Convicted Internet Trolls Gets 12 Weeks

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30077860

Jailed Twitter troll speaks of regret

Rachel Burden has been speaking to Isabella Sorley, who was jailed after posting abusive messages on Twitter but now wants to warn other young people not to follow in her footsteps.

If I lived in the UK, just alone from the posts I've made on this site, I'd spend the rest of my life in prison. Yet, enough isn't being done. Harsher sentences will need to applied more often, according to the video. I still can't believe that this is an actual thing. Though, I do have the slight suspicion that the person that was "sentenced" was simply a pawn in much larger scheme.

>living in the UK
>"hate speech is not free speech"

User was warned for this post.

please, theres a new law in sweden which forbids criticism of immigrants/immigration policy...

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

Source?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sweden+hate+speech+law

A google search is far from a source, and the only site that states what you claim is a translated source from the most racist site in sweden.

google results might differ from country to country... so i wont proceed to insult ur intelligence right away

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-n...izes-anti-immigration-internet-speech

http://www.spiked-online.com/freespee...eden-is-no-haven-liberty#.VGouhslqGPI

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/05...h-politician-fined-hate-speech-islam/

http://www.europeandailynews.org/2014...se-who-insult-immigrants-politicians/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/swe...ndemned-at-un-human-rights-commission

TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

On November 17 2014 11:25 dogmeat wrote: google results might differ from country to country... so i wont proceed to insult ur intelligence right away http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-n...izes-anti-immigration-internet-speech http://www.spiked-online.com/freespee...eden-is-no-haven-liberty#.VGouhslqGPI http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/05...h-politician-fined-hate-speech-islam/ http://www.europeandailynews.org/2014...se-who-insult-immigrants-politicians/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/swe...ndemned-at-un-human-rights-commission

Dont have time to read them all atm but atleast three of those sites seem to be racist propaganda. Also cant find any mention of it being illegal to criticise immigration policy.

On November 17 2014 12:04 gebbstet wrote: atleast three of those sites seem to be racist propaganda

k.

On November 17 2014 12:04 gebbstet wrote: Dont have time to read them all

On November 17 2014 12:04 gebbstet wrote: cant find any mention of it being illegal to criticise immigration policy.

k.

If by new you meant more then 60 years old, then yea its a new law. And if by "criticise immigration policy" you meant hate speech, then you are totally correct dogmeat.

the possibility that you can go to jail for writing something on the internet seemed unreal to me

This is exactly the same as written press censorship, yet gets a pass because it's against "onine racism/bulliying/whatever"

yeah if the top google search is from thenewamerican.com then I am kind of skeptical
for those that dont know thenewamerican.com is a media arm of the John Birch Society which is an extremely conservative american political movement that was founded as an anti-communist organization during the height of the cold war.
they opposed civil rights legislation in the 60s so i think its particularly funny that their arguing for more "freedom" today.

Also nice link to the new american
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society if you want to lol hard

On November 17 2014 12:41 uiCk wrote: If by new you meant more then 60 years old, then yea its a new law. And if by "criticise immigration policy" you meant hate speech, then you are totally correct dogmeat.

I honestly think that censorship of any kind is morally wrong. Feminazi blogs against men are censored aswell I suppose?

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.

this is why people need to go back to using the internet the way it was meant to be used; anonymously.


stop linking all your accounts and crap and posts and crap to your real life identity especially if you are doing dirt or apparently even "trolling".

although I hate how the media uses the term trolling these days. They get it all wrong. Telling someone to go kill themself is not really trolling its just a threat or shit talking. Trolling someone is to be putting something by them or over their head etc.

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

what he means to say is that there's a movement to make criticizing feminism to be a crime.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/03/...come-illegal-in-the-nordic-countries/

first google search

http://www.nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.10947191!reform.pdf

(if you can read in cuck)

Also, to note, cuckland wants to make it illegal for white men to marry non-white women. some feminist politician wants to mandate some search into why and to start looking into ways to limit if not outright ban swedish men marrying non-white swedish women.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/co...ting_result_of_the_feminized_western/

^i meant what i wrote, thou hating on feminism falls into the same category

Media fails at understanding what "troll" means. A person that wishes you get cancer and blah blah isnt a troll, he s a retard :/

Having thoughts, soon to be a crime. Shit like people getting fired over tweets and fb posts are ridiculous, ISIS facebook pages "death to america" though, nah it's the CIA, fake or they're allowed to do that because they hate us for being the war machine.

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...'

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".

lol lol

looks like so called "free world" is not that free

On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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".

you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/124...-after-jailing-abusive-internet-troll
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/124585/mp-welcomes-jail-term-hate-tweeter

Ms Berger said the four-week prison term handed to Garron Helm sent "a clear message that hate crime is not tolerated in our country".

On November 20 2014 14:43 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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". you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts.

You are failing to diferenciate trolling from harassing, nobody is going to jail for having some "lulz" they are going to jail for threatening to find and kill people over and over, that is not trolling.

On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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".

yes we arent already fucked, but it looks like we are going there.

And I think its more important to NOT go there than to imprison guys threatening over the internet, thats why despise this being a rightful conviction this scares me.


and on the topic about freedom of speech and hate speech I agree 100% with this quote:

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky

On November 20 2014 18:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2014 14:43 Gnarly wrote:   On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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". you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts. You are failing to diferenciate trolling from harassing, nobody is going to jail for having some "lulz" they are going to jail for threatening to find and kill people over and over, that is not trolling.

in the case of the woman, she had alcohol problems, so while she might've come to impulsively follow through with her tweets, the problem of that is to be blamed on what fuels her addiction. (ie: she needs therapy and rehabilitation rather than punishment and fine paying. it is rather irresponsible of the government to further push down this person who has already been pushed down by their society. she will have a harder time getting a job, she's probably in debt, and to sooth that up, she's going to certainly want to feed her addiction at an ever increasing rate.

also, here in america, there was a kid that was jailed for making a joke about shooting up an elementary school, and then immediately typed jk and something along the lines of never would do that. i forget how, but some oldish lady decided it was a real threat, and called it in. where do we draw the line at? three days and 50 tweets from 5 accounts? should we not consider intent such as a bad tasting joke? or even posting a hastag that paints hitler in a better light?

On November 20 2014 18:48 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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". yes we arent already fucked, but it looks like we are going there. And I think its more important to NOT go there than to imprison guys threatening over the internet, thats why despise this being a rightful conviction this scares me. and on the topic about freedom of speech and hate speech I agree 100% with this quote: If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky

the simple fact that one can not express themselves by killing the person they despise proves that society doesn't believe in freedom of expression. after all, what is more passionate and intimate than that? either way, im guessing that means you don't believe in freedom of expression.

^this is what I was talking about when I said "absolute freedom of speech" baalim.

Gnarly, Your definition of 'freedom of expression' is a state of affairs that exists in precisely no human civilization on this planet. and thats a good thing.

Gnarly if we lived in such society i am sure you wouldn't have been able to write this post :D
Pure freedom of expression doesn't mean you should neglect human rights. If we re-arrange Maslow's pyramid to those things im pretty sure human rights will stand on the very bottom of it

http://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/types-of-troll-youll-meet-on-the-internet

On November 21 2014 13:14 Spitfiree wrote: Gnarly if we lived in such society i am sure you wouldn't have been able to write this post :D Pure freedom of expression doesn't mean you should neglect human rights. If we re-arrange Maslow's pyramid to those things im pretty sure human rights will stand on the very bottom of it

pure freedom of expression means exactly that: neglecting human rights. how can one purely express themselves when there are restrictions? you place restrictions on things like murder, because art can take any form: either a blank canvas for oil painting, or using a dead body as a canvas. after all, it's considered art to lose your gay virginity in front of a class.

also, if we lived in a society like that, this site and poker wouldn't exist most likely. that's like saying if my mom aborted me, i wouldn't be able to post.

On November 21 2014 00:18 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2014 18:45 Baalim wrote:   On November 20 2014 14:43 Gnarly wrote:   On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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". you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts. You are failing to diferenciate trolling from harassing, nobody is going to jail for having some "lulz" they are going to jail for threatening to find and kill people over and over, that is not trolling. in the case of the woman, she had alcohol problems, so while she might've come to impulsively follow through with her tweets, the problem of that is to be blamed on what fuels her addiction. (ie: she needs therapy and rehabilitation rather than punishment and fine paying. it is rather irresponsible of the government to further push down this person who has already been pushed down by their society. she will have a harder time getting a job, she's probably in debt, and to sooth that up, she's going to certainly want to feed her addiction at an ever increasing rate. also, here in america, there was a kid that was jailed for making a joke about shooting up an elementary school, and then immediately typed jk and something along the lines of never would do that. i forget how, but some oldish lady decided it was a real threat, and called it in. where do we draw the line at? three days and 50 tweets from 5 accounts? should we not consider intent such as a bad tasting joke? or even posting a hastag that paints hitler in a better light?

why do people keep saying thats its soooo difficult to differentiate harassment from free speech, for the 5th time its fucking not.

Directing many tweets to a person with multiple accounts, with personal threats about finding and killing her = harassment, "ill bomb school lulz jk" not harassment, is that clear now?

Who gives a shit if she is a drunk? drinking alcohol is not an excuse to anything, oh I killed some kids because i was driving drunk... I need rehab not jail! your arguments are always so stupid.

On November 21 2014 19:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 21 2014 00:18 Gnarly wrote:   On November 20 2014 18:45 Baalim wrote:   On November 20 2014 14:43 Gnarly wrote:   On November 20 2014 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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". you should also be able to find articles about it, though with the correct queries. also, the fact that more and more people are being sent to jail for twitter trolling should be an indication of the fact that people actually do have multiple accounts to troll. (myanacandadont, johncalgary?, and more.) in the comment section of most youtube videos, you can see plenty of sleeper and troll accounts. it's not hard at all, in fact, it's one of the easiest things to do, to make multiple accounts. You are failing to diferenciate trolling from harassing, nobody is going to jail for having some "lulz" they are going to jail for threatening to find and kill people over and over, that is not trolling. in the case of the woman, she had alcohol problems, so while she might've come to impulsively follow through with her tweets, the problem of that is to be blamed on what fuels her addiction. (ie: she needs therapy and rehabilitation rather than punishment and fine paying. it is rather irresponsible of the government to further push down this person who has already been pushed down by their society. she will have a harder time getting a job, she's probably in debt, and to sooth that up, she's going to certainly want to feed her addiction at an ever increasing rate. also, here in america, there was a kid that was jailed for making a joke about shooting up an elementary school, and then immediately typed jk and something along the lines of never would do that. i forget how, but some oldish lady decided it was a real threat, and called it in. where do we draw the line at? three days and 50 tweets from 5 accounts? should we not consider intent such as a bad tasting joke? or even posting a hastag that paints hitler in a better light? why do people keep saying thats its soooo difficult to differentiate harassment from free speech, for the 5th time its fucking not. Directing many tweets to a person with multiple accounts, with personal threats about finding and killing her = harassment, "ill bomb school lulz jk" not harassment, is that clear now? Who gives a shit if she is a drunk? drinking alcohol is not an excuse to anything, oh I killed some kids because i was driving drunk... I need rehab not jail! your arguments are always so stupid.

>what i say is what actually is

But the US govt defined that the boy was in fact a terrorist. They defined that what he typed was harassment. It doesn't matter what YOUR personal opinion on the case is, what happen is BASED ON REAL EVENTS THAT OCCURRED. A BOY WAS LABELED A TERRORIST FOR A JOKE MADE ONLINE IN A YOUNG PERSONS GAME. Is that clear, now?

>me le opinion is le law
>me le face when

If she's drunk, she'll have lesser control over herself. She'll be more impulsive, and if there's a reason why she drinks along the lines of having a very abusive parents, then it's clear that her being drunk and angry increases her chances of actually doing something she thinks. Considering that she was drunk during the tweets, I would also dare to assume she wouldn't be of any treat or danger when sober. Why do you think there's always bar fights happening, but when people are sober, fights are extremely rare? Alcohol can make that woman dangerous, but to say that she's not a possible threat to anyone is asinine, and quite contradictory for what you've been saying. (im not saying that nothing should happen to her because she was drunk. someone driving a car while drunk could've made plans to have someone else pick them up BEFORE they got drunk, but they chose to fly without a safety net)

If a person killed some kids while drunk, it also depends on other factors. If a person is habitually driving around drunk, then they are either suicidal or a deadbeat drunk. Either way, rehabilitation rather than punishment would seek to improve their lives. "Oh, so you've had a rough life, and you decided to say fuck it and drown your sorrows in alcohol? well, better punish the fuck out of you, increasing the chances that you'll only increase your alcoholic consumption rate when you get out, also it's gonna be harder to find a job, so get on welfare so that you'll have all day to drink without fear of being fired."

They are still being punished, because if they can't show they are rehabilitated, they won't be allowed back into society. Most people won't be able to forgive someone killing their kids, and rightfully so. However, there are also many times when things do accidentally happen, yet people still want blood. Why do you want blood?

On November 21 2014 19:45 Baalim wrote:

this is very sad to see someone like you resorting to things like that

>smh

Your ways are the right ones