Not trolling

Sometimes that anonymity is the difference between life and death.

Other times that anonymity gives us the confidence to express our feelings that we would otherwise be too scared to express in public for fear of legal or social repercussions for those beliefs. That anonymity removes the final barrier between kinda-free speech and total free speech; our personal fears.

Some people use that anonymity for personal reasons such as a homosexual confiding in others of their anxiety over being homosexual. If we removed anonymity from the internet then that person's friends and family would know of their homosexuality when the person themselves isn't ready to "come out".

Personally, I have things that I never want to be public such as my face, name, my fetishes, etc. I know one friend in particular would call the police on me if she found out about my loli collection.

As I said, anonymity isn't horrible. Like all things, wanting to liberate yourself from the scorn of others can be bad.(Like "trolling" someone to point of suicide)

Far to often are we concerned about what others feel about us, rather than what we have to say.

[font=verdana][color=green]The role of the police isn't to wait for damage to occur and punish accordingly, but to prevent damage from occurring at all. That's why, according to you, they were premature; but I still hold that the damage had already been done.




[font=verdana][color=green]All minor legislation of this kind i.e. offences against the person, are all subject to an objective test i.e. the reasonable man. Would the reasonable man find this offence, and thus, against the law? A "U Mad Bro" image wouldn't be found to be a crime, as it is an internet meme, but constant abuse about a person's dead relative? Absolutely, and he was duly punished for his actions.




[font=verdana][color=green]When the internet was first released, I could definitely see it being such a bastion. However, today that is no longer an option. The internet is such a necessity in modern times, yet it is, to me at any rate, rather startling that the freedom of speech is still untapped after so many years. Many of us communicate over the internet, perhaps even more than we do in real-life with some people, that it's basically become a stepping-stone between individuals. It's no longer a novelty.

In regards to your Big Brother comment, I'm afraid that we won't agree on that subject. I think that it's a bit of a stretch to insinuate that they would silent anyone who made outlandish claims on the internet; in all honesty, anything that is said on the internet is taken with a grain of salt, so they wouldn't need to.




[font=verdana][color=green]Like I said above, I highly doubt that your political views will ever be at jeopardy if the internet was ever made non-anonymous. It would only ever be used in situations like this; the politicians will always know that they will face public scrutiny and ridicule, but the general public should be shielded from such vile acts of cowardice and callousness. We will never agree on this; you prioritise freedom of speech and I prioritise security.



[font=verdana][color=green]Words can be a form of assault, Butterfly. Just because they never touched the victim, they can still influence the damage afflicted upon them.

In the scenario you posed, the "but for" test wouldn't apply, as the "chain of causation" would have been broken by the victim's actions. In my scenario, however, the chain of causation would be much harder to break, as the victim - well...me - never intended to step out onto the road, as I was in a rage. "But for" FPoD's trolling - like he would ever - of my dead relative, I wouldn't have gone into a rage and thus stepped out onto the road.

Admittedly, it would be very hard to prove for the lawyers, but it is still a very real possibility.



[font=verdana][color=green]He won't likely stay in for the full 18-weeks, with good behaviour, but I don't think it'll be as easy as you say it would be. It's not like he'll be at in a week. Quite honestly, it'll be pointless to try and get him off the crime; the case hearing won't be straight away, then the case will have to be listened to, and then the decision will have to be made. Too much money, time and effort, and for what? Getting him off 3 weeks early?

It'll stick. This is a step in a direction of public policing of the internet; the court's will be fools to allow this to evade them.

No, the role of the police is to enforce the law. If no law has been broken the police do not need to be involved.



A link I provided earlier shows a law passed in Tennesee that due to it's vague wording (and knowing our government's fetish for filling prison beds) would result in being incarcerated for posting a "U Mad" image. Government's don't give a damn about what the "reasonable man" has to say. If a district attorney feels like you broke the law he can prosecute you simply because the law isn't narrow enough. This is just another level of enforcement that can not reasonably be enforced.




Not quite following the sentiment here. What exactly are you trying to get across?



China is a prime example, then we have Iran, Syria and many other countries who shut off the internet in order to disrupt peaceful protests, then arrested the people involved in the organizing. Not a stretch when it's happening in front of our eyes.



De-masking the internet would silence men like Julian Assange since he and his sources would be arrested, tried and sentenced because they dared step out of line. The internet is by far the greatest tool democratic societies have ever had for the free flow of information.

[font=verdana][color=green]The law of attempt exists to stop this kind of thing from happening. By enforcing the law of attempt, the police will prevent crimes from happening; obviously barring the attempt. The law of attempt helps deter crime:

- It allows Police to act before a crime has been committed.
- It punishes those who attempt crime.

If the law of attempt didn't exist, the police wouldn't be able to lift a finger. Taking it to extremes, if, let's say, I attempted to kill you - I just love bringing us into things - and I have a damn good plan to do so and the police stop me before I can even act on it, would - or rather should - I be angry at being prosecuted? Not at all; if it weren't for the police's hasty action, you would be dead. I have to be punished.



[font=verdana][color=green]I hate to disappoint, but the government's opinions on this don't matter. When they are drafting up the legislation, they'd be forced to put in the reasonable man, lest be found to be - in America - unconstitutional and in Britain incompatible with the Human Rights Act. Besides, there are three entities to this; the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The Executive enforces the law (typically, as in the UK the Executive makes up the Legislature...another essay though, I won't muddy the waters), the Legislature make the law and the Judiciary interprets the law. These powers must remain separate from each other - hence called the "Separation of Powers" - and thus, like I said, the government's opinion doesn't matter if the Judiciary find it unlawful.






[font=verdana][color=green]My apologies, I thought that I might have lost the point there. Basically, I'm saying that the internet has become too highly used to go unregulated. It's simply too dangerous to go unguarded. Freedom of Speech is important, but if it affects someoneelse's liberties, then I'm afraid that the right has been abused and must be punished thusly.




[font=verdana][color=green]Okay, let's look at the broader picture. In countries like America, the UK, France etc etc, this won't likely become an issue. Why? Because in our countries, the governments would be foolish to even attempt to do such a thing; it would instantly spark uproar and they'd be kicked out of office quicker than it takes a Frenchman to raise a white flag. And in countries like those, they already do this such of thing anyway, so it wouldn't make much difference in the grand scale of things.




[font=verdana][color=green]Whilst I support what Julian and his sources are doing, they are still hacking into databases, which is still a dangerous act, even more so than the man we are discussing in this debate. Sure, he could claim that he's being Robin Hood, but what if he was to directly affect you? According to you, he'll still be fine, as the internet is the greatest tool democratic societies have for free flow of information.

Im going to use blue font so its easy to tell myself from SamRavaster and FPOD.



Yeah. Ultimately your scenario would come down to how much the lawyers could sell it to the jury and probably even the specifics about the victim. Like have they been suicidal in the past or are they often careless.



I agree with both yourself and FPOD on this. The internet is somewhere that should promote free anonymous speech for various ideals. However it should not promote verbal abuse or harassment and call it free speech.

Take for example Rebecca Black. We all know like everyone and their neighbor ripped on her at least once and even at her school (which she left for home schooling). Out of everyone that commented on that video, some people were taking things too far. I've heard (on some news channel I dont remember which) that she received actual death threat in the mail. Obviously that's just far above and beyond trolling on youtube. Most, well I'd like to think most, people on youtube who trolled the video did stuff like the BrockDub video and stuff that turned up on memebase. None of that was particularly hurtful. That stuff I would gladly call free speech and leave alone.

On the other hand the death threat people I think are abusing the anonymity of the internet. Those people pretty much deserve to lose anonymity. Just imagine what would happen if Rebecca killed herself over the feedback from that video.

Yes what they are doing is free speech and they have every right to say it but they have to be willing to accept the consequences of what they said. If I remember correctly most free speech laws protect your rights to say whatever the hell you want but they don't protect you from the consequences of doing so.




This is how things get bad. The "consequences" that I was talking about before vary from country to country. Sometimes town to town too. In North America, most of Europe, Australia, and a few other counties the people have full right to organize a peaceful protest. I don't think there is any law that says you cant organize via twitter or whatever. However in other countries, China for example any kind of protest isn't exactly smiled on by the government.

China probably has a free speech law so you can say whatever you want but at the same thing if you defame the government in anyway you might get runover by a tank. (hint hint 1992). If you happen to do it on your blog or somewhere online instead of being runover by a tank your website or whatever is blocked or censored by the government. Much less painful until the police come visit you.

I bolded peaceful because if you violently protest anywhere you're pretty much screwed. You would have abandoned almost all of your claims of protection under the law and have to be willing to fight and win.




This is assuming all the branches act like how they were designed to act. I loled when I thought about it actually plays out in the states.



Wikileaks makes me think of some interesting things. Personally I think hacking to steal information is like robbing a bank. Instead of getting money you get information. I'm not sure if that kind of hacking is illegal or not (anywhere) but its something that I think should be.

After thinking about it for a while wikileaks (well the people that supply wikileaks with leaks) are using free speech and they have every right to post the information they find they should also be prepared to be persecuted like bank robbers which means losing anonymity. It seems like at least Julian was smart enough to be prepared since I don't think he was arrested. That said though, the information leaked should not be covered up by the government once it is released to the public. Continuing on with the bank robbing analogy I cant imagine how hard it must be to track cash once its entered circulation for several months. (I know serial numbers make this possible but they don't have GPS in them). Info and cash are dissimilar in this way. Cash can be tracked down and collected. Information is something that cannot be tracked since people remember it.

So wikileaks hackers are comparable to bank robbers for me and they should expect the police/FBI/CIA/whomever to come after them if possible. Making the info public is free speech but comes at the price of (whatever the sentence is if found guilty). It true the people should have a right to know everything the government does but I don't think there is such a law in any country.





I'll start with PCheaf's point. I'm going to more clearly define "consequences" now. Depending heavily on the offense some amount of your privacy is lost. For example if Romeo robs a convenience store of its beer then there is no reason for the police to bring up something like "Romeo likes loli, that pervert" or "Romeo posted that he like traps on Fakku!" in a trial. Its just totally irrelevant to the case. You can argue that it can be used to judge Romeo's character but I think that determining his character has very little to do with fetishes and things online. It should come from people Romeo knows offline 99% of the time. The remaining 1% should be for stuff like the idiot in my 1st post.

Now for FPoD's point, anonymity on the internet is a privilege that you can lose if you doing something illegal. For almost all people that means you will be as anonymous as you are now. But a simple rule of thumb should be, "If I was to put on a gorilla mask and say what I'm about to say to this persons face what would happen?" If you can answer that with "I would get arrested" or something like that it would be best to rethink what you're about to say.

If you don't know it won't kill you to look it up. In fact you may actually get smarter. Keep in mind that you can say whatever you want its just what happens if you do that keeps most people from saying it.

The United Kingdom doesn't grant absolute freedom of speech.

I can say that doing this was not very nice of him but if she's on the internet she should know all kinds of other people are.
And therefore not rely and listen to what everyone says.
Sure, he went to far but she could've just stopped too and ignore him.
It would've made this much easyer and we wouldn't be here.
But what he did wasn't right either.
Altho, going to jail for this shit is a little too serious.

There really is no point in discussing legal matters since you fail to realize that British law =/= United States law. According to the supreme court of the United States the law enforcement of this country are NOT required to stop a crime. There is a story of three women who were brutally and repeatedly raped in their own home despite the police (911) being called multiple times. The supreme court ruled that the police are not required to "save" you nor are they liable for failure to save you.



Lol, you're so adorable thinking that the political elite give two shits about you. I could list countless laws or acts within either country where the government has violated whatever laws are supposed to restrain them or supreme courts (not sure what the English equivalent is called) willingly siding with the government argument by twisting or interpreting the various clauses in two different ways at different times to allow the acts or laws. Hate to disappoint but, you need to wake up Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore.




Agreed. The difference between us is more of nuance than solid principle.




And how would we kick them out, by voting and politely asking them to leave? They aren't Canadians Sam. Remember our lords and masters are the ones with the guns. The English would take to the streets with what? Molotov cocktails? Gardening tools? What few hunters that were permitted to own rifles would find themselves being vanned by SO15, Scotland yard or local constables before they became much of a threat. That fear of a tyrannical government was the basis for the Founding Fathers to include the second amendment as well as not granting the Feds to maintain a standing army.



That hypothetical is a bit flawed as I can't foresee Julian and his sources doing anything that would conflict with my own interests since wikileaks forces governments to be transparent (which politicians hate) by exposing what happens behind closed doors. Certain members of "Anonymous", the Script Kiddies and lulzsec on the other hand could cross me (in fact they had when they hacked PSN and possibly my bank institution. Those people can sometimes be arrested if they don't use a proper proxy but, the futile attempt to catch them should not have priority over the rights of the people.

[font=verdana][color=green]Okay FPoD. I'm going to ask you a simple question: where is this case based? There's a very good reason why I keep on swinging back to English and Welsh law, where the law of attempt does apply. American Law doesn't matter a dime in this discussion.




[font=verdana][color=green]Again, you're thinking too literally. Sure, the law comes from the Govt., but the Govt. doesn't have a say in how it's applied or interpreted. You say that you can list countless laws, but let me provide a very relevant law; Terrorism Law, namely the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. In this law, a provision called "control orders" were introduced, which pretty much control a suspect's every action, be it internet, phone usage or location. However, virtually every single case - I highly recommend that you read up on the Belmarsh Case - has resulted in the Courts saying "Nope, that's against human rights" (Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights), resulting in the Govt. having to re-write it again and again. The Courts - of England at any rate - aren't ones to back down so easily; in fact, the Courts would like nothing more than to stick it to the Govt.




[font=verdana][color=green]You're now being hypocritical. This man's actions clearly went against the victim's liberty of security, yet you believe that the freedom of speech is still on his side.



[font=verdana][color=green]If you seriously think that the Govt. - be it English, American or Canadian- will run rampant due to having access to people's internet use, then you seriously need to re-think your arguments. Especially considering your point below, which I will now assess.




[font=verdana][color=green]You're too trusting of these people, FPoD. I'd much rather trust a Govt., which can be held accountable, than trust these hackers who are playing Robin Hood at the moment. If they can hack into Govt. databases, then our own personal databases i.e. computers, laptop and netbooks, will be like a hot knife through butter. The fact remains that they can still go rogue and even blackmail certain politicians with the information they dig up.

I apologise for my much harsher tone throughout this post, but you were fairly derogatory to me in your own post, which I didn't take too kindly to.

Then you have me at a disadvantage and can only argue why I believe the English Government is wrong when compared to my country's system.



The American legal system is trash. The P.A.T.R.I.O.T act violates the Constitution and yet, the courts argue FOR the law to remain in place despite the ACLU's decade long struggle. Our politicians and judges are pretty much bought and paid for. When it comes to passing legislation they engage in the moral equivalent of bribery to pass their legislation. Politicians award high level judge position based on political choices of the judges (i.e if they will support policy X). Rather than their ability to interpret the documents they will be charged with upholding.

I could write an entire encyclopedia on the rampant corruption in the American political system from the top to the bottom. The system is not likely to recover as when things turn sour the politicians begin their divisive tactics to cause the proles to bicker among one another.



The "victims" liberties were not infringed from my point of view. I maintain that, the victims should have sued the troll for damages rather than involve the police with an arrest. If the man is unable to pay for the damages then he should be incarcerated, his possession confiscated, sold and funds applied to the balance he owes towards the victims. Any additional debt would be deducted from his income in the future and he should be denied any government support upon being released from jail until his balance to the victims is paid.



You'r not quite following me and I doubt you're even trying. People riot, Governments in attempt to maintain their authority will use whatever force they deem necessary to maintain that authority. Whether it be expanded police presence such as they do in the case of G20 summits or martial law in disaster areas.




Government, Accountable. You're not even trying.



De-masking the internet won't stop these people. They use proxies and other methods to put up a front for their actions. For example, look up "swatting". Essentially, do that with computers and the hackers are still there, still disrupting people's lives and all the regulation in the world won't stop them because those laws can not be reasonably enforced without tearing the system down entirely.

[font=verdana][color=green]Exactly, but you turned the situation to that it was, somehow, my fault.



[font=verdana][color=green]And that's the problem with a system which clings to a 200+ year old document that just doesn't apply to the modern society anymore. You're prevented from enacting laws - or rather, as in that scenario, should be - that might protect and support the modern society. However, being English, I am not too sure what the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act is or does, so I can only agree with you on that point.

However, going back to the English and Welsh system, the Govt. has nothing to do with the appointment of Judges, due to the Separation of Powers which I harked on about earlier. It does help prevent corruption like you have outlined.



[font=verdana][color=green]That's all fair and well, but what if the victim's family didn't want to use this as an opportunity to "cash in"? Sure, punishing the troll by fining/suing him is all well and good, but he'll still be allowed to walk free - perhaps to troll another day. The worst sort of punishment - bar Capital Punishment, which would have been debated till the cows come home - is to deny a person their liberty. Maybe the family would have preferred to see the defendant punished than themselves benefiting. I know that I would do.



[font=verdana][color=green]I must admit, after your last post, that my patience was starting to wear thin. Am I right in insinuating that, according to you, the Govt. will use the internet as a means to find out people's political stand point and "silence" those who are particularly outspoken? I want to get that established before I press this matter any further.



[font=verdana][color=green]They are more accountable than the hackers, who could probably do hacking like a ghost. Of course, I'm not a tech-expert, but I'm pretty sure they could do that.



[font=verdana][color=green]Exactly. I'm saying that the hackers from WikiLeaks are of the same cloth as those, or rather, they could easily be dyed the same colour at any rate. Either either, I don't trust those guys as much as you do evidently, as I still think that they should be jailed for the safety and security of the public.

The Constitution when interpreted, at least in my manner leads to a very Classic Liberal society. The protections are broad to promote freedom while the powers of government are narrow to limit tyranny. Our experiment (essentially that is what the U.S was at the time) was supposed to govern ourselves with a focus towards small communities.

If you, Whitelion, Flaser and myself lived in a neighborhood and someone's house caught on fire. You, Flaser and myself would gather others to put the fire out. The system is very local and community based.



Our system was supposed to limit corruption by making appointee's by the president (or Governor) be verified by the State or Federal Congress (depending on the level of appointee)



Court can order the troll to serve jail time providing the prosecution can justify the sentence and convince the judge that his actions warrant it.. If he doe walk free after a hefty fine then he'll be wiser about his actions since the next incident would likely lead to mandatory jail time.



The American Government is already documented as having abducted it's own citizens and foreign citizens of Middle Eastern decent and flew them to Lybia, Egypt and other countries with poor human rights records to subject the detainee to "enhanced interrogations"

Link

Link2

My Government claims that we have a right to kidnap foreign citizens if they are wanted here.



Evil men will do evil things. Does that justify punishing the saint for the devils work?



It's very Chaotic Good (D&D reference if not familiar). Either then men leak the documents that are circulated within closed circles or we never hear about them and the issues are never brought to the daylight. I view it as a necessary evil for the safety and security of a free nation.



Unfortunately, it's a quote from a computer game and I can't find the original author if there is one but, it still rings true.

Sidenote: Isn't it amusing how we similar, yet different you and I are. We're both liberal in some sense with me being Classical and you being more Modern.

"A Berkshire man has been jailed for posting abusive messages online about a schoolgirl after she committed suicide."

What the heck?
When a tv show or pop cultural icon does this, no one gives a crap.

It's after the fact. None of what he posted was personally related to her life, it seems... this is a bullshit verdict.
Though I'd say the fucker still deserves a slap to the face, certainly doesn't warrant jail time.

I think the humiliation of being named and the beatings he will get is enough punishment. Jail time doesn't seem right going to jail for it is more of a crime that what ever he said. (the sentence seems to vary though depending on the news paper I'm sure I read 13 weeks some where not 18). Though I'm unsure if he done any thing before she died reading the news isn't really helpful for that because they can't help but be biased.

People get bullied all the time I can't walk up the street with out getting made fun of by some chavs sure it hurts but they don't really deserve to be punished.

Uck. I was removed. Fine I'll say I find it fair with the results of the prosecution. If it was harassing comments made about her death, then I agree with nekohime. =_= gawd

PATRIOT Act Full Text

It says "amended" alot and doesnt specifically say what it amended other than the code so if you want to read more just google "xxUSCyyyy" where xx = the title number and yyyy is the section number.

Example: In section 202 of the PATRIOT Act it edits another law (title 18 section 2516 or 18USC2516) to make it so that the government can monitor any communications between yourself and the world if you are suspected of, and there is evidence to support, "computer fraud and abuse".

I've been looking for that for a while. Remind me to rep you at the next opportunity.

I can't believe how imminent the concept of the ivory tower is in the mainstream media, having prejudicially called that act TROLLING. It's just reflective of how ignorant they are. As for Duffy, shame on you :(

He has the right to say what he wants, prison time for trolling isn't justified. It's something horrible but I believe there are other ways to make him pay. I don't want the cyber police to catch me D: