Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

At least they help me get my mind off my paper. I don't know what I would do without these little talks, maybe actually get some work done.

Or break down crying.

[Heliman]

The feeling is mutual.

[Vector]

I gotta say, becoming the local poster child for Asperger's, then watching y'all skate through transhumanistic machining and the resolution of depression via internet flame wars was a real treat.

[Leafsnail]

I... think I'll skip over the rest of the stuff happening in this thread and go back to the argument on UK law (ie: "Is it ok to prosecute people for things like this").  That at least seems relevant to the case at hand.

It's quite simple, if it was protected, people could protest funerals. I don't know how or why someone would want to do that, but I'd like them be able to.

This is circular reasoning.  You're saying that this should be protected free speech because you think this should be protected free speech.  I could equally say people should be allowed to murder with spoons because I think they should be allowed to murder with spoons.  It's like you're starting with "All speech (including clear harrassment) should be protected" as a premise and not backing it up in any way.

Actually insulting or defaming speech isn't protected at all in the UK through specific exceptions. Along with a variety of other things.

Yeah.  Especially if it involves malicious lies or harrassment (which the guy in this case managed to exhibit pretty well).

[Doomchild-]

i'd like to point out that (in my opinion and those of others) cyber-bullying is actually worse than real-life bullying.
we feel less vulnerable on the internet than in real life mainly due to the anonymity and the various methods mentioned earlier with which we can protect ourselves. because of all these safety mechanics the situation seems more hopeless when they prove inadequate in keeping bullies away. and it's harder to run on the internet than it is in real life because it takes a lot less effort to find someone on the internet than it does in real life. also (as proven by previous posts) the notion of easily being able to protect yourself from bullies causes others to downplay the effects bullying can have, the bully is often not even aware of the damage his/her actions can have. real life bullying is often more private and usually goes unnoticed for some time. on the internet, it's there for all to see, so the victim suffers both the personal insult and the public humiliation.

on the matter of suicide, it's seldom a sudden thing. noone goes from 'normal' to suicide in an instant. that is why suicide can be extremely painfull and traumatising for those left behind. a suicide leaves a lot of questions behind that might never be answerd. i'd even go so far as saying that, to those involved, a suicide is more tragic than a natural or accidental death.

as for the asperger thing, as far as i know, people with austism have serious problems projecting emotions (kinda hard to properly explain, sufficed to say they have problems understanding situation from someone elses point of view) therefor they dont experience joy or sadness the same way when influencing (or influenced by) other peoples emotions. so (according to some books on the subject) people with autism are inherintly incapable of 'evil for the sake of evil' (as in, they dont take pleasure in causing pain/harm/...) same goes for 'good for the sake of good'. so if the person in question really is autistic then he either had other motives or he was convinced his actions were justified or accepted by society. ofcourse, autism is a wide pectrum and no 2 are alike. i'm hardly an expert, eventhough i have asperger myself.

as to the question, why is he punished while other trolls roam free on the internet. the severity of his action and the fact his victims actually called in the police would be reason enough. also, his 'trolling' went far beyond what i would classify as trolling.
so in a sense, the headline 'kid sent to prison for internet trolling' is just the media misleading it's audience. i'm pretty sure if there was a serious debate going on about gun-control they'd come up with a headline similar to 'murderer sent prison for gun posession". so i think the generic internet troll is far from being in legal danger, as long as they keep it within reason ofcourse.
to view it from an autistic point of view: trolling is trolling, harrasment is harrasment, the harrasser went to prison for harrasment, trolls free to roam the internet as they please, just beware of trolltraps.

also, it seems people confuse 'freedom of speech' with 'freedom to say whatever you want'. freedom of speech is the freedom to voice your opinion without fear of oppression and/or prosecution by those who disagree. and those who voice their opinion under the protection of freedom of speech must be willing to hear the opinion of others. but that's ust my opinion, what's yours? feel free to correct me.

edit: typo's, spelling errors, etc

[freeformschooler]

-snip- nahh

This thread is awful and hilarious and so is everybody in it.

[Bohandas]

But his puinshment was extrmely harsh. Free speech and playing to the Media Watchdogs and Soccer Moms are edvient in this case to extreme amounts, making it hard to take a lot of stuff about how this an perfect puinshment seriously.

Actually insulting or defaming speech isn't protected at all in the UK through specific exceptions. Along with a variety of other things.

God bless America!

[Bohandas]

2: Things like this are incredibly common. My point was that you don't see people being charged on a regular basis, despite the fact that this sort of behavior is incredibly prevalent.

First off, I want a conformation here, are you talking about trolling or harassment? If trolling: That is not what he did. If harassment: People are charged for that all the time off line, and although it is rarer online I see no reason not to apply it there as well.

Because the internet is the last true bastion of free speech and its coming under assault.

[Darvi]

Except that harassment pretty much isn't free speech so that point is moot.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

also, it seems people confuse 'freedom of speech' with 'freedom to say whatever you want'. freedom of speech is the freedom to voice your opinion fear of oppression and/or prosecution by those who disagree. and those who voice their opinion under the protection of freedom of speech must be willing to hear the opinion of others.

Freedom of speech does not allow you to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, as the saying goes. It's not, and was never intended to be, a right to bully and intimidate fellow human beings. People have a right not to be libeled, slandered, or to have others incite violence against them. People have the right to mourn their loved ones without being intimidation. Reading some of the posts in this thread you would think they're talking about a brave social crusader instead of a coward and a bully.

[Bohandas]

It's quite simple, if it was protected, people could protest funerals. I don't know how or why someone would want to do that, but I'd like them be able to.

This is circular reasoning.  You're saying that this should be protected free speech because you think this should be protected free speech.  I could equally say people should be allowed to murder with spoons because I think they should be allowed to murder with spoons.  It's like you're starting with "All speech (including clear harrassment) should be protected" as a premise and not backing it up in any way.

Its a posthumus route to fame, of a sort. If somebody is protesting your funeral there's a good chance that you'll get more mention in the paper than just a tiny obituary that nobody will read. We wouldn't be talking about these people right now if it weren't for this scandal.

Also, people should be allowed to speak their minds, even if whats on their minds is horrible.

[Bohandas]

2: Things like this are incredibly common. My point was that you don't see people being charged on a regular basis, despite the fact that this sort of behavior is incredibly prevalent.

First off, I want a conformation here, are you talking about trolling or harassment? If trolling: That is not what he did. If harassment: People are charged for that all the time off line, and although it is rarer online I see no reason not to apply it there as well.

Because the internet is the last true bastion of free speech and its coming under assault.

Except that harassment pretty much isn't free speech so that point is moot.

That's what I MEANT when I said that it is the "last TRUE bastion of free speech". Its the last place where free speech doesn't always come with a mile long list of exceptions, provisos, and disclaimers.

[Darvi]

But if the guy got arrested for harassment, then what does that have to do with free speech?

[Vector]

How valuable is complete, total, absolute free speech, anyway?

[Doomchild-]

Its a posthumus route to fame, of a sort. If somebody is protesting your funeral there's a good chance that you'll get more mention in the paper than just a tiny obituary that nobody will read. We wouldn't be talking about these people right now if it weren't for this scandal.

Also, people should be allowed to speak their minds, even if whats on their minds is horrible.

there's a time and place for everything and if you dont respect the dead and the mourning people attending the funeral by disturbing the funeral by protesting, then why should other respect you and your opinion?
you can shout all you want but you cant make people listen, and if noone is listening your words are nothing but wasted energy, so you might just as well keep them to yourself.