The point is people get to say what they want - regardless of how crude or vulgar or all around evil it is. People really can say whatever they want to on the internet, and should be able to. When it's illegal for one man and one instance, it opens the door for it to be illegal for more people and more instances. It may be wrong, but it's right. Understanding ambiguity and paradox is what wisdom is built on, in my opinion anyway.Monshroud said:
"We're raising your taxes."Miral said:
If you're searching for those who will understand ambiguity and paradox and this thread is any sort of useful indication, you're unlikely to find many of those among who post to the internet. I fear it's all too easy to substitute a knee-jerk reaction for anything remotely resembling critical thinking.theevilsanta said:
I don't know about you but I try to avoid offending people as much as possible. Further more, there is a big difference between offending and traumatizing. It takes a lot of work to make the jump and start Traumatizing, and if you can't distinguish between what is just offensive and what is actually Traumatizing I have no pity for you. You can not viciously attack a family (which is what this is, except mentally rather than physically) and expect to get away with it. It *is* illegal and it is wrong. There is no reason for it to be protected under free speech. You might get away with it if you had a valid reason and it was a crucial part of your argument, but I highly doubt it and can't even envisage a case where it would just be a by-product.ThreeDogsToaster said:
How about . . .Aesthetical Quietus said:
*facepalm* in the US just like in the UK, those things which may be deemed obscene (and are therefore of no value) aren't covered. I'm sure this has already been said. Also, as someone British, I think Britain is MUCH more open to differing opinions than the US. That's just my view, and I think it's relatively balanced (in as much as someone's personal view can be) as I have dual nationality (US+UK).TheAmazingTGIF said:
If the "law" to which you refer is section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, as amended by section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (the UK's so-called "criminal harassment law"), then criminal harassment is not, I don't think, usually possible over the internet because according to that law "no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling." I think this legislative language effectively rules out your typical internet communication as being any where near possibly harassing. Apparently the folks who draft the UK's laws seem to think that the fact a computer screen is typically found only inside a dwelling is sufficient to remove the internet from the realm of criminal harassment.Ranylyn said:
Actually I feel the point is the fact that people do not have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want about whatever they want. The Supreme Court agrees with me on that. As has been previously stated since you read the other posts, not all speech is protected. You might think that what he wrote doesn't pass the Miller test, I disagree, and I think a case could be made to show that if this was in the U.S.theevilsanta said:
You missed what I said about the severity of it. What you said (even if I thought for a moment you were serious, or had any possible basis for comparison) doesn't even come remotely close to what that guy did. And while yes, "the line" is subjective, it's reached by consensus. That's what a jury is for. (But, if the technology existed to give someone a flick behind the ear through the Internet, then you would totally have deserved that. If you were serious.slopeslider said:
)This.Ranylyn said:
The former is clearly just a law that doesn't take the existence of the Internet into consideration. The obvious intent is to avoid invading "the privacy of the home", excluding things like domestic disputes.JDKJ said:
But then you are deciding what a "valid reason" is, and some people don't give a shit if they offend people, they just speak their mind, and there is nothing wrong with that, so why punish these people? Some people end up "traumatized" by some things that may not traumatize others, so are we judging the action based on the action its self or on the effects of the harmed party? If you leave your own point of reference and look upon the issue objectively, it becomes more complicated then you make it out to be.Aesthetical Quietus said:
As I read and understand the law, it matters not a whit how many people see or hear the communication. What matters is where those people are when they see or hear the communication. On what basis is there to conclude that Coss had reason to believe that his postings would be seen by people everywhere outside of any dwelling? This posting that I'm making to you in response to your posting is to a public forum. But I have no reason to believe that you or anyone else will see it beyond the confines of a dwelling. And I'll bet a dollar to a donut that as you read it, you're sitting in a dwelling and nowhere near what would be considered a public space. And I'm sitting in a dwelling while I'm making it. On the facts as I suspect them to be, even if it had contained a harassing communication, I will have a defense to criminal harassment. A "reasonable belief" isn't made unreasonable by the mere fact that it is a mistaken belief. The two are not necessarily the same. A belief is unreasonable only when there is no rational basis for having the belief. Read the laws.Miral said:You missed what I said about the severity of it. What you said (even if I thought for a moment you were serious, or had any possible basis for comparison) doesn't even come remotely close to what that guy did. And while yes, "the line" is subjective, it's reached by consensus. That's what a jury is for. (But, if the technology existed to give someone a flick behind the ear through the Internet, then you would totally have deserved that. If you were serious.slopeslider said:
This.Ranylyn said:
The former is clearly just a law that doesn't take the existence of the Internet into consideration. The obvious intent is to avoid invading "the privacy of the home", excluding things like domestic disputes.JDKJ said:
The second is similar, but you're wrong about that defence being possibly applicable in this case. While it's true that the offence occurred in a private home (or possibly two of them), he definitely had reason to believe that it would be seen by people everywhere. That's what a public forum is. (And even if you want to stick to the "but the Internet only accessible in a dwelling" argument: companies have Internet connections too. And cafes. And cars. And hillsides. None of these are dwellings.)
Besides which, harassment over the phone can result in civil or criminal charges, depending on how far it goes. And the Internet is even more public than that.
The Westboro Baptist Church isn't the least bit interested in ending any wars and thereby preventing further funerals of fallen soldiers. Rather, they celebrate the deaths of those fallen soldiers because, according to them, God is using those deaths to demonstrate His disapproval of homosexuality. They aren't peace activists or war protesters. What they are though, in my opinion, is nothing more than half-baked homophobic zealots who have formed themselves into a hate group masquerading as a "church." And I can't see what's so "noble" in any of that. But I'll nevertheless respect and support their right to freely express their opinions. No matter how half-baked and homophobic those opinions may be. And regardless of the hurt and grief and anguish they cause others by virtue of that speech. Tough teats. That's just the price to be paid for free speech as far as I'm concerned. Freedom ain't free.Ghengis John said:
I was told by a conservative fellow on another site those were their aims when I'd used them as an example of right-wing insanity before. Of course the web site name leaves little for debate and I should have checked it. None the less the point remains, disgusting as they are they do posses a political agenda. That is the purpose of free speech, not the aggravation of your fellow citizens for it's own sake. If you can prove there was some social inequity or some burden he hoped to redress by saying he'd have sex with corpses I might accept your position. In any event, I don't really respect personal antagonism as an extension of free speech. And I doubt, were you being antagonized, you would either. It's fine and well to sit up on your high horse and say tough teats when it's not your kid. Saying such a thing doesn't display a wealth of understanding, but a lack of it.JDKJ said:
