Moron Imprisoned for Rude Online Behavior

No stox, I'm not trolling, nor approving the jerk's behavior... Just saying society can deal with it some way besides jail time. No need to turn the thread into accusations, we all think the guy deserves to be treated with the dignity accorded smelly garbage, we just disagree on enabling the government to be toss people in jail for it.

I'm sure some people in here find others p&r behavior to be "emotional assault" too. I don't trust the government to open their browser to DP and decide which member is ok and which deserves a trial by jury. If anyone does, they have more faith in the infallibility of civil servants than I do... Not to mention the honesty.

Imagine for a minute the government decided to sub that job out to the moderators. Wouldn't require much... Just give them an extra button that alerts the police to pick up someone. You may think that's a farfetched case, but that'd be a viable scenario if we jailed people for being offensive.

Are you ready to hand the mods that authority? If not, why? Because they're less qualified than the people governments hire? Less even handed? Are ya sure about that?

 

How should society deal with it then? Because without the states intervention we wouldn't even know who he is, so the idea of treating him with indignity isn't an option. Not forgetting that laws and prison are societies way of dealing with it. It's what our societies do to deal with these people. Government and law don't operate outside of society, they're a part of it.

Now you can argue that governments should be staffed with more intelligent people and i'd agree, but i don't really see an argument for them not stepping in when someone targets a grieving family in order to cause suffering purely because they're vulnerable. I don't want to live in a society where our only weapon against this kind of filth is to have an unsavoury opinion of him while he does it, and neither do you, really.

It's also not about censoring "offensive speech". What is illegal here is his motives and intentions, not the words he said. You can say exactly what he said and be in no trouble at all, but if you single out vulnerable individuals in order to cause suffering then it becomes a crime.

For the record, you do see a difference in having a view that someone disagrees with or expressing dissent for government (which is what free speech entitles you to) and calling a dead child a "cunt" to her parents while they're grieving specifically to cause suffering, right? I mean, that difference is self evidence, isn't it?

 

It should be a civil matter where the personally affected parties can sue for (at least in the US we have causes of action) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

I think we all agree what he did was offensive and intentionally designed to cause the family distress or 'suffering' as you say, but why resort to criminal law? Don't people get defamed and otherwise injured all the time. Sexual harassment is usually a civil matter, it just seems in this case rather then use the other alternatives they are making an example out of him. The problem with criminalizing this type of behavior is that it is too subjective.

It is a slippery slope once you start criminalizing insults. There are more than adequate ways within the civil courts to deal with this type of thing.

 

Because intentionally causing distress is a crime.

But it's not subjective. You opened your paragraph with "I think we all agree". If we all agree, then it's not subjective.

Slippery slope as in the logical fallacy?

 

I'd love to see you get arrested for causing distress to some religious person for speaking your mind. You probably still woudn't get it.

Go ahead and endorse the limiting of your own free speech, it says a lot about your belief in liberty generally.

 

Well in uk its a done deal. No freedom of speech there, it never existed.
that troll shouldnt be arrested-- a relative/friend /feeling heart should have whooped his ass and stand a trial for assault before jury. That.

 

OMG! here I am finding myself actually agreeing with something @browntwn has written.What's happening to me? It appears that behind his insulting demeanor is a thinking man......hmmmm?

 

I see you're still having trouble grasping this. It's not about speaking your mind. What part of this don't you understand? If what i say offends someone, then that's unfortunate. If what i say was said to cause emotional suffering, it's illegal. If i get in to a conversation with a muslim about womens rights at a bus stop and he disagrees, it's legal. If i scream "paki cunt" in the face of his children all day, it's illegal.

I can't understand why you're having a hard time recognizing the difference between the right to free speech and the ability to say what you want, when you want to who you want.

People equating what this guy done to free speech obviously don't know the first thing about free speech and what it entitles you to.

 

Let me know when you have the ability to tell the motivation behind what people say.

A lot of people would would say that some who calls Mohammed a pederast, or otherwise insults Allah or Islam, is trying to cause emotional suffering. I guess that kind of thing you would find illegal.

Oh well, I think you are a fool to eagerly let your liberty be trumped saying someone else has the right not to "suffer emotionally" due to your words or actions.

Just so we are clear, if a devout Muslim feels "emotional suffering" due to seeing this type of image is that worthy of putting the illustrator or poster of said image in jail? Do we have to determine if they did it to cause that suffering? How do we know that? It seems to meet your strict requirement for jailing people and taking away their liberty.

 

Once again following Browntwn leaves me in "me too" position. He offers a perfect example of how a law created with the best of intent can be twisted for political purposes.

Here's another example... where a UK street preacher was met by police after telling a woman in quiet conversation that per his religious beliefs, homosexuality was not condoned in the Bible. SOURCE

Laws passed to solve problems need to be inspected to make sure they don't create larger ones
In this case a law intended to halt a behavior that is clearly abhorent was applied to another situation in a way that basically allows police to dictate what religious beliefs you may publicly express.

Similar examples abound, that's just one. In another a couple of kids involved in playground taunts resulted in a 10 year old boy being arrested for "hate speech". In the wrong hands, laws that determine who has inflicted emotional suffering through their speech could subject the vast majority of those in P&R to arrest, conviction, and jail time.

NOBODY in this thread has condoned the behavior of the little turd that harassed the families and friends of the dead girls. Everyone that's spoken thinks the kid should have his rear kicked. The only question is how and who should punish him. Naming and shaming is IMO more effective and less subject to governmental abuse than giving jailtime to people for outrageously inappropriate speech.

Society is more capable of non-judicially discouraging such behavior than any government is of resisting the temptation to abuse power that is within its reach based on a little misapplication or reinterpretation of statute.

Criminalizing speech that "inflicts emotional suffering" just opens the door for a totally different troll... the pretend victim.
Here's a recent example of someone readily admitting their "soap opera, drama queen act" was faked with the hope of causing someone grief:

 

Police is always trigger happy, in every country.. It's court that matters..
In the example you posted -

So court has a sense of what is wrong and should be punished and what is 'political correctness gone made' and should be avoided..

 

I find myself in agreement with stOx again here. If we go out and beat him up then we open ourselves to a criminal proceeding, likely a court case, likely an assault charge, likely a criminal record, likely an unemployed loser. The law is to circumvent all that and gives us a sense of punishment. Sooooo much easier all-round imho.

 

Interesting. I've often believed that liberals were far more in favor of the type of police state they accuse the conservatives of wanting, but here you have provided us a bit of anecdotal evidence to back my theory. I've cited the fact the NAZI party actually claimed to be Socialist on more than one occasion, and though Stox has never made an official declaration of political ideology, he seems to weigh in with the liberals on most issues. It makes me wonder what the word "Liberal" has to do with the word "Liberty".

Set people free for murder, but jail them for hurt feelings? I look at these people marching in the streets of the UK



and I read stories like the one of the man arrested for expressing his religious views on homosexuality and I've come to conclude that UK liberalism is really more about being a pussy. If the man who decided to tell the officer that he thought gays were condemned by god had been there with 20 of his angry friends, shouting and screaming death to all who oppose us, the police would have done nothing.

In short, express all the hate you like as long as you threaten people with violence if your hateful words are responded to. Peacably express your religious views, and expect to be hauled off to jail. Yah, I'd say the days of UK sovereignty in it's current format are numbered.

 

Exactly how we know there's likely no truth to it.

has nothing to do with this law.

So why bring it up?

Pretty poor parallel, as usual. The same people was that ?

As The Webby pointed out...why is racism not acceptable? Why is it against the law to shout fire in a cinema? Was that your slippery slope or fears whipped up by people who for some reason have a real hatred of the truth, like yourself.

 

No, it isnt acceptable, nor should it be... But here at least, Racist speech isn't illegal. It's stupid and immoral, but not illegal.

Granted it can get you in hot water if you dismiss employees for racial reasons, or say racist things to employees, but that's not because racist speech is illegal, it's because there are laws dealing with hostile workplace environments.

On your own you could conceivably be a racist pig and run for president. Oh wait... That was governor George Wallaces biography... before running for office of president he was the alabama governor standing on the steps of the univerity stopping black students from entry in what became the court case "Brown vs Board of education. Or if you want a more current version of such piggery... David Dukes, former kkk grand wizard, was later a state representative for louisanna.

Before anyone mentions the evil republicans... Wallace was a democrat. Dukes was at different times a democrat and a republican (so apparently an equal opportunity bigot, having smeared both parties with his presence).

That of course only covers whites that hate blacks. It is still racism when it's the other way around and they get elected to public office too.

My point is that being a racist and openly saying racist crap is not illegal here but society does find ways of discouraging it without jailing every racist OR beating them. Some people think that for every wrong... Government is the answer. The umbilical-cordlike reliance on the government baffles me. Government should serve us, not rule us, and giving them sweeping powers to decide what thoughts are acceptable to express is not something I wish to place in their trust.

 

I don't know how your system works but ours has a justice system. No matter what laws the government can dream up, whether it be Liberal, Labor, Democrat or Republican. That's why it is a separate entity entirely. This has nothing to do with government control and more about faith in a justice system imho.

 

Why waste your time disputing a commonly known fact? National Socialist German Workers' Party

Had you read my post, you'd understand the connection. Once again, Fascism seems to be more likely to come from the kind hearted socialists than the heartless capitalists.

Read the post. Its in there!

Racist views ARE acceptable. It is alive and well, and quite legal in pretty much every country including yours. Grab a clue. Your buddy IsraeI is a big time racist who regularly expresses his views about the "sub-human" Jews, and you notice he isn't going anywhere

It isn't, at least not at the federal level in the US. You should be aware that your line of reasoning was once used by the government to prevent people from distributing fliers opposed to the military draft. The government argued that such fliers would present a clear and present danger to the military's ability to recruit for WWI and could cost US lives for lack of soldiers. The draft dodging lefties of the time thought their free speech to dodge the draft should be protected, and years later, the US Supreme Court agreed, overturning a previous opinion that found yelling fire in a crowded theater to be "unprotected" speech. Nowadays, the only speech in the US that is supposedly banned is speech that would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action ( a riot). I doubt Aussie laws are too much different, even if the UK has it's legal head firmly lodged up it's ass(where Stox likes it).

 

Three branches of US Government -
from USA.gov - http://m.usa.gov/usa/Agencies/federal

 

That sounds like a balanced approach. I would like to add this :

 

Okay, that's different, and surprising that could ever work. We're talking apples and oranges. I would agree that law would be bad for the US given the government creates the laws then oversees the doling out of punishments.

In both the UK and Australia (we're based on English law) our justice system is a separate authority and isn't subject to the whims of our government in that way. It can be subverted for sure, and probably is, but overall I trust our justice system to do the right thing. I would change my opinion if it resembled US law. That opens a huge hornet's nest though as to how they got away with destroying Iraq.