April Jones Facebook troll

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Someone was arrested for making offensive comments?

Who won WWII?

I think you'll find that the Soviet Union did.

*dodg'd*

**Kilkrazy**

Albatross wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Yeah, no physical harm came to the targets as a result of his comments; and I do not believe the state recognizes the concept of mental anguish as a result of insincere language.

Of course it does. You are talking about a country which still considers 'alarming the Queen', as in, causing her emotional distress, to be worthy of up to 13 years of prison.

If you're talking about Marcus Serjeant, he got five years, and that was for firing a pistol at her. True, it was loaded with blanks, but HM was riding a horse at the time and could have been killed if she'd been thrown off. That's treason. They should have hung the bastard.

He was lucky not to be bayonetted on the spot. The guards showed admirable restraint.

**mattyrm**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Yeah, no physical harm came to the targets as a result of his comments; and I do not believe the state recognizes the concept of mental anguish as a result of insincere language.

Of course it does. You are talking about a country which still considers 'alarming the Queen', as in, causing her emotional distress, to be worthy of up to 13 years of prison.

If you're talking about Marcus Serjeant, he got five years, and that was for firing a pistol at her. True, it was loaded with blanks, but HM was riding a horse at the time and could have been killed if she'd been thrown off. That's treason. They should have hung the bastard.

He was lucky not to be bayoneted on the spot. The guards showed admirable restraint.

Indeed, I wasn't aware of this until his hilarious ...

... [removed by Moderator]

If you sent a death letter to the President, and then fired six shots at him from a fething pistol, you would very likely be a dead man. And most people would probably have said he deserved it anyway. Firing a blank firing hand gun at a pensioner on a horse, just after you have sent her a letter saying assassins are after her?!

What Serjeant did was absolutely disgusting, and what will he have served? 3 years? And been given plenty of psychiatric care... and then he got on with his life.

So ...

... [removed by Moderator]

**Kilkrazy**

Let's keep personal speculations out of the topic.

**Mr. Burning**

Somewhat related.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19910865

Social media laws to be discussed in wake of prosecutions

Starmer: "Chilling effect on free speech"Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

No action on abusive Daley tweet
New guidelines for policing social media are to be discussed to avoid a "chilling effect" on free speech, the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales has said.

Director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer QC told the BBC that the right to be offensive "has to be protected".

His comments came in the wake of two prosecutions for offensive postings.

Matthew Wood was jailed on Monday for posting comments about missing girl April Jones.

The teenager's 12-week prison sentence was followed by the prosecution of Azhar Ahmed, 20, who was given 240 hours community service after writing an offensive post about dead British soldiers.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will invite lawyers and academics, as well as representatives from social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter, to be part of the discussions.

The new measures are expected to be announced before Christmas.

Continue reading the main story
Social media on trial

Oct 2012 - Matthew Woods

Mr Woods was jailed for 12 weeks after he made several "abhorrent" postings about missing five-year-old April Jones on Facebook. Members of the public had reported his comments to the police who arrested the man for his own safety after 50 people went to his home.

Oct 2012 - Azhar Ahmed

Twenty-year-old Mr Ahmed (above) was given a 240 hour community service order for posting that "all soldiers should die and go to hell" on Facebook. He said he did not think that the message was offensive.

Aug 2012 - Daniel Thomas

Port Talbot Town FC footballer Daniel Thomas was arrested after an abusive message about Olympic diver Tom Daley was sent. However no charges were brought against Mr Thomas after it was deemed that while offensive, the tweet was not a criminal act.

Mar 2012 - Liam Stacey

Swansea University student Liam Stacey was sentenced to 56 days in prison for posting offensive comments about the then-Bolton Wanderers football Fabrice Muamba. The midfielder had collapsed during an FA Cup match against Tottenham Hotspur.

May 2010 - Paul Chambers

Mr Chambers tweeted a "silly joke" in which he threatened to blow nearby Robin Hood Airport - which had been closed after heavy snow - "sky high" if it did not re-open in time for him to visit his girlfriend. His conviction for sending a "menacing electronic communication" was later quashed.

'Grossly Offensive'
A freedom of information request revealed that there were 2,347 investigations after complaints regarding posts on social media in 2010. This number rose to 2,490 in 2011 - about 50 different cases across the UK each week.

Mr Starmer said prosecutors were finding it difficult to work within the existing law.

"The emerging thinking is that it might be sensible to divide and separate cases where there's a campaign of harassment, [or] cases where there's a credible and general threat, and prosecute in those sorts of cases.

"And put in another category communications which are, as it were, merely offensive or grossly offensive.

"[It] doesn't mean the second category are ring-fenced form prosecution, but it does I think enable us to think of that group in a slightly different way."

Another suggestion is whether social media sites should be asked to improve their moderation procedures to ensure offensive content is more swiftly removed.

Some police forces contacted by BBC Newsnight were concerned that resources were being wasted on too many petty rows online.

Policing comments
However Ralph Cowling, co-founder of music social network ThisIsMyJam, told the BBC he had concerns about such an approach, particularly for smaller networks like his.

"There's no way with a team of four people we could monitor the hundreds of thousands of posts that go up every week," he said.

"Ultimately, we wouldn't want to - it's not our job to police individual comments. What we're here to do is to suggest community guidelines and have the community discuss that between themselves."

Mr Starmer said the new guidelines would enable relevant authorities to use remedies other than criminal prosecution to address instances of offensive activity.

"The threshold for prosecution has to be high," he added.

"We live in a democracy, and if free speech is to be protected there has to be a high threshold.

"People have the right to be offensive, they have the right to be insulting, and that has to be protected."

**Cheesecat**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Someone was arrested for making offensive comments?

Who won WWII?

Trying to sneak Nazism in a thread again I see.

**MrDwhitey**

It's always Nazism.

Dice rolls a 1? Nazis.
Poland invaded? Nazis.
Microwave breaks down? Nazis.

**Kilkrazy**

Freedom of speech is important, however it is also subject to social rules.

Social media on the internet has exploded in a few years. Previously, people were not able to offend in the way they can now. It was impossible for your speech or writing to reach a national audience so quickly and easily, unless you were a national TV presenter or something.

Social behaviour and the law have not caught up with this phenomenon. We are seeing the fallout as people react to the new situation.

**Kovnik Obama**

azazel the cat wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:More recently, someone received 3000 $ in psy damages for ''being laughed at'' because she had her picture taken in the street and put in a magazine.

Pretty sure that had more to do with likeness rights in a publication.

Nah, the publication was amateur and didn't draw any profit, thus there wasn't any amounts associated with likeness rights. The photographer was at fault, so he was ordered to withdraw the picture. She also sued for damages, and when the judge asked for what damages, her answer was literraly 'I was laughed at'. That was all that was needed (although admittedly the damages were really low)

It was one of the first jurisprudence we studied in civil rights.

**Manchu**

MrDwhitey wrote:
It's always Nazism.

Dice rolls a 1? Nazis.
Poland invaded? Nazis.
Microwave breaks down? Nazis.

I don't always read OT but when I do I prefer comments like this.

**Shredsmore**

This is so stupid. Some people need to learn to take a joke.

**Kovnik Obama**

Shredsmore wrote:
This is so stupid. Some people need to learn to take a joke.

No, this is exactly the kind of joke no one needs to learn to tolerate.

**Orlanth**

mattyrm wrote:

What Serjeant did was absolutely disgusting, and what will he have served? 3 years? And been given plenty of psychiatric care... and then he got on with his life.

Three years is low but fair. He fired a starting pistol at Her Majesty, he wasn't trying to make a political point he was just mad and due to what he was 'armed' with wasnt trying to do harm.

There was a case in the seventies of someone who tried to kidnap Princess Anne. He had a real gun and shot and wounded several people in his attempt. He got locked away on a life tarrif, he is still alive in prison and is never getting out.
.

**Albatross**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Freedom of speech is important, however it is also subject to social rules.

Social media on the internet has exploded in a few years. Previously, people were not able to offend in the way they can now. It was impossible for your speech or writing to reach a national audience so quickly and easily, unless you were a national TV presenter or something.

Social behaviour and the law have not caught up with this phenomenon. We are seeing the fallout as people react to the new situation.

Yeah, I said pretty much exactly that a couple of pages ago. Glad you agree.

**whembly**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Shredsmore wrote:
This is so stupid. Some people need to learn to take a joke.

No, this is exactly the kind of joke no one needs to learn to tolerate.

No... people needs to understand that those are just "words".

**Kovnik Obama**

whembly wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Shredsmore wrote:
This is so stupid. Some people need to learn to take a joke.

No, this is exactly the kind of joke no one needs to learn to tolerate.

No... people needs to understand that those are just "words".

No... 'people' need to understand that words, in this context, are actions. Obscene actions which should be penalised in any decent society.

MORE DECENT THAN BASEBALL, DUN DUN DUN?!?!
(To whoever gets that reference, I love you)

**whembly**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
whembly wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Shredsmore wrote:
This is so stupid. Some people need to learn to take a joke.

No, this is exactly the kind of joke no one needs to learn to tolerate.

No... people needs to understand that those are just "words".

No... 'people' need to understand that words, in this context, are actions. Obscene actions which should be penalised in any decent society.

MORE DECENT THAN BASEBALL, DUN DUN DUN?!?!
(To whoever gets that reference, I love you)

I disagree.

Else... the Westboro Baptists folks would be fined/jailed.

Else... Code pink would be fined/jailed.

Else... and I can go on...

**Kovnik Obama**

whembly wrote:
I disagree.

Your prerogative, of course.

Else... the Westboro Baptists folks would be fined/jailed.

I'd get behind that.

Else... Code pink would be fined/jailed.

Didn't know who they were, but a quick glance doesn't really show any 'obscene lack of decency'.

Else... and I can go on...

''Else, [insert slippery slope argument here]'' is easy, but really, if we cared about those, we would never pass a law in.

**whembly**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
whembly wrote:
I disagree.

Your prerogative, of course..

thanks!

Else... the Westboro Baptists folks would be fined/jailed.

I'd get behind that..

As much as I want to beat their faces in... no... they're free to do the gak that they do...

Google up Kevin Smith's counter-protest when Westboro crew protested his last movie Red State.... fething awesome.

Else... Code pink would be fined/jailed.

Didn't know who they were, but a quick glance doesn't really show any 'obscene lack of decency'.

Should've seen what they said during the Bush years...

Else... and I can go on...

''Else, [insert slippery slope argument here]'' is easy, but really, if we cared about those, we would never pass a law in.

**Kaldor**

whembly wrote:
No... people needs to understand that those are just "words".

And? People can just use whatever words they want, in whatever context and whatever place? With no consequence? Is that what you think is appropriate?

I'd much rather live in a country where I can be free from harassment, persecution and abuse.

Restricting the legal use of language in some situations is no different from any other behaviours. We don't have a freedom to punch people in the face, and no one complains about that. Words can be just as, if not more damaging than a punch in the face. Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.

Sure, deciding where to draw the line is hard. Does that mean we should just throw our arms in the air and say it's too hard, so we'll just allow everything? That's just lazy.

**Kovnik Obama**

whembly wrote:
''Else, [insert slippery slope argument here]'' is easy, but really, if we cared about those, we would never pass a law in.

**whembly**

Kaldor wrote:
whembly wrote:
No... people needs to understand that those are just "words".

And? People can just use whatever words they want, in whatever context and whatever place?

Yes

With no consequence? Is that what you think is appropriate?

What do you mean by this?

No.. you should NEVER be free of consequences...

You should be able to say things... but better prepare to accept any retort, counter-protest, or AGRESSIVE BIDEN.

We don't want THOUGHT POLICE or threats to be jailed for saying/writing something on YOUR OWN FACEBOOK page!

I'd much rather live in a country where I can be free from harassment, persecution and abuse.

Won't exist... I'd rather live in a country where STANDING UP FOR YOURSELF is encouraged.

Restricting the legal use of language in some situations is no different from any other behaviours. We don't have a freedom to punch people in the face, and no one complains about that. Words can be just as, if not more damaging than a punch in the face. Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.

Sweet holy Emprah on Terra...

They're just "words".

Sure, deciding where to draw the line is hard. Does that mean we should just throw our arms in the air and say it's too hard, so we'll just allow everything? That's just lazy.

No... it means that you acknowledge that there will be people will say gakky things in this world and you LEARN to ignore them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: Sorry... d-usa got me on a drinking game based on the VP debates... very BUZZED now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT 2: And Kaldor and Kovnik... sorry... still buzzed.

**Kovnik Obama**

whembly wrote:
d8ae26e15d270441fddb6e883e0f8981.png]We don't want THOUGHT POLICE or threats to be jailed for saying/writing something on YOUR OWN FACEBOOK page!

It's not really Thought Police material. You are allowed to chuckle at your own sick jokes. You are allowed to tell them in a very private manner to people you trust will understand (but even then you should be prepared to get seriously burned if you don't practise caution). You are allowed to think things that might hurt someone, but you should never go out of your way to hurt them. And to realize that this would hurt some people, well, that's just really really basic.

No... it means that you acknowledge that there will be people will say gakky things in this world and you LEARN to ignore them.

This isn't some fat teen getting called fat. This is parents going through what I can imagine must be the worst possible moment in their lives. You don't have 'oversensitive' kidnappee's parents that must grow a shell like you have oversensitive emo kids. I very well imagine anyone in this situation must be close to madness. In these cases, yes, I can see matters of decency and politness actually having legal repercussions.

EDIT: Sorry... d-usa got me on a drinking game based on the VP debates... very BUZZED now.

EDIT 2: And Kaldor and Kovnik... sorry... still buzzed.

Stuck at work. You suck.

**whembly**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

...

Can't coherent respond to this... sorry...

EDIT: Sorry... d-usa got me on a drinking game based on the VP debates... very BUZZED now.

EDIT 2: And Kaldor and Kovnik... sorry... still buzzed.

Stuck at work. You suck.

**Kaldor**

whembly wrote:
Sweet holy Emprah on Terra...

They're just "words".

Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.

Someone is upset with a man who happens to be a teacher. They publicly accuse him of being a child molester.

That's ok, because they're just words.

A young gay man is bullied at school and at home until he takes his own life. He was weak, they were just words.

One company lies about the business practices of another, causing the other company to lose market share and be forced to downsize, resulting in lay-offs. But that's ok, because it was just words.

Words can hurt. They can hurt far more than a simple assault can.

**whembly**

Kaldor wrote:
whembly wrote:
Sweet holy Emprah on Terra...

They're just "words".

Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.

Right... so?

Someone is upset with a man who happens to be a teacher. They publicly accuse him of being a child molester.

And that Man should use whatever civil recourse in his disposal... have you not heard of SLANDER?

That's ok, because they're just words.

Yup... certainly not jail worthy.

A young gay man is bullied at school and at home until he takes his own life. He was weak, they were just words.

Yes... they're WORDS! I know what's it like on the recieving end of being bullied. (PM me if you want more details)

I learned the hard way... but they're WORDS... they don't, and shouldn't mean gak to me.

One company lies about the business practices of another, causing the other company to lose market share and be forced to downsize, resulting in lay-offs. But that's ok, because it was just words.

That company has legal recourse for Slander (or more likely LIBEL). Not jail worthy....

Words can hurt.

Never said they didn't...

But what you do with it after being on the recieving end... is up to you.

They can hurt far more than a simple assault can.

**Kaldor**

whembly wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
whembly wrote:
Sweet holy Emprah on Terra...

They're just "words".

Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.

Right... so?

Well, if you want to live in a country that feels that this is OK, go right ahead. Enjoy all the freedom.

**whembly**

Kaldor wrote:
whembly wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
whembly wrote:
Sweet holy Emprah on Terra...

They're just "words".

Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.

Right... so?

Well, if you want to live in a country that feels that this is OK, go right ahead. Enjoy all the freedom.

I do... thanks!

**Kaldor**

whembly wrote:
And that Man should use whatever civil recourse in his disposal...

That company has legal recourse for Slander (or more likely LIBEL). Not jail worthy....

You're saying there should be no recourse at all. Because they're just words.

Both slander and libel deal with words. The saying of them (either spoken or printed, blah blah blah) and how they affect people. You've explicitly stated on multiple occasions that there should be NO repercussions for ANY words, said in ANY place in ANY way.

A young gay man is bullied at school and at home until he takes his own life. He was weak, they were just words.

Yes.

My god.

**whembly**

Kaldor wrote:
whembly wrote:
And that Man should use whatever civil recourse in his disposal...

That company has legal recourse for Slander (or more likely LIBEL). Not jail worthy....

You're saying there should be no recourse at all. Because they're just words.

Both slander and libel deal with words. The saying of them (either spoken or printed, blah blah blah) and how they affect people. You've explicitly stated on multiple occasions that there should be NO repercussions for ANY words, said in ANY place in ANY way.

Me saying that you have a right to say it does NOT equate to being free from consequences... keep up kid... and you have the advantage since I'm a smidgeon away from being drunk.

A young gay man is bullied at school and at home until he takes his own life. He was weak, they were just words.

Yes.

My god.