What a complete butthead. The sentence is appropriate. Put this guy in a cell with "Icepick" for a month to think about how much of a he really is.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/28/ohio-dad-gets-jail-for-mocking-girl-with-cerebral-palsy/?test=latestnews

Ohio dad gets jail for mocking girl with cerebral palsy
Published November 28, 2012
FoxNews.com


A northeast Ohio man accused of making fun of a young girl with cerebral palsy has been sentenced to a month in jail.

Canton Municipal Judge John A. Poulos ordered the maximum sentence for 43-year-old William Bailey, who pleaded no contest Tuesday to reduced misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing.

The (Canton) Repository reports that Bailey was caught on cellphone video at a school bus stop in October making fun of how the 10-year-old disabled girl walks. The video of him seemingly imitating her limp was disseminated online and on local TV news. Bailey denied he was mocking the girl, saying he was reacting to name-calling directed at his 9-year-old son.

The video was shot in October by Hope Holocomb's grandmother at a bus stop, and shows what appears to be both Bailey and his son each walking with a pronounced limp.

Bailey, for his part, declined to talk on camera, but at the time told The New York Daily News that he was injured on the job and was suffering from bruised ribs and twisted back when the video was shot.

His wife told Fox8.com that this is all part of an ongoing dispute and that Hope's family has called her son names.

Bailey apologized to the girl and her family in a statement Tuesday.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/28/ohio-dad-gets-jail-for-mocking-girl-with-cerebral-palsy/?test=latestnews#ixzz2DYX0FEqm

Wait... You can go to jail for making fun of someone? I may think the guy is a jackass, but that doesn't mean he should go to jail for it.

Uh... no jailtime is needed.

Just tell me where he lives.

Freedom of speech indeed.
Remember kids, You can say whatever you want too, aslong as it is approved by the govenrment.

What a barstall lets hope the lads in the prison think he's a pretty boy, or he's very clumsy with a bar of soap.
As you said what a butthead, would it be harsh to suggest he gets cerebral palsy even though I don't think it's possible. Oh the irony would be great.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Freedom of speech indeed.
Remember kids, You can say whatever you want too, aslong as it is approved by the govenrment.

He's free to say it... just not free from any sort of consequence.

No jail time though...

Just send his home address.

 pretre wrote:
Wait... You can go to jail for making fun of someone? I may think the guy is a jackass, but that doesn't mean he should go to jail for it.

Its a very small article. It just says he pleaded down, so there is other stuff going on. Still he looks like a major butthead and deserves it. It beats the beatdown he so richly deserves. Maybe prison will remedy that.

It is Freedom of Speech but you can't be that rude and not get some consequence. It's the judge to decide.

 whembly wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Freedom of speech indeed.
Remember kids, You can say whatever you want too, aslong as it is approved by the govenrment.

He's free to say it... just not free from any sort of consequence.

No jail time though...

Just send his home address.

I'm closer... I work in Canton... the place is a God forsaken fethhole...

Yeah, I read the article. As far as I could tell, he acted like a jackass on a video and was charged with disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing.

Acting like a jackass on video is not something you should be jailed for. Nor, contrary to all the ITGs in this thread, something you should be beat up for.

The guy seems like a complete douchebag, and what he did was absolutely inappropriate. However, I'm not sure it should be okay to send someone to jail for making fun of someone.

I'm not saying there should be no consequences for what he did, I just am not sure that sending someone to jail is the right solution. I've seen people make fun of others in really cruel ways, and although it was appalling, I never thought they should be sent to jail for it.


However, with the whole family feud thing that they mentioned in the story, it could easily be that a lot more is going on in this case.

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
It is Freedom of Speech but you can't be that rude and not get some consequence. It's the judge to decide.

Actually, that's the point of FoS.
Consequence from something other than government? Sure.
Consequence from government for unpopular, stupid or whatever speech? No.

 pretre wrote:

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
It is Freedom of Speech but you can't be that rude and not get some consequence. It's the judge to decide.

Actually, that's the point of FoS.
Consequence from something other than government? Sure.
Consequence from government for unpopular, stupid or whatever speech? No.

Isn't that what I said, this doesn't involve government it's someone being disorderly and being charged for it.

 pretre wrote:
Wait... You can go to jail for making fun of someone? I may think the guy is a jackass, but that doesn't mean he should go to jail for it.

This.

I don't condone what he did, but the thought police are out in full force again.

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
Isn't that what I said, this doesn't involve government it's someone being disorderly and being charged for it.

So making fun of someone or saying something unpopular is now disorderly conduct?

That basically means that anything is disorderly conduct.

 pretre wrote:
So making fun of someone or saying something unpopular is now disorderly conduct?

That basically means that anything is disorderly conduct.

There's more to it than that, and there likely was in this circumstance.

If there is more to it than presented I don't have an opinion. If there isn't then the dude doesn't deserve jail time. Sorry, mocking someone isn't an offense that should send you to jail.

Ah here we go. The original charges were much stronger: "Misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing were filed last month against Bailey."

Aggraved menacing - thats a big deal. Definitely more going on here.

CHARGES REDUCED

On Tuesday, Bailey pleaded “no contest” to amended charges and was found guilty by Poulos.

Tricia Knight, the girl’s mother, filed the menacing complaint with the prosecutor’s office, saying that Bailey threatened to choke her with a chain, said Jennifer Fitzsimmons, assistant city prosecutor. A Stark County sheriff’s deputy filed the disorderly conduct complaint as a result of the video recording of Bailey and his son at the bus stop, citing Bailey’s actions as “offensive behavior,” Fitzsimmons said.

At a hearing Tuesday, the prosecutor’s office reduced the first-degree misdemeanor menacing charge to a fourth-degree charge, citing that “after further investigation, it was determined the threat made was a threat to harm and did not occur in the vicinity of a school,” court papers said.

Also, the fourth-degree misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct was amended to a minor misdemeanor charge because the incident “did not occur on the day in question and the act did not occur in front of a police officer,” as required by the statute, the paperwork said.

What he did was wrong and I have no sympathy, but its a slippery slope.

If the government can regulate what you say, whats to prevent it from leading to outright censorship of anti-government speech. Or anything someone deems offensive.

Someone could go to jail because they called someone an idiot or D-bag. And that obviously wouldn't be right.

Wait, so Fox News didn't tell the whole story?

He deserves some time in jail for the menacing.

He still should not get a disorderly conduct charge for a video, however.

So let me get this straight:

PEOPLE CAN GO TO PRISON FOR HURT FEELINGS IN THE USA?

Apparently now.

The real issue is that the Judges decide how to interpert the law, but they can really take things out of context. Even redefine words if they want to.

This is a case of the Judicial system showing how flawed it is getting.

aggravated menacing lol. It just sounds ridiculous.

"(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family."

I don't see how making fun of her palsy fits this description, so it would seem that there is indeed more to the story. The video, while showing this guy to be a complete kneebiter, looks like a case of villification by local media.

Good thing we only have mods on this site or surely some of us would end up in the clink.

I don't know about jail time, I love when judges give out humiliating or teaching punishments. Have him wear a sign in public that shows what a douche he is, or maybe make him work at a home for the disabled as community service. Especially if his son is involved, he should have to teach his son that his actions were misguided. If you put this guy in prison he and his son won't learn a thing from the experience.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Good thing we only have mods on this site or surely some of us would end up in the clink.

I don't know about jail time, I love when judges give out humiliating or teaching punishments. Have him wear a sign in public that shows what a douche he is, or maybe make him work at a home for the disabled as community service.

Indeed, thats a reasonable punishment. Of course it should get codified so future judges can't punish similar offenses with a more serious punishment.

Jail time for insulting someone is not an appropriate punishment.

This is not 'insulting another person' or 'being an ass', this is psychological child abuse, by an adult, towards a child with quite enough on her plate already.

Screw him, hope he enjoys prison and the lifetime of complications that will earn him.

Here is a perfect example from relatively the same area. This time in Cleveland.http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/146172/woman_sentenced_to_wear_idiot

I like when judges think out of the box like this.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is not 'insulting another person' or 'being an ass', this is psychological child abuse, by an adult, towards a child with quite enough on her plate already.

Screw him, hope he enjoys prison and the lifetime of complications that will earn him.

You're just shotting higher and hgher on my A#1 list.

 pretre wrote:

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
Isn't that what I said, this doesn't involve government it's someone being disorderly and being charged for it.

So making fun of someone or saying something unpopular is now disorderly conduct?

That basically means that anything is disorderly conduct.

No he's being a grevience on society, if a drunk starts heckling someone he gets done for being Drunk and disorderly. This guy is doing that but isn't drunk therefore it's a worse offence...

 Frazzled wrote:

CHARGES REDUCED

On Tuesday, Bailey pleaded “no contest” to amended charges and was found guilty by Poulos.

Tricia Knight, the girl’s mother, filed the menacing complaint with the prosecutor’s office, saying that Bailey threatened to choke her with a chain, said Jennifer Fitzsimmons, assistant city prosecutor. A Stark County sheriff’s deputy filed the disorderly conduct complaint as a result of the video recording of Bailey and his son at the bus stop, citing Bailey’s actions as “offensive behavior,” Fitzsimmons said.

At a hearing Tuesday, the prosecutor’s office reduced the first-degree misdemeanor menacing charge to a fourth-degree charge, citing that “after further investigation, it was determined the threat made was a threat to harm and did not occur in the vicinity of a school,” court papers said.

Also, the fourth-degree misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct was amended to a minor misdemeanor charge because the incident “did not occur on the day in question and the act did not occur in front of a police officer,” as required by the statute, the paperwork said.

Okay, if he threatened to choke the mom out with a chain, yeah, that looks to have escalated to something worth jail time. Making fun of a disabled kid is monetary fine + community service worthy, not jailworthy.

As Frazzled said, the fact he pleaded down indicates there is more to this story then the article has available. I also agree this doesn't seem like a jailin' type offense. Unfortunately "disorderly conduct" is a pretty damn broad umbrella; go ahead and google the statute for your state and see how a police officer can legally arrest you for almost no reason at all thusly.

In Iowa, there is a clause for funeral protesting, an odious practice that is nonetheless constitutionally protected.

edit: I somehow missed Mannahins post explaining it.

 pretre wrote:
Nor, contrary to all the ITGs in this thread, something you should be beat up for.

One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

I've done worse than that. Many people have.

The world is a cruel place.

Relapse wrote:
One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

That's nothing, I did the exact same thing except there was 100 of them and my limbs were tied together.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:
One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

That's nothing, I did the exact same thing except there was 100 of them and my limbs were tied together.

Then you used the rope to whip them, right?

Relapse wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:
One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

That's nothing, I did the exact same thing except there was 100 of them and my limbs were tied together.

Then you used the rope to whip them, right?

Or strangle them, also what makes you think it was rope it was actually razor wire.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:
One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

That's nothing, I did the exact same thing except there was 100 of them and my limbs were tied together.

Then you used the rope to whip them, right?

Or strangle them, also what makes you think it was rope it was actually razor wire.

The questions now is to ask how much they used to tie you up with and were there any survivors.

Credit to Fraz for looking a little deeper and getting a more complete story.

That said, I can't help but think if this incident had occurred in the UK there'd be a lot of Americans posting to say how they should have free speach like in American.

 whembly wrote:
He's free to say it... just not free from any sort of consequence.

That's not what freedom of speach means. It means you can't be punished by government for saying stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
Isn't that what I said, this doesn't involve government it's someone being disorderly and being charged for it.

You do realise that the people who are charging him are policemen and court officials. Those people are government, dude.

 sebster wrote:
I can't help but think if this incident had occurred in the UK there'd be a lot of Americans posting to say how they should have free speach like in American.

Actually there was similar thread a few months where the story was set in the UK and that's exactly what happened, American Dakkanauts started bashing the UK about how they have no free speech (which is untrue btw).

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:
One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

That's nothing, I did the exact same thing except there was 100 of them and my limbs were tied together.

I once rode a Mastadon down mainstreet naked. Yea I said it.

So there I was, alone with the fisherman's daughter. When she saw my rod she reeled....

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I can't help but think if this incident had occurred in the UK there'd be a lot of Americans posting to say how they should have free speech like in American.

Actually there was similar thread a few months where the story was set in the UK and that's exactly what happened, American Dakkanauts started bashing the UK about how they have no free speech (which is untrue btw).

And there are plenty of Americans on here saying this is BS or there is a lot more to the story that we don't know for this sentence to be handed down, so....

Relapse wrote:
So there I was, alone with the fisherman's daughter. When she saw my rod she reeled....

She was only the fishmonger's daughter but she could lay her kipper on the slab and say "fillet".

 Frazzled wrote:
Ah here we go. The original charges were much stronger: "Misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing were filed last month against Bailey."

Aggraved menacing - thats a big deal. Definitely more going on here.

CHARGES REDUCED

On Tuesday, Bailey pleaded “no contest” to amended charges and was found guilty by Poulos.

Tricia Knight, the girl’s mother, filed the menacing complaint with the prosecutor’s office, saying that Bailey threatened to choke her with a chain, said Jennifer Fitzsimmons, assistant city prosecutor. A Stark County sheriff’s deputy filed the disorderly conduct complaint as a result of the video recording of Bailey and his son at the bus stop, citing Bailey’s actions as “offensive behavior,” Fitzsimmons said.

At a hearing Tuesday, the prosecutor’s office reduced the first-degree misdemeanor menacing charge to a fourth-degree charge, citing that “after further investigation, it was determined the threat made was a threat to harm and did not occur in the vicinity of a school,” court papers said.

Also, the fourth-degree misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct was amended to a minor misdemeanor charge because the incident “did not occur on the day in question and the act did not occur in front of a police officer,” as required by the statute, the paperwork said.

That sounds like assault to me, at least in Florida. Assault is not covered by Free Speech. All it takes is that the person being assaulted believe that the person making the treats has the ability and means to follow through with the threat and that they are in fear of that person. I can see a child with cebral palsy being afraid of an adult threatening to choke them with a chain. If that melon-fether came to my jail and was placed in my unit I would look for a reason to give him some personal counseling, off camera of course.

 Testify wrote:

Relapse wrote:
So there I was, alone with the fisherman's daughter. When she saw my rod she reeled....

She was only the fishmonger's daughter but she could lay her kipper on the slab and say "fillet".

She was only a fishmonger's daughter, but she certainly knew her plaice.

Bonus points to anyone who gets the reference.

So sticks and stone may break my bones but words can get you a coke can up your ?

Sticks, stones, and threatening to choke someone with a chain.

If you don't want to go to jail, not threatening to attack someone seems like a pretty low hurdle to clear.

Dumbass threatened to choke a little girl with a chain. Yeah, that guy has some issues that need sorting out via some jail time and a lawsuit.

 Albatross wrote:
So let me get this straight:

PEOPLE CAN GO TO PRISON FOR HURT FEELINGS IN THE USA?

Nope. We're not the UK.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
So let me get this straight:

PEOPLE CAN GO TO PRISON FOR HURT FEELINGS IN THE USA?

Nope. We're not the UK.

Really? Somebody better tell the Judge.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
So let me get this straight:

PEOPLE CAN GO TO PRISON FOR HURT FEELINGS IN THE USA?

Nope. We're not the UK.

Really? Somebody better tell the Judge.

You missed the "threatening to strangle with a chain" part.

Wasn't the original complaint because there was video evidence of people's feeling being hurt? Also, threatening someone, and then being jailed for it, is effectively the same thing as being sent to jail for hurt feelings. He didn't ACTUALLY strangle the kid.

 Albatross wrote:
Wasn't the original complaint because there was video evidence of people's feeling being hurt? Also, threatening someone, and then being jailed for it, is effectively the same thing as being sent to jail for hurt feelings. He didn't ACTUALLY strangle the kid.

You're again missing the "threatening" part. In both the US and UK, depending on the fact pattern, thats assault -threat of harmful or offensive touching.

The guy was going to prison for x amount of time for threatening behaviour. He copped to a lesser charge which still has a jail sentence attached. Good job. Things have come to a head and are being dealt with.

Time out, cool heads, statements made to perps etc etc etc.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Wasn't the original complaint because there was video evidence of people's feeling being hurt? Also, threatening someone, and then being jailed for it, is effectively the same thing as being sent to jail for hurt feelings. He didn't ACTUALLY strangle the kid.

You're again missing the "threatening" part. In both the US and UK, depending on the fact pattern, thats assault -threat of harmful or offensive touching.

Yup In the UK its assault if you threaten with intent to cause harm. if I raise my hand and you flinch, that's assault. You threaten to hit me, also assault, if I feel I may be in danger then that's a higher level charge.

Using language with intent to cause harm, emotional distress, its a crime.

That guy is a grade jackwagon. While I don't think making fun of someone, while not appropriate, deserves jail time, threatening a person should get something. I think the issue here is he looks like the dude that most people would believe to do things like that. He has a mustache, must be evil.

Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka. YOu need to use off site hosting if you wish to include any such image.
Reds8n

 Albatross wrote:
Wasn't the original complaint because there was video evidence of people's feeling being hurt? Also, threatening someone, and then being jailed for it, is effectively the same thing as being sent to jail for hurt feelings. He didn't ACTUALLY strangle the kid.

That's probably true, on some alternate plane of existence. Here in Reality A, though, there's a vast gulf between, "I'm going to knife you," and, "You smell funny."

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Wasn't the original complaint because there was video evidence of people's feeling being hurt? Also, threatening someone, and then being jailed for it, is effectively the same thing as being sent to jail for hurt feelings. He didn't ACTUALLY strangle the kid.

That's probably true, on some alternate plane of existence. Here in Reality A, though, there's a vast gulf between, "I'm going to knife you," and, "You smell funny."

Both result in hurt feelings, which we've established you can go to jail for in the US.

 Albatross wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Wasn't the original complaint because there was video evidence of people's feeling being hurt? Also, threatening someone, and then being jailed for it, is effectively the same thing as being sent to jail for hurt feelings. He didn't ACTUALLY strangle the kid.

That's probably true, on some alternate plane of existence. Here in Reality A, though, there's a vast gulf between, "I'm going to knife you," and, "You smell funny."

Both result in hurt feelings, which we've established you can go to jail for in the US.

No, we haven't?

There's a huge difference between "communicating a threat" and "making fun of someone".

I'm inclined to think you're just trolling though.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is not 'insulting another person' or 'being an ass', this is psychological child abuse, by an adult, towards a child with quite enough on her plate already.

Screw him, hope he enjoys prison and the lifetime of complications that will earn him.

"Psychologicial child abuse"?

Are you kidding? I really hope you are; either way, that comment is highly insensitive to children who have actually suffered real abuse, "Psychological abuse;" give me a fething break! I grew up in a real world situation where I had to deal with people who were donkeycaves!

I suppose maybe you think that everyone who made fun of me in middle school for being Autistic should be arrested? No, that would ridiculous! Someone should find something sensitive about this guy and viciously make fun of it. When kiddies made fun of me, I returned the favor. Far better than locking people up for making fun of people. At that point there would have been no point in fighting WWII.

Psychological abuse is no joke. My family has been personally effected by it.

My nephew's father was highly abusive psychologically. Almost drove them to suicide before my sister finally got full custody and her new husband adopted them. Now its all better by dang it was the worst thing on earth to go through.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Wasn't the original complaint because there was video evidence of people's feeling being hurt? Also, threatening someone, and then being jailed for it, is effectively the same thing as being sent to jail for hurt feelings. He didn't ACTUALLY strangle the kid.

That's probably true, on some alternate plane of existence. Here in Reality A, though, there's a vast gulf between, "I'm going to knife you," and, "You smell funny."

Both result in hurt feelings, which we've established you can go to jail for in the US.

No, we haven't?

There's a huge difference between "communicating a threat" and "making fun of someone".

I'm inclined to think you're just trolling though.

Actually, no. I'm holding up a mirror to the idiotic black-and-white attitude of some posters. My point is that 'free speech' is filled with grey areas. Being threatened with violence without violence being meted out to you is basically just hurt feelings. It's just words. That's why I take issue with idiots who make ignorant 'hurr, you can get jail for hurt feelings in the UK'-type statements; basically, because you can in the USA too. Which is fine, of course, because it's a spectrum, from some nutter saying that they're going to cut out your children's eyes and rape your entire family, to calling someone a poopy-head. Finding a balance is tricky. Civilised countries struggle with it because they actually care about getting it right.

 Albatross wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Wasn't the original complaint because there was video evidence of people's feeling being hurt? Also, threatening someone, and then being jailed for it, is effectively the same thing as being sent to jail for hurt feelings. He didn't ACTUALLY strangle the kid.

That's probably true, on some alternate plane of existence. Here in Reality A, though, there's a vast gulf between, "I'm going to knife you," and, "You smell funny."

Both result in hurt feelings, which we've established you can go to jail for in the US.

No, we haven't?

There's a huge difference between "communicating a threat" and "making fun of someone".

I'm inclined to think you're just trolling though.

Actually, no. My point is that 'free speech' is filled with grey areas. Being threatened with violence without violence being meted out to you is basically just hurt feelings. It's just words. That's why I take issue with idiots who make ignorant 'hurr, you can get jail for hurt feelings in the UK'-type statements; basically, because you can in the USA too. Which is fine, of course, because it's a spectrum, from some nutter saying that they're going to cut out your children's eyes and rape your entire family, to calling someone a poopy-head. Finding a balance is tricky. Civilised countries struggle with it because they actually care about getting it right.

Your "point" is badly worded and damages your argument.

And no, this isn't a "grey area of free speech". There's a whole doctrine regarding communicating threats or attempting to incite a physical altercation.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Psychological abuse is no joke. My family has been personally effected by it.

My nephew's father was highly abusive psychologically. Almost drove them to suicide before my sister finally got full custody and her new husband adopted them. Now its all better by dang it was the worst thing on earth to go through.

From a parent, it's a totally different situation. However, I still don't believe in the concept. While some people are very severely affected, I suspect that a lot of claims are frivolously made in order to make it seem as though one has a more serious position, which is insulting to people who truly suffered. I don't mean to degrade your situation by any means. The situation here isn't a case of abuse coming from a parent.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is not 'insulting another person' or 'being an ass', this is psychological child abuse, by an adult, towards a child with quite enough on her plate already.

Screw him, hope he enjoys prison and the lifetime of complications that will earn him.

"Psychologicial child abuse"?

Are you kidding? I really hope you are; either way, that comment is highly insensitive to children who have actually suffered real abuse, "Psychological abuse;" give me a fething break! I grew up in a real world situation where I had to deal with people who were donkeycaves!

I suppose maybe you think that everyone who made fun of me in middle school for being Autistic should be arrested? No, that would ridiculous! Someone should find something sensitive about this guy and viciously make fun of it. When kiddies made fun of me, I returned the favor. Far better than locking people up for making fun of people. At that point there would have been no point in fighting WWII.

Because everyone knows that it's only abuse if there are physical marks.

Are you kidding? I really hope you are; either way, that comment is highly insensetive who have actually suffered being bullied.
At what point did he say that they should be arrested?

And how is it insulting to children who have suffered "real" abuse? An adult mocks you for being ill and threatens to kill you with a chain, and you don't think that warrants being described as psychological abuse?

Also, this isn't a case of "being made fun of", it's a case of haveing a young girl's life threatened by a guy four times her age.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Psychological abuse is no joke. My family has been personally effected by it.

My nephew's father was highly abusive psychologically. Almost drove them to suicide before my sister finally got full custody and her new husband adopted them. Now its all better by dang it was the worst thing on earth to go through.

From a parent, it's a totally different situation. However, I still don't believe in the concept. While some people are very severely affected, I suspect that a lot of claims are frivolously made in order to make it seem as though one has a more serious position, which is insulting to people who truly suffered. I don't mean to degrade your situation by any means. The situation here isn't a case of abuse coming from a parent.

You don't have to believe in it for it to be real. It's not Peter Pan's ability to fly.

Psychological abuse is a very real thing, and it is not limited to parents heaping it upon their own children. There's a reason that "cyberbullying" is becoming something which schools and other organizations are trying to prevent children from using upon other children.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Wasn't the original complaint because there was video evidence of people's feeling being hurt? Also, threatening someone, and then being jailed for it, is effectively the same thing as being sent to jail for hurt feelings. He didn't ACTUALLY strangle the kid.

That's probably true, on some alternate plane of existence. Here in Reality A, though, there's a vast gulf between, "I'm going to knife you," and, "You smell funny."

Both result in hurt feelings, which we've established you can go to jail for in the US.

No, we haven't?

There's a huge difference between "communicating a threat" and "making fun of someone".

I'm inclined to think you're just trolling though.

Actually, no. My point is that 'free speech' is filled with grey areas. Being threatened with violence without violence being meted out to you is basically just hurt feelings. It's just words. That's why I take issue with idiots who make ignorant 'hurr, you can get jail for hurt feelings in the UK'-type statements; basically, because you can in the USA too. Which is fine, of course, because it's a spectrum, from some nutter saying that they're going to cut out your children's eyes and rape your entire family, to calling someone a poopy-head. Finding a balance is tricky. Civilised countries struggle with it because they actually care about getting it right.

Your "point" is badly worded and damages your argument.

And no, this isn't a "grey area of free speech". There's a whole doctrine regarding communicating threats or attempting to incite a physical altercation.

Listen, I know you want to be a cop (or something, I forget the exact details), but acting like those are black-and-white issues won't help you in that endeavour. 'Incitement to physical violence' is pretty open to interpretation. And even if it wasn't, this is a purely semantic argument. Fear of physical injury can be understood as 'hurt feelings'. You suffer no physical injury, just mental distress. We valorise mental distress according to its causes, but it amounts to the same basic thing. It's just a question of levels.

Saying it's a "grey area of free speech" does not make it a black and white issue.

Communicating threats or "attempting to incite a physical altercation"(aka: "fighting words") is pretty clear-cut.

 Albatross wrote:

Which is fine, of course, because it's a spectrum, from some nutter saying that they're going to cut out your children's eyes and rape your entire family, to calling someone a poopy-head. Finding a balance is tricky. Civilised countries struggle with it because they actually care about getting it right.

Those are both the same thing, someone saying stupid gak to get a rise out of you. Now if he said that and you had a real and profound fear that he "will" do those things then that is not covered by Freedom of Speech.

Some states also define assault as an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

 Goliath wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is not 'insulting another person' or 'being an ass', this is psychological child abuse, by an adult, towards a child with quite enough on her plate already.

Screw him, hope he enjoys prison and the lifetime of complications that will earn him.

"Psychologicial child abuse"?

Are you kidding? I really hope you are; either way, that comment is highly insensitive to children who have actually suffered real abuse, "Psychological abuse;" give me a fething break! I grew up in a real world situation where I had to deal with people who were donkeycaves!

I suppose maybe you think that everyone who made fun of me in middle school for being Autistic should be arrested? No, that would ridiculous! Someone should find something sensitive about this guy and viciously make fun of it. When kiddies made fun of me, I returned the favor. Far better than locking people up for making fun of people. At that point there would have been no point in fighting WWII.

Because everyone knows that it's only abuse if there are physical marks.

Are you kidding? I really hope you are; either way, that comment is highly insensetive who have actually suffered being bullied.
At what point did he say that they should be arrested?

And how is it insulting to children who have suffered "real" abuse? An adult mocks you for being ill and threatens to kill you with a chain, and you don't think that warrants being described as psychological abuse?

Also, this isn't a case of "being made fun of", it's a case of haveing a young girl's life threatened by a guy four times her age.

I have been bullied. I'm not so nuts as to think that it's "abuse." I used to have fairly severe Asperger's Syndrome, which understandably made me stand out at times. One kid kept calling me slowed all the time, constantly. I returned the favor by making fun of something probably even more upsetting. When it came to the attention of the principal, I believe his dad even took my side, as evidenced by the fact that he whined to his friends about how his dad grounded him for calling me slowed.

Also, I wasn't aware at that time that the father in this situation made threats. All I saw was that he was arrested for making fun of someone.

Great, now I'm ashamed of Ohio.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is not 'insulting another person' or 'being an ass', this is psychological child abuse, by an adult, towards a child with quite enough on her plate already.

Screw him, hope he enjoys prison and the lifetime of complications that will earn him.

"Psychologicial child abuse"?

Are you kidding? I really hope you are; either way, that comment is highly insensitive to children who have actually suffered real abuse, "Psychological abuse;" give me a fething break! I grew up in a real world situation where I had to deal with people who were donkeycaves!

I suppose maybe you think that everyone who made fun of me in middle school for being Autistic should be arrested? No, that would ridiculous! Someone should find something sensitive about this guy and viciously make fun of it. When kiddies made fun of me, I returned the favor. Far better than locking people up for making fun of people. At that point there would have been no point in fighting WWII.

Because everyone knows that it's only abuse if there are physical marks.

Are you kidding? I really hope you are; either way, that comment is highly insensetive who have actually suffered being bullied.
At what point did he say that they should be arrested?

And how is it insulting to children who have suffered "real" abuse? An adult mocks you for being ill and threatens to kill you with a chain, and you don't think that warrants being described as psychological abuse?

Also, this isn't a case of "being made fun of", it's a case of haveing a young girl's life threatened by a guy four times her age.

I have been bullied. I'm not so nuts as to think that it's "abuse." I used to have fairly severe Asperger's Syndrome, which understandably made me stand out at times. One kid kept calling me slowed all the time, constantly. I returned the favor by making fun of something probably even more upsetting. When it came to the attention of the principal, I believe his dad even took my side, as evidenced by the fact that he whined to his friends about how his dad grounded him for calling me slowed.
,
Also, I wasn't aware at that time that the father in this situation made threats. All I saw was that he was arrested for making fun of someone.

So have I, which wasn't the point, but the fact that you were able to turn it around and insult them back, apparently quite effectively, doesn't mean that everyone else is able to do so.
Also, you don't really "Used to have Aspergers" (at least according to the people who were treating me) you just train yourself to deal with it the point that you don't act like an utter dick to everyone, and can respond to a situation without doing something, meant in good faith, that can be twisted to make the situation worse.

 Albatross wrote:
Actually, no. I'm holding up a mirror to the idiotic black-and-white attitude of some posters. My point is that 'free speech' is filled with grey areas. Being threatened with violence without violence being meted out to you is basically just hurt feelings. It's just words. That's why I take issue with idiots who make ignorant 'hurr, you can get jail for hurt feelings in the UK'-type statements; basically, because you can in the USA too. Which is fine, of course, because it's a spectrum, from some nutter saying that they're going to cut out your children's eyes and rape your entire family, to calling someone a poopy-head. Finding a balance is tricky. Civilised countries struggle with it because they actually care about getting it right.

I like this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

I have been bullied. I'm not so nuts as to think that it's "abuse." .

This I do not like.

What if you had been bullied by Nazis? I bet that'd be abuse.

 Goliath wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is not 'insulting another person' or 'being an ass', this is psychological child abuse, by an adult, towards a child with quite enough on her plate already.

Screw him, hope he enjoys prison and the lifetime of complications that will earn him.

"Psychologicial child abuse"?

Are you kidding? I really hope you are; either way, that comment is highly insensitive to children who have actually suffered real abuse, "Psychological abuse;" give me a fething break! I grew up in a real world situation where I had to deal with people who were donkeycaves!

I suppose maybe you think that everyone who made fun of me in middle school for being Autistic should be arrested? No, that would ridiculous! Someone should find something sensitive about this guy and viciously make fun of it. When kiddies made fun of me, I returned the favor. Far better than locking people up for making fun of people. At that point there would have been no point in fighting WWII.

Because everyone knows that it's only abuse if there are physical marks.

Are you kidding? I really hope you are; either way, that comment is highly insensetive who have actually suffered being bullied.
At what point did he say that they should be arrested?

And how is it insulting to children who have suffered "real" abuse? An adult mocks you for being ill and threatens to kill you with a chain, and you don't think that warrants being described as psychological abuse?

Also, this isn't a case of "being made fun of", it's a case of haveing a young girl's life threatened by a guy four times her age.

I have been bullied. I'm not so nuts as to think that it's "abuse." I used to have fairly severe Asperger's Syndrome, which understandably made me stand out at times. One kid kept calling me slowed all the time, constantly. I returned the favor by making fun of something probably even more upsetting. When it came to the attention of the principal, I believe his dad even took my side, as evidenced by the fact that he whined to his friends about how his dad grounded him for calling me slowed.
,
Also, I wasn't aware at that time that the father in this situation made threats. All I saw was that he was arrested for making fun of someone.

So have I, which wasn't the point, but the fact that you were able to turn it around and insult them back, apparently quite effectively, doesn't mean that everyone else is able to do so.
Also, you don't really "Used to have Aspergers" (at least according to the people who were treating me) you just train yourself to deal with it the point that you don't act like an utter dick to everyone, and can respond to a situation without doing something, meant in good faith, that can be twisted to make the situation worse.

In rare cases, people can develop to the point where they don't qualify for the diagnosis. I'm not sure if I qualify for that, but I'd say it's borderline. In my case I mostly just learned through observation what was appropriate at what wasn't. There was also a lot of growing up and calming down. While not everyone can't make a good comeback, most people can. Also, Cerebral Palsy doesn't affect intelligence. Anyway, just because someone can't make a comeback doesn't mean it's "psychological abuse."

 Cheesecat wrote:
Actually there was similar thread a few months where the story was set in the UK and that's exactly what happened, American Dakkanauts started bashing the UK about how they have no free speech (which is untrue btw).

That's exactly what I was thinking of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
And there are plenty of Americans on here saying this is BS or there is a lot more to the story that we don't know for this sentence to be handed down, so....

And that's the exact point. The reaction to a roughly similar case in their own country led people to more fully into the story, see if there was more at play than just what the headline showed. And it led others to say 'that particular case is wrong but we still have this general principle" or words to that effect.

And yet when cases from the UK were broadcast, they were happy to just declare that the UK has no freedom of speach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's a huge difference between "communicating a threat" and "making fun of someone".

I'm inclined to think you're just trolling though.

No, he's just pointing out that the response to an earlier thread by some Americans, in which they summarised events as broadly and ludicrously as 'people got jail time for making fun of someone' is quite an interesting contrast to this thread.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
I suppose maybe you think that everyone who made fun of me in middle school for being Autistic should be arrested? No, that would ridiculous! Someone should find something sensitive about this guy and viciously make fun of it. When kiddies made fun of me, I returned the favor. Far better than locking people up for making fun of people. At that point there would have been no point in fighting WWII.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Psychological abuse is no joke. My family has been personally effected by it.

My nephew's father was highly abusive psychologically. Almost drove them to suicide before my sister finally got full custody and her new husband adopted them. Now its all better by dang it was the worst thing on earth to go through.

From a parent, it's a totally different situation. However, I still don't believe in the concept. While some people are very severely affected, I suspect that a lot of claims are frivolously made in order to make it seem as though one has a more serious position, which is insulting to people who truly suffered. I don't mean to degrade your situation by any means. The situation here isn't a case of abuse coming from a parent.

You don't have to believe in it for it to be real. It's not Peter Pan's ability to fly.

Psychological abuse is a very real thing, and it is not limited to parents heaping it upon their own children. There's a reason that "cyberbullying" is becoming something which schools and other organizations are trying to prevent children from using upon other children.

I am forced to agree with Kanluwen completely on this one.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
I suppose maybe you think that everyone who made fun of me in middle school for being Autistic should be arrested? No, that would ridiculous! Someone should find something sensitive about this guy and viciously make fun of it. When kiddies made fun of me, I returned the favor. Far better than locking people up for making fun of people. At that point there would have been no point in fighting WWII.

So your brilliant point is that having laws that prevent verbal abuse of children makes us a fascist state?

He never fails to impress.

People shouldn't be arrested for hurting the feelings of others. Yeah, the guy was a jerkass. Maybe, instead of arresting him, people can just do to him what he did to others - be a jerkass.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is not 'insulting another person' or 'being an ass', this is psychological child abuse, by an adult, towards a child with quite enough on her plate already.

Screw him, hope he enjoys prison and the lifetime of complications that will earn him.

You seem to have anger issues.

_Tim?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

So your brilliant point is that having laws that prevent verbal abuse of children makes us a fascist state?

As unpopular as it may be to say so, having a few knocks around the head when you're a kid is no bad thing imo. But being disabled makes it kind of...different.

Did he do it to her face or not? There's a fething big difference between taking the piss out of someone after they've passed by, and laughing about it in their face. A very big difference.

 LoneLictor wrote:
People shouldn't be arrested for hurting the feelings of others. Yeah, the guy was a jerkass. Maybe, instead of arresting him, people can just do to him what he did to others - be a jerkass.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

So your brilliant point is that having laws that prevent verbal abuse of children makes us a fascist state?

As unpopular as it may be to say so, having a few knocks around the head when you're a kid is no bad thing imo. But being disabled makes it kind of...different.

Did he do it to her face or not? There's a fething big difference between taking the piss out of someone after they've passed by, and laughing about it in their face. A very big difference.

I thought we were past that point and had established that he had threatened her?

Let's keep it friendly, guys.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Actually there was similar thread a few months where the story was set in the UK and that's exactly what happened, American Dakkanauts started bashing the UK about how they have no free speech (which is untrue btw).

Yes. In one case, a kid was arrested for having made tasteless jokes on Facebook.

In another case, a man was arrested for stating his intent to commit assault, and pleaded down to a lesser charge.

Other than the fact that they're completely different, they're very similar. I get that our Brit friends are pretty embarrassed about that Facebook case, but suggesting this is on the same level is not the way to go.

Tasteless jokes about what again? And to whom?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Psychological abuse is no joke. My family has been personally effected by it.

My nephew's father was highly abusive psychologically. Almost drove them to suicide before my sister finally got full custody and her new husband adopted them. Now its all better by dang it was the worst thing on earth to go through.

From a parent, it's a totally different situation. However, I still don't believe in the concept. While some people are very severely affected, I suspect that a lot of claims are frivolously made in order to make it seem as though one has a more serious position, which is insulting to people who truly suffered. I don't mean to degrade your situation by any means. The situation here isn't a case of abuse coming from a parent.

You don't have to believe in it for it to be real. It's not Peter Pan's ability to fly.

Psychological abuse is a very real thing, and it is not limited to parents heaping it upon their own children. There's a reason that "cyberbullying" is becoming something which schools and other organizations are trying to prevent children from using upon other children.

I am forced to agree with Kanluwen completely on this one.

I'd like to state I concur with Kanluwen and the Weiner Herder from Texas. Psychological abuse IS abuse. It's not a subject that's in question.

As to this case, I find the gun jumping reactions early in the thread slightly amusing in a sad way. The guy is a grade A donkey cave and probably shouldn't threaten people if he doesn't want to end up locked up for it. Making fun of a child as an adult however simply proves he's about as low on the scale of human life as you can get, making fun of a disabled child proves the point.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is not 'insulting another person' or 'being an ass', this is psychological child abuse, by an adult, towards a child with quite enough on her plate already.

Screw him, hope he enjoys prison and the lifetime of complications that will earn him.

You seem to have anger issues.

_Tim?

You say that like its a bad thing.

 Seaward wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Actually there was similar thread a few months where the story was set in the UK and that's exactly what happened, American Dakkanauts started bashing the UK about how they have no free speech (which is untrue btw).

Yes. In one case, a kid was arrested for having made tasteless jokes on Facebook.

In another case, a man was arrested for stating his intent to commit assault, and pleaded down to a lesser charge.

Other than the fact that they're completely different, they're very similar. I get that our Brit friends are pretty embarrassed about that Facebook case, but suggesting this is on the same level is not the way to go.

Yes, we're all doing that. IN OPPOSITE LAND!

No one is saying it's exactly the same thing. I'm certainly not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LoneLictor wrote:
People shouldn't be arrested for hurting the feelings of others.

Gah! What is it with you fething people?! It's not that black and white!


Christ on a frigging bike.

This isn't the same thing as the Facebook idiot in the UK. That guy got off with a community order I think.

Anyway.

This case has all sorts of different issues surrounding it as do other cases of their ilk.

Each case is tried on its merits or lack of. Things are not black and white but if something comes to the attention of law enforcement there is a basis on how to proceed.

 Albatross wrote:
Yes, we're all doing that. IN OPPOSITE LAND!

No one is saying it's exactly the same thing. I'm certainly not.

Which is why I - and the person I quoted - used the word 'similar' rather than 'same'. The cases are not the same, but, as I was actually saying, they're also not similar.

Gah! What is it with you fething people?! It's not that black and white!

Yes, it is.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Yes, we're all doing that. IN OPPOSITE LAND!

No one is saying it's exactly the same thing. I'm certainly not.

Which is why I - and the person I quoted - used the word 'similar' rather than 'same'. The cases are not the same, but, as I was actually saying, they're also not similar.

I could explain to you why there are structural similarities, but I'm pretty much convinced at this point that you aren't equipped to take part in such discussions. I will attempt to explain my point again but this is literally as simple as I can make it. If you still can't follow then I'll probably just give up:

The difference between 'hurt feelings' due to offence and the fear felt as a result of a verbal threat is, in very basic terms, a semantic difference. Both are 'just words'. However, civilised societies recognise that words can be damaging, both to individuals and to society as a whole, so steps are taken to control what people say in very specific circumstances - getting the balance right in order to keep pace with the times is a constant process. The USA is not exempt from this process, despite what some Americans like to pretend to themselves.

Over to you.

A relative of mine who suffers from a quite sever mental illness was subject to psychological abuse by her flatmate to such a degree that she lost all of her hair, I am yet to learn if it grew back and how the situation was resolved.

 Albatross wrote:
The difference between 'hurt feelings' due to offence and the fear felt as a result of a verbal threat is, in very basic terms, a semantic difference. Both are 'just words'. However, civilised societies recognise that words can be damaging, both to individuals and to society as a whole, so steps are taken to control what people say in very specific circumstances - getting the balance right in order to keep pace with the times is a constant process. The USA is not exempt from this process, despite what some Americans like to pretend to themselves.

Over to you.

Thats an amazinlgy incorrect statement. its not about whether the "words can be damaging." Its about, and I am quoting the English common law definition here Brit-the person is put in "imminent fear of harmful or offensive touching." Its not whether it makes them feel bad. Its whether they think you're going to physically hurt them.

"Offensive Touching" sounds like poking someone then shouting "Neener neener!" at them.

 Albatross wrote:
Over to you.

Sure. You're wrong.

True threats are offenses under American law largely because there's a public interest in preventing the heralded act of violence from occurring. It's not about preventing hurt fee-fees, as seems to be the goal of much of British law, it's about protecting the victim from the harm that could reasonably be said to follow from the declaration of intent.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
"Offensive Touching" sounds like poking someone then shouting "Neener neener!" at them.

Sounds like a football penalty.

"There was a flag on the play. Offensive touching by the offense. 10 yards, repeat first down."

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Over to you.

Sure. You're wrong.

True threats are offenses under American law largely because there's a public interest in preventing the heralded act of violence from occurring. It's not about preventing hurt fee-fees, as seems to be the goal of much of British law, it's about protecting the victim from the harm that could reasonably be said to follow from the declaration of intent.

(US, law) Oral or written speech that creates, or is intended to create, a fear of physical harm

Can become Malicious Harrasment or disorderly Conduct or verbal Assault . You can also have threats to well being that don't include threats to physical violence.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
The difference between 'hurt feelings' due to offence and the fear felt as a result of a verbal threat is, in very basic terms, a semantic difference. Both are 'just words'. However, civilised societies recognise that words can be damaging, both to individuals and to society as a whole, so steps are taken to control what people say in very specific circumstances - getting the balance right in order to keep pace with the times is a constant process. The USA is not exempt from this process, despite what some Americans like to pretend to themselves.

Over to you.

Thats an amazinlgy incorrect statement. its not about whether the "words can be damaging." Its about, and I am quoting the English common law definition here Brit-the person is put in "imminent fear of harmful or offensive touching." Its not whether it makes them feel bad. Its whether they think you're going to physically hurt them.

Which makes them feel bad. What's more, if there is no follow-through into physical violence, then that is literally all that happens - someone makes you think they're going to hurt you, and you feel bad, but you remain physically unmolested.

It is not a complicated thing that I am saying.

 Albatross wrote:
It is not a complicated thing that I am saying.

It's not, no.

It's just incorrect.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Over to you.

Sure. You're wrong.

No, you just don't, can't, or won't understand what I'm saying.

True threats are offenses under American law largely because there's a public interest in preventing the heralded act of violence from occurring.

Retrospective punishment of threats of violence where no violence occurs prevents acts of violence. Gotcha.

It's not about preventing hurt fee-fees, as seems to be the goal of much of British law

See, now we're getting to what this is really about: insulting the British and portraying them as less manly as Americans. You're an absolute child.

Did an English bloke steal your girlfriend or something? Is that what this is about? Just get over it, you're making yourself look an ass with all this macho posturing and juvenile baby-talk. Grow up, man.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
It is not a complicated thing that I am saying.

It's not, no.

It's just incorrect.

If you'd care to explain yourself instead of just going 'nuh-uh', you'd find that I am incredibly open to changing my opinion on virtually any topic, professor.

 Albatross wrote:
No, you just don't, can't, or won't understand what I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying. That it does not fall into line with reality is unfortunate, but not necessarily my fault.

Retrospective punishment of threats of violence where no violence occurs prevents acts of violence. Gotcha.

So if I threaten to kill someone and do not immediately do it upon conclusion of said threat, in your view it's reasonable to presume that I simply never will?

See, now we're getting to what this is really about: insulting the British and portraying them as less manly as Americans. You're an absolute child.

"Manliness" has nothing to do with it. It's a freedom of speech issue. You take umbrage with the notion that preventing people from saying something at which others might take offense is not within the purview of government. That, unfortunately, boils down to arresting someone for hurting someone else's feelings. In an effort to try and make that position a little more credible - why exactly you care so much about the American opinion of British law baffles me, for the record, as I certainly couldn't give a fig for any other country's opinion of mine - you attempted to link this case to the same sort of wild governmental/judicial overreach, and it backfired on you.

Did an English bloke steal your girlfriend or something? Is that what this is about? Just get over it, you're making yourself look an ass with all this macho posturing and juvenile baby-talk. Grow up, man.

Maybe it's time to take a break and have a Coke or something. Calm down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
If you'd care to explain yourself instead of just going 'nuh-uh', you'd find that I am incredibly open to changing my opinion on virtually any topic, professor.

I'm not sure I could find a way to explain why valid fear of imminent physical harm is different from being upset about the content of speech where absolutely no fear of physical harm exists to someone who does not already understand the difference.

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
The difference between 'hurt feelings' due to offence and the fear felt as a result of a verbal threat is, in very basic terms, a semantic difference. Both are 'just words'. However, civilised societies recognise that words can be damaging, both to individuals and to society as a whole, so steps are taken to control what people say in very specific circumstances - getting the balance right in order to keep pace with the times is a constant process. The USA is not exempt from this process, despite what some Americans like to pretend to themselves.

Over to you.

Thats an amazinlgy incorrect statement. its not about whether the "words can be damaging." Its about, and I am quoting the English common law definition here Brit-the person is put in "imminent fear of harmful or offensive touching." Its not whether it makes them feel bad. Its whether they think you're going to physically hurt them.

Which makes them feel bad. What's more, if there is no follow-through into physical violence, then that is literally all that happens - someone makes you think they're going to hurt you, and you feel bad, but you remain physically unmolested.

It is not a complicated thing that I am saying.

Its not a complicated thing. It is however, an incorrect thing.
The guys with the whigs and the jail hotel don't care if your feeling get hurt. They do care if you were afraid you we re going to get stabbed and die, and that that fear was reasonable.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
No, you just don't, can't, or won't understand what I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying. That it does not fall into line with reality is unfortunate, but not necessarily my fault.

Please feel free to explain yourself.

Retrospective punishment of threats of violence where no violence occurs prevents acts of violence. Gotcha.

So if I threaten to kill someone and do not immediately do it upon conclusion of said threat, in your view it's reasonable to presume that I simply never will?

As with so much, it depends on the circumstances. As in, it's not black and white. Which is what I've been pretty much what I've been saying from the beginning and you've been denying.

See, now we're getting to what this is really about: insulting the British and portraying them as less manly as Americans. You're an absolute child.

"Manliness" has nothing to do with it. It's a freedom of speech issue.

Of course it is. It has nothing to do with your personal inadequacies whatsoever.

See, I care about freedom of speech too, I just don't talk about it like some sort of mouth-breathing jock in the playground. All this 'hurt fee-fees' nonsense is basically just a way for you to portray yourself as a tough-guy. Well, I'm not buying it.

You take umbrage with the notion that preventing people from saying something at which others might take offense is not within the purview of government.

Do I? Erm, no. No I don't. That's an assumption you're making.

That, unfortunately, boils down to arresting someone for hurting someone else's feelings.

Yes, it does. But then so do a fair amount of things you arrest people for over there, which is why it's unseemly for you personally to behave the way you do regarding this issue. Not to mention that fact that you're a grown man.

In an effort to try and make that position a little more credible - why exactly you care so much about the American opinion of British law baffles me, for the record, as I certainly couldn't give a fig for any other country's opinion of mine - you attempted to link this case to the same sort of wild governmental/judicial overreach, and it backfired on you.

Backfired on me? I was teasing because I saw the OP and thought it somewhat ironic. That's just lead to a wider discussion, that's all. The guy DID get arrested as a result of the video of him mocking the girl, though, right?

Did an English bloke steal your girlfriend or something? Is that what this is about? Just get over it, you're making yourself look an ass with all this macho posturing and juvenile baby-talk. Grow up, man.

Maybe it's time to take a break and have a Coke or something. Calm down.

I literally couldn't be calmer!

I don't post on here when I'm in a bad mood. Arguing is something I do for fun. Anyone who knows me on here knows that, whilst I can be vicious (over the top, even), I rarely get angry. If you get angry you lose.

 Albatross wrote:
If you'd care to explain yourself instead of just going 'nuh-uh', you'd find that I am incredibly open to changing my opinion on virtually any topic, professor.

I'm not sure I could find a way to explain why valid fear of imminent physical harm is different from being upset about the content of speech where absolutely no fear of physical harm exists to someone who does not already understand the difference.

You're being reductive there. Of course there is a functional difference. Structurally, however, it boils down to 'someone said something to me which caused me distress'. To apply it to this particular incident, are we really suggesting that the guy was actually going to come back and strangle the girl with a chain, or was it more about the distress caused by the threat? Indeed, how often do you think distress caused by verbal threats is taken into consideration when prosecuting someone for making threats? Often, I'd say. Look at the example Jean Baudrillard (sorry folks...) uses when discussing simulation: If you threaten someone with a replica weapon, should they be punished under the law? If so, why? If not, why?

 Albatross wrote:
Of course it is. It has nothing to do with your personal inadequacies whatsoever.

You are of course welcome to think that if you like, and if it makes the conversation easier, go right ahead.

See, I care about freedom of speech too, I just don't talk about it like some sort of mouth-breathing jock in the playground. All this 'hurt fee-fees' nonsense is basically just a way for you to portray yourself as a tough-guy. Well, I'm not buying it.

Sure, if you say so. I view it as my complete and utter disdain for a legal system that criminalizes jokes made in poor taste, but again, if it makes comprehension easier, go nuts.

Do I? Erm, no. No I don't. That's an assumption you're making.

It is, yes, based on your frequent and frequently offended posting during the thread about the Facebook jailing.

That, unfortunately, boils down to arresting someone for hurting someone else's feelings.

Yes, it does. But then so do a fair amount of things you arrest people for over there, which is why it's unseemly for you personally to behave the way you do regarding this issue.

Could you provide some examples to back up this claim? Because this case isn't one of them, as we've gone over many times.

Backfired on me? I was teasing because I saw the OP and thought it somewhat ironic. That's just lead to a wider discussion, that's all. The guy DID get arrested as a result of the video of him mocking the girl, though, right?

He did get arrested, yes. Not for causing offense, though. If that were grounds for arrest, the Klan would have long ago all gotten arrested. As would a boatload of comedians and other private citizens.

You're being reductive there. Of course there is a functional difference. Structurally, however, it boils down to 'someone said something to me which caused me distress'. To apply it to this particular incident, are we really suggesting that the guy was actually going to come back and strangle the girl with a chain, or was it more about the distress caused by the threat? Indeed, how often do you think distress caused by verbal threats is taken into consideration when prosecuting someone for making threats? Often, I'd say. Look at the example Jean Baudrillard (sorry folks...) uses when discussing simulation: If you threaten someone with a replica weapon, should they be punished under the law? If so, why? If not, why?

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

 Seaward wrote:

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

Again, you are wrong Seaward. You can be arrested in the states for malicious harassment, disorderly conduct and heap of other crimes relating to 'hurt fee fees'.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Again, you are wrong Seaward. You can be arrested in the states for malicious harassment, disorderly conduct and heap of other crimes relating to 'hurt fee fees'.

Malicious harassment statutes are on the books, but I'll believe that they can be successfully used to prosecute someone for hurting someone else's feelings when you can show me it's been done. People have tried it, usually in relation to hate crimes (idiots shouting racial epithets), but they usually get thrown out on - drumroll - First Amendment grounds.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

Again, you are wrong Seaward. You can be arrested in the states for malicious harassment, disorderly conduct and heap of other crimes relating to 'hurt fee fees'.

You might want to look up the details of those crimes, notably that while people can be arrested for these crimes the percentage of successful prosecutions isn't going to be that high unless there are other circumstances in play where someone pleads to a lesser offense.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

Again, you are wrong Seaward. You can be arrested in the states for malicious harassment, disorderly conduct and heap of other crimes relating to 'hurt fee fees'.

I think we're getting things mixed up here...

You can be arrested for just about anything...

Being prosecuted, is an entirely different thing.

Damned, ninja'ed by Seward and Kanluwen.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:
One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

That's nothing, I did the exact same thing except there was 100 of them and my limbs were tied together.

I once rode a Mastadon down mainstreet naked. Yea I said it.

The thing is tough guys aren't really tough because it's what's expected of men to be, the man who dresses up in a skirt with makeup and high heels has more balls than the dude in the plaid shirt with rolled up sleeves talking about chicks, beer, hunting and automobiles.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:
One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

That's nothing, I did the exact same thing except there was 100 of them and my limbs were tied together.

I once rode a Mastadon down mainstreet naked. Yea I said it.

The thing is tough guys aren't really tough because it's what's expected of men to be, the man who dresses up in a skirt with makeup and high heels has more balls than the dude in the plaid shirt with rolled up sleeves talking about chicks, beer, hunting and automobiles.

Depends where you're at doesn't it?

Yeah you're right in a survival situation, I'd rather be hanging around the guy with the plaid shirt who likes hunting than a male transvestite. But in urban society the guy who dresses women's clothing, will have to put up with more gak than a more typical looking person.

 Seaward wrote:

See, I care about freedom of speech too, I just don't talk about it like some sort of mouth-breathing jock in the playground. All this 'hurt fee-fees' nonsense is basically just a way for you to portray yourself as a tough-guy. Well, I'm not buying it.

Sure, if you say so. I view it as my complete and utter disdain for a legal system that criminalizes jokes made in poor taste...

Except it doesn't. Or at least, not necessarily. The concept of joking is highly subjective, also. Once again, if I pull out a replica firearm and say I'm going to shoot you, and you pee your pants, would I be be charged with a crime in the US? What about if I said I was only joking?

Do I? Erm, no. No I don't. That's an assumption you're making.

It is, yes, based on your frequent and frequently offended posting during the thread about the Facebook jailing.

Um, I'm pretty sure I said that the incident was stupid, the judge was stupid, the defendant was stupid, and that I didn't agree with jailing him at all. Pretty sure I said that. I also recall saying that despite this, I can understand why it happens, and that we shouldn't take moronic and reductive views on things like free speech, because it's never as cut-and-dried as 'hurr, people get jailed in the UK for hurt fee-fees!'. This is because that's an abstraction you've drawn from a situation involving words that cause distress. My point is that, structurally, ALL crimes in which the verbal component and the mental distress are the key components in the actual commitment of a criminal act can be reduced down to 'words that cause hurt feelings', should one be juvenile enough, so it's probably best not to use such broad strokes if you want to appear considered and intelligent. 'Hurt feelings' and 'distress' are just arbitrary word choices, loaded with ideology. As we've seen.

That, unfortunately, boils down to arresting someone for hurting someone else's feelings.

Yes, it does. But then so do a fair amount of things you arrest people for over there, which is why it's unseemly for you personally to behave the way you do regarding this issue.

Could you provide some examples to back up this claim? Because this case isn't one of them, as we've gone over many times.

No-one's ever held up a 7-11 with an unloaded or replica weapon? Because in that instant, the robbery is real but threat is not. That person would probably still go to jail for armed robbery. Why? 'Hurt feelings'.

Backfired on me? I was teasing because I saw the OP and thought it somewhat ironic. That's just lead to a wider discussion, that's all. The guy DID get arrested as a result of the video of him mocking the girl, though, right?

He did get arrested, yes. Not for causing offense, though. If that were grounds for arrest, the Klan would have long ago all gotten arrested. As would a boatload of comedians and other private citizens.

You have had obscenity trials. You have obscenity laws. What are they for?

You're being reductive there. Of course there is a functional difference. Structurally, however, it boils down to 'someone said something to me which caused me distress'. To apply it to this particular incident, are we really suggesting that the guy was actually going to come back and strangle the girl with a chain, or was it more about the distress caused by the threat? Indeed, how often do you think distress caused by verbal threats is taken into consideration when prosecuting someone for making threats? Often, I'd say. Look at the example Jean Baudrillard (sorry folks...) uses when discussing simulation: If you threaten someone with a replica weapon, should they be punished under the law? If so, why? If not, why?

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

No, the difference is just a semantic one. They have meanings in law, but those meanings happen to be arbitrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah you're right in a survival situation, I'd rather be hanging around the guy with the plaid shirt who likes hunting than a male transvestite.

I dunno, if this is the UK we're talking about, the guy in the dress is probably a Royal Marine out on the town with the lads, and the dude in the plaid shirt is probably a lesbian.


I love Manchester!