Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 22 Aug 2017.
I wonder whats driven the major growth in reports of crimes taking place via social media, something must be motivating people and it's not like we've had public figures demonising different races, religions, or people with disabilities is it, oh...wait!
All the useless legislation that's required before you can make sh*tposting a crime... You'll never catch me at this rate.
So would Amber Rudd's recent verbal persecution and dehumanisation of Computer literate enthusiasts be classed as a Hate Crime?
After all she was quite group specific, so it was a targeted hate crime. I did feel emotionally violated being labelled "Not a real person."
These people need to be reined in and be made to understand that this nonsense will not be tolerated.
As for victims, well, a victim is someone who is defenseless, and the only ones who are defenseless against words are people with poor vocabulary and or severe retardation, and they wont understand if offense was given in the first place. So no "harm" done.
As for crime, well, for a crime to have been committed there must first be an injured third party, hurt feelings doesn't qualify as an injury, and as long as you don't incite violence you can say what ever the heck you want.
You will always “hurt” someones feelings somewhere regardless of what you say and regardless of how you say it, therefore you should always speak your mind and voice your opinion, doing so unapologetically. This doesn't mean you should deliberately set out to offend people. What it means is that you should never police your speech based on a "fear" of hurting someones feelings, or that of having "criminal" charges brought against you.
You have a God given right to express yourself.
Inner liberty can can be judged by how often a person feels offended, for you can no more insult a mature man than you can paint the air.
– Vernon Howard.
We have very different understandings of what a victim is, maybe we should refer to the OED.
"A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action"
No there must not, for a crime to have been committed a law has to have been broken.
This ain't even close to being true. Try yelling 'fire' in a crowded cinema, see how that works out for ya.
You should never police your speech? What rot. If you start effin' and jeffin' on the bus in front of my five-year-old, I'll call you up on it. Have you never heard of common courtesy?
Should saying people who believe in hate crime have "severe retardation" be a hate crime? No, but it does make you look like a complete tit. Should saying "gas the Jews" or "burn the gays" be a hate crime? Aye, I reckon it should.
Should a bunch of wannabe-nazi idiots bombarding someone with abuse for being gay/Jewish/whatever be an example of their "god-given right to express their selves?" Heck no. Like it or not, words have power - and it goes far beyond 'hurt feelings.'
Just last year a girl killed herself with a shotgun in front of her parents after being the target of online harassment. Felix Alexander stepped in front of a train. Here are another six suicides. Here are nine from a one-year period. Here's another 15. Here's a peer-reviewed study which shows that weight-based cyberbullying on Facebook "can have lasting negative psychological effects on the victims" including, but not limited to, lowering self-esteem, increasing depression, and producing feelings of powerlessness. Giving people platforms for hate has been proven to normalise said hate and embolden said haters, leading to increases in in-person abuse and even violence. (Heck, just look at all the neo-nazis coming out of the woodwork in the US of late.) Here's a study which states quite clearly that "the Internet and social media can influence suicide-related behaviour", while this study of 2,000 US middle school children showed that cyberbullying doubled the likelihood of a student going on to attempt suicide (and, interestingly, that perpetrators of cyberbullying were 1.5 times more likely to have attempted suicide than those who have not been a victim or perpetrator of same.)
But no, you go ahead and explain how it's all about fee-fees and everyone should just toughen up.
A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.
– Dorothy L. Sayers
There's two exceptions to freedom of speech and that would be the second one, I forgot to include it in my previous post.
I gave the context and also addressed grownups which covers the second part.
That's good and of course it does, judging by your reaction I made the point.
They do as do any other group, it falls under Freedom of Speech. As long as they don't incite violence they have that right. You or I don't have to like it very much. Heck, they are even free to protest Freedom of Speech. The point is neither you or I should be in a position to stifle or police speech we do not agree with.
This is a good thing. Not a bad thing.
Yes they should, that and mature a bit, and perhaps not spend that much time online if it drives them onto unstable emotional and psychological ground.
What's next. "Safe space"?
Then why share no original thoughts and instead resort to give me the knee-jerk response from all the computers.
So if I follow you around all day - online or in-person - calling you sub-human scum who doesn't deserve to live (note that I'm not inciting violence, here, because I'm not saying you should be killed, just that you don't deserve to live), and get all my friends to do the same, that's fine by you because muh frea speach?
Righty-ho. <prepares a bot to automatically post "this guy's a tit" below every single post walle makes>
I have absolutely no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.
That would fall under stalking, it doesn't matter what you would say or which protections your words fell under, due to the stalking component you would still be in the wrong.
The problem isn't Freedom of Speech but harassment and stalking, you wanna stifle and police Freedom of Speech because people feel “hurt” and emotionally “traumatized” online and sometimes end up killing themselves? First off, how stable was that person to begin with? Secondly, how about you block that individual and or individuals? And if all your “friends” join in to harass you, then clearly they are not your friends they never were. Neither in real life or online.
As for bullying that's part of growing up and is all about learning how to stand up for yourself and manage conflict and establish boundaries. Yeah. It can be unpleasant sure, but as soon as you've done it you will have grown from it, matured a bit, become more grounded and secure in yourself. Now if you can't manage that online chances are you will never be able to do it in real life either.
You keep treating children as they grow up as children that's what you will get. Grown up children with a weak emotional and psychological constitution. Not a fault of their own I might add.
That's just nasty Gareth, such a low. We cross?
That's a fair point. Change it to "stand on his street corner and chant about how people like walle (so as not to get hit by defamation issues) are subhuman scum who don't deserve to live."
This, from a guy who says that people who believe hate crime is a thing are suffering from "severe retardation" and that children who were bullied to the point of taking their own lives should have just toughened up? (Yes, I know you weren't being serious about it being nasty, I saw the smiley, but I'm just exercising my god-given right to free speech, after all!)
You're a tit. (That wasn't a bot, that was me.)
Sorry but no, just no.
They're not doing as any other group does and exercising their right to freedom of speech, to say they are shows a lack of understanding of a fascist ideology that emphasizes direct action, including supporting the legitimacy of political violence, and when paired with their nationalistic view that places the nation or race above all else they're in effect inciting violence against anyone whose not them.
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can say people should take direct action against *insert person or group here*
I've had all of it tbh. Years ago I used to program front ends for an emulator and I have had it all. Stalking, hate mail, people finding out where I worked and trying to get me the sack, etc. Of course I never gave in and gave as good as I got (aside from stalking etc, not weird enough for that nor do I have the time) but yeah, it was pretty relentless. I guess that's what you get from a bunch of gamblers/ex gamblers. Would steal from their own mother.
Thankfully Comcast (my ISP) came to the rescue with threats of subpoenas. Apparently if one ISP allows their user to perform said hate posting/stalking/inflammatory comments/defamation etc then your ISP must act on your behalf. Not sure if the same laws apply to the UK, but given one of my stalkers was a school teacher (friends close enemies etc) I would imagine it would have looked pretty bad had he been slapped with a court order.
I don't scare easily. Not giving it the biggun but I just don't. Especially with people online. Probably good that I have a very thick skin too (mental illness will do that to you) and never really let it bother me too much.
But yeah, it needs to stop. Yahoo comments for example are mostly racist, hateful and just spiteful and nasty. It sickens me to think that when people think they can hide it's perfectly OK to act like that. You know? you'll see a news article about some one stabbing/robbing/killing some one with no picture or name yet and people will say "Black B-tards..." and so on. Disgusting tbh. Then you have some one that has died, and people just say nasty things. Must roll off the keyboard pretty easily when they think they have anonymity.
The response of trying to police or restrict Freedom of Speech to address someones underling emotional and psychological issues is neither a rational or a wise move.
Now why would that be?
Give an inch and they'll take a mile.
It means that you en up losing Freedom of Speech all together in the end, the restrictions we have in place are all the restrictions we need...
..because otherwise there's always gonna be some other “issue” that's directly linked to how people talk, or linked to Freedom of Speech, therefore we must...
It wouldn't address, or solve, the underling emotional and psychological issues these kids have. Perhaps the issue here is that they get access to internet and “social” media at an early age, much too early.
Giving young children access to all of this at a young age may not be the best approach.
As for toughing up in general yeah guess what they have to. There's no “safe space” in real life, it's not campus where they're given a room to hide in.
Separate names with a comma.