Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by FurryFoxWolf View Post
    wonder how much of this case was based up on his ethnicity, cos being anything other than white and being a victim seems to skyrocket anything that happens in the case

    - - - Updated - - -

    god stop bringing your precious shitty EU into every thread i find you incredibly annoying cos you just talk about 1 thing
    Then use the ignore feature built into the website. Your choice to read what he posts. Also the same can be said of you with threads you have made in the Computer section regarding Windows 10 which basically turn into you bashing it. So pot meet kettle.

  2. #42
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Eleccybubb View Post
    Then use the ignore feature built into the website. Your choice to read what he posts. Also the same can be said of you with threads you have made in the Computer section regarding Windows 10 which basically turn into you bashing it. So pot meet kettle.
    are you seriously comparing human ethnicity to a computer operating system ok dude your a fucking dumbass

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zombergy View Post
    Hitler would approve.
    ofc he would

    infracted - minor flaming
    Last edited by Crissi; 2016-09-22 at 12:44 AM.

  3. #43
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by FurryFoxWolf View Post
    are you seriously comparing human ethnicity to a computer operating system ok dude your a fucking dumbass
    No? He was comparing you complaining about someone constantly bringing up the EU to you constantly bringing up your gripes with Windows 10. I have no idea if you do that, or the EU guy does that, but that's what Eleccy was saying.

  4. #44
    Issues of hate speech/slander aside, the comments weren't made anonymously, they were made under a pseudonym. If he wanted to express himself anonymously he should of gone to 4Chan, but he instead decided to leave his comments in a place where the community that knew the individual could see and react to it.
    Don't shit where you eat.

  5. #45
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Woadnson View Post
    Issues of hate speech/slander aside, the comments weren't made anonymously, they were made under a pseudonym. If he wanted to express himself anonymously he should of gone to 4Chan, but he instead decided to leave his comments in a place where the community that knew the individual could see and react to it.
    The purpose of a pseudonym is to protect your real life identity. He was de facto anonymous to 99% of the internet. Reddit likely handed his information over.

    In any case, even if he did make it under his real name, so fucking what? Why should he be fined?

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Skavau View Post
    The purpose of a pseudonym is to protect your real life identity. He was de facto anonymous to 99% of the internet. Reddit likely handed his information over.

    In any case, even if he did make it under his real name, so fucking what? Why should he be fined?
    A pseudonym is simply one step from using your own name, it still identifies an entity rather than nullifying an identity.

    As for being fined... fuck knows. He wasn't doing anything of worth and given we weren't sat in court watching, we don't know how he conducted himself before the magistrate. Piss off a judge and they will fuck with you.

  7. #47
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Woadnson View Post
    A pseudonym is simply one step from using your own name, it still identifies an entity rather than nullifying an identity.

    As for being fined... fuck knows. He wasn't doing anything of worth and given we weren't sat in court watching, we don't know how he conducted himself before the magistrate. Piss off a judge and they will fuck with you.
    The premise is that it should not have gone to court in the first place. The Communications Act can fuck off. It's illiberal, outdated and invasive. You can actually be arrested for being rude to someone on Reddit under an alias. This is major overreach and it doesn't look good for the Uk. It's going to continue getting worse.

  8. #48
    Scarab Lord TwoNineMarine's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Man Cave Design School
    Posts
    4,232
    The fact that people are actually OK with this sort of thing is very telling of our worldwide culture at the moment.

    People are totally fine with government suppressing freedom of speech and encroaching in other aspects of their life.

    That is such a completely foreign frame of mind to me. It's crazy. But whatever floats peoples boats.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - General James Mattis

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoNineMarine View Post
    People are totally fine with government suppressing freedom of speech and encroaching in other aspects of their life.

    That is such a completely foreign frame of mind to me. It's crazy. But whatever floats peoples boats.
    Trolling is the antithesis to "freedom of speech". Especially when its done anonymously with racist comments.

    Its sad that "common decency" such as slurring the dead has to be legislated, but I am 100% fine with the way this was done. (except perhaps the "intelligence gathering" is a little scary)

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoNineMarine View Post
    The fact that people are actually OK with this sort of thing is very telling of our worldwide culture at the moment.
    People are totally fine with government suppressing freedom of speech and encroaching in other aspects of their life.
    That is such a completely foreign frame of mind to me. It's crazy. But whatever floats peoples boats.
    Because these people are short sighted, ignorant, and frankly dumb.

    They have no concept of precedent.

    I've been trying to school liberals on every one of Obama's unconstitutional actions, every one of his EO's that goes way beyond the scope of the Executive Branch, and every one of his misuse of federal powers.

    People simply don't give a shit because its "their side" doing the act.

    But what they fail to realize, in their short sighting ignorance, is that Obama wont be King forever.

    Every precedent he sets can be utilized by another President ...another REPUBLICAN President.

    But then they'll care, oh my how they will QQ, but it will be too fucking late at that point.

    This pure fetish level masturbatory thrill people get from cheering on anything and everything from "their side" especially when its flat out fucking wrong is a prime example of why we need to seriously re-examine voting privileges.
    MAGA
    When all you do is WIN WIN WIN

  11. #51
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Halicia View Post
    Trolling is the antithesis to "freedom of speech". Especially when its done anonymously with racist comments.
    So, what? All racial comments should carry some kind of punishment by the state? What about sexist comments? Homophobic? Ableist?

    How far do you want to take this?

    Its sad that "common decency" such as slurring the dead has to be legislated, but I am 100% fine with the way this was done. (except perhaps the "intelligence gathering" is a little scary)
    It's disturbing that you're content with our police doing shit like this. How many people do you want to arrest for what they say?

  12. #52
    It doesn't explicitly say he was charged under the Communications Act (though the articles phrasing suggests it), but if he was, yes, you're right, that is an overreach issue. The problem is Parliament has failed for many years to put in place any proper legislation relating to the internet, so they use older laws used for other forms of media. Bare in mind that this appears to be brought about by the police and isn't technically anything to do with the government and having been tried he has failed to defend his position, rights or phrasing. Maybe his lawyer is the issue and not the conviction.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Skavau View Post
    Indeed. I can see it now accelerating to an even worse place. This is the first I've seen it relate to a Reddit comment.
    About 3 years ago I remember another case where a guy, should I say bloke, tweeted at a local airport and was charged and convicted for threatening them.

    Just looked to link an article and found he appealed and won.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-19009344

  14. #54
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Woadnson View Post
    It doesn't explicitly say he was charged under the Communications Act (though the articles phrasing suggests it), but if he was, yes, you're right, that is an overreach issue. The problem is Parliament has failed for many years to put in place any proper legislation relating to the internet, so they use older laws used for other forms of media. Bare in mind that this appears to be brought about by the police and isn't technically anything to do with the government and having been tried he has failed to defend his position, rights or phrasing. Maybe his lawyer is the issue and not the conviction.
    He shouldn't have to defend his position. It doesn't matter how right, wrong, offensive, stupid it was. Why this is going to get worse is because the UK public (including some people in here, as you'll witness) don't care about this. Some even approve of it. Approval of this kind of authoritarian behaviour is even higher amongst the general public. It used to just effect Twitter and Facebook, and for me that was containment of sorts (I don't really use either) but this will set a precedent - you can post with a pseudonym on Reddit, and you could still be charged. Reddit will (apparently) hand your details over. This is going to get worse.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by McFuu View Post
    About 3 years ago I remember another case where a guy, should I say bloke, tweeted at a local airport and was charged and convicted for threatening them.

    Just looked to link an article and found he appealed and won.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-19009344
    Yes, albeit this isn't quite the same. This wasn't a joke - this was his opinion. He's also lost.

    If I recall he managed to get Stephen Fry's backing also. That helped a lot.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Skavau View Post
    He shouldn't have to defend his position. It doesn't matter how right, wrong, offensive, stupid it was.
    He used a trigger word and there is legislation against hate speech, so yes, if he got called on it, he did need to defend himself.

    Part of the problem you will have in convincing people of your standpoint is that a lot of people don't care for obnoxious behaviour. I haven't seen the resulting comments his Facebook page was reportedly inundated with (and caused him to lose his job), but do you feel that was legal behaviour as well?

  16. #56
    Kinda fucked up especially since the kid is dead and can't have his feelings hurt.

    Also police in the US should prob start using "died after becoming unwell in the custody of police officers".

  17. #57
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Woadnson View Post
    He used a trigger word and there is legislation against hate speech, so yes, if he got called on it, he did need to defend himself.
    It was demanded that he defend himself. I say he should not have had to do so. He made a racial remark. Literature can include racist societies. Comedy can be racist. Video Games can be racist. Music can be racist. All of them can also be sexist, homophobic, ableist etc.

    Part of the problem you will have in convincing people of your standpoint is that a lot of people don't care for obnoxious behaviour. I haven't seen the resulting comments his Facebook page was reportedly inundated with (and caused him to lose his job), but do you feel that was legal behaviour as well?
    This is a cultural issue. In America, almost all corners of society would defend his right to free speech. We don't have that kind of tradition here.

    Do I feel what was legal behaviour? Him losing his job over it?

  18. #58
    His comments can't be compared to any kind of art form as it wasn't art, it was opinion. Maybe if he'd been witty... /shrug

    Well... I say that but then there is Gazza's current predicament.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b05d7913704678

    Not so much him losing his job as the comments posted by people on his Facebook page that caused him to be fired.

  19. #59
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Woadnson View Post
    His comments can't be compared to any kind of art form as it wasn't art, it was opinion. Maybe if he'd been witty... /shrug
    Art gets a free pass? Why? Consistency should be key here. Should making a racial joke as a stand up comedian be banned? A joke about women? A joke about gay people? A joke about disabled people? Is South Park, with all that it offers somehow /better/, more /legal/ than what this random guy said on Reddit?

    Well... I say that but then there is Gazza's current predicament.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b05d7913704678

    Not so much him losing his job as the comments posted by people on his Facebook page that caused him to be fired.
    Yes, that was as bad. These are two very disturbing things that have happened in a short period of time. We're clearly becoming very authoritarian on this. It should disturb social libertarians.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by FurryFoxWolf View Post
    are you seriously comparing human ethnicity to a computer operating system ok dude your a fucking dumbass

    - - - Updated - - -

    ofc he would
    Lol are you serious? I was comparing the fact that you are telling someone to stop talking about the same consistent topic is hypocrisy when you yourself have done so with a specific topic.
    Last edited by Eleccybubb; 2016-09-22 at 12:19 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •