Glasgow bin lorry crash: Fury over Twitter troll

[pErvinalia]

Same with much physical pain. It's very possible to mentally block a lot of physical pain. Athletes like myself, unlike you, are able to do it all the time. Did you miss my last post? Pain is manifest in the mind. If one can "think" psychological pain away, then one can "think" much physical pain away.

[Seth]

Same with much physical pain. It's very possible to mentally block a lot of physical pain. Athletes like myself, unlike you, are able to do it all the time. Did you miss my last post? Pain is manifest in the mind. If one can "think" psychological pain away, then one can "think" much physical pain away.

You didn't say "pain" you said "harm." You might be able to think away the pain of a broken leg, but the leg is going to remain broken.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, but that's a non-sequitur to your argument. Your argument is that there is a distinction between physical harm and psychological harm. That's simply not true in the case of, say, a light punch in the jaw. It's illegal to punch someone unprovoked in the jaw whether it does physical damage or not. But it still causes pain (i.e. psychological harm) which is why it is illegal, and, say, shaking someone's hand uninvited isn't.

[Seth]

Yes, but that's a non-sequitur to your argument. Your argument is that there is a distinction between physical harm and psychological harm. That's simply not true in the case of, say, a light punch in the jaw. It's illegal to punch someone unprovoked in the jaw whether it does physical damage or not. But it still causes physical pain (i.e. that is the harm in this case), which is why it is illegal, and, say, shaking someone's hand uninvited isn't.

It can be. Any unwanted touching can be considered a "battery" in some jurisdictions. Which is why "sexual battery" includes groping on the subway.

But then your statement is non sequitur to the argument, which is that words cannot cause harm. Even in the case where something said to another causes that person to suffer psychological impacts or even actual psychological harm, speaking the words is not the proximate cause of the harm, the delicate psychological condition of the listener is. In which case, psychologically delicate persons, like law students at Harvard, should sequester themselves away from potentially disturbing speech and images, rather than trying to force the rest of us to pander to their tender psyches.

[pErvinalia]

It's exactly the same with sexual assault and a light punch. Every person has the means to ignore the pain caused by those events. Why should harmful words be separate case to harmful actions??

[Seth]

It's exactly the same with sexual assault and a light punch. Every person has the means to ignore the pain caused by those events. Why should harmful words be separate case to harmful actions??

Because word cannot cause any harm. Derp! I suppose if you projected the words with an amplifier in close enough proximity to the listener's ears you might rupture an eardrum, but it still would be the words causing the harm, it would be the excessive sound pressure levels.

Words, by their very nature, are intangible and harmless. They only have meaning to one who gives them meaning, and that meaning is self-generated and is not the product of the words themselves, they are the product of mentation and interpretation by the mind, which is what causes any harm, if any.

If someone says something intended to cause me psychological disturbance in Tagalog, which I don't understand, am I harmed? Of course not.

[Hermit]

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.

Shut the fuck up. Your desire to limit freedom of speech to the degree that everything that would possibly offend someone to the point of provoking a violent reaction becomes illegal is so offensive to me that I'll break your jaw if ever I see you.

[Hermit]

Because word cannot cause any harm. ... Words, by their very nature, are intangible and harmless. They only have meaning to one who gives them meaning, and that meaning is self-generated and is not the product of the words themselves, they are the product of mentation and interpretation by the mind, which is what causes any harm, if any.

And that's why we have no libel or defamation laws.

[Seth]

Because word cannot cause any harm. ... Words, by their very nature, are intangible and harmless. They only have meaning to one who gives them meaning, and that meaning is self-generated and is not the product of the words themselves, they are the product of mentation and interpretation by the mind, which is what causes any harm, if any.

And that's why we have no libel or defamation laws.

What causes the harm is the content of the libel, slander and defamation, not the words themselves. There is no law against speaking or writing libelous, defamatory or slanderous things, there is merely law that allows a person harmed by the content of those words to gain redress.

It's a fine distinction, but an important one. It has long been said that the truth is an absolute bar to slander and libel suits. Thus, what may be slanderous to one listener may not be slander because it is true, and any harm that comes from the content of that spoken truth is non-compensable.

[pErvinalia]

It's exactly the same with sexual assault and a light punch. Every person has the means to ignore the pain caused by those events. Why should harmful words be separate case to harmful actions??

Because word cannot cause any harm. Derp!

Stop 'derping' and start thinking. Punching someone lightly can't cause harm. Explain what the "harm" is when I slap your face not too hard. To save all the stupid to'ing and fro'ing, I expect you'll say that it "hurts". And THAT is my point. "Hurt" is an entirely mental phenomenon, just like feeling hurt after someone called you a pedophile, say. If one can ignore the psychological pain of being called a pedophile, why can't one ignore the psychological pain of being slapped??

Words, by their very nature, are intangible and harmless. They only have meaning to one who gives them meaning, and that meaning is self-generated and is not the product of the words themselves, they are the product of mentation and interpretation by the mind, which is what causes any harm, if any.

Exactly the same as light sexual assualt (like groping) and light physical attacks.

If someone says something intended to cause me psychological disturbance in Tagalog, which I don't understand, am I harmed? Of course not.

That's a non-sequitur. Of course it doesn't harm you (as long as you never learn the meaning of what was said). This is analogous to someone punching someone else. Of course it doesn't harm you (in the sense that you want to use harm).

[Hermit]

Because word cannot cause any harm. ... Words, by their very nature, are intangible and harmless. They only have meaning to one who gives them meaning, and that meaning is self-generated and is not the product of the words themselves, they are the product of mentation and interpretation by the mind, which is what causes any harm, if any.

And that's why we have no libel or defamation laws.

What causes the harm is the content of the libel, slander and defamation, not the words themselves. There is no law against speaking or writing libelous, defamatory or slanderous things, there is merely law that allows a person harmed by the content of those words to gain redress.

Words without content? Interesting concept that. Apply that to "So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day." I can see content there, though I think it's just a joke made in bad taste, and it's not only ridiculous to be arrested for it, it is downright dangerous.

The definition of "making a malicious communication" is being stretched way too far. Definition (i) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, "a message which is indecent or grossly offensive", invites abuse. True or not, arresting someone for tweeting that Glaswegians are trash, one and all, is ridiculous. It becomes ominous when you consider that the author who wrote that Guy Fawkes was the only man who ever entered parliament with honest intentions could be arrested under that law.

[pErvinalia]

Just to be clear, I agree that it is a ridiculous situation with the law in the UK. I'm focusing my most recent argument on Seth's claim that words can't cause harm, but a non-impeding physical assault can. It's obvious that breaking someone's leg is harming them. Even if we put aside the pain, they are greatly inconvenienced in going about their daily life. Same with certain bruising and cuts etc. But it's certainly not clear why it could be considered harmful to someone to slap them, but not harmful to tell them you were going to kill them in the future sometime.

[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.

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.

Your idea of logic and reason is infantile.
If your words cause a predictable and natural reaction in the target, then it's the words that cause the damage. If you push someone in front of a train, it's moronic to say that it wasn't the push, it was that train that killed the victim. It's a predictable, forseeable and natural outcome of the push.
The same applies to words.

Your "logic" is a bully's charter. It's not the bully at fault. It's the victim who has the responsibility to deal with it.
Not the real world.

[pErvinalia]

As frightening as this is, I agree with MM.

[laklak]

Works great as long as whatever speech they're criminalizing also offends you. How about blasphemy? Offends the shit out of religious people. I'll bet a lot of people get offended by jokes about atheists eating babies, or saying "Jesus can suck my massive cock". How about political opinions? Man, talk about people taking offense. Who gets to decide what's offensive enough to ban?