Man Goes to Jail for Being an Internet Troll

[scott91575]

Ultimately, a lot of the debate on this is gonna come down to how each side views things... to some, this is gonna be nothing more than "hurting feelings", while others will view this as closer to "emotional abuse". Both sides have the capability to reduce the entire issue to over-simplified examples that 'prove' their points. None of us knows the whole story behind what happened, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, be grateful that most of us were able to stay civil, and trust that justice, as the man's nation of choice defines it, will be done.

Even if it's "emotional abuse," that still has no place in criminal procedures. It's a civil matter. Government has no place in defining emotional abuse. Otherwise it becomes a playground for greater injustices enacted by the government. Emotions are too tough to quantify in order to allow the government to conduct criminal charges on that basis.

 

[Hira]

Personally, I think this man's actions were severe enough to be put to jail. This was abuse in my eyes. While the line between 'being a prick, hurting someone's feelings' and 'verbally assaulting people' is blurry at best, there's no doubt that this guy went waaay past verbal assault and straight to traumatize.
Giving your opinion on people or any given situation isn't the same as this, not by a long shot. Quite frankly, the fact he got a few months in jail for it (which I think fair) doesn't worry me nearly as much as the amount of people that believe his actions were justified.
To answer the original poster's question, though, I'd have to go with (b) - your neighbour just informed you he likes to bug people on the internet, why take it to the police? This would be my general answer, even though I'm glad they did in this case.

Also, nice post on page 16 with legal info on the matter. For people thinking this was a breach of his freedom of speech, you might want to read this first. ^^

 

[scott91575]

Personally, I think this man's actions were severe enough to be put to jail. This was abuse in my eyes. While the line between 'being a prick, hurting someone's feelings' and 'verbally assaulting people' is blurry at best, there's no doubt that this guy went waaay past verbal assault and straight to traumatize.
Giving your opinion on people or any given situation isn't the same as this, not by a long shot. Quite frankly, the fact he got a few months in jail for it (which I think fair) doesn't worry me nearly as much as the amount of people that believe his actions were justified.
To answer the original poster's question, though, I'd have to go with (b) - your neighbour just informed you he likes to bug people on the internet, why take it to the police? This would be my general answer, even though I'm glad they did in this case.

Also, nice post on page 16 with legal info on the matter. For people thinking this was a breach of his freedom of speech, you might want to read this first. ^^

I understand this is a British thing. In the US, no law can be passed that would infringe upon the first amendment. In Britain they can pass all kinds of crazy laws without that worry. So sure, they have a law that say "hey, we have free speech" and then enact another law that says "well, it's not really free speech. See, some people don't like what some other people have been saying, so that whole free speech thing, yeah, it's not really free."

Social behavior based free speech is not free speech. Once you force social behavior speech based on a persons feelings, sorry, that is not free speech.

BTW...horror movies, war movies, and all kinds of media traumatize people all the time. Let's lock them up!

It's amazing how quickly people hand over their freedoms without realizing it, all because you feel bad for a few people.

 

[JDKJ]

Ultimately, a lot of the debate on this is gonna come down to how each side views things... to some, this is gonna be nothing more than "hurting feelings", while others will view this as closer to "emotional abuse". Both sides have the capability to reduce the entire issue to over-simplified examples that 'prove' their points. None of us knows the whole story behind what happened, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, be grateful that most of us were able to stay civil, and trust that justice, as the man's nation of choice defines it, will be done.

Even if it's "emotional abuse," that still has no place in criminal procedures. It's a civil matter. Government has no place in defining emotional abuse. Otherwise it becomes a playground for greater injustices enacted by the government. Emotions are too tough to quantify in order to allow the government to conduct criminal charges on that basis.

Which is why any sensible civil court system will require proof of a physical manifestation of any claimed emotional abuse. If all it took for me to collect damages in court was to make a wholly unsubstantiated claim of "emotional abuse," I'd be spending my work day down at the courthouse successfully suing every asshole who looks at me sideways and my nights swimming in an ocean of crisp $100 bills.

 

[scott91575]

Ultimately, a lot of the debate on this is gonna come down to how each side views things... to some, this is gonna be nothing more than "hurting feelings", while others will view this as closer to "emotional abuse". Both sides have the capability to reduce the entire issue to over-simplified examples that 'prove' their points. None of us knows the whole story behind what happened, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, be grateful that most of us were able to stay civil, and trust that justice, as the man's nation of choice defines it, will be done.

Even if it's "emotional abuse," that still has no place in criminal procedures. It's a civil matter. Government has no place in defining emotional abuse. Otherwise it becomes a playground for greater injustices enacted by the government. Emotions are too tough to quantify in order to allow the government to conduct criminal charges on that basis.

Which is why any sensible civil court system will require proof of a physical manifestation of any claimed emotional abuse. If all it took for me to collect damages in court was to make a wholly unsubstantiated claim of "emotional abuse," I'd be spending my work day down at the courthouse successfully suing every asshole who looks at me sideways and my nights swimming in an ocean of crisp $100 bills.

and, as I have mentioned, I am fine with it being a civil issue. The problem here is the UK government made it a criminal issue. That is the problem.

 

[JDKJ]

Ultimately, a lot of the debate on this is gonna come down to how each side views things... to some, this is gonna be nothing more than "hurting feelings", while others will view this as closer to "emotional abuse". Both sides have the capability to reduce the entire issue to over-simplified examples that 'prove' their points. None of us knows the whole story behind what happened, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, be grateful that most of us were able to stay civil, and trust that justice, as the man's nation of choice defines it, will be done.

Even if it's "emotional abuse," that still has no place in criminal procedures. It's a civil matter. Government has no place in defining emotional abuse. Otherwise it becomes a playground for greater injustices enacted by the government. Emotions are too tough to quantify in order to allow the government to conduct criminal charges on that basis.

Which is why any sensible civil court system will require proof of a physical manifestation of any claimed emotional abuse. If all it took for me to collect damages in court was to make a wholly unsubstantiated claim of "emotional abuse," I'd be spending my work day down at the courthouse successfully suing every asshole who looks at me sideways and my nights swimming in an ocean of crisp $100 bills.

and, as I have mentioned, I am fine with it being a civil issue. The problem here is the UK government made it a criminal issue. That is the problem.

Of course it's a problem. They completely lack any mechanism by which to distinguish those cases where someone has truly suffered an emotional harm and those cases where the required element of emotional harm is completely absent. And merely having the putative victim take the witness stand and testify that they suffered an emotional harm isn't any kind of meaningful mechanism.

 

[GestaltEsper]

Personally, I think this man's actions were severe enough to be put to jail. This was abuse in my eyes. While the line between 'being a prick, hurting someone's feelings' and 'verbally assaulting people' is blurry at best, there's no doubt that this guy went waaay past verbal assault and straight to traumatize.
Giving your opinion on people or any given situation isn't the same as this, not by a long shot. Quite frankly, the fact he got a few months in jail for it (which I think fair) doesn't worry me nearly as much as the amount of people that believe his actions were justified.
To answer the original poster's question, though, I'd have to go with (b) - your neighbour just informed you he likes to bug people on the internet, why take it to the police? This would be my general answer, even though I'm glad they did in this case.

Also, nice post on page 16 with legal info on the matter. For people thinking this was a breach of his freedom of speech, you might want to read this first. ^^

I understand this is a British thing. In the US, no law can be passed that would infringe upon the first amendment. In Britain they can pass all kinds of crazy laws without that worry. So sure, they have a law that say "hey, we have free speech" and then enact another law that says "well, it's not really free speech. See, some people don't like what some other people have been saying, so that whole free speech thing, yeah, it's not really free."

Social behavior based free speech is not free speech. Once you force social behavior speech based on a persons feelings, sorry, that is not free speech.

BTW...horror movies, war movies, and all kinds of media traumatize people all the time. Let's lock them up!

It's amazing how quickly people hand over their freedoms without realizing it, all because you feel bad for a few people.

*coughcoughPatriotActcough*

 

[scott91575]

Personally, I think this man's actions were severe enough to be put to jail. This was abuse in my eyes. While the line between 'being a prick, hurting someone's feelings' and 'verbally assaulting people' is blurry at best, there's no doubt that this guy went waaay past verbal assault and straight to traumatize.
Giving your opinion on people or any given situation isn't the same as this, not by a long shot. Quite frankly, the fact he got a few months in jail for it (which I think fair) doesn't worry me nearly as much as the amount of people that believe his actions were justified.
To answer the original poster's question, though, I'd have to go with (b) - your neighbour just informed you he likes to bug people on the internet, why take it to the police? This would be my general answer, even though I'm glad they did in this case.

Also, nice post on page 16 with legal info on the matter. For people thinking this was a breach of his freedom of speech, you might want to read this first. ^^

I understand this is a British thing. In the US, no law can be passed that would infringe upon the first amendment. In Britain they can pass all kinds of crazy laws without that worry. So sure, they have a law that say "hey, we have free speech" and then enact another law that says "well, it's not really free speech. See, some people don't like what some other people have been saying, so that whole free speech thing, yeah, it's not really free."

Social behavior based free speech is not free speech. Once you force social behavior speech based on a persons feelings, sorry, that is not free speech.

BTW...horror movies, war movies, and all kinds of media traumatize people all the time. Let's lock them up!

It's amazing how quickly people hand over their freedoms without realizing it, all because you feel bad for a few people.

*coughcoughPatriotActcough*

Not freedom of speech based. That is a government monitoring issue along with redefinition of crimes that were are already crimes, and a whole different debate.

edit: I see you bolded the giving up freedoms. With that, I agree with you. Yet that is a whole different debate. I was never a fan of it, but that would take a really long discussion and not on topic.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Yes the U.S. is a blueprint for many of the countries of the world as we are the first successful Democracy in the world.

Well, actually, Britain gave Democracy to various territories when we still had The Empire after Democracy was introduced to use by the Ancient Greeks. Long before the U.S.A. even had its first permanent settlement the concept of Democracy was already established and spread throughout most of what we'd call the "Civilised World", when Britain adopted it we enforced it on most of the countries we invaded and seized power (including what would later become the U.S.A.). Ancient Greece really deserves the credit for being the original "blueprint" of being the "first successful Democracy" since that is where the concept was first conceived.

The U.K. was the world's first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries but had since diminished our role after two World Wars took their toll and reduced our economical status. Because of our reign as the most powerful nation in the world during those hundred-or-so-years we were able to spread the English language, Democracy, religion and culture to various territories.

America is not the basis (or blueprint) for a successful country as every country has their own culture, history, political and economical climate. America is a fairly young country with very little history, it could not be the influence for any Western country governed by a Democracy because it hadn't even formed when these countries were running under a Democratic government.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Plus, lack of empathy as demonstrated by that level of trolling (or other abuse) is often an indicator for other criminal tendencies. That doesn't mean that Cross was going to go out and mutilate kittens as a precursor to becoming the next Hannibal Lechter, but it does mean that society cannot condone that conduct.

Are you seriously suggesting that what he might do is justification, even in part, for putting this guy in jail?

No. I am stating that there needs to be some sort of intervention, that society has a legitimate interest and reason to intercede and put a halt to this behaviour before it escalates. That does not necessarily mean jail time... I'm given to understand that Jackholus Giganticus in this case is only doing time because he can't pay a civil fine and won't accept other interventions like community service or counselling.

I know you're personally inclined to prefer that these issues be resolved by the parties themselves, but given what I've seen in history that results in feuds or vendettas... the less-constraining option, IMO, is to allow a neutral party to intercede and as things stand today that means state intervention.

Civil courts. As I've stated previously, let that be your state intervention.

Unless you're advocating making public funds available for civil cases, your suggestion means that anyone who can't afford to hire a lawyer will have no legal recourse at all once personal attempts to negotiate an amicable solution fail. That means either suffering helplessly or pulling out knives. I think there's a genuine public interest in avoiding both these consequences.

What I'd really like to know (and never will, because at this point the true believers will never admit it) is what sort of reaction we'd be seeing if he'd done this just to Jade Goody. After all, there have been a number of posts on here saying that she more or less deserved to be called names but you just can't talk that way about an innocent child, and that makes me wonder if maybe a lot of this support isn't just about clamping on being a dick, but clamping down very specifically on who you can be a dick to.

Damn, man, you and I both moderate public forums and we both know exactly how low people will go... I have a great deal of trouble seeing this from your perspective given that background, knowing how disruptive and damaging that sort of conduct can be to rational discourse.

I think this drew mass attention (and mass outcry) because of the targets he picked, but I don't think this means people would necessarily condone his actions were they directed at less-public, less-obvious targets.

-- Steve

 

[scott91575]

Yes the U.S. is a blueprint for many of the countries of the world as we are the first successful Democracy in the world.

Well, actually, Britain gave Democracy to various territories when we still had The Empire after Democracy was introduced to use by the Ancient Greeks. Long before the U.S.A. even had its first permanent settlement the concept of Democracy was already established and spread throughout most of what we'd call the "Civilised World", when Britain adopted it we enforced it on most of the countries we invaded and seized power (including what would later become the U.S.A.). Ancient Greece really deserves the credit for being the original "blueprint" of being the "first successful Democracy" since that is where the concept was first conceived.

The U.K. was the world's first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries but had since diminished our role after two World Wars took their toll and reduced our economical status. Because of our reign as the most powerful nation in the world during those hundred-or-so-years we were able to spread the English language, Democracy, religion and culture to various territories.

America is not the basis (or blueprint) for a successful country as every country has their own culture, history, political and economical climate. America is a fairly young country with very little history, it could not be the influence for any Western country governed by a Democracy because it hadn't even formed when these countries were running under a Democratic government.

Since the US is not a democracy (nor ever has been) I am not sure why this is a discussion. I believe the official term is Federal Constitutional Republic, and the Romans get much of the credit for that. The only thing in the US that is similar to a Democracy is local levies that are actually passed by popular vote. Yet the vast majority of US law is no where near a democracy.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes the U.S. is a blueprint for many of the countries of the world as we are the first successful Democracy in the world.

Well, actually, Britain gave Democracy to various territories when we still had The Empire after Democracy was introduced to use by the Ancient Greeks. Long before the U.S.A. even had its first permanent settlement the concept of Democracy was already established and spread throughout most of what we'd call the "Civilised World", when Britain adopted it we enforced it on most of the countries we invaded and seized power (including what would later become the U.S.A.). Ancient Greece really deserves the credit for being the original "blueprint" of being the "first successful Democracy" since that is where the concept was first conceived.

The U.K. was the world's first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries but had since diminished our role after two World Wars took their toll and reduced our economical status. Because of our reign as the most powerful nation in the world during those hundred-or-so-years we were able to spread the English language, Democracy, religion and culture to various territories.

America is not the basis (or blueprint) for a successful country as every country has their own culture, history, political and economical climate. America is a fairly young country with very little history, it could not be the influence for any Western country governed by a Democracy because it hadn't even formed when these countries were running under a Democratic government.

Since the US is not a democracy (nor ever has been) I am not sure why this is a discussion. I believe the official term is Federal Constitutional Republic, and the Romans get much of the credit for that. The only thing in the US that is similar to a Democracy is local levies that are actually passed by popular vote. Yet the vast majority of US law is no where near a democracy.

[Edited below]

 

[JDKJ]

Yes the U.S. is a blueprint for many of the countries of the world as we are the first successful Democracy in the world.

Well, actually, Britain gave Democracy to various territories when we still had The Empire after Democracy was introduced to use by the Ancient Greeks. Long before the U.S.A. even had its first permanent settlement the concept of Democracy was already established and spread throughout most of what we'd call the "Civilised World", when Britain adopted it we enforced it on most of the countries we invaded and seized power (including what would later become the U.S.A.). Ancient Greece really deserves the credit for being the original "blueprint" of being the "first successful Democracy" since that is where the concept was first conceived.

The U.K. was the world's first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries but had since diminished our role after two World Wars took their toll and reduced our economical status. Because of our reign as the most powerful nation in the world during those hundred-or-so-years we were able to spread the English language, Democracy, religion and culture to various territories.

America is not the basis (or blueprint) for a successful country as every country has their own culture, history, political and economical climate. America is a fairly young country with very little history, it could not be the influence for any Western country governed by a Democracy because it hadn't even formed when these countries were running under a Democratic government.

Since the US is not a democracy (nor ever has been) I am not sure why this is a discussion. I believe the official term is Federal Constitutional Republic, and the Romans get much of the credit for that. The only thing in the US that is similar to a Democracy is local levies that are actually passed by popular vote. Yet the vast majority of US law is no where near a democracy.

Careful. You're coming close to picking up an "F" of your own. All republics (excepting those of the banana variety) are democracies but not all democracies are republics.

EDIT: You are correct in saying that America has a republican form of government. But that fact doesn't mean it's not also a democracy. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Rather, the fact that it has a republican form of government means that it is also a democracy (a term not be confused with a democratic form of government).

 

[scott91575]

Yes the U.S. is a blueprint for many of the countries of the world as we are the first successful Democracy in the world.

Well, actually, Britain gave Democracy to various territories when we still had The Empire after Democracy was introduced to use by the Ancient Greeks. Long before the U.S.A. even had its first permanent settlement the concept of Democracy was already established and spread throughout most of what we'd call the "Civilised World", when Britain adopted it we enforced it on most of the countries we invaded and seized power (including what would later become the U.S.A.). Ancient Greece really deserves the credit for being the original "blueprint" of being the "first successful Democracy" since that is where the concept was first conceived.

The U.K. was the world's first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries but had since diminished our role after two World Wars took their toll and reduced our economical status. Because of our reign as the most powerful nation in the world during those hundred-or-so-years we were able to spread the English language, Democracy, religion and culture to various territories.

America is not the basis (or blueprint) for a successful country as every country has their own culture, history, political and economical climate. America is a fairly young country with very little history, it could not be the influence for any Western country governed by a Democracy because it hadn't even formed when these countries were running under a Democratic government.

Since the US is not a democracy (nor ever has been) I am not sure why this is a discussion. I believe the official term is Federal Constitutional Republic, and the Romans get much of the credit for that. The only thing in the US that is similar to a Democracy is local levies that are actually passed by popular vote. Yet the vast majority of US law is no where near a democracy.

Careful. You're coming close to picking up an "F" of your own. All republics (excepting those of the banana variety) are democracies but not all democracies are republics.

In the very widest sense almost all governments are democracies. There are socialist democracies, anarchist democracies, representative democracies, constitutional monarchic democracies. I use democracy in it's pure form, a direct democracy. Most people, when discussing democracy vs. republic understand that is the difference.

So, in a very wide sense you can say the US is a democracy. Yet it cast such a wide net, and so nebulous, the use of the word in that sense loses all meaning.

BTW...the US president (electoral college....more than one president has received the popular vote and not won) nor the judicial branch is voted on directly by the people. Therefore 2/3 of the government is not determined by the people, and not a representative democracy. Plus, for the majority of US history voting was restricted. So in that sense it was also not a democracy. A republic can be separate from a democracy. You are confusing a representative democracy with republic.

In a further sense, Republics are governed by overall law, while democracies can change at the will of the people. There are basic principles in the US that cannot change based on simple popular vote, and therefore not a democracy.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes the U.S. is a blueprint for many of the countries of the world as we are the first successful Democracy in the world.

Well, actually, Britain gave Democracy to various territories when we still had The Empire after Democracy was introduced to use by the Ancient Greeks. Long before the U.S.A. even had its first permanent settlement the concept of Democracy was already established and spread throughout most of what we'd call the "Civilised World", when Britain adopted it we enforced it on most of the countries we invaded and seized power (including what would later become the U.S.A.). Ancient Greece really deserves the credit for being the original "blueprint" of being the "first successful Democracy" since that is where the concept was first conceived.

The U.K. was the world's first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries but had since diminished our role after two World Wars took their toll and reduced our economical status. Because of our reign as the most powerful nation in the world during those hundred-or-so-years we were able to spread the English language, Democracy, religion and culture to various territories.

America is not the basis (or blueprint) for a successful country as every country has their own culture, history, political and economical climate. America is a fairly young country with very little history, it could not be the influence for any Western country governed by a Democracy because it hadn't even formed when these countries were running under a Democratic government.

Since the US is not a democracy (nor ever has been) I am not sure why this is a discussion. I believe the official term is Federal Constitutional Republic, and the Romans get much of the credit for that. The only thing in the US that is similar to a Democracy is local levies that are actually passed by popular vote. Yet the vast majority of US law is no where near a democracy.

Careful. You're coming close to picking up an "F" of your own. All republics (excepting those of the banana variety) are democracies but not all democracies are republics.

In the very widest sense almost all governments are democracies. There are socialist democracies, anarchist democracies, representative democracies, constitutional monarchic democracies. I use democracy in it's pure form, a direct democracy. Most people, when discussing democracy vs. republic understand that is the difference.

So, in a very wide sense you can say the US is a democracy. Yet it cast such a wide net, and so nebulous, the use of the word in that sense loses all meaning.

Which is why I edited my post to caution against confusing the terms "democracy" with "democratic form of government."

And in the strictest sense almost no governments (excepting perhaps the tribal governments of some Native Peoples in America) are direct democracies. It's damn near impossible to have direct democracy once the number of those to be governed exceeds a few hundred.

And let's not forget that there are more than a few totalitarian (and therefore wholly undemocratic) governments still lingering around and withstanding America's attempts to stifle them into extinction. Pesky bastards.

 

[joinchoir]

Would it be different if he called them and harassed them on the phone or stood at the graveside and shouted profanity. In our effort to preserve the internet for free speech, is there no line that shouldn't be crossed? Especially when dealing with personal communication. If this was just on some forum, not so bad. But if he was emailing or sought out a memorial fund site then I think he may have crossed the line. In the US there is a bunch of crazies that protests outside military funerals because the military includes gays and lesbians. They are kept at a distance and would be jailed if they came to the grave site.

 

[scott91575]

Yes the U.S. is a blueprint for many of the countries of the world as we are the first successful Democracy in the world.

Well, actually, Britain gave Democracy to various territories when we still had The Empire after Democracy was introduced to use by the Ancient Greeks. Long before the U.S.A. even had its first permanent settlement the concept of Democracy was already established and spread throughout most of what we'd call the "Civilised World", when Britain adopted it we enforced it on most of the countries we invaded and seized power (including what would later become the U.S.A.). Ancient Greece really deserves the credit for being the original "blueprint" of being the "first successful Democracy" since that is where the concept was first conceived.

The U.K. was the world's first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries but had since diminished our role after two World Wars took their toll and reduced our economical status. Because of our reign as the most powerful nation in the world during those hundred-or-so-years we were able to spread the English language, Democracy, religion and culture to various territories.

America is not the basis (or blueprint) for a successful country as every country has their own culture, history, political and economical climate. America is a fairly young country with very little history, it could not be the influence for any Western country governed by a Democracy because it hadn't even formed when these countries were running under a Democratic government.

Since the US is not a democracy (nor ever has been) I am not sure why this is a discussion. I believe the official term is Federal Constitutional Republic, and the Romans get much of the credit for that. The only thing in the US that is similar to a Democracy is local levies that are actually passed by popular vote. Yet the vast majority of US law is no where near a democracy.

Careful. You're coming close to picking up an "F" of your own. All republics (excepting those of the banana variety) are democracies but not all democracies are republics.

In the very widest sense almost all governments are democracies. There are socialist democracies, anarchist democracies, representative democracies, constitutional monarchic democracies. I use democracy in it's pure form, a direct democracy. Most people, when discussing democracy vs. republic understand that is the difference.

So, in a very wide sense you can say the US is a democracy. Yet it cast such a wide net, and so nebulous, the use of the word in that sense loses all meaning.

Which is why I edited my post to caution against confusing the terms "democracy" with "democratic form of government."

And in the strictest sense almost no governments (excepting perhaps the tribal governments of some Native Peoples in America) are direct democracies. It's damn near impossible to have direct democracy once the number of those to be governed exceeds a few hundred.

And let's not forget that there are a more than few totalitarian (and therefore wholly undemocratic) governments still lingering around and withstanding America's attempts to stifle them into extinction. Pesky bastards.

I edited mine to be even a little more specific to even the wide net of the term democracy. Even with the wide definitions, a democracy can still change it's representatives and laws based on popular vote. The US has multiple safeguards against that, and was something the founding fathers were very careful about. In a more modern sense, a republic has laws in place as a foundation that cannot be changed by popular vote. For the US to change it's most basic laws takes much more than a popular vote, and even further it takes more than a popular vote to put a president in office, plus a popular vote has no bearing on the judicial branch. That is where the US diverges heavily from even the wider definition of democracy, yet still lands firmly in a republic (as noted, to be more specific, a Federal Constitutional Republic).

Although, as noted, democracy is a tough thing to actually quantify. It's meaning has expanded well beyond even a representative democracy (which many people think of as a Republic, and that is wrong). The US has a basis in a Constitution that protects minorities (along with many ideals of a Republic). Democracies do not protect minorities, which the founding fathers knew. Hence the US setup of government, which in a very weak sense is called a democracy (if you simply consider it a government where the people have any power, which is so widely used and in the strictest sense incorrect). Yet in a literal sense the US is not a democracy, although still having some democratic ideals.

 

[scott91575]

Would it be different if he called them and harassed them on the phone or stood at the graveside and shouted profanity. In our effort to preserve the internet for free speech, is there no line that shouldn't be crossed? Especially when dealing with personal communication. If this was just on some forum, not so bad. But if he was emailing or sought out a memorial fund site then I think he may have crossed the line. In the US there is a bunch of crazies that protests outside military funerals because the military includes gays and lesbians. They are kept at a distance and would be jailed if they came to the grave site.

Calling on the phone is a little different since that is not a public forum like a message board. Now, a grave site, sure (within limitation). It happens in the US all the time. There is a group that is way worse that that guy in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

They protest at dead servicemen funerals, and state their deaths were caused because god hates gay people (roundabout logic that since the US has become more tolerant of gay people god causes soldiers to die because the soldiers defend a nation that supports gay rights). They are nutjobs, and have caused tons of mental anguish to relatives of dead serviceman. I hate them with a passion, but I support their right to free speech.

They are protected by free speech. They make the guy we are talking about look like a saint, and they are fully protected under US law. Of course there are laws that prohibit how close they can protest (although those have not been contested yet, so no idea about their Constitutionality).

 

[JDKJ]

Yes the U.S. is a blueprint for many of the countries of the world as we are the first successful Democracy in the world.

Well, actually, Britain gave Democracy to various territories when we still had The Empire after Democracy was introduced to use by the Ancient Greeks. Long before the U.S.A. even had its first permanent settlement the concept of Democracy was already established and spread throughout most of what we'd call the "Civilised World", when Britain adopted it we enforced it on most of the countries we invaded and seized power (including what would later become the U.S.A.). Ancient Greece really deserves the credit for being the original "blueprint" of being the "first successful Democracy" since that is where the concept was first conceived.

The U.K. was the world's first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries but had since diminished our role after two World Wars took their toll and reduced our economical status. Because of our reign as the most powerful nation in the world during those hundred-or-so-years we were able to spread the English language, Democracy, religion and culture to various territories.

America is not the basis (or blueprint) for a successful country as every country has their own culture, history, political and economical climate. America is a fairly young country with very little history, it could not be the influence for any Western country governed by a Democracy because it hadn't even formed when these countries were running under a Democratic government.

Since the US is not a democracy (nor ever has been) I am not sure why this is a discussion. I believe the official term is Federal Constitutional Republic, and the Romans get much of the credit for that. The only thing in the US that is similar to a Democracy is local levies that are actually passed by popular vote. Yet the vast majority of US law is no where near a democracy.

Careful. You're coming close to picking up an "F" of your own. All republics (excepting those of the banana variety) are democracies but not all democracies are republics.

In the very widest sense almost all governments are democracies. There are socialist democracies, anarchist democracies, representative democracies, constitutional monarchic democracies. I use democracy in it's pure form, a direct democracy. Most people, when discussing democracy vs. republic understand that is the difference.

So, in a very wide sense you can say the US is a democracy. Yet it cast such a wide net, and so nebulous, the use of the word in that sense loses all meaning.

Which is why I edited my post to caution against confusing the terms "democracy" with "democratic form of government."

And in the strictest sense almost no governments (excepting perhaps the tribal governments of some Native Peoples in America) are direct democracies. It's damn near impossible to have direct democracy once the number of those to be governed exceeds a few hundred.

And let's not forget that there are a more than few totalitarian (and therefore wholly undemocratic) governments still lingering around and withstanding America's attempts to stifle them into extinction. Pesky bastards.

I edited mine to be even a little more specific to even the wide net of the term democracy. Even with the wide definitions, a democracy can still change it's representatives and laws based on popular vote. The US has multiple safeguards against that, and was something the founding fathers were very careful about. In a more modern sense, a republic has laws in place as a foundation that cannot be changed by popular vote. For the US to change it's most basic laws takes much more than a popular vote, and even further it takes more than a popular vote to put a president in office, plus a popular vote has no bearing on the judicial branch. That is where the US diverges heavily from even the wider definition of democracy, yet still lands firmly in a republic (as noted, to be more specific, a Federal Constitutional Republic).

Although, as noted, democracy is a tough thing to actually quantify. It's meaning has expanded well beyond even a representative democracy (which many people think of as a Republic, and that is wrong). The US has a basis in a Constitution that protects minorities (along with many ideals of a Republic). Democracies do not protect minorities, which the founding fathers knew. Hence the US setup of government, which in a very weak sense is called a democracy (if you simply consider it a government where the people have any power, which is so widely used and in the strictest sense incorrect). Yet in a literal sense the US is not a democracy, although still having some democratic ideals.

"The US has a basis in a Constitution that protects minorities . . . ."

Do you mean "minorities" in the strict numerical sense or in the "red dot" and "feather" sense?

No need to respond. I'm just amusing myself.

 

[gigastar]

Well as far as i see it, he played at being a troll perfectly as defined by Tvtropes.

Point of being a troll is to antagonise, the angrier you make your victim the bigger the victory and bonus points for creating schisims within fanbases.

Do not forget Rule 14 of the Internet: Do not argue with trolls. It means they win.