Glasgow bin lorry crash: Fury over Twitter troll

[laklak]

Yeah, it is pretty amusing. In a sick, disgusting way, of course. Not that I laughed, not me.

[cronus]

Yeah, it is pretty amusing. In a sick, disgusting way, of course. Not that I laughed, not me.

Wasn't really funny, though. Maybe if you came from Edinburgh it would be funnier?

[Seth]

Yeah, it is pretty amusing. In a sick, disgusting way, of course. Not that I laughed, not me.

Wasn't really funny, though. Maybe if you came from Edinburgh it would be funnier?

Mildly amusing if one has a dim opinion of Glaswegians, which is hardly unusual. Definitely bad taste, but to allow the government to criminalize bad taste is a clearly an indication that the society is far, far down the road to totalitarian despotism.

Enjoy your fetters you dumbasses. You let them do it to you, now you can bend over and smile while they stick it in again and again.

[tattuchu]

I had to look up "fetters." Now the word "unfettered" makes sense. I mean it already made sense. Now it makes more sense, I guess, entomologically speaking.

[mistermack]

Enjoy your fetters you dumbasses. You let them do it to you, now you can bend over and smile while they stick it in again and again.

You call them fetters. I call them protections.

If I had just lost three of my family to a speeding bin lorry, I would rather the state dealt with the idiot posting jokes about it, than having to go round and sort them out myself.

I like that being illegal, and if it wasn't, I would vote for it to be made illegal.
Having laws that I like might be your idea of fetters, but it's not mine.

I'm glad that we don't have the freedom to demonstrate at soldiers funerals, etc.
You can keep it. And stick it up YOUR ass.

[pErvinalia]

I had to look up "fetters." Now the word "unfettered" makes sense. I mean it already made sense. Now it makes more sense, I guess, entomologically speaking.

In relation to insects?

[surreptitious57]

Offence is not good enough as a criteria for criminalising free speech so the bar has to be raised much higher than that and it
should be as so : where the thing being said is causing psychological harm to its intended recipient. And so punishment should
be proportional to the degree of harm inflicted. And it is very important to state something else too since it is a very common
misapprehension : free speech exists as a universal concept and it always has and always will but what does not however exist
as a universal concept is free speech without sanction or consequence. And that is what is meant when it is perceived as being
under attack. But were that actually true then the freedom to say the thing in question in the first place would not be possible

[mistermack]

I think when the speech is likely to lead to so much offence as to provoke a violent reaction, that's enough grounds to limit free speech.

In this country, conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace is seen as undesirable and is illegal.
There's no mystery about it. It's a good thing to keep the peace.

If people didn't like it, they could get it changed. They don't, because they prefer it that way.

In Britain, the freedom to be a cunt isn't one that many people aspire to. I can understand why many Americans disagree though.

[tattuchu]

I had to look up "fetters." Now the word "unfettered" makes sense. I mean it already made sense. Now it makes more sense, I guess, entomologically speaking.

In relation to insects?

Yes. It bugs me when I don't know the origin of a word

[pErvinalia]

[Seth]

Offence is not good enough as a criteria for criminalising free speech so the bar has to be raised much higher than that and it
should be as so : where the thing being said is causing psychological harm to its intended recipient. And so punishment should
be proportional to the degree of harm inflicted. And it is very important to state something else too since it is a very common
misapprehension : free speech exists as a universal concept and it always has and always will but what does not however exist
as a universal concept is free speech without sanction or consequence. And that is what is meant when it is perceived as being
under attack. But were that actually true then the freedom to say the thing in question in the first place would not be possible

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Childhood rhyme

You're expecting everyone speaking anything to know the mental state of every person who might hear those words, which is entirely unreasonable.

Words don't cause any harm, psychological or otherwise. Only the reactions of a listener can cause harm, and it's THEIR obligation not to allow words to incite them to causing or suffering harm.

[pErvinalia]

Psychological harm is as real as physical harm. Both are manifest in the mind.

[cronus]

Psychological harm is as real as physical harm. Both are manifest in the mind.

That's why I advocate lobotomy. It is really the only way to be sure the harm is curtailed completely.

[mistermack]

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Childhood rhyme

You're expecting everyone speaking anything to know the mental state of every person who might hear those words, which is entirely unreasonable.

Words don't cause any harm, psychological or otherwise. Only the reactions of a listener can cause harm, and it's THEIR obligation not to allow words to incite them to causing or suffering harm.

What absolute bollocks. That's good, even for you.

I can just imagine your doctor telling you that you have incurable cancer.
A year later he says "I was only joking, where's your sense of humour?"

I think it's possible that the words might have caused a teeny bit of damage in the meantime.

[Seth]

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Childhood rhyme

You're expecting everyone speaking anything to know the mental state of every person who might hear those words, which is entirely unreasonable.

Words don't cause any harm, psychological or otherwise. Only the reactions of a listener can cause harm, and it's THEIR obligation not to allow words to incite them to causing or suffering harm.

What absolute bollocks. That's good, even for you.

I can just imagine your doctor telling you that you have incurable cancer.
A year later he says "I was only joking, where's your sense of humour?"

I think it's possible that the words might have caused a teeny bit of damage in the meantime.

It's not the words that cause the damage, it's my reaction to them. How another reacts to what you say is beyond your ken and therefore beyond your responsibility or liability. In your scenario, the doctor could be sued for the "damage" caused by telling you a hard truth.

If this isn't clear enough for you, look at it objectively. If the doctor said the very same words to someone not the patient suffering from the disease, or to himself alone in his bathroom, no harm at all to you would ensue.

Therefore, logic and reason tell us that any harm is self imposed through the interpretation of what the individual heard, or thought he heard.

In no way can that be the responsibility of the speaker.