Dubstepforum.com

magma wrote:
If you strolled into a funeral and started pissing on the coffin or you walked into a hospital cancer ward and started leaving insultingly doctored photos of the patients around, you'd be arrested and probably jailed for a bit... and you'd deserve it. I'm not sure I see a difference here...

There is only a world of difference between that and posting obscene comments on a web page. Like I already pointed out, it's extremely easy to control speech on the internet.

Also, no one is making the argument that these actions are in any way decent, but to what extent do they break the law? Of course the guy should receive repercussions, but it's not within the government's legal right or responsibility to do so (in the context of internet trolling). It should be a private matter.

EDIT: Like in the news story, if someone trolls a death tribute page of a loved one of yours, it would seem more than appropriate to contact his/her employer for example, or expose them to their peers. Instead of laying the burden on taxpayers, lay the burden on the offender.

AllNightDayDream wrote:

magma wrote:
If you strolled into a funeral and started pissing on the coffin or you walked into a hospital cancer ward and started leaving insultingly doctored photos of the patients around, you'd be arrested and probably jailed for a bit... and you'd deserve it. I'm not sure I see a difference here...

There is only a world of difference between that and posting obscene comments on a web page. Like I already pointed out, it's extremely easy to control speech on the internet.

Also, no one is making the argument that these actions are in any decent, but to what extent they break the law. Of course the guy should receive repercussions, but it's not within the government's legal right or responsibility to do so (in the context of internet trolling). It should be a private matter.

Like I said, if he was doing it with a group of friends on a forum or in the comfort of their own home, it wouldn't be an issue and I'd be right behind you.

But.... he made a concerted effort to make sure they saw it by putting it in a place he knew they'd be... it's exactly the same act as sending it through the mail, posting it on their door or handing it around at their local pub.

Just because it's easy to control speech doesn't mean we should have to put up with morons like this. Does it stop the parents being mortally offended just because they can delete it? Of course it doesn't - what's been seen can't be unseen. They could rip up a letter too - wouldn't stop sending it being a criminal act.

If someone "flamed" or "trolled" me, my family, or someone close to me while I/we/they were grieving, I would be fucking pissed. To be honest, I dislike the fact that this is being referred to as trolling or flaming. It's only being called that because it's on the internet. It's like when things are on the internet they become something different and somehow not as bad.

As people mentioned it's really no different to going into a funeral or someone's house and abusing them personally to their face - the pain they feel from it is no different. Just like "torrenting", "filesharing" and "pirating" is effectively stealing but with an internet name, this is just plain old abuse dressed up in a fancy internet term.

There is a world of difference in someone coming onto DSF for example and "trolling" about Skrillex, and someone going onto a memorial page and posting abusive messages. The first is meant to amuse and annoy but not really cause offence; the latter - what is being discussed here - can only be intended to cause pain and suffering. The fact that the law is shady when it comes to actions on the internet does not mean that people shouldn't be punished for doing things that are obviously wrong - if efforts are being made to start policing the internet properly then I for one applaud it.

oh dear and I found trolling so much fun :'(

edit; no more freedom these days

pulkpull wrote:If someone "flamed" or "trolled" me, my family, or someone close to me while I/we/they were grieving, I would be fucking pissed. To be honest, I dislike the fact that this is being referred to as trolling or flaming. It's only being called that because it's on the internet. It's like when things are on the internet they become something different and somehow not as bad.

As people mentioned it's really no different to going into a funeral or someone's house and abusing them personally to their face - the pain they feel from it is no different. Just like "torrenting", "filesharing" and "pirating" is effectively stealing but with an internet name, this is just plain old abuse dressed up in a fancy internet term.

There is a world of difference in someone coming onto DSF for example and "trolling" about Skrillex, and someone going onto a memorial page and posting abusive messages. The first is meant to amuse and annoy but not really cause offence; the latter - what is being discussed here - can only be intended to cause pain and suffering. The fact that the law is shady when it comes to actions on the internet does not mean that people shouldn't be punished for doing things that are obviously wrong - if efforts are being made to start policing the internet properly then I for one applaud it.

So if someone posts on your wall that they'd piss on your mother's grave, it would have the same impact if he actually pissed on your mother's grave at her funeral?

mIrReN wrote:oh dear and I found trolling so much fun :'( edit; no more freedom these days

Freedom is an abstract concept that is different to different people though, freedom to shout in strangers faces or write hate mail or walk about naked- none of those things actually physically hurt anyone but citizens allow the state to have the power to punish you for it. People can argue they want the freedom to walk the street without being shouted at, or to mourn without hateful messages being sent to them.

magma wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:a. I don't know precisely how similar our governments our, but it's perfectly within our constitutional right to act like a c.unt, with certain limitations.

We have freedom of speech, this guy was charged under malicious/obscene communication law - the same laws that make it illegal to send someone a death threat or an evelope full of dogshit... or to phone them up and laugh at them about their recently deceased daughter.

I'm not sure why people see electronic communication as so different to physical... and I'm really not sure why grieving parents who's teenage daughter has just killed herself should be expected to moderate a Facebook page about her. If they really are expected to, there's something wrong with our fucking society.

Dude's a cowardly dick who thought he'd found a safe way to be as unpleasant to his fellow man as possible. If he'd done this physically, in public he probably would've been given a kicking by strangers. Prison almost seems lenient.

Edit: If he'd made a picture and posted it on a forum or something, I wouldn't have a massive issue with it. But he went out of his way to make sure the friends and parents saw this. It's utterly disgusting behaviour. I can't believe anyone can stick up for it?!

You clearly don't understand what the internet is and what it stands for.

EDIT: What makes some random forum different from some facebook group? (Since that was one of your arguments, that he went out of his way to post in a facebook group and make it visible)

Should different parts of the internet be moderated by the law differently? Is facebook some holy sanctioned place while reddit is the badlands, and who are you to decide that?

I can't believe anyone under the age of 30 who actually understands the web wouldn't stick up for this.

AllNightDayDream wrote:So if someone posts on your wall that they'd piss on your mother's grave, it would have the same impact if he actually pissed on your mother's grave at her funeral?

No, it's the same as someone walking up to you at the funeral (this isn't a personal wall, it's a memorial page... the closest real-world comparison I can think of is a funeral or wake) and telling you that they want to piss in your mother's grave.

If they said it to your face there isn't a court in the land that would find a problem with you breaking their nose. On the Internet you don't get that option, so aside from tracking them down and giving them a hiding (at which point moving into pre-meditated assault - you're the criminal now), your best bet is to call the police and have the fucker locked up.

If it's our only defense against those who's sole purpose it is to spread misery then it's the defense we've got to use. You can't just wander around the Internet making everyone unhappy - you need taking out of that environment somehow (either by banning you from the Internet or by physically locking you up... either way, it requires State involvement).

No new laws or precidents were set for this, btw. This is business as usual... it's just the first time it's been done for a Facebook post rather than a "pyhsical" interaction.

Kodachrome wrote:You clearly don't understand what the internet is and what it stands for.

Expand, make a salient point or shhh. I think I've explained my stance pretty well. The Internet isn't separate from real life. It's not some "free" zone where it's ok to abuse people directly just because you can.

If this had been on a forum, even one that was Googleable, I wouldn't have a problem with it. They went out of their way to cause distress to a grieving family.

You clearly don't understand society or what it's for.

Aspergers with internet, judging by youtube comments, there are a lot who need testing for this. Quite a few on here too.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:Aspergers with internet, judging by youtube comments, there are a lot who need testing for this. Quite a few on here too.

Nah, just some people believe in free speech on the internet.

This isn't any different from the thousands of people talking shit when a celebrity dies. One forum on the internet shouldn't be any different from another (to the law).

AllNightDayDream wrote:

pulkpull wrote:....Some stuff....

So if someone posts on your wall that they'd piss on your mother's grave, it would have the same impact if he actually pissed on your mother's grave at her funeral?

The same? Probably not. Some impact? Yes, definitely. By your logic, as long as you don't actually go through with it you could plan a terrorist attack or murder, or write letters to people telling them how you plan on raping their child with a marrow.

Anyway I'm not 100% sure think that jail is an appropriate reaction to this, but certainly some kind of punishment is warranted. Don't understand why people think it's ok to intentionally cause harm and distress especially at a time like that.

Kodachrome wrote: You clearly don't understand what the internet is and what it stands for.

I can't believe anyone under the age of 30 who actually understands the web wouldn't stick up for this.

There is no codified vision of what the internet is or isn't. It's just what the people on it make it. The fact that it hasn't been policed properly because no one knew how to do it doesn't mean you have the right to do absolutely anything. It's not some lawless zone where anything goes. It still exists in the real world. You presumably would argue that pirating music is fine since it happens on the internet? After all, that's what the internet stands for, right?

Kodachrome wrote:

Pedro Sánchez wrote:Aspergers with internet, judging by youtube comments, there are a lot who need testing for this. Quite a few on here too.

Nah, just some people believe in free speech on the internet.

This isn't any different from the thousands of people talking shit when a celebrity dies. One forum on the internet shouldn't be any different from another (to the law).

Random forum on internet: making jokes down the pub with your mates.

Memorial page on facebook: making same joke to faces of parents at the funeral.

That's the same?

pulkpull wrote:

Kodachrome wrote:

Pedro Sánchez wrote:Aspergers with internet, judging by youtube comments, there are a lot who need testing for this. Quite a few on here too.

Nah, just some people believe in free speech on the internet.

This isn't any different from the thousands of people talking shit when a celebrity dies. One forum on the internet shouldn't be any different from another (to the law).

Random forum on internet: making jokes down the pub with your mates.

Memorial page on facebook: making same joke to faces of parents at the funeral.

That's the same?

Actually it's not even close to making a joke to the face of the parents at the funeral.

It's more like this, and I'll be damned if these stupid, ignorant, insane, and severely fucked up people don't have the right to do it:



EDIT: Didn't actually watch the video so I'm not sure if it's one of the ones where they protest a funeral, but you get the gist.

Those people are protesting - even if you don't agree with them, they can argue they had a political motive.

The only motive this guy had was to cause emotional distress to a grieving family. He's not exercising free speech to make a point about God or politics, his ONLY motivation was to make the parents of a dead teenager cry. There is a big difference!

Kodachrome wrote:

Pedro Sánchez wrote:Aspergers with internet, judging by youtube comments, there are a lot who need testing for this. Quite a few on here too.

Nah, just some people believe in free speech on the internet.

This isn't any different from the thousands of people talking shit when a celebrity dies. One forum on the internet shouldn't be any different from another (to the law).

How about some Racism forums, Gay bashing forums or even forums on how to rape kids, how far do you want your free speech to extend mate?... Growup.

To make the distinction clear:

4Chan making mockups of Jordan's baby... fine. If she Google's it, it's probably her fault for getting offended... she can easily avoid the situation.

Someone making a mockup of Jordan's baby and sending them to her... not fine.

magma wrote:To make the distinction clear:

4Chan making mockups of Jordan's baby... fine. If she Google's it, it's probably her fault for getting offended... she can easily avoid the situation.

Someone making a mockup of Jordan's baby and sending them to her... not fine.

I think everyone on 4Chan has aspergers, it's a prerequisite.

magma wrote:Those people are protesting - even if you don't agree with them, they can argue they had a political motive.

The only motive this guy had was to cause emotional distress to a grieving family. He's not exercising free speech to make a point about God or politics, his ONLY motivation was to make the parents of a dead teenager cry. There is a big difference!

Who are you to decide his motive? The motive is irrelevant anyways, you're basically saying you should be locked up for saying things to make people cry.

P.S. Your mother is an aging whore, see what I'm getting at?

Yes, that family having another thing to cry over because of some asshole sucks, but what happened to that guy sucks too regardless of whether people think he deserved it or not. This sets a scary precedent, where do we draw the line?

Your views seem to be that we draw the line wherever you deem it appropriate.

"How about some Racism forums, Gay bashing forums or even forums on how to rape kids, how far do you want your free speech to extend mate?... Growup."

Grow up? Real mature response there, done with this thread.

Kodachrome wrote:Who are you to decide his motive? The motive is irrelevant anyways, you're basically saying you should be locked up for saying things to make people cry.

P.S. Your mother is an aging whore, see what I'm getting at?

Yes, that family having another thing to cry over because of some asshole sucks, but what happened to that guy sucks too regardless of whether people think he deserved it or not. This sets a scary precedent, where do we draw the line?

Your views seem to be that we draw the line wherever you deem it appropriate.

This seems an easy one to draw a line for. I don't doubt there will be harder ones... but honestly, I can't think of a justification that would excuse what he did. Perhaps jail is harsh, but he needed dealing with by the state somehow - even if it was a year's ban from being online or something.

You calling my mother a whore in a conversation like this doesn't carry any offense whatsoever - I'm quite hard to offend actually, and I imagine I would've deleted these pics without getting the police involved... it's not my line, it's the victim's line. If they suffered emotional distress because of his actions, he committed a crime... if they didn't, he probably didn't. It's up to a court, not us to decide which way it falls. The court decided he committed a crime.

They didn't need to write any new laws or set any precidents. They just had to evaluate what he did, how the victims were affected and come to a decision. They did it quite easily and rationally by all accounts.