boyfriday Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 If someone turned up at a funeral of loved ones I am sure they might get attacked. Thats not really a reason to say people should be restricted in what they can say on the internet. That's really part of the point I was making originally, the development of the internet and social media particularly, has outpaced the necessary debate and development of our thinking. In pre internet days you had to go to a lot of hassle if you wanted to gratuitously offend someone, or potentially put yourself in harms way. Now a couple of clicks of a mouse from the comfort of your living room can potentially cause Armageddon. We've stark choices, we either accept that the benefits of free speech outweigh the sensitivities of large sections of the population (and the fallout that ensues) or we censor the more sensational excesses and punish those who digress in order that the internet can be used fully and enjoyed by the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Just have common sense, that's all you need, that is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 when you publish information on facebook you are publishing it. You are not writing it on scrap paper or telling your mate. You are publishing it for the world to see and you are responsible for it. If you abuse people you should be held accountable in the same way a newspaper is. I think it comes under some kind of "taste and decency" rule? We never had free speech. We have it with provisos like taste and decency, libel etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 As a father of a young daughter, the occurrences in Wales are awful, and I think this man deserves punishing, but locking him up isn't the answer. Look at it this way: He makes sick, stupid and offensive joke about someone potentially, and most likely, dying. Someone being murdered. But, on stage, people like Jimmy Carr and many others make equally poor taste jokes. Jimmy Carr has made holocaust jokes before, where millions died. Nothing's said, other than by Jimmy Carr, when he thanks people for the ticket and DVD sales, and banks the profits (without paying much tax). In terms of scale vs punishment, why is one horrible joke about one person dying worse than another horrible joke about millions dying? I think that's what people are trying to argue, rather than whether this person is a moron or not, which he clearly is. Is there a time when it becomes acceptable? Are Madeleine McCann jokes ok now? Someone mentioned race - is it ok to tell jokes about race? If not, why do comics still do anti German stuff? Religion is another one - we can mock some religions and not others? How many people laugh at certain religions and not others. Jehovah's witnesses spring to mind as one example - they can be mocked as door knocking, watchtower plugging oddballs, and no one minds. Not so for other religions. Freedom of speech is a minefield. It has to be one rule for all, not one rule for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 More details on the Guardian site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-teenager-jailed-facebook Other sources have said he posted them in a group set up for people concerned about the case. He went in with the intent to troll and cause offence. Its interesting to read he was initially arrested for his own protection. As for freedom of speech, this comment I read elsewhere sums it up: 'Freedom of speech' is about people being able to criticise authorities, its not about heaping mockery upon people's sorrow and anguish. If you want to act like a ****, then you can be treated like a ****. Freedom of speech is a right. But freedom of speech also comes with a responsibility to use it legally. Break the law and your freedom to do something becomes a rather weak defence. Instead of yelling "Free Speech!", it's worth instead finding out what your Right to it really includes and what it doesn't include. It's not - nor ever has been - a legal excuse for language liable to cause public offence, incitement, libel, slander, hate crimes, excessive noise, et cetera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 As a father of a young daughter, the occurrences in Wales are awful, and I think this man deserves punishing, but locking him up isn't the answer. Look at it this way: He makes sick, stupid and offensive joke about someone potentially, and most likely, dying. Someone being murdered. But, on stage, people like Jimmy Carr and many others make equally poor taste jokes. Jimmy Carr has made holocaust jokes before, where millions died. Nothing's said, other than by Jimmy Carr, when he thanks people for the ticket and DVD sales, and banks the profits (without paying much tax). In terms of scale vs punishment, why is one horrible joke about one person dying worse than another horrible joke about millions dying? I think that's what people are trying to argue, rather than whether this person is a moron or not, which he clearly is. Is there a time when it becomes acceptable? Are Madeleine McCann jokes ok now? Someone mentioned race - is it ok to tell jokes about race? If not, why do comics still do anti German stuff? Religion is another one - we can mock some religions and not others? How many people laugh at certain religions and not others. Jehovah's witnesses spring to mind as one example - they can be mocked as door knocking, watchtower plugging oddballs, and no one minds. Not so for other religions. Freedom of speech is a minefield. It has to be one rule for all, not one rule for some. I think it's about context, most people can take a joke, some of the funniest I've heard have been racially motivated and directed at me, that's fine but I don't particularly want to be walking down the street and verbally abused by a total stranger. None of us know what this individual has said but it probably went beyond the kind of Frankie Boyle/Jimmy Carr sick humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 As a father of a young daughter, the occurrences in Wales are awful, and I think this man deserves punishing, but locking him up isn't the answer. Look at it this way: He makes sick, stupid and offensive joke about someone potentially, and most likely, dying. Someone being murdered. But, on stage, people like Jimmy Carr and many others make equally poor taste jokes. Jimmy Carr has made holocaust jokes before, where millions died. Nothing's said, other than by Jimmy Carr, when he thanks people for the ticket and DVD sales, and banks the profits (without paying much tax). In terms of scale vs punishment, why is one horrible joke about one person dying worse than another horrible joke about millions dying? I think that's what people are trying to argue, rather than whether this person is a moron or not, which he clearly is. Is there a time when it becomes acceptable? Are Madeleine McCann jokes ok now? Someone mentioned race - is it ok to tell jokes about race? If not, why do comics still do anti German stuff? Religion is another one - we can mock some religions and not others? How many people laugh at certain religions and not others. Jehovah's witnesses spring to mind as one example - they can be mocked as door knocking, watchtower plugging oddballs, and no one minds. Not so for other religions. Freedom of speech is a minefield. It has to be one rule for all, not one rule for some. its a minefield which is why it is generally treated based on specific cases rather than one rule for all. To me it is far more offensive to make a joke about a named individual. I still find Diana jokes offensive. This is a very recent issue, about a potentially murdered 5 year old with someone in custody now. Two articles have said the comments were sexually explicit. Now I may be wrong but isn't that illegal anyway? Sexually explicit comments about a 5 year old? theres another limit on our free speech (I think) A facebook ban as a punishment is laughable. Facebook doesn't care and there are no checks to ensure you are who you say you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I think it's more likely that the government have just gone about it the wrong way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 This is nothing to do with Facebook, it's using a communications media (the internet) as means of distributing offensive information to the masses: He got what he deserved, just like someone who probably told a dead baby joke in a pub would get a smack by someone. That would be a suitable outcome ,and is usually the case ,but come on , this country has totally lost the plot over comments posted online ,what ever they maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 To me it is far more offensive to make a joke about a named individual. I still find Diana jokes offensive. Really? Fair enough if that's true, but it's surprising to me, when presumably you didn't know her and it was 20 years ago or thereabouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.