Are those British justices always going to wear those silly wigs? IMHO, they run around dressed like Napoleon in drag.
"I'm telling", really Davis?Do you mean to suggest there is something wrong with drag?
I'm reporting you.
If your living in fear because of some ominous threat online then you are a weak minded fool.Because it is impossible to tell whether an online threat will lead to a physical threat, an online threat is a form of terrorism because of this inability to tell whether the threat will lead to an actual physical attack. The individuals who are threatened will quite likely live in fear, and this fear will not be "shaken off" and "gotten over."
Well, as long as Bob's house is still insured, and a firm appointment is made as to the time of the fire.....(you make the call)So because you feel like it's "playful" it should be allowed... done here.Just to contrast...
50 years ago in a face-to-face confrontation...
Bob: I'm going to burn your ****ing house down!
Steve: That's fine. I've been meaning to buy a new boat always, and the insurance money sure wouldn't hurt. What time are you stopping by?
Today, on Twitter...
Bob: I'm going to burn your ****ing house down!
Steve, after temporarily moving into a hotel for his family's protection: I've alerted the police and reported you to Twitter.
How the hell do you get playful out of that? The parody clearly contrasts Steve's ability to identify a BS threat in the 1960s with his inability to do so now. There is nothing "playful" demonstrated there at all.So because you feel like it's "playful" it should be allowed... done here.
+1000The world isn't some fairy tale with a happy ending where everyone is a winner and no one gets hurt.The same thing can happen with online bullying. A concentrated effort to destroy someone's life via threats, bullying, and online harassment can be very effective. In some cases it's even led to suicide, and it's very hard to prosecute the offenders because 'being a jerk' isn't against the law.
We allow WAY to many weak, lazy and soft people to live/get away with things.
This may sound harsh but those people deserved to die IMO.
Todays youth grow up with a very sugercoated/protected outlook. They are safeguarded from reality and its causing massive damage to society. Life is a nasty process as this world is mean, treacherous and unforgiving.
Instead of trying to hide/protect them we need to prepare them for reality. Children need to learn at a young age to stick up for themselves, by themselves, its one of the most important/ critical life lessons.
Bullying is a 100% natural process that takes place and WILL TAKE PLACE in EVERY generation. Its a 100% natural process of living beings to separate the bold and strong from the weak and fragile. It's been around since the beginning of time and will be around long after were gone.
Call it youthfill postioning, postering, bullying, whatever. It's as natural as taking a sh!t.
Of all the "bullying" cases I hear about, I would say about 5-10% (or less) of them are real cases.
Not if the person threatening you online lives down the block.There is a monumental gap between having your personal space violated and being psychologically undermined on the Internet. ?
that's not an issue, that's how laws are written. Libel and slander are examples of illegal free speech because someone reacts adversely to them. Adverse reaction leads to laws all the time.The issue here is that the law criminalizes free speech because another party responds adversely to it. ?
No it's not. 'Drink bleach and die' (one of their favs) is not subjective.First of all, it is subjective in nature
I understand your point perfectly. Here is what I am saying:Ok I'll put is as simple as I can.
My point is, you don't have to incur in threats to be able to express yourself without feeling like your "freedom of speech" has been impaired.
I can perfectly (I repeat) tell you how dumb is the idea to defend someone over the internet threatening another person without saying I'll kill you if you don't back me up. I'm speaking freely without incurring in threats.
Being sarcastic and jerk-ish is something you will see everywhere, which doesn't make it alright either but again, doesn't incur in threatening another person.
The extent to which the comment impacts the recipient is necessarily subjective. A BAC of 0.5 is 0.5, there is no way to get around it. "Drink bleach and die," on the other hand, is going to be emotionally processed differently by everyone. Yes, there is objectivity in the sense of it being technically offensive, but is is not objective in the level of offense it inflicts. BAC is always proportionate to the saturation of alcohol in an individual's bloodstream. The level of offensiveness of "Drink bleach and die" is dependent entirely upon the individual it is directed at. For one person, the statement might actually provoke amusement. For another, it may genuinely make them feel bad.No it's not. 'Drink bleach and die' (one of their favs) is not subjective.
Do I need to launch an ad hominem attack on you? I may go to jail for it, but, God as my witness, I'll do it. You better believe I'll do it.TL;DR
I've read up on the MCA and the original story while participating in the thread. I am familiar with the objective of the legislation and how it is supposed to work. Even so, as I stated earlier, I have been following the topic of online harassment intently over the past six months, leading me to conclude that the basis of the law is flawed and that those flaws will eventually be exploited to broaden the scope of what constitutes a "serious case."If you would be so kind as to read what they mean by SERIOUS cases to be reviewed AND refered by a magistrate to the crown court instead of sticking with the topic of the news you might actually have a point though.