Convicted Internet Trolls Gets 12 Weeks - Page 2

hats off to that girl - making a career out of trolling

People need to get over themselves and stop taking things so hard. Grow the fuck up. Such a joke that you can be sent to prison for a bullshit tweet or fb post.

watch what you post, trav94. this is my final warning

Trav94, i'd be very worried man ! Holy shit. Gnarly confirmed troll.

I'm pulling out the big guns now. Gnarly. Go kill yourself

edit: (sarcasm, please please please don't send me to prison)

Sadly a lot of countries in Europe don't fully appreciate the concept of free speech and have laws in place to punish people whose speech is deemed offensive, hateful, or unpopular.

On November 18 2014 02:56 blackjacki2 wrote: Sadly a lot of countries in Europe don't fully appreciate the concept of free speech and have laws in place to punish people whose speech is deemed offensive, hateful, or unpopular.

Sadly its a global trend of pseudo liberalism so concerned about offending anyone that they are willing to mutilate freedom in that ridiculous pursue.

I dont care if its hate speech or not, even if its antisemitism or you are publicly advocating slavery, your right to free speech is far more important than anyone's sensibilities.

On November 17 2014 13:19 passiveace wrote: I think some things should be censored, but there should be a high bar. I dont agree with the idea that people should be able to say/post whatever they want completely regardless of content. otherwise you can shout fire in a crowded theater and cause a stampede, post videos of animal torture, etc, etc. all that "speech" should be censored imo. political speech should be protected though.

You clearly dont know what "free speech" is, and it does not encompass people yelling "FIRE" or making bomb threats -____-

I dont know what you mean about animals being tortured lol, but It obviously should be alllowed and used as evidence to pursue any if there is a crime being committed

On November 18 2014 03:49 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 18 2014 02:56 blackjacki2 wrote: Sadly a lot of countries in Europe don't fully appreciate the concept of free speech and have laws in place to punish people whose speech is deemed offensive, hateful, or unpopular. Sadly its a global trend of pseudo liberalism so concerned about offending anyone that they are willing to mutilate freedom in that ridiculous pursue. I dont care if its hate speech or not, even if its antisemitism or you are publicly advocating slavery, your right to free speech is far more important than anyone's sensibilities.

100% this

On November 17 2014 09:30 dogmeat wrote: please, theres a new law in sweden which forbids criticism of immigrants/immigration policy...

bs. sweden has some genuine problems with it being impossible to (negatively) debate immigration policy without appearing racist, but you simplify this to fit it into your world view to the degree where it's just bullshit.

On November 18 2014 01:00 cariadon wrote: Trav94, i'd be very worried man ! Holy shit. Gnarly confirmed troll.

>confirmed troll

That was very trigger-y of you. You need to be a lot more considerate of those who might read your posts. You never know if they developed online-PTSD.

On November 18 2014 03:52 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 17 2014 13:19 passiveace wrote: I think some things should be censored, but there should be a high bar. I dont agree with the idea that people should be able to say/post whatever they want completely regardless of content. otherwise you can shout fire in a crowded theater and cause a stampede, post videos of animal torture, etc, etc. all that "speech" should be censored imo. political speech should be protected though. You clearly dont know what "free speech" is, and it does not encompass people yelling "FIRE" or making bomb threats -____- I dont know what you mean about animals being tortured lol, but It obviously should be alllowed and used as evidence to pursue any if there is a crime being committed

im trying to find out where the line between protected speech and unprotected speech is.

if your definition of 'free speech' (defined as speech that should be protected) includes hate speech against certain groups that could result in them being hurt, but it does not include bomb threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. then where do you draw the line?

I dont think the line between what should be protected speech and what should not be is as clear as you say.

I bring up animal torture because youtube has a long-standing policy of censoring those videos. Should youtube reverse that policy because it is our right to express whatever we want?
personally i am happier knowing that people arnt jacking off to those videos on a site i use regularly.
censorship has its place in society I think. but it has to be used carefully to avoid censoring ideas or political thought.

we agree on the big stuff baalim, like that political speech, even ignorant speech, needs to be protected. but im always wary about the concept of "absolute" free speech, because thats something that comes up as a discussion in america sometimes in the context of the first amendment and i think its pretty dangerous.

In Norway a lot of right wing people complain a lot about too many immigrants.... but then i read somewhere that Sweden takes in 5x as many :o

On November 18 2014 03:49 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 18 2014 02:56 blackjacki2 wrote: Sadly a lot of countries in Europe don't fully appreciate the concept of free speech and have laws in place to punish people whose speech is deemed offensive, hateful, or unpopular. Sadly its a global trend of pseudo liberalism so concerned about offending anyone that they are willing to mutilate freedom in that ridiculous pursue. I dont care if its hate speech or not, even if its antisemitism or you are publicly advocating slavery, your right to free speech is far more important than anyone's sensibilities.

I think you have an overly simplistic view on freedoms here.. They are often in conflict with another. I mean like, I agree that no thought or expression should be policed. Except 1: freedom of speech can be harassment (but there is no clear line between these two, one person's freedom of speech can be perceived by another as harassment. ) While I agree that writing "all niggers should be burned alive" should be allowed (by law), I would argue that you should not be allowed to find yourself a random black guy and yell "ALL NIGGERS SHOULD BE BURNED ALIVE" over and over for hours to no end (or girl because no white guy would dare doing that to a black guy lol), because it's harassment. And then where do you draw the line? Basically I don't have any issue with any statement not directed towards someone - but I think there should be limits to the extent you can verbally attack a particular individual..

Secondly, something like 15 european countries have laws against holocaust denial. It's like, I agree that that's a little silly, especially today, because the only thing you really do when you deny the holocaust nowadays is to showcase to the world what an idiot you are. But these laws are there because hate speech was an integral part of what made the holocaust possible.

and I do think that people should be entitled to freedom from harassment and genocide. I mean I largely agree with you that we're societally evolving in a super cushiony manner which sucks and is boring, and especially to any of us who survived the first years of the internet, because that's gonna thicken your skin, but it's not like "every form of expression should always be permitted cuz freedom of speech", freedom of speech is only one freedom and it can be in conflict with other freedoms.

On November 18 2014 11:59 passiveace wrote: Show nested quote + On November 18 2014 03:52 Baalim wrote:   On November 17 2014 13:19 passiveace wrote: I think some things should be censored, but there should be a high bar. I dont agree with the idea that people should be able to say/post whatever they want completely regardless of content. otherwise you can shout fire in a crowded theater and cause a stampede, post videos of animal torture, etc, etc. all that "speech" should be censored imo. political speech should be protected though. You clearly dont know what "free speech" is, and it does not encompass people yelling "FIRE" or making bomb threats -____- I dont know what you mean about animals being tortured lol, but It obviously should be alllowed and used as evidence to pursue any if there is a crime being committed im trying to find out where the line between protected speech and unprotected speech is. if your definition of 'free speech' (defined as speech that should be protected) includes hate speech against certain groups that could result in them being hurt, but it does not include bomb threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. then where do you draw the line? I dont think the line between what should be protected speech and what should not be is as clear as you say. I bring up animal torture because youtube has a long-standing policy of censoring those videos. Should youtube reverse that policy because it is our right to express whatever we want? personally i am happier knowing that people arnt jacking off to those videos on a site i use regularly. censorship has its place in society I think. but it has to be used carefully to avoid censoring ideas or political thought. we agree on the big stuff baalim, like that political speech, even ignorant speech, needs to be protected. but im always wary about the concept of "absolute" free speech, because thats something that comes up as a discussion in america sometimes in the context of the first amendment and i think its pretty dangerous.

What does youtube have to do with anything? They're not a government entity.. they can censor whatever speech they want. A far more interesting thought is whether it should be legal or not to sell/distribute animal cruelty videos in general.. and that's something that has been ruled on the by the SCOTUS in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens so it's a lot more debatable than what youtube's policies should be.

I wasnt aware that we were talking specifically about us law, especially since wer having a discussion with people from outside the us. its about the ethics of speech.

i think theres a difference between being offensive in the pursuit of truth and progress, and being offensive simply to hurt someone

however human intentions are often near impossible to determine

the 'right words' can be like sticks and stones, where hurting someone verbally is comparable to physical abuse, but how do you determine what the 'right words' are?

On November 18 2014 13:30 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On November 18 2014 03:49 Baalim wrote:   On November 18 2014 02:56 blackjacki2 wrote: Sadly a lot of countries in Europe don't fully appreciate the concept of free speech and have laws in place to punish people whose speech is deemed offensive, hateful, or unpopular. Sadly its a global trend of pseudo liberalism so concerned about offending anyone that they are willing to mutilate freedom in that ridiculous pursue. I dont care if its hate speech or not, even if its antisemitism or you are publicly advocating slavery, your right to free speech is far more important than anyone's sensibilities. I mean I largely agree with you that we're societally evolving in a super cushiony manner which sucks and is boring, and especially to any of us who survived the first years of the internet, because that's gonna thicken your skin, but it's not like "every form of expression should always be permitted cuz freedom of speech", freedom of speech is only one freedom and it can be in conflict with other freedoms.

It's not just about the fact that society is moving in a direction of being cushiony or whatever. What is considered "offensive" or immoral is somewhat fluid. Things that were considered obvious or were otherwise common views 300 years ago are considered deplorable and inhumane now.

Who's to say that in 50 years form now criticizing UK foreign policy isn't labeled "trolling" and resulting in jail time? It's a matter of precedent, and I'm surprised more people aren't alarmed. It is very simple to block/ignore someone on the internet. You shouldn't have a right to not be offended, as anyone can claim offense to just about anything. Yes, if someone is cyber-stalking you relentlessly there should be a crime there but nobody gets physically hurt by someone typing some dumb or rude shit on the internet.

Mostly, I'm concerned about the potential applications of laws like this in suppressing dissent.

On November 18 2014 16:56 nolan wrote: Show nested quote + On November 18 2014 13:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On November 18 2014 03:49 Baalim wrote:   On November 18 2014 02:56 blackjacki2 wrote: Sadly a lot of countries in Europe don't fully appreciate the concept of free speech and have laws in place to punish people whose speech is deemed offensive, hateful, or unpopular. Sadly its a global trend of pseudo liberalism so concerned about offending anyone that they are willing to mutilate freedom in that ridiculous pursue. I dont care if its hate speech or not, even if its antisemitism or you are publicly advocating slavery, your right to free speech is far more important than anyone's sensibilities. I mean I largely agree with you that we're societally evolving in a super cushiony manner which sucks and is boring, and especially to any of us who survived the first years of the internet, because that's gonna thicken your skin, but it's not like "every form of expression should always be permitted cuz freedom of speech", freedom of speech is only one freedom and it can be in conflict with other freedoms. It's not just about the fact that society is moving in a direction of being cushiony or whatever. What is considered "offensive" or immoral is somewhat fluid. Things that were considered obvious or were otherwise common views 300 years ago are considered deplorable and inhumane now. Who's to say that in 50 years form now criticizing UK foreign policy isn't labeled "trolling" and resulting in jail time? It's a matter of precedent, and I'm surprised more people aren't alarmed. It is very simple to block/ignore someone on the internet. You shouldn't have a right to not be offended, as anyone can claim offense to just about anything. Yes, if someone is cyber-stalking you relentlessly there should be a crime there but nobody gets physically hurt by someone typing some dumb or rude shit on the internet. Mostly, I'm concerned about the potential applications of laws like this in suppressing dissent.

please tell me your in law shcool

good old 'i m all for free speech, BUT...'