Bad taste joke = prison sentence

[rynnor]

Because it is in a private place (or as private as it can be)

The only analogy I can think of is of you telling your mate a joke about it and you telling the girls parents the joke. Just because it is online makes no difference. You would have to go searching for the bad taste (or downright offensive) joke to see it.

Legally there's no difference if 1 offended person reports you and the judge doesnt like your joke - thus inconsistency.

 

[Tom]

Again, I'm fine with him doing that.

We do NOT have a right to not be offended by other people - and we shouldn't have that right.

Oh I'm fine with him doing it too. I think he's a dick but that's ok. But nobody is going to tell me that an offensive joke is worse than burning poppies and chanting at a war memorial.

 

[Scouse]

Oh I'm fine with him doing it too. I think he's a dick but that's ok. But nobody is going to tell me that an offensive joke is worse than burning poppies and chanting at a war memorial.

Well, I didn't try to do that. But now we're on that topic - honestly, I don't know which is worse - and I'm not sure that's objectively quantifiable.

Personally, if someone made trolling jokes at a loved family member's wake I'd be more offended than if jihadists shouted death to the west whilst defacating on any war memorial.

That's the thing about "offence" - it's all in the eye of the beholder. I'm pretty sure there'd be plenty of whacky islamists that would do their nuts in sympathy with the family who've fallen foul of this internet troll-head, whilst at the same time they'd dance in the streets with joy at the idea of a war memorial being defaced.

This is why "causing offence" should not be used in a legal process.

 

[Urgat]

This is fairly new ground legally but something has to be done. Trolling on here is one thing, trolling on something like that is another, people didn't ask for it and certainly didn't expect it and there isn't a great deal they can do to stop it.

Snivelling losers trying to upset people over the internet is a problem, "it's only words" doesn't really cut it either.

Bieng "offended" by something is never fucking grounds for punishment. Whether something causes "offence" is a personal opinion at best.

Sure, by all means, you have the right to express that you find said "thing" offensive, But it fucking stops right there.

People use the phrase "that offends me" like it entitels them to something... So what? that's YOUR opinion on the matter. To quote someone else... Boy bands offend me... idiots offend me, should they be punished simply because i find them offensive?

Jail for causing offence... it's bullshit of the highest order.

What happened to freedom of speech?

 

[Tom]

Well, I didn't try to do that. But now we're on that topic - honestly, I don't know which is worse - and I'm not sure that's objectively quantifiable.

Personally, if someone made trolling jokes at a loved family member's wake I'd be more offended than if jihadists shouted death to the west whilst defacating on any war memorial.

That's the thing about "offence" - it's all in the eye of the beholder. I'm pretty sure there'd be plenty of whacky islamists that would do their nuts in sympathy with the family who've fallen foul of this internet troll-head, whilst at the same time they'd dance in the streets with joy at the idea of a war memorial being defaced.

This is why "causing offence" should not be used in a legal process.

It's where and when they did it that's the problem. With hundreds, perhaps thousands of people observing a moment's silence, the last thing you want is some fuzzy-faced fuckwit chanting "ALLAH AKBAH DEATH TO THE INFIDELS" and burning the very symbol you use to commemorate the millions of soldiers who, through no fault of their own, died for their country['s elite]. At any other time, the police would just move them along.

 

[Scouse]

Aren't we supposed to admire this principle?:

I despise what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it

We can't be selective. We can't really have it both ways, Tom.


Associated to the above and for the war memorial example:

Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war

There is an opposing viewpoint which doesn't respect the very real death from the wars that we're currently spreading across the world.

Who are we to say they can't make their feelings known, just because it offends us?

As long as their actions are non-violent they should be free to do so - and a lack of respect for those who would take up arms and fight may breed the type of people that Einstein admired.

 

[opticle]

I got tired reading.

Sure, people have the right to free speech, but people have other rights too.

It is a dangerous road to go down, but I think it's equally dangerous in the long term to give people a free pass for being a complete cunt, for example burning poppies and chanting, or this.

Society is pretty fucked, it's full of wankers who think they can behave however they like and get away with it - and I'm pretty tired of it to be honest. This guy was clearly a cunt, and I'm happy he's suffered for it.

I think that in this day and age, we can probably tell the difference between cunts - badmouthing grief stricken families and burning poppies - and those who think that perhaps the Sun doesn't orbit around the Earth.

I don't think the "OMFG FREE SPEECH WE'LL BE BURNING GALILEO AGAIN SOON" argument really applies any more.

 

[opticle]

Aren't we supposed to admire this principle?:

Anything taken to the extreme, without moderation, is invariably wrong.

Free speech is allowed and you will defend it - so long as it isn't racist / homophobic / sexist now? (as IIRC those are illegal ? - correct me if that's wrong )

Or will you defend people's rights to racism and homophobia too ?

 

[opticle]

Also a known comedy television show such as Mock the Week is quite a different setting to a War Memorial Ceremony or Tribute page.

It doesn't take a fucking genius to tell the difference. We trust judges to decide if someone is a murderer or not, if we don't trust them to decide whether or not someone should to be treated like a tool with a minor sentence, then we have much bigger problems.

 

[rynnor]

Or will you defend people's rights to racism and homophobia too ?

I think we probably should - not when the racist/homophobe is in a position of authority over others but outside of that perhaps it would be healthier than pretending it doesnt exist - if people feel persecuted for their beliefs they can feel backed into a corner and dig their heels in.

I personally am genuinely interested by why people hold such beliefs - misguided fears I guess.

 

[Krazeh]

Sure, people have the right to free speech, but people have other rights too.

And which of these 'other rights' are being affected?

Society is pretty fucked, it's full of wankers who think they can behave however they like and get away with it - and I'm pretty tired of it to be honest. This guy was clearly a cunt, and I'm happy he's suffered for it.

Yeah, he clearly was a cunt but it shouldn't be the state that punishes people for things like this.

 

[rynnor]

And which of these 'other rights' are being affected?

The right to be offended and the right to lynch the offendee presumably.

 

[Scouse]

Free speech is allowed and you will defend it - so long as it isn't racist / homophobic / sexist now? (as IIRC those are illegal ? - correct me if that's wrong )

Or will you defend people's rights to racism and homophobia too ?

Yes. I will. What's the point of a principle if you drop it for things that are inconvenient.

The way to deal with racism and homophobia isn't to legislate against it. What you do is let them spout their bile, and then call them the cunts they are.

I don't think the "OMFG FREE SPEECH WE'LL BE BURNING GALILEO AGAIN SOON" argument really applies any more.

It applies every day, every year, forever.

 

[Job]

Posting them on the tribute page is majorly fuckwitted, that's the equivalent of turning up at the church memorial and telling the joke, you would have to be a moron not to think someone's gonna come looking for you, at the church , there would be a 90% chance you would get your teeth knocked out, he was simply hiding behind the perceived distance from the event, but twelve weeks is just ridiculous, it was only offensive, no incitement to anything.
It's funny how the internet is taking us forward and backwards at the same time.

 

[opticle]

And which of these 'other rights' are being affected?

Yeah, he clearly was a cunt but it shouldn't be the state that punishes people for things like this.

Example: Some cretin starts shouting abuse about your loved one at their funeral.

I suppose that's Ok. Best let them continue, as I guess that's their right.

 

[Scouse]

Posting them on the tribute page is majorly fuckwitted.

Yep. It is.

 

[Scouse]

Example: Some cretin starts shouting abuse about your loved one at their funeral.

I suppose that's Ok. Best let them continue, as I guess that's their right.

No. It's not OK. It's fucking awful.

And how often do you hear of it happening?


History shows incontrovertibly that there are very real and very serious dangers when it comes to legislating against people's freedom of speech.

Should we put our society at risk for something that happens incredibly rarely, or should we take the intellectual leap that understands that protecting these freedoms comes at a small cost? - the cost that every now and then you have to put up with incredibly fuckwitted people.

 

[opticle]

It applies every day, every year, forever.

That's Extremism you know

I see what you're saying, but I don't think people have a right to be horrible to another person without cause and get away with it. You can truly damage people with words as well as actions.

People don't have absolute freedom of action to hurt others, why speech ?

Being intentionally and directly horrible to someone is a very different thing to ideas about politics, science and religion. I don't think there is any benefit to absolute protection of those people.

 

[opticle]

And how often do you hear of it happening?

Relevant ?

I do see all your points though, and I do actually agree with all of them - even though I also agree with mine. It's very difficult and I don't know the right way, I just don't like to see people given a free pass to be mindlessly horrible to one another.

 

[Scouse]

I just don't like to see people given a free pass to be mindlessly horrible to one another.

Neither do I m8. Neither do I. But look at it this way:

Chimpanzees fight running battles through the forest and if they catch an opponent they tear him apart and eat him.

We share 98.5% of our DNA and our social selves are liable to fall into similar patterns violent lynch mobs at the drop of a hat.


The best and most intelligent of us (NOT our politicians) have come up with a really good set of principles which we should strive to live by. If we're ever going to advance as a race, we need to aspire to them. If we don't...

...well, look at the chimps. They're not that far away from us. Physically or intellectually.

 

[opticle]

But, to give a crude analogy, just the same as with a dog, what's the best way to teach a chimp not to piss indoors ? Do you ask him nicely ? Or do you just let him do it?

I totally agree with you on principles, but I don't like it when people take advantage of them - and as you say, some people really are just like animals at times - should they be treated as such ?

I'm not saying that's correct - perhaps it's a dangerous line to tread. The problem with principles - including the "right versus wrong" one I'm waving about - is that the moment you throw humans into the mix, there'll always be those who abuse them.

If only there were a way to select a decent group of people to run things..

 

[Bigmac]

It shouldn't be a prison sentence but it shouldn't be a £50 fine either. It should be at least £80 and a couple hard twacks with a cane on the hands and back. A decent fine and abit of pain will make him learn his lesson.

 

[Tom]

 

[Kryten]

So is that the real reason Sickipedia has been down for a few days?

 

[Scouse]

Stolen from B3ta

 

[old.Tohtori]

I find that joke offensive to my sense of humor.

 

[rynnor]

I was reminded of this thread today when I read about the Latvian anti gay law.

They had a priest defending it who said 'what about my human right to not be offended walking down the street' - how terribly narrow minded.

Is this what they call the tyranny of the majority?

 

[Job]

The internet, or the easy sharing of thoughts, has opened up all new avenues of offense, I wonder what other human emotions are in the sidelines waiting to be exposed when previously private thoughts become public.

 

[Mey]

This should have really been dealt with by way of restorative justice. Letter of apology probably would have sufficed.

Also; we have the right to be offended; but it has to pass the reasonable person test.

 

[Scouse]

Also; we have the right to be offended; but it has to pass the reasonable person test.

I don't understand this. I'm pretty sure I'm not being thick.

Whaddaya mean the "right to be offended". You have no "right" to be offended - you either are or you aren't offended by something - rights have nothing to do with it.

We shouldn't have a right to not be offended either - as it's obviously subjective and cannot be legislated for sensibly or safely.

As for a reasonable person test. That's another tyranny of the majority subjective thing: In times of yore, when the catholic church owned the west, and the torture and burning of heretics was the norm rather than the exception, what reasonable fair-minded atheist would have passed the church's "reasonable person" test and not have been put to death as a blasphemer...