UK Police spend millions hunting Twitter and FB trolls!

[Zarc]

Fining people for hurting feelings is unethical. For example, lets say somebody on Tumblr says "I hate cis white men they are trash". That may be hateful speech but they should be 100% free to express their views. The best way to counter them is through forming arguments and presenting facts, not making them pay a fine or jailing them.

"I hate cis white men they are trash" doesn't qualify as an insult in Swedish law though, as my source described (could be something else, but let's not digress). If you said directly to a person "You are a motherfucker" with the intent to hurt the feelings of that person that would be a crime and you would be fined if that would be tried in court (unlikely) and you would be found guilty (which would require the court to prove beyond reasonable doubt through evidence that the insult happened and that your intent was to hurt the other person's feelings. If they would find that your intent was not to hurt the other person's feelings but rather it was an outburst of anger in the heat of the moment for example with no intent behind it you would be found not guilty). No jail. Seems like unethical that it would not be illegal to insult people with the sole intent of hurting them, because, you know, freedom of speech is not freedom to harass.

[Deleted]

Switching the subject is a sign of a weak argument. If you dont like free speech policy, attack the policy based on universal logic.



Thinking you should throw people you think are cunts in jail is unethical and authoritarian.

I wasn't saying that free speech is a bad thing. I was saying that limitless speech is. I was not changing subjects, I was highlighting the fucking idiocy with which "some countries" have sanctified "say whatever the fuck you want as that means we are free!" while forgoing a whole bunch of other de facto liberties.

If you didn't get the monopoly reference I can't really throw the time into expanding upon it and much less see any merit in doing so.

But here is a thought exercise:
Say I went up to your father, gave him a slap around the chops (no teeth lost, no concussion, merely a cheek blushing bitch slap) and pointed at you and said, "that is for raising him!". Rude? yes. Criminal? certainly. Lasting damage? (caused by the slap not the parenting) minimal.

Now compare this with the like of Westboro gatecrashing a funeral. They only say stuff right?

What is actually worse your pops getting red cheeks or a whole family having a funeral disrupted by someone "exercising a right with impunity". Why does one need to be policed and not the other?

(just to be clear I don't want to slap yer old fella).

[PC2]

"I hate cis white men they are trash" doesn't qualify as an insult in Swedish law though, as my source described (could be something else, but let's not digress). If you said directly to a person "You are a motherfucker" with the intent to hurt the feelings of that person that would be a crime and you would be fined if that would be tried in court (unlikely) and you would be found guilty (which would require the court to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your intent was to hurt the other person's feelings. If they would find that your intent was not to hurt the other person's feelings but rather it was an outburst of anger in the heat of the moment for example with no intent behind it you would be found not guilty). No jail. Seems like unethical that it would not be illegal to insult people with the sole intent of hurting them, because, you know, freedom of speech is not freedom to harass.

Freedom of speech does mean you have the freedom to hurt other peoples feelings with intent. The freedom to attack other peoples firmly held beliefs and value system is what helps human civilization to advance past dogma. If their counter argument does not hold up to critical thinking, then we keep attacking their position with speech and arguments.

[Deleted]

"I hate cis white men they are trash" doesn't qualify as an insult in Swedish law though, as my source described (could be something else, but let's not digress). If you said directly to a person "You are a motherfucker" with the intent to hurt the feelings of that person that would be a crime and you would be fined if that would be tried in court (unlikely) and you would be found guilty (which would require the court to prove beyond reasonable doubt through evidence that the insult happened and that your intent was to hurt the other person's feelings. If they would find that your intent was not to hurt the other person's feelings but rather it was an outburst of anger in the heat of the moment for example with no intent behind it you would be found not guilty). No jail. Seems like unethical that it would not be illegal to insult people with the sole intent of hurting them, because, you know, freedom of speech is not freedom to harass.

You are using a minority definition of harassment that no-one accepts. Being insulted isn't harassment in itself. Being subject to consistent negative/insulting/intimidating behaviour that you cannot get away from, or to get away from, would have to impose unwarranted restrictions on yourself, is where it begins to become harassment.

It's why someone mouthing off at you on Twitter isn't harassment because you can do multiple things to stop them. A) Block, B) Change profile settings to restrict external messages, C) Report to Twitter. If said person begins making multiple accounts to insult, begins phoning you up, spreading malicious rumours etc, then it becomes something different.

[Zarc]

Freedom of speech does mean you have the freedom to hurt other peoples feelings with intent. The freedom to attack other peoples firmly held beliefs and value system is what helps human civilization to advance past dogma. If their counter argument does not hold up to critical thinking, then we keep attacking their position with speech.

Yes, of course the bold part is completely true. You are free to do that in Sweden. Calling somebody a "pig whore" has no relevance to attacking the beliefs or value system of somebody else, and an insult such as that is not an argument so by definition it is not possible to produce a "counter argument" towards an insult. Attacking a persons view that same-sex marriage should be illegal or that healthcare should be universal or that his religion is wrong with arguments that the person can choose to counter is attacking the persons firmly held beliefs and value system, insults adds nothing to that. Though of course, without being a legal expert, I dare state that saying "Same-sex marriage should be legal because otherwise we don't treat everyone the same, you fucking cunt!" is not an insult (legally) because the intent was, I would judge, not to hurt the person (which is a requirement for it to be legally an insult, and which is rightly hard to prove), but rather just your expression of frustration or anger in the heat of the moment.

[Underverse]

You are using a minority definition of harassment that no-one accepts. Being insulted isn't harassment in itself. Being subject to consistent negative/insulting/intimidating behaviour that you cannot get away from, or to get away from, would have to impose unwarranted restrictions on yourself, is where it begins to become harassment.

It's why someone mouthing off at you on Twitter isn't harassment because you can do multiple things to stop them. A) Block, B) Change profile settings to restrict external messages, C) Report to Twitter. If said person begins making multiple accounts to insult, begins phoning you up, spreading malicious rumours etc, then it becomes something different.

Sadly I think more people might accept that definition of harassment than you might think. For example; we call it harassment when a guy catcalls a woman, regardless of whether or not this event happened only once or if the guy was notified that the woman in question didn't want him to engage in such behaviors.

I agree with you, though, that these kinds of events should not be considered harassment.

[Deleted]

Sadly I think more people might accept that definition of harassment than you might think. For example; we call it harassment when a guy catcalls a woman, regardless of whether or not this event happened only once or if the guy was notified that the woman in question didn't want him to engage in such behaviors.

I agree with you, though, that these kinds of events should not be considered harassment.

I think catcalling is a special case. It's regarded as harassment because it is expected that women might suffer from them over and over throughout a day.

[Zarc]

Sadly I think more people might accept that definition of harassment than you might think. For example; we call it harassment when a guy catcalls a woman, regardless of whether or not this event happened only once or if the guy was notified that the woman in question didn't want him to engage in such behaviors.

I agree with you, though, that these kinds of events should not be considered harassment.

I would concede harassment was a poor choice of words on my part!

[Underverse]

I think catcalling is a special case. It's regarded as harassment because it is expected that women might suffer from them over and over throughout a day.

This seems like a weak argument. Anyone can be insulted by any number of people over the course of a day - it doesn't make those individual insults harassment. It just makes those people dicks. Same with catcalling. Catcallers aren't harassing; they're just expressing themselves in a classless manner that some people find distasteful (and some people enjoy).

In either case, I think legislating culture is risky, and in most cases unnecessary.

[PC2]

Yes, of course the bold part is completely true. You are free to do that in Sweden. Calling somebody a "pig whore" has no relevance to attacking the beliefs or value system of somebody else, and an insult such as that is not an argument so by definition it is not possible to produce a "counter argument" towards an insult. Attacking a persons view that same-sex marriage should be illegal or that healthcare should be universal or that his religion is wrong with arguments that the person can choose to counter is attacking the persons firmly held beliefs and value system, insults adds nothing to that. Though of course, without being a legal expert, I dare state that saying "Same-sex marriage should be legal because otherwise we don't treat everyone the same, you fucking cunt!" is not an insult (legally) because the intent was, I would judge, not to hurt the person (which is a requirement for it to be legally an insult, and which is rightly hard to prove), but rather just your expression of frustration or anger in the heat of the moment.

Yes I agree since you are making general points. But none of this is an argument supporting the idea that hurt feelings from speech should be against the law.

[Zarc]

Yes I agree since you are making general points. But none of this is an argument as to why hurt feelings from speech should be against the law.

I agree, it should not be outlawed to have hurt feelings from speech!

[Deleted]

This seems like a weak argument. Anyone can be insulted by any number of people over the course of a day - it doesn't make those individual insults harassment. It just makes those people dicks. Same with catcalling. Catcallers aren't harassing; they're just expressing themselves in a classless manner that some people find distasteful (and some people enjoy).

In either case, I think legislating culture is risky, and in most cases unnecessary.

I agree. I'm just explaining why it might be regarded as harassment.

[PC2]

I agree, it should not be outlawed to have hurt feelings from speech!

Because it's all in their head, no damage has been done.

[Zarc]

I agree. I'm just explaining why it might be regarded as harassment.

Well, I guess she would be harassed if she got individual insults from any number of people repeatedly throughout the day. So therefore we say she is being harassed. We're not saying that any one of those people individually harassed her tho. If it was only one guy who made all those insults we would be saying that.

[Bryntrollian]

Must be a nice job to have, reading shit posts all day and sending in the troops when you find something you don't agree with.

[Zarc]

Because it's all in their head, no damage has been done.

Hope you saw what I did there.

Was supposed to exit with that but your choice of words here seemed too curious to ignore. "Because it's all in their head, no damage has been done". By that logic unlawful threats and sexual molestation is also no damage done, since that is also just somebody saying words to you or sending messages to you.

Anyways, just a final clarification, the person receiving the insult having hurt feelings is actually not a part of what makes it qualify as a crime. The requirement is that the sender had the intent of hurting the receiver's feelings, if the receiver's feelings was hurt but that was not the intent of the sender it wouldn't be a crime.

[Mistame]

I agree. I'm just explaining why it might be regarded as harassment.

Which gives us the option of pointing out their ignorance since by definition it can't be harassment if no single person is doing it repeatedly.

Well, I guess she would be harassed if she got individual insults from any number of people repeatedly throughout the day. So therefore we say she is being harassed. We're not saying that any one of those people individually harassed her tho. If it was only one guy who made all those insults we would be saying that.

Except "cat calls" aren't typically "insults". In fact, they're actually complimentary more often than not. The problem lies in the notion that somehow an "unwanted" compliment is harassment, which just goes to show how bat-shit some people are. Just like those that think that government can or should protect people's "feelings" are of an inherently irrational nature. (Note that actual insults being yelled at someone is not a "cat call".)

[PC2]

By that logic unlawful threats and sexual molestation is also no damage done, since that is also just somebody saying words to you or sending messages to you.

Molestation has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is about verbal-only speech, not about what you do with your body. Physical threats are illegal because they are based on damage as opposed to feelings-based.

Anyways, just a final clarification, the person receiving the insult having hurt feelings is actually not a part of what makes it qualify as a crime. The requirement is that the sender had the intent of hurting the receiver's feelings, if the receiver's feelings was hurt but that was not the intent of the sender it wouldn't be a crime.

Nope, intent to hurt someones feelings isn't justly punishable by law. It has to be evidence or intent towards financial or physical damage.

[Sorrowseer]

This is good for different reasons, people do need accountability, the petty stuff is ofc petty stuff, but when people are dying or losing jobs, then that needs looked at.

We don't have free speech in the UK.

Never have done.

bwahaha.

[PC2]

This is good for different reasons, people do need accountability, the petty stuff is ofc petty stuff, but when people are dying or losing jobs, then that needs looked at.

If someone died or lost their job, that is based on physical and financial loss. Not on speech itself.