Convicted Internet Trolls Gets 12 Weeks - Page 3

some stuff is interesting like free speech vs defamation/slander

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.

It is pretty clear, free speech means the ability to speak about your ideas... no matter what they are.

Its not free speech if I go in your face screaming how im going to kill you, that is at least harassment, the same applies to bomb threats, yelling fire etc, those have nothing to do with expressing your thoughts.

Youtube is privately owned and they can censor whatever they want, but the state shouldnt.

Free speech can be dangerous becaus some ideas can be dangerous, but censorship is far more dangerous

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 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.

freedom of speech isnt in conflict with any other freedom, not being offended is not a right.

Its quite clear when its harassment and when its not, harassment its focused directly to somebody, if you scream "all niggers should die" and follow a girl around screaming that is clear harassment, if you are in a corner screaming that and a black girl passes by its NOT harassment, since she is not being specifically targeted.

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.

Exactly this... the growing trend of the power of state to censor its scarier than any group of skinhead morons.

People are being sent to Jail in the UK for tweets and believe me, its going to get a lot worse.

On November 19 2014 04:31 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 18 2014 16:56 nolan wrote:   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. Exactly this... the growing trend of the power of state to censor its scarier than any group of skinhead morons. People are being sent to Jail in the UK for tweets and believe me, its going to get a lot worse.

+1

I'd say this has a lot to do with people not caring/understanding what are the basics principles of a functioning democracy and simply taking it for granted.

There is a reason why ugly things get censored: its to protect us.

wow, please elaborate on ugly things.
edit: srsbob ever since you made that comment about people killing babies cause of heroin, I've been a believer, pls do elaborate.

plz dont

elaborate on protecting us :D

This is just another version of the protection versus freedom discussion. And the protection part is winning yet again due to the stupidity and lack of action by the people. It's very easy for politicians to push such moral lines as they cannot be defined properly.
I think nolan summed it up pretty well, what was normal a century ago is considered absolutely unnatural these days, however that is not necessarily bad, however when it comes to voicing your own opinion things get pretty serious. Sure there are some aspects I do agree with e.g. nazi talk in Germany leading to punishment, however even that should be very clearly defined so that the topic cannot be stretched.
However calling some feminist a dirty whore or something like that leading to a punishment is mega retarded.The next day I can be discussing world financial politics here and get arrested because of it, cause I might be hurting someone's interest .. well probably not the best example, but still you get the global point + nolan also said it

This is beginning to look more and more like the 1984 type of dystopia
I'd say on the very basic level of things its all caused by the unwillingness of people to get out of their comfort zone which leads to the search of protection and from then on its pretty easy to fall into a trap

It is pretty clear, free speech means the ability to speak about your ideas... no matter what they are. Its not free speech if I go in your face screaming how im going to kill you, that is at least harassment, the same applies to bomb threats, yelling fire etc, those have nothing to do with expressing your thoughts.

what if screaming in ur face about how im going to kill u is exactly what's on my mind, because i hate u or i love u or whatever? it's both free speech as well as harassment. so is conditional free speech still free speech?

e: i guess point of my post is, harassment has nothing to do with free speech. u can be expressing ur thoughts as well as harassing someone simultaneously, so it's pretty irrelevant if u try to plead free speech after harassment, since u were violating a completely different law that has nothing to do with free speech

On November 19 2014 19:26 fira wrote: Show nested quote + It is pretty clear, free speech means the ability to speak about your ideas... no matter what they are. Its not free speech if I go in your face screaming how im going to kill you, that is at least harassment, the same applies to bomb threats, yelling fire etc, those have nothing to do with expressing your thoughts. what if screaming in ur face about how im going to kill u is exactly what's on my mind, because i hate u or i love u or whatever? it's both free speech as well as harassment. so is conditional free speech still free speech? e: i guess point of my post is, harassment has nothing to do with free speech. u can be expressing ur thoughts as well as harassing someone simultaneously, so it's pretty irrelevant if u try to plead free speech after harassment, since u were violating a completely different law that has nothing to do with free speech

Actually I had a 9th grade science teacher that had no problem yelling at the top of her voice at people. One time I almost pissed me pants, cause it came completely unexpected. Anyway, one day she crossed the line and choked out a student who was talking too much. And she got fired for choking, not for yelling.

On November 19 2014 04:27 Baalim 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 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. freedom of speech isnt in conflict with any other freedom, not being offended is not a right. Its quite clear when its harassment and when its not, harassment its focused directly to somebody, if you scream "all niggers should die" and follow a girl around screaming that is clear harassment, if you are in a corner screaming that and a black girl passes by its NOT harassment, since she is not being specifically targeted.

The very case that prompted this thread (and thus seemingly contributed to your first post) is not a case of free speech being impeded, it's a case of harassment / threats issued anonymously over the internet being punished. I understand that Gnarly wants to spin it differently and while I didn't read his article, probably found an article that spun it differently, because the lady subject to the harassment seems like one of those kinda crazy feminists (wanted to substitute charles darwin for jane austin on the british £10 bill), but to quote an independent article (I lost the link but can easily be googled) :
"Sentencing Ms Sorley, of Akenside Hill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, to 12 weeks in prison and Mr Nimmo, of South Shields, Tyne and Wear, to eight weeks, Judge Howard Riddle said it was "hard to imagine more extreme threats".

Among the tweets Ms Sorely directed towards campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez was: "die you worthless piece of crap". Tweets posted by Mr Nimmo included: "I will find you "."

I mean for us this might seem like nothing, cuz it's just the internet and who cares what people on the internet say, but just.. that you can no longer issue anonymous death threats on the internet, that's not free speech being under attack.. it's just a natural consequence of internet becoming part of regular social interaction and no longer being restricted to particularly thick skinned young males.

I actually did agree with the other (perhaps main) point you were making though, that some free speech ideals are under attack. For example I totally understand the outrage directed towards the "appeasement" of muslims following the mohammad drawings. But from what I've seen there pretty hasn't really been a case of someone being punished by law for stating something offensive online - only threats and harassment have actually been punished by law.

Personally I think a much bigger issue for free speech in the West is that for quite a lot of jobs (particularly public sector), you cannot hold controversial opinions. For example I, as a teacher looking for employment, cannot participate in any public debate regarding weed (because I favor legalizing), and this isn't really an opinion a teacher can flag publicly. Not that I'd necessarily be fired if I stated if after getting a job - but it certainly would make finding one tougher. Likewise, while I'm on the PC side of the immigration debate, I think sweden has a big issue and Norway has a slightly smaller issue with that you can't publicly criticize immigration policy (because many misconstrues that as racist.) But this is not really related to law, if anything this is society responding in a libertarian manner.

Well yeah I agree that at some point you should be prosecuted for harassment over the internet, although "die you worthless piece of crap" shouldn't even count, it should be repeated harassment and threats of action AFTER blocking.

I found court documents from the case
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conten...ts/Judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley.pdf

relevant quote:

Isabella Sorley, you have admitted, on a full fact basis, posting 16 tweets as summarized by prosecuting counsel, Alison Morgan, in her opening note. Between 10.14 and 14.46 on 28TH July you posted 10 tweets in an account your own name and traceable to you. These are a background, and not the subject of the charge. Between 02.25 and 02.55 (so
in the early hours) of 30TH July 2013 you posted six more tweets on another account, Ayekayess (presumably based on your initials). In summary these tweets said: “Fuck off and die...you should have jumped in front of horses, go die; I will find you and you don’t want to know what I will do when I do... kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried; seriously go kill yourself! I will get less time for that; rape?! I’d do a lot worse things than rape you.”

John Nimmo, you have admitted, also on a full fact basis, posting 20 tweets on the topic. They started on 27TH July at 22.31 and continued until 29TH July at 11.50. Five different accounts were used. Among the messages were: “ Ya not that gd looking to rape u be fine; I will find you; come to geordieland (Newcastle) bitch; just think it could be somebody that knows you personally; the police will do nothing; rape her nice ass; could I help with that lol; the things I cud do to u; dumb blond bitch.”
Some of the tweets were menacing Ms Criado Perez; others were directed at Stella Creasy. There were many other tweets from other accounts unconnected to these defendants. It is not said that the defendants in this case knew each other. "


I seriously don't have a problem with this being illegal..

On November 19 2014 07:58 MyAnacondaDont wrote: wow, please elaborate on ugly things. edit: srsbob ever since you made that comment about people killing babies cause of heroin, I've been a believer, pls do elaborate.

Once i was in a bar in thailand watching tv and thai news was on. There was a story about some guy who did suicide by jumping under a train and they actually showed the security cam footage without censoring it at all. I found it very disturbing and hoped they had cut the footage.

On November 19 2014 22:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I found court documents from the case http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conten...ts/Judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley.pdf relevant quote: Isabella Sorley, you have admitted, on a full fact basis, posting 16 tweets as summarized by prosecuting counsel, Alison Morgan, in her opening note. Between 10.14 and 14.46 on 28TH July you posted 10 tweets in an account your own name and traceable to you. These are a background, and not the subject of the charge. Between 02.25 and 02.55 (so in the early hours) of 30TH July 2013 you posted six more tweets on another account, Ayekayess (presumably based on your initials). In summary these tweets said: “Fuck off and die...you should have jumped in front of horses, go die; I will find you and you don’t want to know what I will do when I do... kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried; seriously go kill yourself! I will get less time for that; rape?! I’d do a lot worse things than rape you.” John Nimmo, you have admitted, also on a full fact basis, posting 20 tweets on the topic. They started on 27TH July at 22.31 and continued until 29TH July at 11.50. Five different accounts were used. Among the messages were: “ Ya not that gd looking to rape u be fine; I will find you; come to geordieland (Newcastle) bitch; just think it could be somebody that knows you personally; the police will do nothing; rape her nice ass; could I help with that lol; the things I cud do to u; dumb blond bitch.” Some of the tweets were menacing Ms Criado Perez; others were directed at Stella Creasy. There were many other tweets from other accounts unconnected to these defendants. It is not said that the defendants in this case knew each other. " I seriously don't have a problem with this being illegal..

on a site like twitter, you're going to have people with multiple accounts. it's very common, actually. there are sleeper accounts and all sorts of other accounts. not only that, tweets were tweeted over a three day period. not only that, there were many other tweets from other people, so these two were made examples of, yet the rest let go.

Caroline Criado-Perez made a victim statement dated 6 th January 2014. I am told she is content that I should read her statement rather than hear from her in person. That is entirely understandable. She describes how th e effects of the harassment she has received have been life-changing. Her personality has changed long-term. She describes panic and fear and horror. She feared the abusers would find her and carry out the threats. She felt hunted. She remembers feeling terror every ti me the doorbell rang. She has had to spend substantial time and money ensuring she is as untrackable as possible. She gives a detailed and personal account of the physical effects of the fear on her. The emails from Sorley and Nimmo (she says) are imprinted on her mind – “I don’t think I will ever be free of them”. It is a moving, detailed, and entirely understandable account of the effect of these crimes on her. These offences have caused seri ous and entirely predictable harm to her. The effect on Stella Creasy has also been substantial. She became concerned for her safety to the extent that she had to alter he r behaviour. She had a panic button installed in her home. She describes the e ffect of the crimes on her pub lic duties, on her staff, and on her family. Again the offences have caused serious and entirely predictable harm to her.

Isabella Sorley, you admit you were drunk at
least some of the time. That is a well
recognised aggravating feature, consistently referred to in the generic sentencing
guidelines.

KEK SHE WAS DRUNK
such bullshit! she can't consent to having sent those tweets!!

On November 19 2014 22:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I found court documents from the case http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conten...ts/Judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley.pdf relevant quote: Isabella Sorley, you have admitted, on a full fact basis, posting 16 tweets as summarized by prosecuting counsel, Alison Morgan, in her opening note. Between 10.14 and 14.46 on 28TH July you posted 10 tweets in an account your own name and traceable to you. These are a background, and not the subject of the charge. Between 02.25 and 02.55 (so in the early hours) of 30TH July 2013 you posted six more tweets on another account, Ayekayess (presumably based on your initials). In summary these tweets said: “Fuck off and die...you should have jumped in front of horses, go die; I will find you and you don’t want to know what I will do when I do... kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried; seriously go kill yourself! I will get less time for that; rape?! I’d do a lot worse things than rape you.” John Nimmo, you have admitted, also on a full fact basis, posting 20 tweets on the topic. They started on 27TH July at 22.31 and continued until 29TH July at 11.50. Five different accounts were used. Among the messages were: “ Ya not that gd looking to rape u be fine; I will find you; come to geordieland (Newcastle) bitch; just think it could be somebody that knows you personally; the police will do nothing; rape her nice ass; could I help with that lol; the things I cud do to u; dumb blond bitch.” Some of the tweets were menacing Ms Criado Perez; others were directed at Stella Creasy. There were many other tweets from other accounts unconnected to these defendants. It is not said that the defendants in this case knew each other. " I seriously don't have a problem with this being illegal..

Yeah that is definitelly harassment, using multiple accounts sending threats like I will find you and kill you is not "trolling"

Its still scary what this could lead to because of the topic we were discussing earlier, more anti-offense laws are being passed and hopefully it doesnt reach the internet one day

it's actually very common nowadays. most people i know have multiple twitter accounts just to say things they normally wouldn't say. that's quite literally the point of anonymously posting stuff like that: it's an outlet. granted, the other person may not realize that someone just wants to vent some anger. so, accordingly, it would be wiser not to punish these people but to find out if there's some help they can use. you can't just go around blaming the victim.

I don't think I know a single person who has multiple twitter accounts just so they can attack people with impunity or have an outlet for all their pent up rage lol.. But I guess it makes sense that you know different people from me.

Anyway yeah baal, I agree that some of this is a really really dangerous slippery slope, and I've already felt some effects of the thought policing which goes on - I've never publicly discussed weed using my real name for example - but in this case I don't see any problems. And that's been the case whenever there's been one of these situations where someone is convicted or fired, once I've actually looked at the statements people have been fired for or convicted over, it's always been something incredibly racist/misogynic in the case of a firing and something that clearly falls under harassment in the case of a conviction. So I agree that the possible evolution of this whole thing is really dangerous, that there are already some problems related to thought policing, but it's mostly a case of "we can end up somewhere really bad", not "we're already fucked".