First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply While people are being bombed, stabbed, and run over in the UK the Police are busy monitoring internet speech
10472 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/11/17 , edited 6/11/17

b17bomber wrote:




if i posted your personal info and your exact address and location right now, would that be ok?


Under the law, it should be perfectly OK.



if i said you were stalking me for months while making a fake account framing you of doing so, until the police get involved, is that ok?



if i said something in the lines of "you should kill yourself" or "im gonna find and kill you", would that be ok?



if i got a bunch of accounts and harassed you forcing you to close your social media accounts because of constant spam, would that be ok?

That should probably be legal, though the web service providers would certainly be within their rights to ban you from using their service.



if i posted pictures of your house or place of work and said "im gonna get you for this" would that be ok?

In principle, it's not the words themselves that are illegal. Could write a script that prints those words over and over. It's not the words per se that are illegal, but rather that you are signalling a serious intent to perform an illegal, harmful act.




i can go on and on and on on what shouldn't be posted. but theres reasons the police put the bar so low at 'offensive language' because anything above that could potentially get someone hurt.

i remember last week on twitter a girl said the N word, so some dude thought it be cool to post this girls address on twitter. the girl so happened to live less than 5 miles from me: walking distance. what if i was some crazy dude who was really offended by that and i had a gun or some weapon? yes i hate that word but i'd never hurt anyone over it but that person is lucky that it was me who lived close, not that crazy dude who i mentioned.... or say... a terrorist.


So, what I know of law comes from classes in business law, but, generally speaking there is a principle in law about reasonable actions and responses to actions. Now, in US law, the definition of "reasonable" is "what a reasonable person would do given the circumstances". That's a circular definition, but in practice it works out well. Taking your example, going and shooting someone because a girl said "nigger" on twitter is not what a reasonable person would do, given the circumstances. Indeed, you point out, quite poignantly, that such a reaction would be crazy, IE not reasonable. As such, it is not reasonable to conclude that using a racial epithet on a web app. would result in a violent outcome. In conclusion, the thought policing done as we see it on Airstrip One is not just unreasonable, but tyrannical.
10472 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/11/17

Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Well, yeah Rujikin. Why do you think they are doing this in the first place? People are scared. They want the police to prevent these crimes, these terrorist acts.


It is not surprising, honestly. There always been a contentious debate of liberty before safety and vice versa.


They aren't watching the people threatening this stuff. They are watching the people criticizing the people doing the crimes.


Notice, in this thread, the deliberate conflation of "offensive" and "threatening" speech? People know that you're talking about policing boorish speech, but they're deliberately conflating that with threatening speech. They know that it's two different things; they're just horrible people, and so they're disingenuous.
Posted 6/11/17

MysticGon wrote:
How much are you willing to give up to be safe? Privacy? Liberty? Dignity? Does naming your enemies work in your favor or play in their hands?


I don't really care about safety - especially not at the level of terrorism. At the end of the day, if someone wants to perform an act of terrorism there isn't anything the government, the police, or even myself can really do to stop them. When attacks are done through vehicles (which we have millions of in the United States) or just random gun-downs (which can be done quite easily due to our constitutional rights, as we've seen), they use our rights and freedoms against us. There's a zero-win game and the more we let extremists dictate our thinking, the more they're winning anyway.


MysticGon wrote:
Let's say God forbid North Korea sells a nuke to a jihadi network. Would you give up every to stop them from using it?


If it's a nuke, they're not going to sit on it if they're already at ends with Western civilization. Their priority would be to use it against Europe, UK, Australia, or the US in the timeliest manner - we wouldn't really have time for a war if we sit back and bicker about political semantics (which is required until we have absolute confidence that they do have one, even at the Executive Branch).


Rujikin wrote:
They aren't watching the people threatening this stuff. They are watching the people criticizing the people doing the crimes.


They're not watching anyone. I'd say 90+% of their charges against those on social media are going to be those that are actually reported to them by another citizen. Because of the law (again, drafted and passed into law in 1998), any report of hate crime would legally become a criminal investigation. Thus, it would be a crime to criticize in such a manner that its offensive (generalizations, for example).
1724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Spokane, Washingt...
Offline
Posted 6/11/17 , edited 6/11/17
I'll just keep this simple.

Fuck Trump for being incompetent. Fuck Britian for being a bitchy nanny state. Fuck asians chicks for being cute as hell. Fuck soda for being a fake food product. Fuck America for being a debt and idiot riddled society.

And praise America that I can say all that stupid shit without fear of persecution. (for now, and it better stay that way)

(note, said stupid shit does not reflect my personal opinions, but is said just to prove a point. Though my opinions on soda and asian chicks are actually my personal opinions.)
12866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 6/11/17

runec wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Cheshire Police are capable of multitasking.

i wouldn't be too sure on that, given the recent attack was reportedly preventable. the attacker was known to be a threat. the religious leader reported him to the authorities, his friends reported him twice to uk authorities, us officials warned uk authorities. even members of his own family reported him. nothing was done to prevent the attack.



[The Manchester attacker] was repeatedly flagged to the authorities over his extremist views, but was not stopped by officers.
...
authorities were informed of the danger posed by Abedi on at least five separate occasions in the five years prior to the attack on Monday night.
...
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, said: “People in the community expressed concerns about the way this man was behaving and reported it in the right way using the right channels. “They did not hear anything since.”
Two friends of Abedi also became so worried they separately telephoned the police counter-terrorism hotline five years ago and again last year. “They had been worried that ‘he was supporting terrorism’ and had expressed the view that ‘being a suicide bomber was ok’,” a source told the BBC.
...
Mr Ramadan said he understood that Abedi had been placed on a “watch list” because the mosque reported him to the authorities for his extremist views.
A well-placed source at Didsbury Mosque confirmed it had contacted the Home Office’s Prevent anti-radicalisation programme as a result.
...
A US official also briefed that members of Abedi’s own family had contacted British police saying that he was “dangerous”, but again the information does not appear to have been acted upon.
..
US authorities said Abedi was known to them prior to the atrocity while France’s interior minister said the 22-year-old had “proven” links with Islamic State and that both British and French intelligence services had information that the attacker had been in Syria.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/
35343 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/11/17

namealreadytaken wrote:
i wouldn't be too sure on that, given the recent attack was reportedly preventable. the attacker was known to be a threat. the religious leader reported him to the authorities, his friends reported him twice to uk authorities, us officials warned uk authorities. even members of his own family reported him. nothing was done to prevent the attack.


While the UK ( and France ) are most certainly in the midst of some questionable and ongoing intelligence failures; The argument being made here is a pretty common type of fallacy. One rather popular in rage bait op-eds. I mean, Ruji is effectively arguing that the police should not bother responding to crimes that are less important.

All because of a single tweet from a police force that isn't even the same county as Manchester.

Which, if Ruji had even bothered to look up their social media instead of linking us some screenshot of it from reddit or /pol/ or something, he would see that a post addressing terrorism is indeed their top pinned tweet and has been for a couple of weeks.

Nevermind that Cheshire is a rural county with a 1/3rd the population of Manchester. This is basically the equivalent of criticizing the entire United States because Rhode Island tweeted something.


One Punch Mod
97920 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 6/11/17

Lance_Clemings wrote:

I'll just keep this simple.
...
And praise America that I can say all that stupid shit without fear of persecution. (for now, and it better stay that way)

(note, said stupid shit does not reflect my personal opinions, but is said just to prove a point. Though my opinions on soda and asian chicks are actually my personal opinions.)


FYI, I've removed the first sentence as even though you might not believe it, and are using it as an example of "stupid shit", it was still sufficiently offensive, with a possibility of being inflammatory.

10733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 6/11/17 , edited 6/11/17

b17bomber wrote:



no you shouldn't.

if i posted your personal info and your exact address and location right now, would that be ok?

if i said you were stalking me for months while making a fake account framing you of doing so, until the police get involved, is that ok?

if i said something in the lines of "you should kill yourself" or "im gonna find and kill you", would that be ok?

if i got a bunch of accounts and harassed you forcing you to close your social media accounts because of constant spam, would that be ok?

if i posted pictures of your house or place of work and said "im gonna get you for this" would that be ok?

i can go on and on and on on what shouldn't be posted. but theres reasons the police put the bar so low at 'offensive language' because anything above that could potentially get someone hurt.

i remember last week on twitter a girl said the N word, so some dude thought it be cool to post this girls address on twitter. the girl so happened to live less than 5 miles from me: walking distance. what if i was some crazy dude who was really offended by that and i had a gun or some weapon? yes i hate that word but i'd never hurt anyone over it but that person is lucky that it was me who lived close, not that crazy dude who i mentioned.... or say... a terrorist.

so no. you shouldn't be post whatever you want on the internet. and lets be honest. they're not arresting people who said "i hate islam"


Ok so maybe not literally anything. I mean posting someones address and phone number n stuff would be a real cunt act. But is it a crime?
Fraud IS a crime.
I wouldn't give even half a shit if someone on line told me to kill my self or threatend to kill me.
Again, that would be a cunt act but not sure if its a crime?
I mean what you're saying in alot of these example must be if you knew the person in real life. I never even really considered that. It seems that most people that get offended on line , they're being offended by complete strangers. So why would anyone have all my details like that?
Someone who knows you in real life and is trying to destroy your life or actually cause harm to you is different to some random telling you to kill yourself or saying they will kill you(or saying something racist or etc).
I mean someone saying they fucked your mum on line, is that too going to be a chargeable offence?

Using the N word is not a crime. It could get you bashed (or worse) but it shouldn't get you a fine or jail time.

There has been examples here as well of people saying racist remarks about Aboriginal football players, on line. I personally believe that they should be banned from the web page/face book page/forum but they should NOT be charged as a criminal.
They should not shammed on the news and be villified to the point of public shame and should not be fined or jailed.
All that publicity is what now may endanger them of being a victim of violence, even though their words were the initial cause. But now something that would have only been seen by a small amount of people had spread and caused more offence and divide and hate.
I mean you could argue that this will make people think twice and stamp it out. But like i said in my previous post, to what end? how far will it go and where dose it stop?
And you know dam well that if a black footy fan said racist shit about a white player you wouldn't hear shit and he /she wouldn't be charged.

I mean from what i hear in parts of Europe police have literally arrived at peoples houses and charged them foir saying something bad about Islam/Muslims/immigrants(on line).
The exact wording may not have been "i hate Islam" and it may not have been actual jail time but if you do some research you'll see that this is how bad it is getting.

Even that young little Canadian girl (Evalion) has been treated badly by police. I mean she is a young girl, no real threat or danger at all. Banned from you tube. Ok so it's a battle of free speech vs saying offensive racist shit should be banned from you tube.
But shes been on the news and they revealed her real name. And didn't treat her overly well.
She's been arrested and treated very poorly at an airport. Why? she said offensive things about Jews and Islam and feminism, etc(on you tube).
Ludacris.

1724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Spokane, Washingt...
Offline
Posted 6/11/17

lorreen wrote:


Lance_Clemings wrote:

I'll just keep this simple.
...
And praise America that I can say all that stupid shit without fear of persecution. (for now, and it better stay that way)

(note, said stupid shit does not reflect my personal opinions, but is said just to prove a point. Though my opinions on soda and asian chicks are actually my personal opinions.)


FYI, I've removed the first sentence as even though you might not believe it, and are using it as an example of "stupid shit", it was still sufficiently offensive, with a possibility of being inflammatory.



That moment where you forget forum moderators are a thing. America may allow it, but the sites you are posting stuff on may not.
Not like lorreen will arrest me, charge me a couple hundred bucks, and ruin my life.
25473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 6/11/17 , edited 6/11/17
So the Ministry of Tru-...I Mean the Chesire PD have the funds and manpower to monitor social media, but dont have the time to monitor "problematic areas". Wow, really gets the neurons firin'.
1258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 6/11/17

dragontackle wrote:

So the Ministry of Tru-...I Mean the Chesire PD have the funds and manpower to monitor social media, but dont have the time to monitor "problematic areas". Wow, really gets the neurons firin'.


Um, no.


ninjitsuko wrote:
They're not watching anyone. I'd say 90+% of their charges against those on social media are going to be those that are actually reported to them by another citizen. Because of the law (again, drafted and passed into law in 1998), any report of hate crime would legally become a criminal investigation. Thus, it would be a crime to criticize in such a manner that its offensive (generalizations, for example).
35343 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/11/17

MrAnimeSK wrote:
Even that young little Canadian girl (Evalion) has been treated badly by police. I mean she is a young girl, no real threat or danger at all. Banned from you tube. Ok so it's a battle of free speech vs saying offensive racist shit should be banned from you tube.
But shes been on the news and they revealed her real name. And didn't treat her overly well.
She's been arrested and treated very poorly at an airport. Why? she said offensive things about Jews and Islam and feminism, etc(on you tube).
Ludacris.


First of all, she's 19. She's not a little girl and she's not a minor so her name and identity are not legally shielded. Second of all, I'm not sure the "Future Queen of the Fourth Reich" is a good hill to die on here. What she's said goes a few steps past merely "offensive".

Third of all, say it with me again for the umpteenth time: Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.



21716 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 6/11/17 , edited 6/11/17

runec wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:
Even that young little Canadian girl (Evalion) has been treated badly by police. I mean she is a young girl, no real threat or danger at all. Banned from you tube. Ok so it's a battle of free speech vs saying offensive racist shit should be banned from you tube.
But shes been on the news and they revealed her real name. And didn't treat her overly well.
She's been arrested and treated very poorly at an airport. Why? she said offensive things about Jews and Islam and feminism, etc(on you tube).
Ludacris.


First of all, she's 19. She's not a little girl and she's not a minor so her name and identity are not legally shielded. Second of all, I'm not sure the "Future Queen of the Fourth Reich" is a good hill to die on here. What she's said goes a few steps past merely "offensive".

Third of all, say it with me again for the umpteenth time: Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.





its gonna get to the point that if


-sees a black person squatting down in my drive way taking a shit -
me: why the fuck is this black dude shitting in my drive way < pointing out the obvious, and truth

me: gets thrown in jail/charged for "offensive" speech/"hate" speech
35343 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/11/17

redokami wrote:
its gonna get to the point that if

-sees a black person squatting down in my drive way taking a shit -
me: why the fuck is this black dude shitting in my drive way < pointing out the obvious, and truth

me: gets thrown in jail/charged for "offensive" speech/"hate" speech


Please enlighten us as to what in the fark you're basing this slippery slope argument on.

The only sure fire way to get charged with a hate crime in the US is to literally murder someone while yelling racial slurs at them and even then the media will be wishy washy about it for a couple weeks.
21716 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 6/11/17

runec wrote:


redokami wrote:
its gonna get to the point that if

-sees a black person squatting down in my drive way taking a shit -
me: why the fuck is this black dude shitting in my drive way < pointing out the obvious, and truth

me: gets thrown in jail/charged for "offensive" speech/"hate" speech


Please enlighten us as to what in the fark you're basing this slippery slope argument on.

The only sure fire way to get charged with a hate crime in the US is to literally murder someone while yelling racial slurs at them and even then the media will be wishy washy about it for a couple weeks.


im basing it on the 83 year old woman posting on facebook about muslims shitting in the street infront of her house and she gets sent to jail for hate speech


and considering how every fuckin thing is "racist" and "hate speech " now a days in America I wouldn't doubt that it can, and would happen here tbh
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.