The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Particle Person on November 11, 2014, 04:38:18 PM
-
Thork, why don't you tell us about how you can be arrested for saying mean things on the internet as a citizen of the UK.
-
American's lol
-
Thork, why don't you tell us about how you can be arrested for saying mean things on the internet as a citizen of the UK.
Fuck you faggot. >:(
So arrest me.
-
Everything I'm seeing on the Internet suggests that Freedom Tower was its old name, not its current one.
-
Thork, why don't you tell us about how you can be arrested for saying mean things on the internet as a citizen of the UK.
Fuck you faggot. >:(
So arrest me.
I've alerted the constabulary.
-
Thork, why don't you tell us about how you can be arrested for saying mean things on the internet as a citizen of the UK.
Fuck you faggot. >:(
So arrest me.
Still the upper. Take it downstairs. Warned.
-
Everything I'm seeing on the Internet suggests that Freedom Tower was its old name, not its current one.
Thork is wrong again. Lets all act surprised and appalled.
-
Thork, why don't you tell us about how you can be arrested for saying mean things on the internet as a citizen of the UK.
Yes, it's a theoretical possibility with legal provisions in the UK. Meanwhile, in America, you not only can but do get jailed for trolling for 8 years (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/06/29/texas-teen-facing-eight-years-after-violent-league-of-legends-threat/).
America: leading the way :^)
-
Being sarcastic is not the same as trolling.
-
Thork, why don't you tell us about how you can be arrested for saying mean things on the internet as a citizen of the UK.
Yes, it's a theoretical possibility with legal provisions in the UK. Meanwhile, in America, you not only can but do get jailed for trolling for 8 years (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/06/29/texas-teen-facing-eight-years-after-violent-league-of-legends-threat/).
America: leading the way :^)
This is my first time hearing about this. We have to get this kid out of jail.
-
Thork, why don't you tell us about how you can be arrested for saying mean things on the internet as a citizen of the UK.
Yes, it's a theoretical possibility with legal provisions in the UK. Meanwhile, in America, you not only can but do get jailed for trolling for 8 years (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/06/29/texas-teen-facing-eight-years-after-violent-league-of-legends-threat/).
America: leading the way :^)
He wasn't jailed for trolling; he was jailed for making threats. This is definitely an example of very poor discretion and a bizarre lack of common sense, but I don't really think it's comparable to cases like this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/9176107/Student-must-stay-in-jail-for-Fabrice-Muamba-tweets.html) or this (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-woods-jailed).
-
He wasn't jailed for trolling; he was jailed for making threats. This is definitely an example of very poor discretion and a bizarre lack of common sense, but I don't really think it's comparable to cases like this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/9176107/Student-must-stay-in-jail-for-Fabrice-Muamba-tweets.html) or this (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-woods-jailed).
Honestly, the difference is superficial. All of these cases are largely the same - someone said something on the Internet, liberals got offended, and now innocent people are in jail.
If you're going to claim that the cases are different because the Texas kid said he's going to do something, then you're obviously trolling and I'll be reporting you to the FBI. Referring to this as making threats is just as dumb as calling Stacey's actions to be inciting racial hatred - it's a poor attempt at rationalising jailing people for saying no-no boo-boo mean things.
The only real difference is the severity of the punishment. UK: 2-3 months. USA: 8 years.
(http://shirtstree.com/images/choice/CSP10383A.jpg)
-
How are the Americans going to keep such a healthy prison population if they don't jail people for trivial offences? It's a challenge having the most prisoners in the world.
-
Honestly, the difference is superficial. All of these cases are largely the same - someone said something on the Internet, liberals got offended, and now innocent people are in jail.
If you're going to claim that the cases are different because the Texas kid said he's going to do something, then you're obviously trolling and I'll be reporting you to the FBI. Referring to this as making threats is just as dumb as calling Stacey's actions to be inciting racial hatred - it's a poor attempt at rationalising jailing people for saying no-no boo-boo mean things.
The only real difference is the severity of the punishment. UK: 2-3 months. USA: 8 years.
(http://shirtstree.com/images/choice/CSP10383A.jpg)
He was never sentenced to 8 years, you've fallen victim to "maximum sentence ehrmagawd" clickbait.
And yes, making threats is quite a bit different from trolling. There is quite a bit of difference between making offensive statements and threatening harm to someone. I'm not sure what to say if you don't think there is.
-
He was never sentenced to 8 years, you've fallen victim to "maximum sentence ehrmagawd" clickbait.
Virtually every news site I could find says he did. Could you provide a reference to the contrary?
Also, he's only not in jail right now because he paid his $500,000 bail. Given that he's still not cleared of his charges, and that he'd never make it out if not for an anonymous donation, we can agree that the number is at least 18 months, which is still at least 6 times the severity of punishment in the UK, and still warrants the posting of bald eagles and land-of-the-free propaganda.
And yes, making threats is quite a bit different from trolling.
Agreed. However, some trolling can look like making threats.
There is quite a bit of difference between making offensive statements and threatening harm to someone. I'm not sure what to say if you don't think there is.
You don't need to say anything - your strawman is already extremely transparent.
-
Yes, that case is a terrible injustice. However, it is pretty unique. This sort of thing happens much more frequently in the UK.
-
Yes, that case is a terrible injustice. However, it is pretty unique. This sort of thing happens much more frequently in the UK.
I really don't think it does. There are some isolated incidents in each country. It's just that they get a different media hype.
-
He was never sentenced to 8 years, you've fallen victim to "maximum sentence ehrmagawd" clickbait.
Virtually every news site I could find says he did. Could you provide a reference to the contrary?
??? You already provided one, the Forbes article. And you already know that he's currently out on bail, which would make zero sense if he had been convicted and sentenced.
If you're going to claim that the cases are different because the Texas kid said he's going to do something
Yes, that is the difference. He was charged with making threats, while the people in the British cases were charged with trolling. He should never have been charged with it, but that's not relevant to a discussion about stupid laws.
-
Virtually every news site I could find says he did. Could you provide a reference to the contrary?
Why did you ask this when you answered this yourself? See below:
he's only not in jail right now because he paid his $500,000 bail.
Also, speaking of straw men, this is a pretty irrelevant factoid.
Agreed. However, some trolling can look like making threats.
Trolling never looks like threats. If you're straight up threatening people, that isn't (or at least shouldn't) be considered under the umbrella of what trolling is.
-
And you already know that he's currently out on bail, which would make zero sense if he had been convicted and sentenced.
I edited my posts multiple times and forgot to edit that question out. It was a dumb question to ask once I had found out that he's out on bail.
If you're going to claim that the cases are different because the Texas kid said he's going to do something
Yes, that is the difference. He was charged with making threats, while the people in the British cases were charged with trolling. He should never have been charged with it, but that's not relevant to a discussion about stupid laws.
Sure, if you want to restrict the discussion to written laws only, then you're right. In my view, what happens in practice is much more important than what's written down on paper - I made this clear in my very first post on this subject, so if you tried arguing anything else, you simply weren't addressing my post.
Of course, the two should be one and the same, but they're not. The matter of fact is that people in the UK can land in jail for 3-ish months, while in America teenagers spend more than that being tormented by the legal system.
Also, it seems like the case you're making now is that America is less guilty here because they wrongly accuse people of things they haven't done ("oh, yeah, it's 8 years, but only because he was charged with a more severe crime despite having committed a very comparable offence!"). I'm frankly not sure how that could win you any points.
he's only not in jail right now because he paid his $500,000 bail.
Also, speaking of straw men, this is a pretty irrelevant factoid.
It's not irrelevant at all. I'm pointing out that America de facto fucks up innocent trolls much harder than the United Kingdom. Tormenting teenagers for years and demanding that they cough up half a million bucks if they'd like to stop being oppressed is a hilariously good example of this, hence my use of rainbow colours.
If you're straight up threatening people, that isn't (or at least shouldn't) be considered under the umbrella of what trolling is.
Agreed. Unfortunately, as was already pointed out to you, this is irrelevant, because he wasn't "straight up threatening people".
-
I just wanted to make fun of the UK because Thork lives there. And also because it's a silly and whimsical place.
-
I just wanted to make fun of the UK because Thork lives there. And also because it's a silly and whimsical place.
I'm sorry, was that a threat? Looks very much like a terrorist threat to me, brb 911 never forget
-
Tormenting teenagers for years and demanding that they cough up half a million bucks if they'd like to stop being oppressed is a hilariously good example of this, hence my use of rainbow colours.
On the plus side, in America you typically only need 10% of your bail amount to get a bail bond and get out of jail. It is basically Saudi Arabia here in terms of wealth so teens can regularly come up with 50 grand on their own. Not that I have any experience with it or anything.
-
It's not irrelevant at all. I'm pointing out that America de facto fucks up innocent trolls much harder than the United Kingdom. Tormenting teenagers for years and demanding that they cough up half a million bucks if they'd like to stop being oppressed is a hilariously good example of this, hence my use of rainbow colours.
He wasn't a troll, so it isn't relevant how fucked up he gets. PP brought up that trolls get punished in the UK, and you bring up a straw man that violent threats get punished in the US.
Agreed. Unfortunately, as was already pointed out to you, this is irrelevant, because he wasn't "straight up threatening people".
He was, though. When it comes to threats there is no "I was just joking lulz" under US (or any other country's) laws. Feel free to go on Twitter and talk about jokingly killing a VIP such as the US president or UK PM (or even an entire school). I'm sure it will go over well.
-
Sorry rush,
You have matched several words in their dictionary. You are now on the watch list.
-
Sorry rush,
You have matched several words in their dictionary. You are now on the watch list.
I work for the federal government, hoppy. The government pays my salary, assigns me where I live, and even sets what my career field is. I would be disappointed if I was not on any sort of "keep all the shit he says" list before that post.
-
Feel free to go on Twitter and talk about jokingly killing a VIP such as the US president or UK PM (or even an entire school). I'm sure it will go over well.
Hey, guys, I'm totally gonna blow up a mosque tomorrow. Please note: the former statement is false and I have no intention of blowing up mosques.
Rushy, things like that get said all the time here, as well as in the US. Normally, nobody cares because it's not an actual threat. If they did care, I'd be rotting in jail for all the things I said on 4chan.
-
Feel free to go on Twitter and talk about jokingly killing a VIP such as the US president or UK PM (or even an entire school). I'm sure it will go over well.
Hey, guys, I'm totally gonna blow up a mosque tomorrow. Please note: the former statement is false.
Rushy, things like that get said all the time here, and in the US. Nobody cares because it's not an actual threat. If they did care, I'd be rotting in jail for all the things I said on 4chan.
Except that there is big difference between saying some shit here or 4chan (where you get banned now, anyway!) and saying some shit on an extremely popular social website (Twitter) or an extremely popular game (LoL). The more attention you're likely to receive, then the more "we aren't going to tolerate this" other people are going to respond with.
-
4chan (where you get banned now, anyway!)
Irrelevant - getting banned is not going to jail.
an extremely popular social website (Twitter) or an extremely popular game (LoL)
Yes, I'm sure saying something to an audience of four people (nine if it was in /all chat) is srs business.
-
Irrelevant - getting banned is not going to jail.
Going to jail is like, getting banned from life, man.
Yes, I'm sure saying something to an audience of four people (nine if it was in /all chat) is srs business.
It is serious business because it is a business hosting the chat. Business tends to be the most serious business of all.
-
In America you don't go to prison for being rude. That's completely ridiculous. If we send someone to prison for making stupid terroristic threats, that just means we have idiots in our justice system. It's not that big a deal, to be honest. But jailing someone for being rude is a bit orwellian, don't you think?
-
It is serious business because it is a business hosting the chat. Business tends to be the most serious business of all.
This website is also hosted by a business. Also, given that the business was completely uninvolved in the case, I'm not quite sure why you'd even try to make this point in the first place.
In America you don't go to prison for being rude. That's completely ridiculous. If we send someone to prison for making stupid terroristic threats, that just means we have idiots in our justice system. It's not that big a deal, to be honest. But jailing someone for being rude is a bit orwellian, don't you think?
I'm still firmly convinced that the difference is entirely superficial. You can present either of these cases as "technically bad but not actually bad" - you've been focusing on portraying the Texas kid as "making stupid terroristic threats" (despite the fact that he did no such thing). Meanwhile, the British media focused on portraying the other cases as inciting racial hatred.
Both can sound serious at a glance (although I admit that the social effect of falsely calling someone a trrrrrrist is probably greater than that of falsely claiming that someone's inciting racial hatred, especially in post-Bush America), and both can be reasonably described as "being rude".
-
This website is also hosted by a business. Also, given that the business was completely uninvolved in the case, I'm not quite sure why you'd even try to make this point in the first place.
The website host business is only relevant in the UK trolling cases, in which case it is obvious at some point they do care. The US threat was not made on a website, therefore the comparison to a website is irrelephant.
I'm still firmly convinced that the difference is entirely superficial. You can present either of these cases as "technically bad but not actually bad" - you've been focusing on portraying the Texas kid as "making stupid terroristic threats" (despite the fact that he did no such thing). Meanwhile, the British media focused on portraying the other cases as inciting racial hatred.
Both can sound serious at a glance (although I admit that the social effect of falsely calling someone a trrrrrrist is probably greater than that of falsely claiming that someone's inciting racial hatred, especially in post-Bush America), and both can be reasonably described as "being rude".
The difference between the two statements is the same as making fun of the president vs threatening to go through the white house and murder everyone. I highly doubt anyone other than yourself would describe the latter statement as simply "being rude." I mean, it certainly is a rude thing to say, but I would find it incredibly odd if a person's first thoughts about a massacre is "well that was an awfully rude thing to do!"
-
I highly doubt anyone other than yourself would describe the latter statement as simply "being rude." I mean, it certainly is a rude thing to say, but I would find it incredibly odd if a person's first thoughts about a massacre is "well that was an awfully rude thing to do!"
That actually sounds like a very English thought.
-
I think the conclusion to be drawn here is that the English don't understand freedom. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
-
I think the conclusion to be drawn here is that the English don't understand freedom. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
It is the USA's unfortunate duty to have to bring freedom and civilization to the rest of the world.
That actually sounds like a very English thought.
An odd group of people if there ever was one.
-
I mean, it certainly is a rude thing to say, but I would find it incredibly odd if a person's first thoughts about a massacre is "well that was an awfully rude thing to do!"
>trying to equate insensitive jokes about massacres to actual massacres
>expects a response
You do realise I'm much more experienced at this whole "trolling" business than you are, right?
I think the conclusion to be drawn here is that the English don't understand freedom. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
It's just that we don't yet have the cahnstitutional right to go to jail for nothing. Give us time, with the Tories in power we'll get there eventually.
-
trying to equate insensitive jokes about massacres to actual massacres
>expects a response
You do realise I'm much more experienced at this whole "trolling" business than you are, right?
Who said anything about actual massacres? If you're going to follow up with petty trolling remarks, you could at least improve your own reading comprehension before doing so.
-
I mean, it certainly is a rude thing to say, but I would find it incredibly odd if a person's first thoughts about a massacre is "well that was an awfully rude thing to do!"
>trying to equate insensitive jokes about massacres to actual massacres
>expects a response
Explicitly threatening the life of a bunch of elementary schoolers is not an insensitive joke. An insensitive joke would be along the lines of 'lol sandy hook'. Saying 'I'm going to kill somebody' isn't a joke. It's a threat. If you say it as a joke and don't expect it to be taken as a threat, you aren't a misunderstood troll. You're just an idiot.
-
I'm going to kill somebody.
-
At this point I don't think PP1 will just be like "lol okay u guys r right threats aren't trolling" because in his mind threatening death to people is just a type of trolling, therefore going to jail for threatening to shoot a school up or a politician is really just going to jail for trolling.
Arguing against this is apparently just as pointless as trying to explain what intellectual property is to Parsifal. It's a word game that will go nowhere, and as he said, he is the more experienced troll with word games.
-
If you say it as a joke and don't expect it to be taken as a threat, you aren't a misunderstood troll. You're just an idiot.
So you took this as a threat, then?
Hey, guys, I'm totally gonna blow up a mosque tomorrow. Please note: the former statement is false and I have no intention of blowing up mosques.
Who said anything about actual massacres?
You:
I mean, it certainly is a rude thing to say, but I would find it incredibly odd if a person's first thoughts about a massacre is "well that was an awfully rude thing to do!"
Now, if you were honest about this, you'd say you find it odd that a person's first thoughts about such an insensitive joke about massacres is "well, that was an awfully rude thing to say!" - and if you do find this strange, then we've hit a cultural difference.
-
If you say it as a joke and don't expect it to be taken as a threat, you aren't a misunderstood troll. You're just an idiot.
So you took this as a threat, then?
Hey, guys, I'm totally gonna blow up a mosque tomorrow. Please note: the former statement is false and I have no intention of blowing up mosques.
No. This has context. If, instead, someone said "God, Pizaaplanet is completely psychopathic" and you replied "I'm literally going to shoot up a school tomorrow" I'd probably be kinda creeped out. Especially if it turned out that you lived next to a school and had a history of violence.
Another way of putting it: sure, in this context Hey, guys, I'm totally gonna blow up a mosque tomorrow.
is just a dumb joke, but what if it was Yaakov saying it?
-
Who said anything about actual massacres?
You:
I mean, it certainly is a rude thing to say, but I would find it incredibly odd if a person's first thoughts about a massacre is "well that was an awfully rude thing to do!"
Now, if you were honest about this, you'd say you find it odd that a person's first thoughts about such an insensitive joke about massacres is "well, that was an awfully rude thing to say!" - and if you do find this strange, then we've hit a cultural difference.
I'm sorry, you don't appear to have read the rest of the thread. Please read that first, then my post, that way the context of my post doesn't confuse you. If I have made a mistake and you have, in fact, read the entire thread, but still choose to interpret my post in this manner, then I have no interest in discussing this subject with you.
-
I have no interest in discussing this subject with you.
Okay, then.
-
I mean, it certainly is a rude thing to say, but I would find it incredibly odd if a person's first thoughts about a massacre is "well that was an awfully rude thing to do!"
Now, if you were honest about this, you'd say you find it odd that a person's first thoughts about such an insensitive joke about massacres is "well, that was an awfully rude thing to say!" - and if you do find this strange, then we've hit a cultural difference.
How does this conclusion follow?