GB and Russia - Not so different after all

[JimC]

The worst thing about the end of communism was the return of the fucking orthodox church, working hand in glove with power-hungry scum like Putin...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

GB = George Bush?

[Coito ergo sum]

Something is seriously wrong with your comprehension skills. They do still have schools over there, yes?

I comprehend your motives for switching to abuse.

I only responded to you in kind.

The point is that you seem to think that these terms have some objective meaning -- that you can tell what is mere ridicule and what is "malicious communication." Other than your own arbitrary, subjective opinion that what Pappa said was mere ridicule and what someone else said is a malicious communication or harassment, there is no basis for the distinctions you make.

That's the big problem with your argument. You justify one person's communication based on what you "know" to be their "intent" (when you have no way of actually knowing what their intent is or was), and you suggest that you "know" someone else's communication was "intended" to harm (when you have know way of actually knowing what their intent is or was).

Get it?

That is why the "content" of communications has to be free from legal sanction. If someone's opinion is that whites are subhuman (Farakhan) or that it might be moral to rape Skepchicks (Pappa's joke) or that pedophilia is a good thing (NAMBLA), or that someone disappointed their recently dead father, those opinions are not legally punishable no matter how maliciously intended. Or, they ought not to be legally punishable, because they are mere differences of opinion.

When you get into punishing "malicious communications" -- it becomes a popularity contest and a function of whose ox is being gored. Are you allowed make malicious communications about Christians? How about calling them hateful? How about calling them deluded? How about saying they believe in nursery rhymes and myths? What if those communications are "intended" to be hurtful to a Christian? Does it matter?

[Coito ergo sum]

It is very difficult to resolve intent these days. America has so ruined the English language with it's wars of love and peace that the language itself is more or less meaningless. Lawyers make money they don't make morals.

And, when it comes to free speech, whether one "intends" to hurt someone's feelings with the words ought to be immaterial. The Nazis certainly "intended" to offend Jews in Skokie Illinois, but the ACLU still defended the Nazi Party's right to free speech in that case, and won. It doesn't matter that the Jews were offended or "hurt" by the speech, and it doesn't matter if the Nazis intended the offense. What matters is that what they SAID was lawful. They were expressing opinions.

[MrJonno]

Still confused by this case was this guy arrested for posting death threats but the media only reported bad taste comments or did the death threats come afterwards?

[Mysturji]

Isn't sending malicious communications a crime everywhere?

"You've let your (dead) father down" isn't malicious, just mean, and rude. And under the circumstances, twattish.

[Mysturji]

Yeah the UK is like Russia. Sure it is.

At least, the difference is only a matter of degree, and possibly time

[Mysturji]

I don't have any problem with this at all.

You wouldn't

[Mysturji]

The guy said the other guy disappointed his dad.

Fuck, if that's illegal then lock Pappa up and throw away the key. That rape joke about Skepchicks is arguably malicious harassment that instilled fear in the Skepchicks.

I don't know exactly what the guy said. Or exactly what the law says. But to me, if the intention is to harass and cause genuine distress, it's crossed the line.

Therefore, by your own argument you should be locked up. Please report to the nearest police station and turn yourself in.

[Mysturji]

There's a bit more to this story than most of the mainstream media have reported: http://thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/

Thanks for that, Dave.

He then claimed he hadn’t known that Tom’s dad had passed away, and locked his account. Later he reopened the account and began sending more abuse to Tom, including a threat to “drown [Daley] in the pool”.

ЯIᄂΣY JЦПIӨЯ @Rileyy_69
“@tomdaley1994 i’m going to find you and i’m going to drown you in the pool you cocky t*** your a nobody people like you make me sick”
30 Jul 12

The above tweet, an just about everything he tweeted after that ARE illegal and he should be prosecuted for that. "Your freedom ends where my nose begins" (and vice-versa). You can't threaten to kill people and claim free speech. That's not what it's for.
But the ORIGINAL tweet "You let your dad down" is just an opinion, however wrong, and THAT is what free speech is for.

[Coito ergo sum]

The guy said the other guy disappointed his dad.

Fuck, if that's illegal then lock Pappa up and throw away the key. That rape joke about Skepchicks is arguably malicious harassment that instilled fear in the Skepchicks.

I don't know exactly what the guy said. Or exactly what the law says. But to me, if the intention is to harass and cause genuine distress, it's crossed the line.

Therefore, by your own argument you should be locked up. Please report to the nearest police station and turn yourself in.

Like, if someone suggests that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, they cross the line if they intend to cause distress, but if they only had the intent to honor Jesus, they wouldn't have crossed the line? This is what I don't get about the mistermack rationale here...

[Mysturji]

Behaviour which harasses does not need to have intent to harass to be malicious.

An intent to harass does not need to be malicious.
Your intent is to harass CES, but as far as I can tell it's not malicious. It’s stupid, transparent, unfunny, boring etc. But not malicious.

Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

MM, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

[Mysturji]

The guy said the other guy disappointed his dad.

Fuck, if that's illegal then lock Pappa up and throw away the key. That rape joke about Skepchicks is arguably malicious harassment that instilled fear in the Skepchicks.

I don't know exactly what the guy said. Or exactly what the law says. But to me, if the intention is to harass and cause genuine distress, it's crossed the line.

Therefore, by your own argument you should be locked up. Please report to the nearest police station and turn yourself in.

Like, if someone suggests that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, they cross the line if they intend to cause distress, but if they only had the intent to honor Jesus, they wouldn't have crossed the line? This is what I don't get about the mistermack rationale here...

Trolling requires no rationale.

[DaveD]

There's a bit more to this story than most of the mainstream media have reported: http://thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/

Thanks for that, Dave.

He then claimed he hadn’t known that Tom’s dad had passed away, and locked his account. Later he reopened the account and began sending more abuse to Tom, including a threat to “drown [Daley] in the pool”.

ЯIᄂΣY JЦПIӨЯ @Rileyy_69
“@tomdaley1994 i’m going to find you and i’m going to drown you in the pool you cocky t*** your a nobody people like you make me sick”
30 Jul 12

The above tweet, an just about everything he tweeted after that ARE illegal and he should be prosecuted for that. "Your freedom ends where my nose begins" (and vice-versa). You can't threaten to kill people and claim free speech. That's not what it's for.
But the ORIGINAL tweet "You let your dad down" is just an opinion, however wrong, and THAT is what free speech is for.

The reporting of this case has been abysmal. I seriously doubt that the arrest was for the "let your father down" tweet, but you wouldn't know it from, among others, the BBC story. The BBC are still trusted by many people, so it's no surprise that few are aware of any of the background.

[mistermack]

I think several of the posters here are pretending to be dumb, when it comes to the english language.
Harrassment and distress are serious matters, not just minor disagreements.

Our police and courts have no difficulty deciding what is what, even if some of you do.

If you are dumber than the english police, then you are REALLY dumb.

What this guy said about disappointing his father was nasty, but he would never have been picked up by the police for that. What he went on to say was much closer to the line, and he deserved to be put through the mill for it.

I don't want my country to allow people the freedom to spout stuff like that,especially when an individual is singled out. And certainly not worse stuff still, which you seem to be advocating.
You seem to be supporting the freedom of the asshole to maliciously harass, and ignore the freedom of the innocent to live without harrassment.

To me, that is just plain stupid. But not surprising.