"Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" isn't an analogy, it's shorthand for speech that causes harm.
|
|
|
Internet troll gets jail time
- Thread starter Dohhh
- Start date
"Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" isn't an analogy, it's shorthand for speech that causes harm.
I'm just curious as to where we draw the line because we just can't do it by logic alone. Everybody has a different level of reason.
Just because it doesn't pose a life threatening risk it doesn't mean that its not detrimental. Its a prolonged stress that the a-hole is causing and he is not stopping. Maybe the cops should've given him a warning. But if he did continue, definitely put him in a cage. Prolonged stress can cause the family pain and suffering. Imagine if a loved one die on your side and someone continuously makes fun of them, how would you have reacted??
Where do we draw the line? Those people allowed access to all of the Internet. It's not like the guy hacked into a private forum for friends and family. In any case, what he did was a job for moderators, not for the court system.
I don't like the idea of drawing the line because once it's drawn, it will start moving towards limiting more and more speech. Whether this particular guy deserves to go to jail is immaterial. Arresting people for hurting feelings is a slope that's too slippery for my tastes.
I don't like the idea of drawing the line because once it's drawn, it will start moving towards limiting more and more speech. Whether this particular guy deserves to go to jail is immaterial. Arresting people for hurting feelings is a slope that's too slippery for my tastes.
but then should harrasement not be a chargable offense? That's society/ the courts drawing the line, no?
We already have limitations on free speech. People simply seem to believe that they don't extend to the internet, which is patently not the case. Yes, that's a double negative.
I think the definition of "harassment" is becoming too loose. They put up a public forum and something contrary to the type of messages they were hoping to get is automatically considered "harassment"?
Rob MacLennan said:
Yes, I am aware of the fact that there are certain ways you just cannot greet your friend Jack on an airplane.. However, I don't think a post contrary to the WISHES of the page creators should constitute harassment. The guy was really posting his opinions on a public forum. It would be akin to me hitting a Christian Taliban forum, stating that creationism is hogwash, people getting their panties in a bunch and me ending up in jail for harassment. I really hope that's not what'll become the norm in our society.
A memorial page is no more a "public forum" than your front yard is a "public place." Just because you cannot stop people from entering your front yard, that does not imply that all are welcome.
I tend to believe that an 'internet trespass' law might go a long way toward clarifying such things.
I was trying to think of it in "real" world ways. But this guy wasn't jumping on them every time they went online. So it's nothing like a phone call everyday.
Exactly, he didn't hack anything. Just like on here, some of us get annoyed at the videos that Rodney kept posting, but we have the choice to read/watch them or not. These families had the choice to not read or watch the crap he posted.
The issue I have with extending it to the internet is we have a choice with the internet. If someone is following you home and mocking you the whole time, or throwing little pebbles at you, that is constant unavoidable harassment. Someone posting crap on public sites that you don't HAVE to read/watch is not constant unavoidable harassment. If every time they popped online he would message them non stop, that would be like someone following you and mocking you.
I think there's a difference between "live" and not "live" harassment. I'm only saying the jail time was unwarranted for non live harassment. He should have been put on probation and not allowed to touch computers for "x" amount of time.
You also have a choice about going to school, the shopping mall, or even leaving your house. You don't have to work where you do. After all, you could always get another job. Should your freedom be limited by the actions of another?
Really? Did you read my last paragraph at all? I agree there should be penalties for harassing someone on the internet. What I am saying is that the punishment DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME.
If someone is harassing me in RL I could, and would, get a restraining order. That would mean that they could not longer "live" harass me. They could then put up signs that I COULD read, but didn't have to, along the road on my way to work.
isn't that the truth
roadtoruin
Well-known member
Victims families should get to punch this guy in the face, just one time each, then call it a day and let him crawl back to his hole.
Jail time is a bit absurd.
Jail time is a bit absurd.
The penalties, he received, are what he would have received if he had behaved in the same manner, using any other communication medium. That means it "fit the crime."
I think the RL equivalent would be the those westboro baptist kooks. They hold up signs and say crap from a distance. It's up to the people to read them or to go over close enough to listen to them. So if those kooks went over there they would be arrested for harassment?
More than likely. It probably wouldn't fly here, either, given that they were denied entry to Canada a while back.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20080807/funeral_protest_080807/
That doesn't prove that it's illegal to do here in Canada. All it proves is that we are allowed to deny access to any foreigner that we don't wish to let into our country, the same way an ICE minimum wage subcontractor can deny a perfectly legitimate person entry into the US because he didn't like the cut of his jib. Bottom line is that it's our country, our rules, and one does not have much constitutional protection when crossing borders. Your example is completely irrelevant.
Earlier on, you or RG used the front lawn analogy.. It was a bit off.. They invited the general public onto their front lawn expecting one sort of behavior but because some prick went outside the norms, they decided to press formal charges. It would be like me holding a garage sale on my front lawn and wanting to have a lowballer charged with trespassing because I didn't like the prices he was trying to negotiate out of me.
No, it doesn't prove anything, except perhaps that we don't want people who behave that way, in our country.
Sorry, not even close. People have presumed access to your front door, for the purposes of contacting you or making deliveries. This moron set up his own garage sale, in someone else's front yard. You are allowed access for a specific purpose. You are not invited there for ANY purpose.
There would be allot less ********* going on if folks were concerned with a smach to the mouth for their verbal diarrhea, one of my favorite clips is the one where Buzz Aldrin Punches Bart Sibrel once he has finally had enough of his badgering.
Yeh, I have to agree with you. There's a hot girl at my workplace I am gonna practice my free speech at
Let's see how that pann out.
As said before, they should've fine him first
I like threads like this, it's a good way of fattening up my Ignore list and keeping my GTAM surfing experience relatively crap free.
Those of you pissing and moaning about infringements on freedom of speech should first look up the word "irony" in the dictionary - you happen to be members of an online forum that employs a word censor and has Moderators that will perma-ban your *** if you get out of line. How come you don't get all self-righteous about that?
I believe that jailing the subject troll is a good idea and one that is long overdue. A lot of people seem to think that the internet is a lawless place with no requirement for morality or courtesy, where they can say whatever they want without consequence simply because they can hide behind a cloak of anonymity. I personally don't think that's what it is supposed to be about. The same basic laws and rules of social behaviour that apply in face to face situations should also apply online, with the same penalties should anyone violate them. "Freedom Of Speech" should not be a catch-all defense for those who believe in anarchy and "everyone for themselves" and this should apply whether in real life or in cyberspace. It's all about being held accountable for one's actions - if you behave like a moron, you should be punished like one. And I applaud the punishment of this particular moron troll and hope that this is the beginnings of bringing some much needed regulation to the internet.
Those of you pissing and moaning about infringements on freedom of speech should first look up the word "irony" in the dictionary - you happen to be members of an online forum that employs a word censor and has Moderators that will perma-ban your *** if you get out of line. How come you don't get all self-righteous about that?
I believe that jailing the subject troll is a good idea and one that is long overdue. A lot of people seem to think that the internet is a lawless place with no requirement for morality or courtesy, where they can say whatever they want without consequence simply because they can hide behind a cloak of anonymity. I personally don't think that's what it is supposed to be about. The same basic laws and rules of social behaviour that apply in face to face situations should also apply online, with the same penalties should anyone violate them. "Freedom Of Speech" should not be a catch-all defense for those who believe in anarchy and "everyone for themselves" and this should apply whether in real life or in cyberspace. It's all about being held accountable for one's actions - if you behave like a moron, you should be punished like one. And I applaud the punishment of this particular moron troll and hope that this is the beginnings of bringing some much needed regulation to the internet.
|
|
|
|
|