Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I get the point. But the point is not that freedom of speech overrules all else, as you seem to thinkarchvile93 said:
I got put on probation for a similar comment on this site. It's amazing how people can moan about the UK's lack of free speech, and how a "society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed", yet happily accept the same thing happening on their own site. That my friends is hypocrisy.
For the record, I believe that this was a good thing. He should have been put in jail. The internet is still a "wild west", difficult to create legislature for effectively. The more examples we have of positive legislation (ie, screwing someone over being harmful, rather than people who are looking for aliens) the better.
As for the UK being a "society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed", maybe if the US did more of this, they could start tackling some of the problems in their country. I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it, YOU DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Freedom is absolute. Your free speech law isn't. Come to terms with it, and move on
For the record, I believe that this was a good thing. He should have been put in jail. The internet is still a "wild west", difficult to create legislature for effectively. The more examples we have of positive legislation (ie, screwing someone over being harmful, rather than people who are looking for aliens) the better.
As for the UK being a "society that puts people in prison for being a dick is a society that's in deep trouble indeed", maybe if the US did more of this, they could start tackling some of the problems in their country. I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it, YOU DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Freedom is absolute. Your free speech law isn't. Come to terms with it, and move on
No, it doesn't. you can't scream fire in a non-burning building because people could end up dead in the resulting trampling. Now I'm not necessarliy agreeing with what the UK or not, but we put up with these people because once the government can decide to ban things they don't agree with they can ban anything that they feel hinders their rise to power. Besides, it's easy to ignore Phelps. That's what I've been doing. Oh and we don't allow his "church" to protest at funerals anymore.Alipeewee said:
Easy for you, maybe. I don't know how much direct contact you've had with them so I'll try not to presume anything, but I bet that many of those targeted by his protests don't find it particularly easy. Can you imagine being his neighbour?archvile93 said:
And before we go all 1984 - I'd like to point something out, which people always seem to forget. This is not a man making a valid argument. it's not as if he'd railed against the government or even talked reasonably about why he'd disliked the victim. Nothing like that. Instead, he spoke obscenely, with the sole intent of causing harm. That is VERY different to somebody saying "I don't like the government because X, Y and Z". This is him saying "lol necrophilic paedophilia"
Pray tell? Seriously? If you want to come across as patronising, at least call me sweetie, so I can call you sugah.JDKJ said:
Anyway, sure, venue is up for debate, but I'd basically say, not in the face of the mourning family, such as outside a funeral or on a condolence website.
If they are down the road, around the corner, as you say, then that actually does show some sense on their part, and perhaps that is enough. Again, I don't believe it is ever simply that black and white, and there is merit in exercising common sense which in turn nurtures thoughtfulness and tolerance of other peoples rights in society.
My issue is with with people being able to sidestep basic respect in the name of free speech. I mean, allowing a fellow human being the chance to mourn in peace is just common decency, and if some people in society (and this is why we have laws and social boundaries) can't exercise that mutual respect of decency and morality, often because they don't have the capacity to understand it (sociopathic in nature), then that is where law and common sense can step in and say, look, you can be a prick, but do not ram it someones face in such a disrespectful and hateful way. Express your opinions, fine, but there is a line where your rights to speak out do not override another persons rights to mourn without harassment.
See compromise; see mutual respect.
Again, this highlights the difference between US and UK culture. Perhaps what some see as British people being very reserved or even oppressed by the law and government, is in fact simply our standards of acceptable behaviour in our society that we have established and wish to protect.
To allow someone to be a completely hateful prick without consequence, is to also encourage them to not think about their actions, ever question them or ever open their mind to another point of view. I think it is actually detrimental to society and breeds intolerance. I have seen a lot of misguided and ignorant statements from posters in this thread and I think the attitude of, I can do what I want because it's my right, tends to be an excuse for not actually thinking beyond your own selfish mindset. It encourages ignorance in a way. The freedom to learn, discuss and progress is what I believe the right of expressing opinion/free speech is inherently tied to. They need to work together.
I see your point, but I don't agree. You're saying that because the punishment is different, or the scale is different, it changes the crime? It doesn't.JDKJ said:
To put it in a way that most people on this site would understand, it's like the current situation in California. People are claiming the first amendment (or whatever), saying the law infringes on their right to free speech. Another way to infringe on a humans right to free speech is to ban all literature outright, as well as the media and all religion. It's the same thing being impeded, but to vastly different scales. However it doesn't stop people having the right to claim this amendment is being breached in the first case
There's being an asshole...and then there's being a hateful fuckwad.
This man definitely crossed the line. There was no merit at all to his actions, and as a court I would have ruled the same way.
This man definitely crossed the line. There was no merit at all to his actions, and as a court I would have ruled the same way.
Freedom of speech is the right to express an opinion no matter how unpopular, not the right to harass people.
No, that is just wrong. Not even slightly true. The Queen has no real power whatsoever. The royal family is a figure head that is all.Nick Timperman said:
The irony of statements such as this that seem to suggest this "little prick" should be raped etc are unbearable....Guess you never understood why you enjoy horror films etc(Watch Funny Games)Kelethor said:
Anyone who wishes violence on this troll are nearly/maybe worse than the troll himself.