Discussion in 'Serious' started by GregTheRotter, 27 Mar 2012.
Oh boy here we go again hence best I stay out of these discussions.
Yeah I am, I've not limited what people can say or when they say it or even where they say it, I feel that people should have the conviction behind what they say, anonymity destroys that. Discourse needs identity, without it you can't reply to the individual. I should perhaps have said that I wouldn't stop people from posting/shouting/printing whatever they want without their name alongside, but I would, and do, ignore anonymous slogans. I do also think that without the veil of anonymity people find online they'd be less of a dick in their online conversations.
Tom Chivers of the Telegraph sums up my thoughts succinctly.
But that isn't what you said in your previous post.
It's political correctness gone mad! I feel like my day has been wasted if I haven't copped an eyeful of at least three pairs of man boobs (moobs to the connoisseur). Can there be any more graceful sight than a pair of man cans jiggling down the street towards you?
saw the words jail and was all up in here
I won't post any boondocks video though spec (even though it's about as real as it gets)
have to agree with spec though.. that's not jail-able, if it was everyone would be clutching the soap in the prison showers
calling someone a name, being racist, or rallying for legalizing buttchaps with the backsides cut out for example is not reason enough to muzzle and throw someone in jail.. if you want to live in a society like that- just move.. sure you will be accommodated
the only problem I have is when it involves kids.. especially minors 13 and under, they can have low self esteem and be manipulated.. in those cases, especially when it involves a suicide or just an adult bullying a minor.. I could see making an exception and they have..
but two adults.. I mean really- it's pretty clear what the limits are if you live in the uk or the us.. you don't want to limit freedom of speech.. you might not like what some people say- but you can look at who it's coming from and simply disregard, that's the beauty of it
you want jail time your going backwards.. everyone with the same point of view is.. well it's not real and the internet especially- I think everybody is wearing butt chaps on the internet.. it's funny cause on my facebook, all my aunts and uncles have all deactivated their facebook accounts- even my sister.. when they talk about people on the internet, they just shake their heads
this is no mans land really.. have to understand that nowdays- there's a snuffaluffagus lurking, just waiting to make your life more miserable.. even been arrests on 'professional' trolls.. you see these guys- look at youtube comments if you want to see the majority of them.. there's cool forums like this one and a few others.. then there's the cream of the crap- facebook, twitter being close to the top
ridiculous people can even be offended anymore really
As long as there's a requirement to be met to speak then you don't have freedom of speech.
What interests me more is the idea of identity. Identity is a creation, an association of attributes. We are who we are because of the association of information found in birth certificates, ID cards, licenses and the like. They're all creations made of intangible information where the only validity is based on the amount of trust one puts in the governing body defining them. It's very similar to our Bit-Tech user names. We have names linked to accounts, linked to email addresses and passwords (hopefully) known only by individual persons. They are just as much identities, we can use them to hold conversations and can be made accountable for our actions. Yet, are they anonymous since the link to the person is known only by the identity holder?
should add.. you should jump through a saudi arabian proxy sometime- talk about censorship.. but they do allow bit-tech through =]
Out of interest, how far out of primary school are you?
Words don't hurt.
You, and anyone else here (or anywhere) have my explicit, unreserved, permission to PM me any message you can think up about me, my mother, my dead grandparents, my 3 month old daughter - absolutely anything you like. And I say PM me only to protect you from the same **** this fella's been screwed over by - if you want you can say it right here, or even start a new thread especially.
I doubt very much any of your words will hurt me. I think what you might be referring to is when you're a little kid it's upsetting that other people don't like you because you're still full of insecurities and you may not have learnt how to handle someone deliberately trying to upset you. It's this emotion that 'hurts', the words didn't do anything, not even to your ickle finger.
In the immortal words of Nexxo, "Spec is right".
I'm in the Spec/Krazeh/Shirty camp... It just boggles my mind that you can now be put in prison for being an idiot on the internet by a judge who obviously felt pressured by "public outcry".
Porkins' Wingman is right.
porkins nose is definitely brown- just the way nexxo likes it xD
^^^ Free speech exercised by a master of the skill.
He stepped way over the line and it certainly wasn't freedom of speech (not that we have anything of the sort in the UK though).
Having said that, jailing him is stupid. Him being named and shamed by the national media was punishment enough. Being kicked out of Uni is punishment enough. Knowing that any potential future employer will immediately throw his CV away is punishment enough.
But locking him up with violent people, in a place where drugs are rife? It'll just cause him to get worse, not better.
So when he's released he'll be out of Uni with no chance of getting a job... a jail sentence will just make him worse.
But yeah, he deserved punishment. He stepped very far beyond reasonable freedom of speech
People seem to need to feel "offended" these days. Don't know if it's because they're told it's how they should feel about something, or if they just a follow the herd type instinct.
How do you define where the line is then?
What's reasonable freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is all or nothing, you either have it or you don't. If it's limited then you don't have it.
Ignore the last bit of my post. I start off my post by saying we don't really have freedom of speech, so that last bit is somewhat of a self contradiction
I guess I meant... reasonable stupidity.
But do you believe in true freedom of speech?
As I said, Greg, libel and slander are not criminal offences. They are civil offences and therefore are not subject to custodial sentencing. And technically if you could prove the prime minister was a **** you'd win your case anyway
Did he? well he's an idiot then. In what way would they have gone smoother? How would the certainty of having a criminal record make things smoother for him if he was innocent, as opposed to the mere possibility?
Sorry to bang on about facts but it is in fact the police/crown prosecution service who will determine the charge most applicable, not the court, and the crown prosecution who will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to result in a probable conviction. If they deem that evidence is insufficient, on the balance of probability, it will not proceed with the case.
He would only be advised by counsel to plead guilty if there was a reasonable probability of successful prosecution. A criminal record affects all areas of one's life, not just the day in court, if say he had been let off with community service. So it's not the easy, sensible option if you are not guilty.
The point that the judge chose to make an example of the defendant to "satiate public baying" does not support in it's own right the assumption that the prosecution was shaky at best. It merely means the judge would appear to have, within the confines of sentencing guidelines, allowed himself to be swayed by public outcry, that is all.
Personally, as I said, I have no particular issue that a custodial sentence was issued, and that is for the following reasons:
1) There was clear documentary evidence of the defendant's statements
2) It was deemed by the relevant authorities - in this case the CPS - that those statements were in direct contravention of the Public Order Act
3) The defendant had the right to enter a not guilty plea and stand trial to be found so
4) There are predetermined sentencing guidelines for infringement of Section 21 of the Act which his counsel would be obliged to make him aware of prior to standing in court and pleading guilty
5) By not doing so he has ensured he has a criminal record to carry round with him that will affect his ability to work, to live, to obtain finance, ad infinitum. I would venture to suggest such a decision is not taken lightly
6) There are already high profile cases going through the legal system in this country regarding racial issues (i.e. John Terry) which he would most likely have been aware of
7) Stupidity, ignorance or generally being a d*ck are no defence
Ironically, the one "punishment" I do think is harsh is being thrown out of University. Should "being a d*ck" or having a criminal record really be a barrier to higher education?
Some people say they are against killing or the taking of another's life, it's a binary thing, for it or against it. But what of self defence or assisted suicide?
I think you can be for the principle of freedom of speech but in reality should total freedom of speech take precedence over another's right to live peacefully if that freedom of speech were to invoke a threat to their well being? (I'm not saying the case referred to above is one such instance)
Separate names with a comma.