Man fined by courts for "slurring" against teenager Mzee Mohammed on Reddit

[Blur4stuff]

Obviously there's a line to be drawn somewhere, but I like the idea of people being held accountable for what they post online. For 20 years now some people have been getting online and posting things they would never never fucking say to other people's faces. They get behind a keyboard, a switch flips, and they act like assholes. You must know at some point that's going to stop. The free ride of acting like a dick from the safety of your home will come to end eventually.

[Deleted]

No, because monkeys are not known for their accuracy in observation. Nor for their ability to spell...

I don't care to Google check a dead broads name

[Kalis]

I don't care to Google check a dead broads name

Broad? Did you learn English from 1950s Hollywood gangster films?

[Zoranon]

Obviously there's a line to be drawn somewhere, but I like the idea of people being held accountable for what they post online. For 20 years now some people have been getting online and posting things they would never never fucking say to other people's faces. They get behind a keyboard, a switch flips, and they act like assholes. You must know at some point that's going to stop. The free ride of acting like a dick from the safety of your home will come to end eventually.

Yeah freedom of speech is such a terrible concept right?....

As for this particular case, well UK has been pissing on the freedom of speech for decades now, so while depressing, it is not surprising.
I think its kinda ironic that the country that gave the world the concept of individual rights now tramples them like this, but...

[Blur4stuff]

Yeah freedom of speech is such a terrible concept right?....

As for this particular case, well UK has been pissing on the freedom of speech for decades now, so while depressing, it is not surprising.
I think its kinda ironic that the country that gave the world the concept of individual rights now tramples them like this, but...

It's never been the case that "free speech" meant saying anything you want to anyone you want free of consequences.

[Deleted]

Honestly I was thinking you were talking about corporations. If you are speaking against government policy then it would be different.

Most people refer to the whole "free speech does not cover hate speech" response, but they don't make the claim that it ONLY refers to commenting on government policy.

If you aren't committing libel or slander what law would you be breaking?

If the government implemented a law that said copyright laws could not be questioned, would that make it okay to censor people for it?

- - - Updated - - -

"Slurring" sounds like a very gross sexual term.

That said it's bull, but that's why you never put your real name.

He didn't. From what I can see the police officer got his IP from Reddit.

- - - Updated - - -

ye ok. now crawl back under the rock beneath the sewers where you came from.

OT: freedom of speech? fascism? you just made yourself a fool. hiding behind a screen acting like a lowlife piece of s*** doesn't give you any right. they should've jailed the cunt.

We could just as easily live in a society where calling someone a "cunt" is regarded as sexist, and thus worthy of a fine. Would you submit to that? Would that be right? Is "cunt" an objectively worse word than "monkey"?

That you're content with this kind of control is disturbing.

- - - Updated - - -

Vile toxic anonymous hate is worthless and un-needed.

Who decides what constitutes "hate"?

I don't get off by using hateful racist speech to attack people anonymously, this sounds great to me.

To the naysayers claiming that now police will search your history and prosecute you for hate speech etc etc, maybe youll learn not to be a hateful racist... hmm...

It'll go further. With each frivolous case, a new precedent is set. It could just as easily been a racial joke, a joke about genocide. Are you in favour of shutting down black humour websites, or closing Uncyclopedia? Where do you draw the line?

- - - Updated - - -

You are free to say it, not free of the consequences.

What a stupid comment. That's like saying "you are free to kill someone, not free of the consequences".

It's wishy washy newspeak.

And if you want to be a dick, don't hide behind an anonymous avatar. Show some pride in your own opinions.

Do you understand why anonymity and pseudonyms even exist?

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously there's a line to be drawn somewhere, but I like the idea of people being held accountable for what they post online. For 20 years now some people have been getting online and posting things they would never never fucking say to other people's faces. They get behind a keyboard, a switch flips, and they act like assholes. You must know at some point that's going to stop. The free ride of acting like a dick from the safety of your home will come to end eventually.

If you like that idea, then you better get used to all esoteric and taboo opinions never being expressed because the fear of being sacked, or judged by your peers is a big reason why people feel compelled to use online pseudonyms. You'd break all kinds of underground opinions if you forced people to say their opinion by their real name.

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

- - - Updated - - -

It's never been the case that "free speech" meant saying anything you want to anyone you want free of consequences.

This is like saying "you have freedom to kill, but not freedom from the consequences of killing". It's authoritarian apologetics.

[Karon]

So you think people should be arrested/fined/whatever for making stupid comments online, including anonymously?

yes.


"your rights end where mine begin"

get that through your thick skull, island monkey.

[Deleted]

yes.


"your rights end where mine begin"

get that through your thick skull, island monkey.

You don't have a right to not be offended.

Should I call the police for you saying I'm thick?

[GennGreymane]

Honestly laws need to modernize.... and we need better examples. Early cases of free speech for obscenity tended to go against free speech. Some of the bigger cases involved porn, so that should tell ya something. Using trolls as a poster boy will not get your point across. I see the same issue for mens rights.... the bigger mouth piece is just some troll twitter account.

[Zoranon]

It's never been the case that "free speech" meant saying anything you want to anyone you want free of consequences.

It means exactly that, that government cannot punish you for what you say.

[Kalis]

yes.


"your rights end where mine begin"

get that through your thick skull, island monkey.

Is 'island monkey' supposed to be an insult? If so, shouldn't it be one that the people it is aimed at find insulting? Island monkeys sound pretty cool, like they spend all their time enjoying themselves and not giving a fuck.

[Deleted]

Honestly laws need to modernize.... and we need better examples. Early cases of free speech for obscenity tended to go against free speech. Some of the bigger cases involved porn, so that should tell ya something. Using trolls as a poster boy will not get your point across. I see the same issue for mens rights.... the bigger mouth piece is just some troll twitter account.

Most of these people aren't clever, and are easy targets for the courts. We're left looking bad because we're sticking up for the rights of the wretched, the ignorant and the racist. That's why this will never improve and could get worse.

[Azadina]

It means exactly that, that government cannot punish you for what you say.

And nowhere on this planet is that actually true.

[Deleted]

And nowhere on this planet is that actually true.

He's saying that OUGHT to be the case, not that it is.

[Azadina]

He's saying that OUGHT to be the case, not that it is.

But since it isn't the case anywhere, what's the point really?

What's the meaning past theoretical, when it doesn't mean that in practice?

[GennGreymane]

Most of these people aren't clever, and are easy targets for the courts. We're left looking bad because we're sticking up for the rights of the wretched, the ignorant and the racist. That's why this will never improve and could get worse.

Exactly my point and I am glad we agree. If we really want free speech on the internet, we need to put up better examples, the problem is... they tend to not be targeted by corporate policy. The best way to do it would not be through legal (as in courts) means by challenging rules of companies, but by legislative lobbying.

- - - Updated - - -

He's saying that OUGHT to be the case, not that it is.

It also shouldn't "OUGHT to be the case". Depends if you mean criminal or civil. Criminally would cover false bomb threats, false crime reports, etc and should be punishable to some extent criminally. Basically anything that wastes people time, or can cause a picnic in which people get hurt. Civilly would mean libel, slander, etc.

[Arewn]

yes.


"your rights end where mine begin"

get that through your thick skull, island monkey.

The irony here being that the insult you just flung while defending this practice should, by what you've argued, get you in legal trouble.

[Deleted]

Exactly my point and I am glad we agree. If we really want free speech on the internet, we need to put up better examples, the problem is... they tend to not be targeted by corporate policy. The best way to do it would not be through legal (as in courts) means by challenging rules of companies, but by legislative lobbying.

Corporate censorship is a problem too, but this is about the state fining/arresting people for being rude online. As much as might not like what they say, their expression should also matter.

[Azadina]

The irony here being that the insult you just flung while defending this practice should, by what you've argued, get you in legal trouble.

Funnily enough, alot of people on this forum has said far worse things than what the guy got fined for.

[GennGreymane]

Corporate censorship is a problem too, but this is about the state fining/arresting people for being rude online. As much as might not like what they say, their expression should also matter.

Corporate censorship is indeed an issue. I a few times on this forum have advocated that we expand our laws that say you cannot deny service to someone based on skin color,etc to include opinions. But then you run into the problem of absolute toxicity. That Milo guy once stated that maybe real names should be attached to online accounts. I dont think thats a good way to handle it.

As for the person in question here, from my understanding the issue is an old law. Laws need to update. Problem is, its kinda hard to stand up for trolls and dumb asses. If you want to tackle it legally, you need a better client, someone more sympathetic, someone who people an feel for or agree with. Kinda hard when its just some ass hat. Like I said, we need to tackle this legislatively.