Man goes to Jail for mocking handicapped girl

[fizzbob]

Shameless strawmaning. There's a huge gap between "not all speech is absolutely allowed" (i.e. what I was saying), and "if someone is offended than you must go to jail" (i.e. your nonsense).


Yes, a strawman is a fairly simple concept.

and now you don't know what straw man means lol. i can tell that YOU think you know shit, but i'm gonna level with you.....you don't know shit

hey, keep stroking that post count though.

<Infracted>
Please don't post just to be insulting.

[Kraenen]

Shameless strawmaning. There's a huge gap between "not all speech is absolutely allowed" (i.e. what I was saying), and "if someone is offended than you must go to jail" (i.e. your nonsense).


Yes, a strawman is a fairly simple concept.

Actually not a strawman, the attempt at using "offense" as a reason to restrict and limit someone's right to speak has been used time and time again. People look for things to be offended by, read up on this, it's pretty interesting.

[semaphore]

you're not understanding the legal definition of harass.

Irrelevant, I was showing to that particular user that this is was an ongoing problem. Since it is something he (the poster) asked about.

it doesn't mean 'to bother'. it doesn't mean 'to make fun of how someone walks'. the key word is systematic.

Doesn't matter, he wasn't jailed for that. He was threatening to attack someone.

[bbman2000]

While I don't agree with what he did, how was he doing anything against the law?[/QUOTE]

Well all i have to say is he better be ready for the consequences of him choosing what he chose to do.

Because while we all should be free to do whatever we want, we also need to be ready to face the consequences.

[semaphore]

Actually not a strawman, the attempt at using "offense" as a reason to restrict and limit someone's right to speak has been used time and time again.

Not by me, and especially not in that post, therefore it actually is a strawman.

Saying "other people said it" is irrelevant when he is replying to my post.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 04:01 AM ----------

and now you don't know what straw man means lol. i can tell that YOU think you know shit, but i'm gonna level with you.....you don't know shit

Such a logical and convincing argument. Totally didn't just descend into petty ad hominem.

[Kraenen]

Oh, but you implied it. I said freedom of speech is not unrestricted and you derided me - clearly you must take the opposite opinion then. But now you agree it is, in fact, not unrestricted?

I'm sorry, what? You're coming off as especially pretentious...

All the while you make a great case for why speech can NOT be regulated. You look for implications that you already wanted to see, and already wanted to get rid of. I say freedom of speech should not be restricted, though it has been tried many times and succeeded for pitiful reasons. (This is redundant as I already went over this point).

[Ashnazg]

Shameless strawmaning. There's a huge gap between "not all speech is absolutely allowed" (i.e. what I was saying), and "if someone is offended than you must go to jail" (i.e. your nonsense).

Just curious (and yes, I have a one track mind) - what do you think about the "Pussy Riot" case where they got jailed for 2 years on charges of offending the Christian majority and Russian people as a whole (actual statute was hooliganism).

[Flatspriest]

What I would like to know is what the mother said to the man for him to feel the need to threaten her. After all, if he is on his property and she comes in with an attitude, he has every right to protect his property. Was she on his property after he had told her to leave and she refused? Yes, he is a giant douche, but we are only getting one side of the story here.

[Kraenen]

Not by me, and especially not in that post, therefore it actually is a strawman.

Saying "other people said it" is irrelevant when he is replying to my post.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 04:01 AM ----------


Such a logical and convincing argument. Totally didn't just descend into petty ad hominem.

No because your argument is about a general subject, not to mention he made it generalized and not specific to the one comment. He was illustrating how easily people take offense, even to go as far as looking to be offended. It's quite relevant to freedom of speech and the attempts to restrict our right to it.

[Deleted]

Good. Let's hope more people like these get the same treatment, then maybe people will think twice before acting this disgusting.

[Deleted]

Yeah. I'm one of those people who support groups' rights to free speech like the WBC. As long as the speech isn't incisive of violence I see no harm in letting anyone say anything they want.

so your saying a grown adult with a kid that is openly insulting a handicapped kid infront of other kids and hurting the kid so bad she doesent wanna go on the bus/school? yea k that idiot got what he deserved and a grown man treating a kid like that is menacing behavior. should take the fucking kid away from him.

What I would like to know is what the mother said to the man for him to feel the need to threaten her. After all, if he is on his property and she comes in with an attitude, he has every right to protect his property. Was she on his property after he had told her to leave and she refused? Yes, he is a giant douche, but we are only getting one side of the story here.

the guy targeted an innocent handicapped 9 year old kid i dont care or need to see his side of the story after that.

[Saev]

I'm not sure if it was stated in the previous 15 pages, but he went to jail because he threatened to strangle the mother with a tow chain. The charges brought against him about making fun of the daughter carry no prison time at all.

[semaphore]

I'm sorry, what? You're coming off as especially pretentious...

Yeah because I pay attention to the conversation history? This is how it went:
A: Someone said that "freedom of speech is freedom to say what we allow you".
B: I responded to say that freedom of speech isn't unrestricted (implication: rightly so).
C: You derided my post as "argument from status quo and authority not valid" (and you still haven't explained what authority)
D: So I have a list of examples of where speech is regulated, and people generally agree should be.
E: And now you're backpedalling to say it is a strawman to suggest you think those speech shouldn't be regulated... even while asserting that "speech can NOT be regulated." Like, what? Either speech can be regulated or it can't be, either you think it is okay to falsely claim that there is a bomb in a crowded train station or you think speech shouldn't be regulated. You can't call the former a strawman while championing absolute free speech.

Alright I can accept that there was too many conversations going on at the same time and things got muddled up, so here, let's start fresh: My point was simply that speech is and has to be regulated at some level.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 04:22 AM ----------

Just curious (and yes, I have a one track mind) - what do you think about the "Pussy Riot" case where they got jailed for 2 years on charges of offending the Christian majority and Russian people as a whole (actual statute was hooliganism).

I think it's completely ridiculous. Even though those girls might have acted foolishly (I know Kasierith thinks they did, and I trust her judgement on this), I do not accept this as an acceptable punishment in anyway. They could reasonably be removed and perhaps thrown in jail overnight for disorderly conduct, but to actually be sentenced to, what was it? Hard labour in some remote prison camp? That's an egregious assault on free speech.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 04:32 AM ----------

No because your argument is about a general subject, not to mention he made it generalized and not specific to the one comment. He was illustrating how easily people take offense, even to go as far as looking to be offended.

And which is a strawman, because I didn't suggest he should go to jail for merely causing offense. I believe he should go to jail for threatening her mother, however - and he is.

[Kasierith]

I think it's completely ridiculous. Even though those girls might have acted foolishly (I know Kasierith thinks they did, and I trust her judgement on this), I do not accept this as an acceptable punishment in anyway. They could reasonably be removed and perhaps thrown in jail overnight for disorderly conduct, but to actually be sentenced to, what was it? Hard labour in some remote prison camp? That's an egregious assault on free speech.

As harsh as their sentencing was, I find little pity for them. They followed the tactic that quite a few people do in Russia now, of hatefully bashing other people whether it be Putin or the church, very often breaking the law in the process, and then broadcasting themselves across the world on the belief that if everyone is watching, they won't be charged. Public support is not even close to as low for Putin as some people proclaim it to be, and it truly is saddening how they attempt to rally the world against the Russian government, when they couldn't even produce a candidate with 20% popularity.

edit: referring to Pussy Riot with this, not the guy here.

[Rukentuts]

As harsh as their sentencing was, I find little pity for them. They followed the tactic that quite a few people do in Russia now, of hatefully bashing other people whether it be Putin or the church, very often breaking the law in the process, and then broadcasting themselves across the world on the belief that if everyone is watching, they won't be charged. Public support is not even close to as low for Putin as some people proclaim it to be, and it truly is saddening how they attempt to rally the world against the Russian government, when they couldn't even produce a candidate with 20% popularity.

He went to jail because he threatened to choke the mother; not for mocking the child. It wasn't very well detailed in the OP article.

[Kasierith]

He went to jail because he threatened to choke the mother; not for mocking the child. It wasn't very well detailed in the OP article.

I was referring to Pussy Riot, not the case at hand. My apologies, I should have clarified.

[someotherguy]

As harsh as their sentencing was, I find little pity for them. They followed the tactic that quite a few people do in Russia now, of hatefully bashing other people whether it be Putin or the church, very often breaking the law in the process, and then broadcasting themselves across the world on the belief that if everyone is watching, they won't be charged. Public support is not even close to as low for Putin as some people proclaim it to be, and it truly is saddening how they attempt to rally the world against the Russian government, when they couldn't even produce a candidate with 20% popularity.

Wait, are you comparing Putin to a little girl? Putin is the president who changed laws to be president ... in any case - he's a public figure.
Abuse of little girls is quite different than anything that anyone can do to Putin.

[Socialhealer]

dem assholes being going to jail, hopefully to get bullied. dat irony.

[Rukentuts]

I was referring to Pussy Riot, not the case at hand. My apologies, I should have clarified.

Oh, I thought they only went to jail because they chose to do it in a church. But frankly I feel little pity for them either. Their message is right imo, but not the way they went about conveying it.

[Socialhealer]

the guy targeted an innocent handicapped 9 year old kid i dont care or need to see his side of the story after that.

so much this,

oooo side of a story, lets hear what he has to say....he's a 43 old man mocky a disabled child he isn't worth the time.