Moron Imprisoned for Rude Online Behavior

he does look like a troll... wow
still, Mexicans win this hands down, look at the crotch of that woman

 

He should go to prison, and i don't mind paying for it.

This guy is beyond a "troll", he's a spiteful degenerate who gets off on the suffering of others. In reality this is no different to standing outside a grieving parents window shouting abuse about their dead child. It's unacceptable, people shouldn't have to put up with it and it's rightly illegal.

 

OMG, helvetii is so intelligent, but isnt that what you too do.

Btw, why dont you tell us you are helvetii,

1. Fear of being reported- If this is the reason then i would have already reported. One can easily make out you are helvetii when one has read many of your previous posts.
2. Getting your the webby acounts rep bad because people are going to know you are helvetii who threatened to rape toddlers.

I thought i would make you feel jealous by reminding the status of your previous account and where your new one is now but i guess you are progressing fast. You got 2 blobs and 1300 posts. So when the helvetii ban lifts which account are you going to use. I must say i miss that girl on helvetiis avatar. Use that one.

 

I don't understand. I thought you were such close friends with Helvetti? In fact, when Helvetii made those comments you alluded to (about rape), you were telling DP they shouldn't ban him for it. So, if you actually believe The Webby is Helvetti, why are you wanting him to say so (when it doesn't seem you would have before, being such good friends with Helvetii)?

 

View attachment 59802

Picture says a lot

 

Yo, internet Ninja of Moronity[sic], Didn't I tell you to get off the Shrooms?
Dude, it's killing your brain, you can't even write properly.. What the fuck is "two blobs"?

I love When I get on nerves of people like you..
I'm freaking brilliant, I troll the trolls.. I told you earlier, that calling me Helvetti wont do a shit to me, but only prove that you are an ass.

Tell you what, I challenge you and every special kid like you, who had ever called me Helvetti, to take this issue with Shawn, prove it and get me banned for dup account in 7 days..
Do it, or Suck it.

Because he knows very well that I'm not Helvetti.. I have stated it in the most reasonable and polite manner countless times..
But since I'm so brilliant that the only retort left for some special people is to call me Helvetti and hope that it will do them some good..
But i keep disappointing them and they are losing it.


PS: I wonder, does anyone know how many duplicate accounts people like popotalk or laxman got?

 

Because he'll get banned, which would mean the end of his life.

 

And yet you will find some morons comparing it to 'freedom of speech'..

 

I don't think the tax payer should pay for it. I think he should foot the bill, better yet make him do 18 weeks of community service if he isn't doing some of that already. Just think how screwed his life already is, I think that in itself is a good punishment. This guy is never going to be able to get employed. Saying that he's going to cost the tax payer even more, when we have to pay this idiot some benefits.

 

Actually, as one of said "morons", I will point out that arresting people for saying things we don't approve of puts the government in charge of deciding what speech is "acceptable". I'm ok with them having a role in cases of defamation, fraud, libel... But not "hate speech", because it hands them a serious hammer to use or abuse for political purposes.

What the kid did was heinous, and if I were a relative or friend of one of the families he taunted I'd make a special project of making sure everyone he ever attempted to work for knew he was too sleazy to touch. He absolutely needs to be punished for his behavior, but using the legal system to punish heinous speech isn't the best method of doing it.

I'd be fine with the government exposing him publicly so he'd be properly exposed to the scorn and opprobrium he deserves, but making speech we don't like a crime punishable by imprisonment is an especially slippery slope I don't care to plant my flag on. It's a classic example of where using legal means to combat obviously inappropriate behavior opens the door to using legal means to silence legitimate dissension. I don't want the government deciding what is acceptable speech.

Good cases are known to lead to bad laws. It's a trap best avoided.

 

As always, very well said. The only thing I would add to the bolded part is imminent threats of violence. But, general laws against hate speech are unconstitutional.

 

Good addition. Yeah, threats of violence should have been included there. Thanks for catching that.

 

I don't think we are arguing on the same point.. I do not disagree with you in not approving 'Government' in charge of deciding what speech is acceptable..

But here is the scenario - Mr. Sean Duffy posted hateful remarks on some deceased girls. Mr. Sean Duffy is tried in court and pleaded guilty on two counts. The court decides punishment according to laws in UK. Mr. Duffy is given a fair chance to defend himself against the charges, how does it equate to Government curbing our freedom of speech?

One point that I would like to add that constitution is subjective.. it is different for every country.. What is unconstitutional for you, may be perfectly constitutional for me.

 

I'll let the uk guys opine on the applicability with uk law. In the US the 2nd amendment doesn't make a distinction that allows us to prosecute someone because his speech proves he's an offensive asshole and pathetic excuse for a human being.

That was recently re-verified by the US Supreme court in the similarly offensive case of the guys from the Westboro church that show up to disrupt funerals of dead soldiers. I'd cheer if some family member walked over and disembowled the Westboro guys, and it'd be hard to find a jury that'd convict someone that did it of anything worse than littering the street with unsavory human remains unless the jury pool came from a mental ward. They're terminally stupid and eventually some family member or military buddy of the deceased will have to stand trial for treating them with the handling they ultimately deserve.

My own disgust for the the Westboro crew notwithstanding, I think the court correctly treated their abhorrent behavior as what it was... Abhorrent behavior, not criminal activity. I have no idea what the legal differences are in UK statutes that allowed the guy to get jail time for being a pathetic sadistic prick... gotta ask someone that's up on UK law on that.

 

That's why I said that constitution is subjective. You are talking about American Constitution, which does not apply to the case being discussed in this thread.

Rebecca found it for us, and posted it earlier in this thread..

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

 

Wow, this is all so crazy. I guess the best thing we can all do is behave online, lol.

 

Thanks, Rob.

I agree. I was speaking to Rob in relation to our constitution.

They're insane. It seems everywhere Westboro goes to protest, there are much larger crowds there, simply to protest them. I've never seen them in person, but have watched them on YouTube. I was just watching one video where the Westboro members were trying to escape an angry mob. They all hussled into their van, but people were throwing stuff and someone broke their window on the way out.

 

This isn't just something we disapprove of. It's a deliberate emotional assault on specific individuals who are vulnerable for his own satisfaction. In England it's rightly illegal to harass people and even more so if you target the vulnerable for your own satisfaction. To compare what he done to free speech means you either don't know what free speech entitles you to or don't fully grasp the depravity and spitefulness of what this alcoholic scum bag done.

Do you not think society benefits from this being illegal? What about screaming "spastic" at wheelchair users? Should they have to put up with that? Should i be entitled to follow your children round screaming obscenities at them? Of course i shouldn't and you would frankly have to be trolling yourself if you think any constitutional entitlement to free speech grants the right, or was intended to grant the right, to do those things.

 

I once told a cop to his face that, in my opinion, he was a f*cking pr*ck. This occured without consequence, outside of the ticket I was already being issued. Why no consequence? Because its my opinion and I'm free to shout it for all to hear, whether or not it hurts his delicate feelings. You've made clear on many an occasion the type of police planet you would have us all live in. The answer to your question is, no, society does not benefit from it being illegal. If I think the cop is a prick, he probably needs to hear it. Maybe his behavior will change.

Your use of the words "Emotional assault" is laughable. Life is an emotional assault. If we are going to start jailing people for hurt feelings, we are going to need to build A LOT more prisons. In fact, your post hurt my feelings. I'M PRESSING CHARGES!

 

Again it makes me wonder, is there really a point where opinion becomes unacceptable..
As I asked earlier in this thread. Should racism be acceptable as freedom of speech?