GB and Russia - Not so different after all

[mistermack]

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.
He must have been near the line, but not over it, as he wasn't charged.

Pappas joke was not about a specific person, race, colour or creed. And it was a form of ridicule, not harassment.
And it's funny.
If the word "arguably" means you could make a completely stupid argument for it, then everything is arguable, and the word is meaningless.

[laklak]

So don't tweet. Fucking waste of time anyway, who cares what you're doing at this second? Get a fucking life.

[Atheist-Lite]

Don't tweet. If it only takes fifteen words to say then it isn't worth saying.

[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.
He must have been near the line, but not over it, as he wasn't charged.

Pappas joke was not about a specific person, race, colour or creed. And it was a form of ridicule, not harassment.
And it's funny.
If the word "arguably" means you could make a completely stupid argument for it, then everything is arguable, and the word is meaningless.

There are only a few Skepchicks. So, it was at specific people.

And, you SAY it was a "form of ridicule" but not "harassment," but that is your own invented, arbitrary distinction. The law doesn't just prohibit harassment, it prohibits "malicious communications."

And, subjective intention has little to do with it. Pappa's or this guy in the OP's communication is either legal or it isn't. Their subjective intent to harass has nothing at all to do with it, and we can't know what either of their subjective intent was. We can only infer intent from the words used. And, it can't be legal for me to say X but illegal for you to say it, just because you're hoping to bother someone with it, and I'm honestly only kidding.

[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/

[Atheist-Lite]

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

Worse things happen at sea. Seems he was frustrated about being let down. Might have put some money down at the bookies? That is the likely explanation, not that he should have made the comments.

[mistermack]

There are only a few Skepchicks. So, it was at specific people.

Wrong. There are lots of skeptchicks. So no, it wasn't.

Their subjective intent to harass has nothing at all to do with it

So what do you think malicious means?

[Coito ergo sum]

There are only a few Skepchicks. So, it was at specific people.

Wrong. There are lots of skeptchicks. So no, it wasn't.

Their subjective intent to harass has nothing at all to do with it

So what do you think malicious means?

characterized by malice or intended to be harmful.

That's not the same thing as harassment at all. Harassment doesn't have to be malicious to be harassment, and someone can be malicious to someone else without harassing them. And ridicule plainly can be malicious, or not, as well.

What do you think it means?

[colubridae]

BevyRay

July 31, 2012 at 8:58 am


Rileyy_69 is clearly a very angry young man. The comments made to Tom Daley were I agree unacceptable, but am I the only one concerned by the public’s response to this boy.

He obviously needs to face the consequences of his actions but has received a ridiculous amount of hate messages (#Rileyy_69) from the general public. What makes the things being said to Rileyy_69 any different to what was said to Daley? Both are bullying/Harassment.

If this boy (and I stress boy) has made a silly mistake, can you imagine the impact of this horrible witch hunt. Would the general public be satisfied with a suicide on their conscience?

Hate is a desperate cry for love.

[mistermack]

There are only a few Skepchicks. So, it was at specific people.

Wrong. There are lots of skeptchicks. So no, it wasn't.

Their subjective intent to harass has nothing at all to do with it

So what do you think malicious means?

characterized by malice or intended to be harmful.

That's not the same thing as harassment at all. Harassment doesn't have to be malicious to be harassment, and someone can be malicious to someone else without harassing them. And ridicule plainly can be malicious, or not, as well.

What do you think it means?

An intent to harrass make it malicious. Why on earth do I have to explain that?

[colubridae]

There are only a few Skepchicks. So, it was at specific people.

Wrong. There are lots of skeptchicks. So no, it wasn't.

Their subjective intent to harass has nothing at all to do with it

So what do you think malicious means?

characterized by malice or intended to be harmful.

That's not the same thing as harassment at all. Harassment doesn't have to be malicious to be harassment, and someone can be malicious to someone else without harassing them. And ridicule plainly can be malicious, or not, as well.

What do you think it means?

An intent to harrass make it malicious. Why on earth do I have to explain that?

Behaviour which harasses does not need to have ‘intent to harass’ in order to be harassment.

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.

[mistermack]

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.

I think you need to look up harrass.
I certainly don't harass anybody.

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are only a few Skepchicks. So, it was at specific people.

Wrong. There are lots of skeptchicks. So no, it wasn't.

Their subjective intent to harass has nothing at all to do with it

So what do you think malicious means?

characterized by malice or intended to be harmful.

That's not the same thing as harassment at all. Harassment doesn't have to be malicious to be harassment, and someone can be malicious to someone else without harassing them. And ridicule plainly can be malicious, or not, as well.

What do you think it means?

An intent to harrass make it malicious. Why on earth do I have to explain that?

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

[mistermack]

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

I comprehend your motives for switching to abuse.
You can't take being wrong.

The old ego again.

What's the latin for "I bullshit, therefore I am" ?

[Atheist-Lite]

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.