Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So if the Tea Party Presidential debate was held in the UK, could the entire audience have been arrested for cheering on letting someone die for not having health insurance?
The Tea Partiers have tarred and feathered your honorable members, plundered your banks, burnt your cars, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over
Public stockades in a tutu. I think they should do it for wannabe gangsters in the US. Going to jail makes you a hardass and is seen as a rite of passage. Spending time in a busy area in the stocks wearing a tutu being the laughingstock of everyone walking by...not so badass.
First off, nobody's defending him. He's not even defending himself.people defending him
And? There's no such thing as the right to not be offended.
That being said, this guy is a complete tool. There's being offensive and there's deliberate harassment. I'd say his behavior falls under the latter of the two.
First they came for the jerks, but I did not speak up, because I was not a jerk...
That being said, this guy is a complete tool.
Second, it's frightening to see people say that free speech should be limited only to speech that doesn't make people angry.
Seriously stop trying so hard to cover such things with freedom of speech, there is/has always been a limit to it.
So if the Tea Party Presidential debate was held in the UK
how can anyone think offensive communication should be illegal
So should I have the freedom to "offend" you by walking up to you and punching you in the face? If not, why not?Different people are offended by different things, it could be considered offensive for me to say evolution is a lie or there is no christian god.
So should I have the freedom to "offend" you by walking up to you and punching you in the face? If not, why not?
philosophical, religious or scientific point
I believe it's precisely relevant. Anyone who's ever lost a child will be able to confirm that the pain suffered by this guy's victims as a result of his actions would certainly be no less than the pain you'd suffer, if I were to break your nose purely so that I could laugh at the sight of blood running down your face.Physical pain is far too easy to demonstrate to be relevant.
No, because they also have immense potential for good (well, actually I wouldn't make that case for religion, but that's a debate for another day). Surely you're not suggesting that this guy's actions could have any positive consequences for anyone other than himself?These are far more dangerous and have larger potential harm. Shall we silence these?
Well, if you accept that some lines have to be drawn somewhere, then someone has to do the drawing, and in this case it was the judge, in accordance with laws passed by our elected representatives. Who would you have preferred it to be?I do not mean to be insensitive and I am inclined to agree with you that the right decision was made. At the same time I find conflict with the idea of where you draw the line, who is doing the drawing, and how it will ultimately be used.
Holy shit, did they photoshop his head/neck?! I don't think it was a court sentence of trolling, I think it was an entomological discovery!
Holy shit, did they photoshop his head/neck?! I don't think it was a court sentence of trolling, I think it was an entomological discovery!
I believe it's precisely relevant. Anyone who's ever lost a child will be able to confirm that the pain suffered by this guy's victims as a result of his actions would certainly be no less than the pain you'd suffer, if I were to break your nose purely so that I could laugh at the sight of blood running down your face.
Should deliberately inflicting pain on an innocent third party for your own self-gratification only be a crime if it's physical, rather than emotional or psychological?
No, because they also have immense potential for good (well, actually I wouldn't make that case for religion, but that's a debate for another day).
Surely you're not suggesting that this guy's actions could have any positive consequences for anyone other than himself?
I do not mean to be insensitive and I am inclined to agree with you that the right decision was made. At the same time I find conflict with the idea of where you draw the line, who is doing the drawing, and how it will ultimately be used.
Well, if you accept that some lines have to be drawn somewhere, then someone has to do the drawing, and in this case it was the judge, in accordance with laws passed by our elected representatives. Who would you have preferred it to be?
eh can we get the picture made into a troll guy face
You guys are just scared you might actually have to display a shred of decorum online. Dakoth is definitely a troll. Why would anyone defend this guys actions?
Yea the UK is going in a scary big-brother direction, but I don't find this to be a problem--amidst other troubling issues with civil liberties. He had it coming, and its a very light sentence anyway. Hopefully its a working prison, so that its not(as much) a burden on the UK taxpayers.
Oh and if you don't like this post, then you just got politely trolled. Which you apparently support wholeheartedly. So what you now?!
How can people claiming to defend free speech complain about the court making a decision but support 'someone' beating up the guy?
What's the theory, that you should be free to say anything so long as you're stronger than anyone else? That you should be able to silence anyone through beatings so long as you have enough people willing to spend a bit of time in jail for it?
How can you condone open violence and think it could lead to protecting the rights you had to put a government in the first place to uphold? You think the biggest 'bully' is ultimately going to be a nice guy?
Violence is easily defined, despite the slippery slope arguments people want to use. Whether you are being violent physically or psychologically does not matter. I'd say mentally abusive behavior is even more damaging, both to the individual and the society. Mental scars may never heal, and you can pass them along to the people you associate with in the future. You think it's a wonder that children of abusive parents tend to grow up to be abusive parents themselves?
There are libel laws as well. Are those wrong too? Should the resolution to someone spreading lies be having someone else beat them up and get charged with assault, because god forbid the state intervene to shut up someone who is deliberately causing harm with their words?
If someone is offended by what someone else says in a public setting, that's their problem. If you go up to someone and try to make them feel worse, that's harassment, and no, free speech does not let you harass people.
The UK got it right on this one. America actually lets its people get away with murder, figuratively speaking, when it comes to speech. Many other civilized countries, like the UK, have more restrictions, but people are still free to criticize their government, corporations, or whoever.
Americans are worried about losing their precious "free speech", but really other countries have shown us that it isn't necessarily a slippery slope. You can have free speech AND the ability to punish douchebags.
Now if only we can get the anti-religious people that get offended at any mention of God to understand this concept, we can make some real progress in society. Oh yes, throw in the people that throw down the race card at the drop of a hat as well.
Yes. let's throw people in jail for being ducehbags. Who decides what being douchy is? Who defines "offensive?"
QQ really, if you troll like this you deserve what's coming to you.
In this modern time, anyone advocating violence as a solution to this problem is just as bad as the person who committed the 'crime'. Worse, in my book. Violence is not an answer for something like this, or really ever. And as an internet troll, it's utterly impossible to fulfill this 'punishment'.
Suing someone is also not a fit punishment. What if they have nothing? This person clearly has social problems in real life. As such, he probably has problems working or maintaining a job. Suing someone into oblivion is a typical response by an uninformed American, in their over-litigious society.
I'm not sure throwing him in jail is a suitable response, either. Psychological care, and community service that requires him to interact with other people and help them would perhaps be more beneficial. I'm sure people would really calm down fast if they had to help the people they were trolling, or at least their community.
Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, internet trolling is a problem. Not the simple name calling, but the malicious stalking and mental torture. There are laws against this in real life. It's time they're brought, sensibly, to the internet. I'm not sure a restraining order would work here, but it might.
I take note that no one here has bothered to bring up WBC. It is rather funny that this group does EXACTLY the same thing that this guy did in RL and on a far bigger scale, yet I see none of you advocating them to be thrown in prison.