[quote]therajraj wrote:
My friends and I have a memorial page on FB for one of my friends who died in a car accident. It’s invite only or a person can request to join it. That’s what should have been done.
[/quote]
I see. So it’s the parents’ fault for allowing open tributes? They should lock these pages down, then people like Sean Duffy won’t be tempted to write cruel, unfeeling crap at all, and people who genuinely want to offer their condolences will have to request an invite directly from the parents to post their sympathies when the whole point of an open page is to not have to bother them.
Let’s continue to go out of our way to baby the retards of the world and save them from themselves…
What this guy did is deliberately seek out memorials for girls HE DID NOT KNOW and leave insulting, offensive comments. This is not trolling, its the same as going to strangers’ funerals and heckling the mourners. Not okay in real life and not okay on the internet.[/quote]
I tried explaining that to the OP. ^ Apparently I was stretching the “analogy”. It makes me wonder what his thought processes are that he keeps trying to downplay that Duffy guy’s part in this, and blame nearly everybody else for what he did.
But wait, heckling dead teenage girls down a telephone line is a victimless crime, right?
[/quote]
No you didn’t you made some half assed comparison to shitting on a corpse which is straight up dumb.
You are allowed to heckle mourners, the WBC does it all the time. So yes it is okay (from a legal standpoint) to do it IRL.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
My friends and I have a memorial page on FB for one of my friends who died in a car accident. It’s invite only or a person can request to join it. That’s what should have been done.
[/quote]
I see. So it’s the parents’ fault for allowing open tributes? They should lock these pages down, then people like Sean Duffy won’t be tempted to write cruel, unfeeling crap at all, and people who genuinely want to offer their condolences will have to request an invite directly from the parents to post their sympathies when the whole point of an open page is to not have to bother them.
Let’s continue to go out of our way to baby the retards of the world and save them from themselves…[/quote]
This is the Internet, people should be allowed to speak their minds on open forums - places open for public comment. If they don’t like it they should not allow it. His comments are terrible, no one is debating that.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
No you didn’t you made some half assed comparison to shitting on a corpse which is straight up dumb. [/quote]
It was a metaphor for generally being disrespectful to the dead in response to your comment that Sean Duffy was allowed to write what he did because the memorial page was open. It’s only “dumb” because you are taking it far more literally than it was intended.
[quote]
You are allowed to heckle mourners, the WBC does it all the time. So yes it is okay (from a legal standpoint) to do it IRL. [/quote]
Two completely different countries, two completely different situations. I’d have thought that was obvious. The first amendment allows the WBC to do what they do.
This is the Internet, people should be allowed to speak their minds on open forums - places open for public comment. If they don’t like it they should not allow it. His comments are terrible, no one is debating that.[/quote]
He wasn’t speaking his mind; he wrote objectionable garbage intended to cause even more grief for his own amusement and did so because he thought he was anonymous. There is nothing in what he said that was constructive or resembled a genuine opinion. Absolutely no empathy for human suffering there. If people should be allowed total freedom to say what they want, they should also be held accountable for those opinions. He was, so are others.
Trolling is for weak minded chicken shits who do not have the mental fortitude or balls to do it in real life. There will be a line in the sand some day, hopefully soon. So then maybe troll retards will be held accountable for there childish and retarded enjoyment.
These are probably a lot of the same retards who create computer virus or other harmful computer software, no wait that would be giving them to much credit. It takes NO intelligence to do something like this shit head. It is a borderline psychotic personality and probably will lead to real crime in the future in my opinion.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
No you didn’t you made some half assed comparison to shitting on a corpse which is straight up dumb. [/quote]
It was a metaphor for generally being disrespectful to the dead in response to your comment that Sean Duffy was allowed to write what he did because the memorial page was open. It’s only “dumb” because you are taking it far more literally than it was intended.
[quote]
You are allowed to heckle mourners, the WBC does it all the time. So yes it is okay (from a legal standpoint) to do it IRL. [/quote]
Two completely different countries, two completely different situations. I’d have thought that was obvious. The first amendment allows the WBC to do what they do. [/quote]
Even if these are two different countries people on this forum (Americans) for most part have agreed with the charge. This discussion is about if it should be illegal, not whether or not it is in fact illegal. And no I disagree, the in-person equivalent of internet trolling is what the WBC does.
This is the Internet, people should be allowed to speak their minds on open forums - places open for public comment. If they don’t like it they should not allow it. His comments are terrible, no one is debating that.[/quote]
He wasn’t speaking his mind; he wrote objectionable garbage intended to cause even more grief for his own amusement and did so because he thought he was anonymous. There is nothing in what he said that was constructive or resembled a genuine opinion. Absolutely no empathy for human suffering there. If people should be allowed total freedom to say what they want, they should also be held accountable for those opinions. He was, so are others.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter if it was a genuine opinion or not. Yes, he is an asshole trying to touch on nerves.
I want to also point out he has Aspergerâ??s syndrome. I don’t know much about the disease, but from a quick google the symptoms effect his understanding of social interactions.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
No you didn’t you made some half assed comparison to shitting on a corpse which is straight up dumb. [/quote]
It was a metaphor for generally being disrespectful to the dead in response to your comment that Sean Duffy was allowed to write what he did because the memorial page was open. It’s only “dumb” because you are taking it far more literally than it was intended.
[quote]
You are allowed to heckle mourners, the WBC does it all the time. So yes it is okay (from a legal standpoint) to do it IRL. [/quote]
Two completely different countries, two completely different situations. I’d have thought that was obvious. The first amendment allows the WBC to do what they do. [/quote]
Even if these are two different countries people on this forum (Americans) for most part have agreed with the charge. This discussion is about if it should be illegal, not whether or not it is in fact illegal. And no I disagree, the in-person equivalent of internet trolling is what the WBC does.
This Duffy guy has Asperger�¢??s syndrome. [/quote]
The WBC has to obtain permits to protest. They then have to protest in whatever area alloted, and not on private property (such as a funeral home or grave site).
They are allowed to do what they do, but they also follow the law to a T. They have many lawyers in their family.
If they were to harass the family of the dead via email, internet, telephone, letters, etc, they would be breaking the law.
No matter how you slice it, he has every right to say and express himself in anyway he sees fit. This isn’t Iraq is it? We do have a 1st ammendment that says we all have the freedom to say whatever we want. there can’t be limits on that. Only on very very limited instances, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, cause that could cause a panic. other than that though, there should never be a limit on the 1st ammendment.
Even if these are two different countries people on this forum (Americans) for most part have agreed with the charge. This discussion is about if it should be illegal, not whether or not it is in fact illegal. And no I disagree, the in-person equivalent of internet trolling is what the WBC does.
This Duffy guy has Aspergerâ??s syndrome. [/quote]
Yes, Americans agreed with the charge, but YOU are trying to cite WBC activity as a reason why he shouldn’t be jailed when the WBC to do what they do because they know the law well enough to abuse the first amendment. The first amendment does not exist in the UK. It has nothing to do with Duffy’s case.
To even suggest otherwise is ridiculous, yet you keep doing it.
Dude, I’m tired of this. If you’re so against Duffy getting jailed, why don’t you write to the judge and tell him why you think he should be acquitted?
Just for the record, here is the section of UK law that covers the offence. Its the Communications Act 2003 section 127:
127Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he?
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he?
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
Oh and the 1st Amendment is part of the US Constitution so doesn’t really affect legal matters in the UK…
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
No matter how you slice it, he has every right to say and express himself in anyway he sees fit. This isn’t Iraq is it? We do have a 1st ammendment that says we all have the freedom to say whatever we want. there can’t be limits on that. Only on very very limited instances, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, cause that could cause a panic. other than that though, there should never be a limit on the 1st ammendment.[/quote]
For the umpteenth time, this happened in the UK. Also:
[quote]
I want to also point out he has AspergerÃ??Ã?¢??s syndrome. I don’t know much about the disease, but from a quick google the symptoms effect his understanding of social interactions.[/quote]
So now we’ve moved on to Asperger’s being grounds for exoneration…It’s pretty clear you’ve gone back to the article for more ammo when you should have picked up on that little detail before you started this thread. I won’t get into the fact that you had to Google the definition.
Asperger’s is a form of high-functioning autism, and I can tell you that autistics are not inclined to do what this guy did.
This is the Internet, people should be allowed to speak their minds on open forums - places open for public comment. If they don’t like it they should not allow it.[/quote]
They don’t allow it. That’s why they are handing out jail terms now. As I said earlier, the law is catching up with technology.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Imagine if it was real life. You go yell stuff about a dead teenager in front of her place.
What then? I don’t really like the idea of splitting internet and real life like if they were totally different worlds. [/quote]
If anything, the real and virtual worlds are growing closer together. When it gets to the point where comments made online can influence people’s actions in real life, something needs to be done.
If you mailed a note to someone threatening physical harm, you’d be punished. Yet some think that if you made the same threat on the internet, you should get away with it.
A post is just a note in electronic form; your IP is your signature. There’s really no difference.