User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 77

  1. #61
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    I think a hell of a lot of assholes use the law to defend themselves against the consequences of their actions, to be honest I'm always happy when I find out the opposite has been the case.

    A lot of the time when I hear about people saying that they think its a rights issue they either believe that they will fall foul of any law prohibiting anti-social behaviour or that its going to be misused or its over reach on the part of the state again.

    The last two I think are legit concerns but more to do with practical dilemmas than principled objection, the earlier reason, which I think is actually fairly widespread should make people think again about their behaviour and freedom. I dont think because you have the right to do something means that doing it is automatically the right thing to do.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Actually, despite in the US many cemetaries are public, many states have enacted laws to prevent people from protesting funerals, due to harrassment from the WBC. Is this an infringement on freedom of speech?
    Of course it is. Not being allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater is also an infringement on the freedom of speech. Some infringements are accepted because they deal with special or extreme circumstances, and they have a net benefit.

    Groups like the WBC are not being silenced. They're just being told "Don't do it at funerals". There's a HUGE difference between the two.
    "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."

  3. #63
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    My fantasy is that we put all of these people on an island and let them have their libertarianism, and then come back in a couple of years and see how many of them are dead.
    I don't have a problem with libertarians as much as I have a problem with people who view the Constitution as some sort of divine document (or the Founding Fathers as some sort of divine authority). Unfortunately, those two groups overlap so I find myself annoyed with many libertarians even though we might share a lot of beliefs.
    "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."

  4. #64
    The Unwieldy Clawed One Falcarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    COOL
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    Dino None
    Posts
    2,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    ...

    And yet, in the U.K., doesn't this violate Article 10 in their Human Rights Act for freedom of expression, where the only caveats are incitement to racial or religious hatred? Not a lawyer so this might be invalidated by other articles or law.
    No, the case in the original post is lawful since a public authority did not act in a way which is incompatible with a "Convention Right".

    Of the protocols and rights set out and incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act 1998, the rights are commonly know as "The Convention Rights". There are three different categories of convention rights: Limited rights, Qualified rights, and Absolute rights. Article 10, Freedom of Expression of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a qualified right, the very nature of being a qualified rights means the state can lawfully interfere in certain circumstances. For example, when a right infringes on the rights of another person or group of people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
    Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.

    Narcissism, plain and simple.

  5. #65
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    I have mixed feelings about this.

    On one hand, I feel that his behavior was inappropriate enough that he should have been banned from Facebook. Quite frankly, it was tasteless, and people shouldn't have been subjected to it.

    Now, as for the question... should he have gone to jail? I have to say no. He did not threaten anyone, he simply behaved in a VERY inappropriate manner. I think that perhaps a fine is in order, but I honestly can't justify prison time in my mind. That seems like too harsh a penalty for online behavior, especially if said behavior was not threatening in some fashion.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I have mixed feelings about this.

    On one hand, I feel that his behavior was inappropriate enough that he should have been banned from Facebook. Quite frankly, it was tasteless, and people shouldn't have been subjected to it.

    Now, as for the question... should he have gone to jail? I have to say no. He did not threaten anyone, he simply behaved in a VERY inappropriate manner. I think that perhaps a fine is in order, but I honestly can't justify prison time in my mind. That seems like too harsh a penalty for online behavior, especially if said behavior was not threatening in some fashion.
    Given what you've said and others and my knowledge of the UK judiciary I'd say that this guy was probably given a lot of chances to make amends or evidence a change of heart before they went for the prison sanction, maybe they had other information too.

    I strongly suspect that if someone WAS exhibiting the sorts of behaviour in person that many people associate with trolls online it could lead to a sanction such as this one wouldnt you think? Its the real world equivalent of you've been given infractions, warnings, temp bans and now here is your perma-ban.

    That's what I find interesting about the cyber-psychologists perspectives, they're basically saying that you can only live a double life of online troll and functional off line persona for so long, like the "merely fantasising" peadophile or homocidal fantasist excuses. So if this guy fits that frame then I think the authorities where right to intervene with him.

    Also like I said before they could actually be protecting him from retaliation or retribution for his actions, there often is a protective aspect to custody, particularly in the UK.

  7. #67
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Where are people getting harassment from?

    I can only see "for sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive" in the article. That is not a harassment charge.

    The article gives so little information that it's not worth taking seriously. I couldn't find the case transcript on the HM site either, which the article doesn't give a direct link for. I'm not seeing any sources at all.

    The charge uses:-

    Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1
    (This is the wording of this section as amended by Section 43 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. It applies to offences committed from the 11th May 2001 onwards)

    (1) Any person who sends to another person
    (a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys
    (i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive
    (ii) a threat or
    (iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender or
    (b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
    is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

    (2) A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows
    (a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds and
    (b) that he believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

    (2A) In this section 'electronic communication' includes _
    (a) any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system(within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c12)); and
    (b) any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.

    (3) In this section references to sending include references to delivering or transmitting and to causing to be sent, delivered or transmitted and 'sender' shall be construed accordingly.

    (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
    Which essentially gives the UK government a lot of power over use of insults, threats, lies etc.

  8. #68
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcarius View Post
    No, the case in the original post is lawful since a public authority did not act in a way which is incompatible with a "Convention Right".

    Of the protocols and rights set out and incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act 1998, the rights are commonly know as "The Convention Rights". There are three different categories of convention rights: Limited rights, Qualified rights, and Absolute rights. Article 10, Freedom of Expression of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a qualified right, the very nature of being a qualified rights means the state can lawfully interfere in certain circumstances. For example, when a right infringes on the rights of another person or group of people.
    Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

  9. #69
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I have mixed feelings about this.

    On one hand, I feel that his behavior was inappropriate enough that he should have been banned from Facebook. Quite frankly, it was tasteless, and people shouldn't have been subjected to it.

    Now, as for the question... should he have gone to jail? I have to say no. He did not threaten anyone, he simply behaved in a VERY inappropriate manner. I think that perhaps a fine is in order, but I honestly can't justify prison time in my mind. That seems like too harsh a penalty for online behavior, especially if said behavior was not threatening in some fashion.
    Me and [banned member I dare not speak his name] were talking about you last night, I was like "what happened to Athenian" AND HERE YOU ARE.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Where are people getting harassment from?

    I can only see "for sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive" in the article. That is not a harassment charge.

    The article gives so little information that it's not worth taking seriously. I couldn't find the case transcript on the HM site either, which the article doesn't give a direct link for. I'm not seeing any sources at all.

    The charge uses:-



    Which essentially gives the UK government a lot of power over use of insults, threats, lies etc.
    Yeah boyeee!! That's how they roll!!

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