User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 77

  1. #31
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    It is an extremely worrying development. I wonder how far we will have to go before even the dull magistrate who sentenced him realises that essential freedoms have been sacrificed for the sake of propriety.

  2. #32
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    It is an extremely worrying development. I wonder how far we will have to go before even the dull magistrate who sentenced him realises that essential freedoms have been sacrificed for the sake of propriety.
    How is mental or emotional abuse an issue of "propriety"? Propriety is more like wearing a tie to a wedding, or not belching at the dinner table, not psychologically tormenting people.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    It is an extremely worrying development. I wonder how far we will have to go before even the dull magistrate who sentenced him realises that essential freedoms have been sacrificed for the sake of propriety.
    OK. Lets cut the crap.

    Was his behaviour worthy of sanction? Did he act rightly? If so why?

    Away with the legalism and rights, was this proper behaviour?

  4. #34
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    How is mental or emotional abuse an issue of "propriety"? Propriety is more like wearing a tie to a wedding, or not belching at the dinner table, not psychologically tormenting people.
    He did not act in accordance with generally accepted norms of behaviour, which are closely akin to the expectation that one will wear a tie to a wedding or display good table manners. The "psychological torment" of his "victims", even if real, is irrelevant: the essence of free speech is that the manner in which an audience responds to your speech is immaterial to the legality of that speech.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    OK. Lets cut the crap.

    Was his behaviour worthy of sanction? Did he act rightly? If so why?

    Away with the legalism and rights, was this proper behaviour?
    His behaviour was thoroughly reprehensible, of course. Equally as obvious as this fact is its irrelevance.

  6. #36
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Libraries are closing across the nation(s).

    School hours and course qualities are being cut as are other social programs including programs for the mentally ill.

    Regardless there go our tax dollars despite Facebook is making hundreds of millions and it like other social networking sites have their own policies of against trolling or bullying. The private sector has its own solutions. And with any liberty there is a cost to maintain it. Yet the taxpayer send the arguably mentally unbalanced into a overcrowded college for criminals (i.e. incarceration) and too overburdend to investigate the other more difficult crimes involving "sticks and stones" and "broken bones".

    The victims knew the risk of putting their issue out there and that the responses of the general public might not be all complements and condolences. That what makes the genuine complements and condolences more valuable in that people are not forced to be nice?

    I take that risk when I post here and when I run across a chronic troll I respond to inappropriate comments with logic,...and sometimes give them a taste of their own medicine (one could see how the problem if unequal prosecutions could work in the reciprocating response scenario). And when it becomes pointless one may unilaterally place the troll on ignore and/or complain to the web sites administration. Sure troll sometimes get on my nerves I might call them on their shit or simply laugh it off but its not worth sacrificing or chilling my own or others freedom of speech.

    There may be a justifiable civil action for defamation/intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Need the taxpayer pay for incarceration and chilling free speech for private matters of every wacko who response to a blog placed out in a public forum?

    Issue is against the waist of government dollars and the chilling of free speech by creating a criminal action for speech/word crimes criticizing limited public figures who put themselves in the limelight. Its not a stretch of the imagination to see a fascist use this precedent to use the full force of the government to chill speech when debate or bullying fails. Or shrinking violets complaints prosecuted as to bona fide issue of debate for whatever contrived underlying reason to target the dissident.
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  7. #37
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    He did not act in accordance with generally accepted norms of behaviour, which are closely akin to the expectation that one will wear a tie to a wedding or display good table manners. The "psychological torment" of his "victims", even if real, is irrelevant: the essence of free speech is that the manner in which an audience responds to your speech is immaterial to the legality of that speech.
    You know that assault and battery has been a crime for a loooooong loooooong time and that the word "assault" legally actually refers to the verbal abuse and threats, right?

    I find it so interesting when people are more disturbed by consequences of justice acted upon against the perpetrator than upon the consequences to the victims who didn't even initiate the situation.

    I think it says a lot about the person, and I guess I should just avoid those people.

    I also find it amusing when people are ready to call upon the business authority of a web site, but are hesitant to call upon legal authority. To me it seems like the insane libertarian paradox of somehow imagining that private or business rule is somehow inherently "less fascist" than public or government rule.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    I don't see how this ruling interferes with the individual's freedom of speech. I think we all know that there are limits to that freedom. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and you can't harass people. This man's behavior is obviously being classified as harassment.

    Do I need to explain why it's important that there are limits to the freedom of speech?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #39
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    The victims knew the risk of putting their issue out there and that the responses of the general public might not be all complements and condolences. That what makes the genuine complements and condolences more valuable in that people are not forced to be nice?
    Did you know that deaths and funerals are often announced in newspapers? Publicizing something like this on Facebook is not new to the human experience. The only thing that's different is that it happened on the internet.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #40
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    I read this exact article a while ago and my first thoughts were "Yes, I could see this happening in Europe but it will never happen in the states". It is illegal in some countries in Europe to deny the Holocaust happened. And even in the UK, authorities are quick to put a stop to white supremacist antics. In high-context, super wired societies like South Korea, just gossiping about people online is enough to get you fined and jailed. Then again, there are cases of people in South Korea who have killed themselves due to cyber bullying. These are different societies, different cultures, with different historical contexts than the US and in some cases, where the internet plays a different role in society than in the US.

    In the US, civil liberties and the concept of free speech are held at very, very high premium. There have been cases of internet crimes - as early as the 90's (before even Friendster was around). One example is at a college campus a disgruntled student at a university used a campus computer to anonymously threaten and another group of students. He said he was going to kill them. I think he was expelled and the authorities were looking into charging him with. Some of the students he threatened got lawyers and he got his own lawyer. A few of the threatened students were interviewed and their responses were mixed. At least one thought it was a stupid prank and said he thought nothing of it even when he read the email. One female student said it really shook her up, causing her to miss some classes and she was still scared to walk around campus.

    I think what distinguishes this case with the one in the OP is that here there was an actual threat. In the OP, it seems he was cruel and disrespectful, but there was no threat. It also does not say whether the people responsible for the facebook pages contacted told him to stop or if Facebook was contacted to stop the harassment. I think there would be more of a case, at least in the states, for at least civilly suing Facebook if they failed to promptly address the harasser than the harasser themselves.

    It's hard for me to weigh in on cases like this because growing up mostly in the US, I know that by US standards behavior like the OP troll's is "bad behavior" but not criminal behavior. You can really do almost any disgusting, heinous thing online and it really means nothing by legal standards. As long as you don't actually threaten someone.

    If you put it in the context of 'real life' - in the states some shocking instances of in person bullying don't even get an eyelash bat from school or legal authorities, until maybe after someone kills themselves (and even then). I read a story of a student who was bullied and some of her tormentors actually *laughed at her open casket* during the funeral because they thought she looked funny. It is outrageous. I believe nothing has happened to any of the deceased girls' tormentors. There may be a lawsuit brought against the school, which amazingly has the highest number of bullying related suicides of any school in the US. They were cited for fostering a "mean culture" where it was okay to bully.

    So I guess the roundabout question is - do 'trolls' IRL or cyber, need to be stopped and taught a lesson? And what is the distinction between 'cyber' and 'real life'? And how should they be taught a lesson - does the law necessarily have to come in or are there other ways that are more appropriate and even effective?

    I think those questions are being answered now and as society progresses and the cyber world grows and merges more with real life.

    As for what happened in the UK, I'm not worried about this case eroding any civil liberties. It's not the US. They keep people on a shorter leash as it is compared to the states about what you can and cannot say.

    I think this man was jailed partly because people saw the scope of what he was doing as indicative of a deeper/more sinister problem and that he would keep moving onto bigger and more alarming projects.
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. The Future of Online Education?
    By gmanyo in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 01:38 AM
  2. Social consequences of individual nuisance behaviour or...
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-13-2011, 11:01 AM
  3. Evolution of online games
    By methusela123 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-30-2011, 10:26 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 01:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO