UK Police spend millions hunting Twitter and FB trolls!

[Sorrowseer]

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

There is a difference between free speech and targeted abuse.

[PC2]

There is a difference between free speech and targeted abuse.

Abuse is based on physical or financial damage. It isn't based on speech. For example you could target a homophobe and verbally oppose someone who you think has bad ideas, but if you dont damage them but just hurt their feelings, it is perfectly legal and within your rights.

[Sorrowseer]

[QUOTE=PrimaryColor;41964654]Abuse is based on physical or financial damage. It isn't based on speech. For example you could target a homophobe and verbally oppose someone who you think has bad ideas, but if you dont damage them but just hurt their feelings, it is perfectly legal and within your rights.[/QU

You can be pedantic about abuse, i'm wrongly using it as a catch all term, I don't mind, I am glad this is happening

Though after reading what you put, what is racism and gender/disability discrimination for you? Perfectly legal and within your rights as you are not damaging them?

[Deleted]

Abuse is based on physical or financial damage. It isn't based on speech. For example you could target a homophobe and verbally oppose someone who you think has bad ideas, but if you dont damage them but just hurt their feelings, it is perfectly legal and within your rights.

You are ignorant of psychology and a lot of issues, but this cements it.

[PC2]

Though after reading what you put, what is racism and gender/disability discrimination for you? Perfectly legal and within your rights as you are not damaging them?

Yes free speech means you can use discriminating speech as long as it doesn't directly financially or physically damage them.

Here is my example from the last page:

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 by making them pay a fine or jailing them.

You are ignorant of psychology and a lot of issues, but this cements it.

Try forming an argument that supports your point. If you can't, you have bad arguments.

[Deleted]

Try forming an argument that supports your point. If you can't, you have bad arguments.

I have one, it's called Psychology. Read up on it.

Assuming you can do other than shitpost and spread misinformation, i.e, read.

[PC2]

I have one, it's called Psychology. Read up on it.

Assuming you can do other than shitpost and spread misinformation, i.e, read.

Again, you have failed to create an argument regarding the issue itself.

[Ozyorkbourne]

We don't have free speech in the UK.

Never have done.

Living in the UK, I feel like I have a lot of free speech. Just not the right to be a cunt. If I wouldn't say it to someone, I probably don't say it online. That isn't suppression by any means. Saying something like "Im going to rape you" or "I'll slit your throat", or "Im going to kill every last one of those [insert race/religion] isn't free speech - it's a threat.

While the above isn't all that is being hunted for, i'd wager it's part of an anti-terror and cyber crime move too, but that won't get talked about.

Besides, I don't use twitter. Do you use it to insult or 'troll people'? Because you seem extrordinarily concerned for something that isn't going to negatively impact you or 99.9% of people.

[PC2]

Living in the UK, I feel like I have a lot of free speech. Just not the right to be a cunt. If I wouldn't say it to someone, I probably don't say it online. That isn't suppression by any means. Saying something like "Im going to rape you" or "I'll slit your throat", or "Im going to kill every last one of those [insert race/religion] isn't free speech - it's a threat.

While the above isn't all that is being hunted for, i'd wager it's part of an anti-terror and cyber crime move too, but that won't get talked about.

Besides, I don't use twitter. Do you use it to insult or 'troll people'? Because you seem extrordinarily concerned for something that isn't going to negatively impact you or 99.9% of people.

All of those are based on direct physical damage. Have they specifically said that's what they are limiting themselves too? That would be great if they have clearly expressed that in writing.

[Deleted]

Again, you have failed to create an argument regarding the issue itself.

Are you unable to comperehend the english language?

You plain deny Abuse ; I counter with Psychology.

How dense are you?

[PC2]

Are you unable to comperehend the english language?

You plain deny Abuse ; I counter with Psychology.

How dense are you?

You have failed to create a coherent argument.

[Deleted]

You have failed to create a coherent argument.

Denial isn't an argument.

So you are basically at supposed even grounds.

[PC2]

Denial isn't an argument.

So you are basically at supposed even grounds.

To summarize, my argument is an observation of our system that is always based on 3 words; financial, physical, damage. Violations that are not directly leading to these are protected by free speech. The premise of every free society is that you are always free unless specifically limited by law. No just society has a law saying that feelings-only based objections are valid for state punishment, they must ascend to the level of financial or physical damage to be legitimate offenses.

[Deleted]

To summarize, my argument is an observation of our system and 3 keywords; financial, physical, damage. Violations that are not directly leading to two or more of these are protected by free speech. The premise of every free society is that you are free unless specifically limited by law. No just society has a law saying that feelings-only based objections are valid for state punishment, they must ascend to the level of financial or physical damage to be legitimate offenses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...ote-vanmill1-1

The term "offense principle" is also used[1] to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or laws about incitement to ethnic or racial hatred.

Denial and you thinking something is wrong, does not exclude what actually occurs, neither does it mitigate the fact that Abuse is still covered by Psychology.

[PC2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...ote-vanmill1-1

The term "offense principle" is also used[1] to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or laws about incitement to ethnic or racial hatred.

Denial and you thinking something is wrong, does not exclude what actually occurs, neither does it mitigate the fact that Abuse is still covered by Psychology.

The idea that you can't legally criticize groups and religious systems is authoritarian and anti-free speech. There is no sacred cow, everything is open for criticism and debate.

[Deleted]

Living in the UK, I feel like I have a lot of free speech.

You don't have free speech.
you don't in actually have any rights whatsoever.
All 'rights' you think you have, you have, because the UK Parliament currently haven't decided otherwise.