisonment of assholes, even the biggest assholes in the country, if their only "crime" is being an asshole.

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

In free speech the US is indeed ahead - as long as you are not a 'danger' and thus subject to infinite detainment, torture, and a removal of all rights, human or otherwise. Taking your Heinlan quote, I take it you are an anarchist since the state is in essence the greatest removal of freedom, since it has a monopoly of violence. I also imagine you must be vastly opposed to both the CIA, and the republican party because both have done massive amounts to undermine freedom both inside and outside the US. Likewise the founding father for they created a country instead of removing all such restrictions.

Personally, I don't mind giving up a little freedom for things like laws, health-care and sanitation because personally I think those allow me to enjoy my freedoms, instead of struggling to stay alive and being completely free.

I'm far from being an Anarchist as that untimatly develops into "might makes right" and people wind up with no freedom whatsoever unless they happen to be the strongest.

I'm actually very much a right wing, law and order kind of guy, however I believe that needs to be tempered by the people having inalienable rights along with those laws. One of those rights that I believe in is for the state not being able to regulate things like free speech and personal armament. It's sort of like how I support Capitolism, but agree with the American compromise that Capitolism is fine as long as there is competition and things like Monopolies and Cartels are not okay (with monopolies being the end game for any unregulated business).

-


Like everything there are however exceptions. Your comments about people who are viewed as a danger are the result of a time of crisis and warfare. Even from the beginning the goverment was given the abillity to declare martial law and invoke war powers. In numerous discussions on free speech I have mentioned that as an exception, and you'll notice I've pointed out the way World War II was conducted in this respect as a nessicary evil.

The odd thing about "The Patriot Act" is that arguably it was designed with giving the American People the most freedom possible in mind. It was designed as a middle ground between peacetime operation, and the outright declaration of Martial Law. The idea being for the goverment to declare a time of crisis and take some of the war powers, without invoking them all and effectively turning the US into a police state for the duration.

Basically the goverment started rounding up dangerous elements, much like we were dealing with Nazi sympathizers (something people tend to forget about, Hitler was hugely popular and an international man of the year. You don't hear about his following in the US because of the war the war was conducted. Just as isolationist and anti-war sentiments were also cracked down on when things actually got moving), but didn't take full contol of the press, institute a draft, or start major resource drives/seizures.

Given that the war is against a culture that doesn't have an active military to fight against and we shouldn't need that kind of material rally, the goverment didn't want to unleash that on the people.

Of course as we're seeing, wars (especially long wars) are never popular, and as an experiment it kind of failed because one of the biggest obstacles has been our own media which is exactly why when we go to war the goverment is supposed to gag it for the duration.... though it IS noteworthy that part of our policy is that after the war ends and a few decades have passed information that was surpressed by the goverment can come out, one of the reasons why you have all these criticisms about how the war department was lying about "Human Flesh Lampshades" out there nowadays, along with various reports of American atrocities and the like even if you have to dig for them.

Now do not misunderstand me, I think "The Patriot Act" was very much a slippery slope and while I agree with the principle, and the intent, I have held the opinion that the goverment should have actually invoked War Powers, because I feel "middle ground" resolutions that are easier to invoke encourages abuse.

As I've said before, I have no real issue with what The Patriot Act actually does, I think a lot of people really don't understand it (and for that I blame a lot of the rhetoric from the anti-war side of things), nor do they realize that these kinds of powers are things the goverment has always had, and it has employed them in the past. The big issue is the way it allows the goverment to more easily make use of those powers. I think when this was being drafted the goverment should have instead invoked full martial law. I personally think we would have been done with this war years ago if that was the case, because it's the media which has complicated things on a lot of levels and caused this to be dragged out.

I agree that people need unalienable rights. I oppose the view that these rights should be removed during warfare, because without public skepticism, I feel the path becomes one to less and less of a democracy. You mentioned their use during the Second World War to round up Nazi sympathizers, they were also used to round up anyone of Japanese descent, remove all of their property and sell it off, and then place them in prison camps for the rest of the war. We are talking third or fourth generation as well, people rounded up basically on racist lines. For a war fought against this, its rather ironic. Note that being of German decent was not a threat, even if you had arrived in the last few years.

The Patriot Act is more than War Powers because it circumvents the necessary obstacles put in place by the founding fathers. The President has no power to declare war - that is up to Congress. As are the war powers, martial law, allocation of resources, etc. It transfers the power to a small group of mainly non-elected people. Kinda opposite to a democracy.

Yes the culture doesn't have an active military, because everyone is the military in waiting. If Alexander the Great, the British Empire, and the Armies of the USSR could not win in Afghanistan, why would the Americans do any better? Especially after training, funding and arming the Taliban for years to fight against forces remarkably similar to their own? The war was conducted poorly from day one. The borders are open, the supporters of the regime are still able to funnel funds, arms, and soldiers in, and the civilian casualties keep on rising. In a culture where blood feuds exist, and tribal laws that are steeped in centuries of tradition are adhered to - going in without teaching anyone these seems insane.

I agree the war would have been over quicker if the the government had declared martial law, though probably because they would have to pull troops to restore order to the country - I doubt many people would agree with martial law, especially with the freedom to bear arms being forcefully removed.

The founding fathers said that a standing army was a threat to democratic process. They fought against the largest standing army in the world at that point, backed by military belief and a hierarchy of power so they had a point. To remove the rights of citizens during a war is to make a change that is a struggle to reverse. Remember - income tax was only going to a short term measure until we won the Great War. Ninety-two years after the surrender of the Kaiser and its still going strong.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

The situation is hilarious, but the things that guy said were a tad out of line and creepy.

 

[.[B@lL15T1C].]

... there's a parliament, that king or queen decides comment has annoyed me.

 

[Baradiel]

Its not the fact he was trolling. It was what he was trolling about. Its not like he decided to annoy some fanboys. He caused serious emotional hardship to the families. Slightly different to rubbing Episode 3, or the lack thereof, in the face of a Valve fanboy.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

I have no problem with trolls going to prison. I just really hope they get sent to "Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass" Prison, not that sissy county jail crap.

Trolling is not cool. Trolling the grieving families of a dead child is... beyond horrifying. It's downright evil. 18 weeks seems like a mild sentence if you ask me. I'd have locked him up... forever? Maybe longer.