Internet troll gets jail time

Forum Sponsor
Oh God. I'm probably going to catch another case.
I can't help but chuckle at the Thomas the Train incident even though it is so morally wrong.
 
Gummiente said:
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.
Click to expand...

This forum has a clear set of policies.. You step out of line you get banned.. At no point are you to be sent to jail or to get a criminal record. That's the difference.

We shouldn't be trying to use the law to define every aspect of human behavior. We've already to the point where many jerks say "but I wasn't breaking any laws..." as if the criminal code is supposed to tell you what's right and what's wrong. Screw that! Basic human decency should do that and law should stay out of it!
 
FiReSTaRT said:
This forum has a clear set of policies.. You step out of line you get banned.. At no point are you to be sent to jail or to get a criminal record. That's the difference.

We shouldn't be trying to use the law to define every aspect of human behavior. We've already to the point where many jerks say "but I wasn't breaking any laws..." as if the criminal code is supposed to tell you what's right and what's wrong. Screw that! Basic human decency should do that and law should stay out of it!
Click to expand...

Much of the law is based on "basic human decency", for application against those who don't practise it.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Much of the law is based on "basic human decency", for application against those who don't practise it.
Click to expand...

Too much if you ask me.. That's why when people violate the rules of basic human decency that aren't illegal, they say "So what? I wasn't breaking the law." And it's all fine :rolleyes:
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Too much if you ask me.. That's why when people violate the rules of basic human decency that aren't illegal, they say "So what? I wasn't breaking the law." And it's all fine :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is that a problem with the law, or with people? To me, it's narcissism. That's a people problem.
 
REDBALLS said:
Oh God. I'm probably going to catch another case.
I can't help but chuckle at the Thomas the Train incident even though it is so morally wrong.
Click to expand...

Me too bro, I could barely keep a straight face when I started discussing this with my wife last night. I just kept picturing her face on the train and chuckling.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Is that a problem with the law, or with people? To me, it's narcissism. That's a people problem.
Click to expand...

The laws shape the people as they shape the way they live. If too great a chunk of their daily lives is circumscribed by laws, they begin to equate legality with morality.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
The laws shape the people as they shape the way they live. If too great a chunk of their daily lives is circumscribed by laws, they begin to equate legality with morality.
Click to expand...

Or the law is modified and reinterpreted, to deal with the realities of the day. The chicken and the egg. I stand by my statement that our greatest problem, in modern society, is abject narcissism.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Or the law is modified and reinterpreted, to deal with the realities of the day. The chicken and the egg. I stand by my statement that our greatest problem, in modern society, is abject narcissism.
Click to expand...

And I assert that the economic and the legal systems not only protect it; they encourage it.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
And I assert that the economic and the legal systems not only protect it; they encourage it.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's a spiral all right but if we assume that your statement is correct, then we have to likewise assume that legal and economic decisions are made in a vacuum. That there was absolutely nothing before the chicken, so the egg just appeared out of nowhere.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Oh, it's a spiral all right but if we assume that your statement is correct, then we have to likewise assume that legal and economic decisions are made in a vacuum. That there was absolutely nothing before the chicken, so the egg just appeared out of nowhere.
Click to expand...

Ok, so let's say there is the chicken and there is the egg, without debating which came first. What your general argument is doing is promoting the nanny-state where even farting inside my own car can become an arrestable offense because it would be unpleasant to my passengers? Where do we draw the line on the other side? Where do we say "enough of this b.s. law creep, let's use common sense instead" ? The difference is that I think we went WAY beyond that point a long time ago, while you assert that we need even more nanny state laws.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Ok, so let's say there is the chicken and there is the egg, without debating which came first. What your general argument is doing is promoting the nanny-state where even farting inside my own car can become an arrestable offense because it would be unpleasant to my passengers? Where do we draw the line on the other side? Where do we say "enough of this b.s. law creep, let's use common sense instead" ? The difference is that I think we went WAY beyond that point a long time ago, while you assert that we need even more nanny state laws.
Click to expand...

If that's what you think about my statements, then you really haven't understood them in the least. My statement is that the internet is as much real life, as is anything else. The consequences of your actions, on the internet, bear the same possible consequences as the ones you make, in any other manner. It really is just that simple.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
If that's what you think about my statements, then you really haven't understood them in the least. My statement is that the internet is as much real life, as is anything else. The consequences of your actions, on the internet, bear the same possible consequences as the ones you make, in any other manner. It really is just that simple.
Click to expand...

On the Internet it's uber-easy to exclude a person or to block out offending content. That means that criminal justice system is unnecessary for that purpose. The only real effect that criminalizing trolling will be shutting down free speech and discourse on the Internet.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
On the Internet it's uber-easy to exclude a person or to block out offending content. That means that criminal justice system is unnecessary for that purpose. The only real effect that criminalizing trolling will be shutting down free speech and discourse on the Internet.
Click to expand...

There is no free speech, when you make use of something owned by someone else.

Actually it isn't all that easy to exclude someone, unless you exclude everyone.

As I have stated, oh so many times before, this person engaged in harassment.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
As I have stated, oh so many times before, this person engaged in harassment.
Click to expand...

Watch out... If we keep this up, who knows what'll become "harassment" tomorrow
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Watch out... If we keep this up, who knows what'll become "harassment" tomorrow
Click to expand...

So far it's the same things that have always been considered harassment. They just included new means of communication. If that's the way it keeps going, then I have absolutely no problem with it.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
So far it's the same things that have always been considered harassment. They just included new means of communication. If that's the way it keeps going, then I have absolutely no problem with it.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the new medium of communication doesn't really require intervention from the criminal justice system, which should focus on areas where it's really needed.
 
FS think of this scenario, your wife dies in a tragic accident where a driver loses control of his vehicle and ends up crushing and dismembering her on the sidewalk. you put a wreath at the site, some one else comes along and starts leaving letters at the wreath saying how she deserved to die and perhaps puts her pic up on a pole with a target on it, maybe some pics of her crushed and dismembered body... by your reasoning this is ok, you chose to put a wreath there in a public place, he's not defacing the wreath, just putting pics and letters at the same public spot. personally i don't see a difference between leaving harassing messages at a memorial site whether it's online or physical.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
The difference is that the new medium of communication doesn't really require intervention from the criminal justice system, which should focus on areas where it's really needed.
Click to expand...

Harassment, via any means of communication, is still harassment. That means it requires the intervention of the legal system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom