PDA

View Full Version : Jailed for Offensive Messages Online



Dark Flare
October 10 2012, 09:15:19 AM
So, a guy who posted "offensive" stuff about April Jones on facebook is now going to jail.

So I looked up the law:


127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if heó
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, heó
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).


So 1.a) is a law based on opinion. Because we need more of those.

2.a) Lying on the internet is now illegal? What.

2.c) Continuously winding people up on the internet, also illegal?

I really hope Lallante comes along and tells me that I'm reading this wrong. Because if not this is entirely stupid.

Smuggo
October 10 2012, 09:28:29 AM
It is getting rather silly that people are being charged for posting messages on the internet. Seems to be one a week or more at the moment.

Surely the police have actual criminals to be dealing with?

Dark Flare
October 10 2012, 09:35:10 AM
You would have thought so. I mean the guy is obviously a prat, but just make him pick up litter for a few days or something. Jail time for being offensive is ridiculous.

Smuggo
October 10 2012, 09:45:01 AM
You would have thought so. I mean the guy is obviously a prat, but just make him pick up litter for a few days or something. Jail time for being offensive is ridiculous.

Does it even need to go to court or have any official punishment?

Obviously it's in incredibly poor taste, but it's the sort of thing everyone will just be like "WTF?" and most of his "friends" would likely berrate him over it. That should be enough really. Having official authorities deal with this kind of stuff is completely OTT.

Lallante
October 10 2012, 09:46:57 AM
So, a guy who posted "offensive" stuff about April Jones on facebook is now going to jail.

So I looked up the law:


127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).


So 1.a) is a law based on opinion. Because we need more of those.

2.a) Lying on the internet is now illegal? What.

2.c) Continuously winding people up on the internet, also illegal?

I really hope Lallante comes along and tells me that I'm reading this wrong. Because if not this is entirely stupid.

You are reading it wrongly. All of these offences should be viewed through the prism of proportionality - its only an offence if its really egregious.

Kind of like how you arn't only guilty of harassment for calling your sister fat, twice:

[A person is guilty of an offence if they...] pursue a course of conduct-

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

"harassment" of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress; and
a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

Lallante
October 10 2012, 09:50:41 AM
You would have thought so. I mean the guy is obviously a prat, but just make him pick up litter for a few days or something. Jail time for being offensive is ridiculous.

Does it even need to go to court or have any official punishment?

Obviously it's in incredibly poor taste, but it's the sort of thing everyone will just be like "WTF?" and most of his "friends" would likely berrate him over it. That should be enough really. Having official authorities deal with this kind of stuff is completely OTT.

I don't really agree with this. I think its a good deterrant, and tbh stuff like this should not be acceptable in a civilised society.

Zeekar
October 10 2012, 10:18:33 AM
In a civilised society it shouldn't be acceptable that people get jail time because of distasteful jokes.

Lallante
October 10 2012, 11:02:22 AM
In a civilised society it shouldn't be acceptable that people get jail time because of distasteful jokes.

Thats true, I retract my previous position.

I do think that certain things that are specifically targetted at the victim (e.g. if he had sent a load of jokes to the parents) should count as harassment etc and be a crime however.

Zeekar
October 10 2012, 11:05:38 AM
No argument from me there.

Smuggo
October 10 2012, 11:05:51 AM
In a civilised society it shouldn't be acceptable that people get jail time because of distasteful jokes.

Thats true, I retract my previous position.

I do think that certain things that are specifically targetted at the victim (e.g. if he had sent a load of jokes to the parents) should count as harassment etc and be a crime however.

Yes, sending direct to the victim would be different.

Lallante
October 10 2012, 11:13:01 AM
...the victim of the harassment.


Anyway Itiken who cant post here added:

it's worth adding (i can't post in thred) that they were posted on the "Find my daughter she has been kidnapped" Facebook (and twitter i think) page, setup by the parents. Ant it wasn't one post but literally dozens over the course of a few hours.


I didn't actually know that - on that basis I think the conviction is correct and retract my earlier retraction.

Posting sick jokes to your mates or on some "edgy" forum is one thing. Posting them in the official group for help finding some poor lost kid is obviously intended to cause extreme distress and is deservedly criminal.

Smuggo
October 10 2012, 11:22:22 AM
Yeah, on the basis of Itiken's message, it is very different. I thought it had just been posted as an FB status or something. BBC article didn't really have any details.

Dark Flare
October 10 2012, 11:36:07 AM
I can't find a source for that claim, but even if that IS the case, it still shouldn't be prison imo. Community Service is more than enough.

Crystalline Entity
October 10 2012, 12:22:54 PM
In a fast evolving world such as cyberspace, the law cannot keep up. So they draft legislation to be vague so that people can be caught under provisions like that.

It is one of the reasons Common Law conspiracy to defraud has been retained (although the fraud act makes that debatable), fraudsters and criminals can think up new ways of ripping people off very easily and the law cannot keep up. So CLCTD is there as a backstop to convict them if necessary legislation has not in force.

Ever wondered what legally the word: reasonable means? :)


CE


PS: I am sure Lall could tell you better than i could so i wont try and remember the lecturers waffle from the degree

Itiken
October 10 2012, 01:29:38 PM
First srspoast.

Ironically he was first "taken into police custody for his own protection" as a large number of local townspeople had gone to his house and were 'behaving in a threatening manner'.

It seems i was slightly mistaken from doing serious digging though the details are somewhat murky as it's (reason given) hard to put too much information about without prejudicing either of the investigations and arrests.

That caveat aside, I was wrong. Sort of. it's one of those Little towns where everyone knows everyone and they all chat about on Facebook. Because having your neighbours on Facebook is good etc etc. He posted them on his own page, but due to this, it was propagated to a large chunk of the town's feeds. Because of this the Judge decided it had been broadcast enough to count as more than "edgey site poast #32". I'd recalled a "posted on girl's page" style news info-bit but it's either been redacted or I made it up sorry. I guess this is a very blurry line between sent to and able to be read by.

IMO this is very different o posting it on sickopedia, or a private forum where you would have to actively go out of your way to see it. More akin to spraying it on a wall near their house.

As for the comments there were more than one it was a 'significant number' some of which can be found on line and again were judged to be in sufficient number and distaste to prosecute. They clearly (in the judge's eye) caused significant distress to enough people for it to be a major issue as recently judges in the UK have been overturning & throwing out of court many of the "he was mean to me on the interwebz qq" crap that has been floating about. A barrister friend has successfully defended at least one case where the defence was "look - seriously..."

Opinion wise - it's probably a bit harsh, but tough shit. people get "a bit harsh" sentences every day from judges in a bad mood. Prison is supposed to be a deterrent after all as well as a punishment and if this deters similar actions. Did he intend for it to be seen by her parents? maybe not, but intent and action are different. May this act as a deterrent to people in future? Maybe, god, please, just maybe.

i recall a drunk lawyer conversation along the lines of "for a crim you need action and intent". he intended to poast them, it was public enough and they were offensive enough to count as a serious enough crime to thow the book at him.

Should it be? In some cases yes. That grey area is why though we have politically independent (ish) judges who're qualified to define things such as what the word reasonable means.

Smuggo
October 10 2012, 01:35:58 PM
So tl;dr is it's okay if you don't have many facebook friends?

Crystalline Entity
October 10 2012, 01:40:58 PM
So tl;dr is it's okay if you don't have many facebook friends?

Kinda, yeah

Aurora148
October 10 2012, 04:29:03 PM
Offence is taken, not given. Its entirely fucking subjective and should never be used in the wording of laws for that reason.

ValorousBob
October 11 2012, 01:13:24 AM
127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, heó
(a)
(b)...or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.




"A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network."

This concerns me the most. It's just begging to be abused. I doubt the legislators intended something that broad, but doesn't that statement really need some qualifiers about degree attached to it? Or are those supposed to be inferred?

Lallante
October 11 2012, 10:44:35 AM
I can't find a source for that claim, but even if that IS the case, it still shouldn't be prison imo. Community Service is more than enough.

Thats a sentencing issue you have with the specific judge then, not the law itself.

Lallante
October 11 2012, 10:51:02 AM
In a fast evolving world such as cyberspace, the law cannot keep up. So they draft legislation to be vague so that people can be caught under provisions like that.

It is one of the reasons Common Law conspiracy to defraud has been retained (although the fraud act makes that debatable), fraudsters and criminals can think up new ways of ripping people off very easily and the law cannot keep up. So CLCTD is there as a backstop to convict them if necessary legislation has not in force.

Ever wondered what legally the word: reasonable means? :)


CE


PS: I am sure Lall could tell you better than i could so i wont try and remember the lecturers waffle from the degree

"reasonable" has different meanings depending on context, but is generally one of the most highly judicially examined words in the legal lexicon. Usually a fair rule of thumb is "apply common sense".

Lallante
October 11 2012, 10:52:51 AM
127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, heó
(a)
(b)...or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.




"A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network."

This concerns me the most. It's just begging to be abused. I doubt the legislators intended something that broad, but doesn't that statement really need some qualifiers about degree attached to it? Or are those supposed to be inferred?

Have you read many laws? Thats how they are all drafted. The qualifiers are both inferred and statutory.

Frug
October 11 2012, 07:09:01 PM
I brought this issue up in another serious thread. We in the west love to point out how awful places like Russia or China are when they throw people in jail for insulting the government or being offensive, but we should be more concerned with the fact that it happens in places like the UK.

This sort of thing is completely unacceptable to me and the obvious solution is to use a proxy when you want to speak your mind on a touchy issue. Just watch what you say, don't use facebook for anything but idle chatter, and cover your tracks if you do have something to say that will upset someone.

Sad that this is the answer.

TheManFromDelmonte
October 11 2012, 08:11:37 PM
I'm surprised some of these aren't being pushed as far as the European Court of Human Rights pro bono.

Is there really no case at all?

Crystalline Entity
October 11 2012, 10:35:57 PM
I'm surprised some of these aren't being pushed as far as the European Court of Human Rights pro bono.

There is pro bono, then there is holy shit ECHR costs and pro bono disappears.....

(...I think... )

CE

ValorousBob
October 12 2012, 12:22:31 AM
127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)
(b)...or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.




"A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network."

This concerns me the most. It's just begging to be abused. I doubt the legislators intended something that broad, but doesn't that statement really need some qualifiers about degree attached to it? Or are those supposed to be inferred?

Have you read many laws? Thats how they are all drafted. The qualifiers are both inferred and statutory.

I've read some legislation, but little or no criminal/civil law. So by this law, you're not guilty of an offence if you use Facebook persistently to annoy your friend by posting Romney campaign ads on his wall? There's an inferred qualifier that it has to cause "significant distress" or some other legal sounding phrase like that?

whispous
October 12 2012, 08:04:20 AM
There's also a huge problem with "victims" behaviour too, because these days everyone out there is actively looking to take offence at something. And that's how you get people who hang themselves because they didn't want to make their facebook profile private, and went searching for every post that said "haha that person is a big baddie", they scrape whatever they can and then take offence at it. Or end themselves, which isn't "removing the problem" (them), it's just drawing attention to someone who was mean to them.


Obviously some bullies are way overboard with their comments, but there's just too many special snowflakes out there.

Lallante
October 15 2012, 08:58:49 AM
127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, heó
(a)
(b)...or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.




"A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network."

This concerns me the most. It's just begging to be abused. I doubt the legislators intended something that broad, but doesn't that statement really need some qualifiers about degree attached to it? Or are those supposed to be inferred?

Have you read many laws? Thats how they are all drafted. The qualifiers are both inferred and statutory.

I've read some legislation, but little or no criminal/civil law. So by this law, you're not guilty of an offence if you use Facebook persistently to annoy your friend by posting Romney campaign ads on his wall? There's an inferred qualifier that it has to cause "significant distress" or some other legal sounding phrase like that?

Proportionality is always inferred.

Lallante
October 15 2012, 09:00:45 AM
There's also a huge problem with "victims" behaviour too, because these days everyone out there is actively looking to take offence at something. And that's how you get people who hang themselves because they didn't want to make their facebook profile private, and went searching for every post that said "haha that person is a big baddie", they scrape whatever they can and then take offence at it. Or end themselves, which isn't "removing the problem" (them), it's just drawing attention to someone who was mean to them.


Obviously some bullies are way overboard with their comments, but there's just too many special snowflakes out there.

Is this a troll or are you seriously saying that you think people are deliberately, artificially depressing themselves to the point that they kill themselves?

Pacefalm
October 16 2012, 09:22:39 PM
Speaking from experience, yes that does happen (not sure if it happens a lot though).

Al Simmons
October 16 2012, 11:03:18 PM
I brought this issue up in another serious thread. We in the west love to point out how awful places like Russia or China are when they throw people in jail for insulting the government or being offensive, but we should be more concerned with the fact that it happens in places like the UK.

This sort of thing is completely unacceptable to me and the obvious solution is to use a proxy when you want to speak your mind on a touchy issue. Just watch what you say, don't use facebook for anything but idle chatter, and cover your tracks if you do have something to say that will upset someone.

Sad that this is the answer.

But with google indexing everything under the sun, and one person being able to find something on a site and throw it up on twitter for thousands to see, you wouldn't even have to post it on a public forum like facebook. You could post a blog on some obscure tech forum like Kuro5hin, and it might get picked up and become a big story for people searching for the girl's name online.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/3/491/18474

Now in that instance, the admin basically said "lol get lost" to all the people coming in and sending outraged emails. But apparently now with these laws this guy might face prosecution for putting his opinion online? Now admittedly that blog is a lot more considered than the one-liner insults Matthew Woods put on Facebook, but still. It's fucking ridiculous.

OrangeAfroMan
October 17 2012, 06:36:07 AM
So if I'm reading this right, setting your facebook to 'Private' (mine already is) automatically excludes you from this because it is no longer a 'public' forum?

Also I don't really 'get' people getting depressed or even miffed over stuff posted on the internet. Its just an idiot on the internet saying mean things, if you don't respect them then their opinions shouldn't matter to you :/

Frug
October 17 2012, 03:53:10 PM
But with google indexing everything under the sun, and one person being able to find something on a site and throw it up on twitter for thousands to see, you wouldn't even have to post it on a public forum like facebook. You could post a blog on some obscure tech forum like Kuro5hin, and it might get picked up and become a big story for people searching for the girl's name online.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/3/491/18474

Now in that instance, the admin basically said "lol get lost" to all the people coming in and sending outraged emails. But apparently now with these laws this guy might face prosecution for putting his opinion online? Now admittedly that blog is a lot more considered than the one-liner insults Matthew Woods put on Facebook, but still. It's fucking ridiculous.

This is why, when you have something to say, you disguise yourself and say it on someone else's forum/blog/service/social network.
Go ahead and make yourself a fake facebook account that you access with a proxy if you're an activist or have 'dangerous' views.

My point is that the solution is to hide your identity because anonymity on the internet is a lost cause otherwise.

Lallante
October 22 2012, 04:57:35 PM
So if I'm reading this right, setting your facebook to 'Private' (mine already is) automatically excludes you from this because it is no longer a 'public' forum?


Potentially yes, though not if you posted it to a public group AND it might be argued depending on the specific facts of the case that you were publicising it none the less (e.g. you accept every random possible as a friend).


Also I don't really 'get' people getting depressed or even miffed over stuff posted on the internet. Its just an idiot on the internet saying mean things, if you don't respect them then their opinions shouldn't matter to you :/
:facepalm: Seriously grow the fuck up and educate yourself. Next you'll be saying people who are suicidal should just cheer up.

Lallante
October 22 2012, 04:58:40 PM
But with google indexing everything under the sun, and one person being able to find something on a site and throw it up on twitter for thousands to see, you wouldn't even have to post it on a public forum like facebook. You could post a blog on some obscure tech forum like Kuro5hin, and it might get picked up and become a big story for people searching for the girl's name online.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/3/491/18474

Now in that instance, the admin basically said "lol get lost" to all the people coming in and sending outraged emails. But apparently now with these laws this guy might face prosecution for putting his opinion online? Now admittedly that blog is a lot more considered than the one-liner insults Matthew Woods put on Facebook, but still. It's fucking ridiculous.

This is why, when you have something to say, you disguise yourself and say it on someone else's forum/blog/service/social network.
Go ahead and make yourself a fake facebook account that you access with a proxy if you're an activist or have 'dangerous' views.

My point is that the solution is to hide your identity because anonymity on the internet is a lost cause otherwise.

Your argument holds equally to libel, fraud etc.

ValorousBob
October 24 2012, 07:46:18 AM
This is why, when you have something to say, you disguise yourself and say it on someone else's forum/blog/service/social network.
Go ahead and make yourself a fake facebook account that you access with a proxy if you're an activist or have 'dangerous' views.

This reminds me, I'm 99% sure I 'found' someone on FB that made a completely fake identity. This person is claiming they graduated from my highschool the same year as me, but I'm 100% sure they didn't. I asked a few people that accepted this person's friend request (I didn't), and none of them have ever met or heard of this person. This raises a few questions for me:

1) Can't you get in trouble for fake FB profiles?
2) Why would someone make a fake profile besides trolling or political activism? The fact this person just tries to be normal and un-noticed actually trolls me more then people who make fake FB accounts for trolling.

Smuggo
October 24 2012, 08:48:58 AM
Next you'll be saying people who are suicidal should just cheer up.

Well, it might help ;)

Itiken
October 24 2012, 09:23:12 AM
1) Can't you get in trouble for fake FB profiles? In their TOS you should be a real person really identified. but "trouble" is unlikely.


2) Why would someone make a fake profile besides trolling or political activism? The fact this person just tries to be normal and un-noticed actually trolls me more then people who make fake FB accounts for trolling. targetted Social Engineering Attacks eg Spearfishing via false data on a 'friends' facebook page are very common. peopel blindly click links on friend's pages.

Some time ago some friends and I created a fake person, made them look like a friend of our 'group', added him, then frequented most people we knew. over 70 people accepted the friend request over a few days. All you need then is a few real posts followed by a "hey this site is cool - don't worry about the security error it's broke my friend runs it" link going to a page loaded with specific malware and you have a high chance of gaining access to your real target's computer.

To us tech savvy people, that sets off all kinds of alarm bells and I'm sure none of us would even accept the friend (I actually confirm all friend requests IRL face to face yep I'm a nerd), yet alone click ok on a malicious link security warning. right guys ?

Frug
October 24 2012, 03:51:59 PM
Your argument holds equally to libel, fraud etc.

I assumed those would fall under 'dangerous' but yeah, it probably needs to be said that you should refrain from expressing yourself with any form of hostility toward someone or accusations on facebook. Just don't do it, not worth it, use a fake account for that.



1) Can't you get in trouble for fake FB profiles?
2) Why would someone make a fake profile besides trolling or political activism? The fact this person just tries to be normal and un-noticed actually trolls me more then people who make fake FB accounts for trolling.
Facebook might disable the account. That's a little better than getting arrested or sued.

The point of it is that you link it to a throwaway email address and mask your real name so that the only way someone will be able to identify you is by serious investigation. If you make it that difficult for people to know who you are, the majority of this sort of bullshit will go away because people won't bother to go through the effort to find out who controls the account. They reserve that sort of detective work for serious cases, not just someone saying something mean.

And that is the whole reason why the system is broken. It's not about fairness, reason, morality or the law considering your rights, it's about the fact that it's too easy and you need to throw some obstacles at them so they'll go after someone more worthwhile. You're literally too easy a target if you use your real account.

Lallante
October 25 2012, 10:25:32 AM
And that is the whole reason why the system is broken. It's not about fairness, reason, morality or the law considering your rights, it's about the fact that it's too easy and you need to throw some obstacles at them so they'll go after someone more worthwhile. You're literally too easy a target if you use your real account.

Thats not a broken system - thats like claiming its wrong that people who openly take drugs in the street get arrested but those doing the same drugs in secret don't. Its not wrong its obvious logistics.

I don't really understand what you are trying to argue here. That activity A) shouldnt be illegal because its possible to get away with it? What DOESNT that apply to?

whispous
October 25 2012, 10:26:35 AM
Also confirming, most facebook people are stupid.


Edit: in reply to the fake profile and loads of clumsy braindeads adding said person above

telephone

ValorousBob
October 26 2012, 11:27:42 PM
Well I'm pretty sure most of the people who added them did so because it's a "girl" and the pictures they decided to use make her look pretty hot. :lol:

I thought I found someone who knew "her" because one of my friends liked her profile picture, but when I asked him who she was he was just like "Naw man I dunno who the fuck that is, but she's pretty hot bro." :facepalm:

Oh and now she has a "boyfriend" who exhibits all the same signs as being fake as "her" profile does. What. the. fuck. As far as fishing attempts, she hasn't posted *anything* unusual and the profile has been active for months. That's whats creeping me out. They haven't done anything that would indicate why they went to the trouble to fabricate an identity. It's like they're a sleeper cell or something.

Lallante
October 29 2012, 09:16:25 AM
Well I'm pretty sure most of the people who added them did so because it's a "girl" and the pictures they decided to use make her look pretty hot. :lol:

I thought I found someone who knew "her" because one of my friends liked her profile picture, but when I asked him who she was he was just like "Naw man I dunno who the fuck that is, but she's pretty hot bro." :facepalm:

Oh and now she has a "boyfriend" who exhibits all the same signs as being fake as "her" profile does. What. the. fuck. As far as fishing attempts, she hasn't posted *anything* unusual and the profile has been active for months. That's whats creeping me out. They haven't done anything that would indicate why they went to the trouble to fabricate an identity. It's like they're a sleeper cell or something.

Anyone who messages or friends her or him gives them all their profile information.

In addition, or possibly alternatively, apparantly there are services that let businesses "buy likes" and the rate is something like $40 for 1000 likes, so a LOT of fake accounts are needed.

OrangeAfroMan
October 29 2012, 01:24:40 PM
So if I'm reading this right, setting your facebook to 'Private' (mine already is) automatically excludes you from this because it is no longer a 'public' forum?


Potentially yes, though not if you posted it to a public group AND it might be argued depending on the specific facts of the case that you were publicising it none the less (e.g. you accept every random possible as a friend).


Also I don't really 'get' people getting depressed or even miffed over stuff posted on the internet. Its just an idiot on the internet saying mean things, if you don't respect them then their opinions shouldn't matter to you :/
:facepalm: Seriously grow the fuck up and educate yourself. Next you'll be saying people who are suicidal should just cheer up.

Hm, not really. Words are words, if you let somebody get to you, then YOU are giving THEM the power. Deny them that power and it is all meaningless.

Lallante
October 29 2012, 07:20:01 PM
So if I'm reading this right, setting your facebook to 'Private' (mine already is) automatically excludes you from this because it is no longer a 'public' forum?


Potentially yes, though not if you posted it to a public group AND it might be argued depending on the specific facts of the case that you were publicising it none the less (e.g. you accept every random possible as a friend).


Also I don't really 'get' people getting depressed or even miffed over stuff posted on the internet. Its just an idiot on the internet saying mean things, if you don't respect them then their opinions shouldn't matter to you :/
:facepalm: Seriously grow the fuck up and educate yourself. Next you'll be saying people who are suicidal should just cheer up.

Hm, not really. Words are words, if you let somebody get to you, then YOU are giving THEM the power. Deny them that power and it is all meaningless.

With well informed, empathetic and intelligent views such as this, you should become a mental health worker or counseler.

cullnean
October 29 2012, 07:56:49 PM
So if I'm reading this right, setting your facebook to 'Private' (mine already is) automatically excludes you from this because it is no longer a 'public' forum?


Potentially yes, though not if you posted it to a public group AND it might be argued depending on the specific facts of the case that you were publicising it none the less (e.g. you accept every random possible as a friend).


Also I don't really 'get' people getting depressed or even miffed over stuff posted on the internet. Its just an idiot on the internet saying mean things, if you don't respect them then their opinions shouldn't matter to you :/
:facepalm: Seriously grow the fuck up and educate yourself. Next you'll be saying people who are suicidal should just cheer up.

Hm, not really. Words are words, if you let somebody get to you, then YOU are giving THEM the power. Deny them that power and it is all meaningless.

that's pure positive thinking seminar bullshit, can you also make people rich in seven simple steps? Enough digs and Jibes can change any ones self image.

OrangeAfroMan
October 30 2012, 03:54:45 AM
Works for me. I decided long ago I wasn't going to be a victim.

Itiken
October 30 2012, 12:20:06 PM
instead an idiot.
grats.

spasm
October 30 2012, 12:45:02 PM
Attack the argument, not the person.

Dark Flare
October 30 2012, 01:14:31 PM
Works for me. I decided long ago I wasn't going to be a victim.

Confirming it works for a sample size of 1. This is gonna be the next big thing.

Seriously though, no. You can't just say "well I'm fine with people saying whatever so everyone else should be too". That's not how people work.

Itiken
October 30 2012, 01:17:13 PM
It's also nothing to do with this thread. Why not make a "hey depressed people - why don't you cheer up that works for me" thread ?
Put it up next to the "legitimate Rape" one.

spasm
October 30 2012, 01:21:35 PM
Orangeafro's reactions to offensive messages online is perfectly on topic, as well as yours would be.

Lallante
October 30 2012, 01:40:06 PM
Attack the argument, not the person.

The argument is so offensive that letting it's author go uninsulted is a crime. PS: OrangeAfroMan you are a dumb cunt

Lallante
October 30 2012, 01:40:55 PM
It's also nothing to do with this thread. Why not make a "hey depressed people - why don't you cheer up that works for me" thread ?
Put it up next to the "legitimate Rape" one.

Rape victims should trying manning up and not getting raped - its worked for OrangeAfroMan.

spasm
October 30 2012, 01:43:12 PM
If you can't even bother to hide your trolling behind semi-coherent arguments then you can leave.

OrangeAfroMan
October 30 2012, 02:22:39 PM
It's also nothing to do with this thread. Why not make a "hey depressed people - why don't you cheer up that works for me" thread ?
Put it up next to the "legitimate Rape" one.

I did not bring depression into this, that was Lallante.

One way you can look at my philosophy is in terms of basic body language. The action that puts you into the strongest position in interpersonal communication is to ignore. If you don't let [non-physical] bullying get to you, and simply walk away/ ignore it, you become the stronger and more dominant entity. A great example of this is on The Dog Whisperer - watch when Cesar walks a dog past another fenced dog - the fenced dog will bark like mad as long as Cesar lets the dog he's walking give it attention. As soon as Cesar forces his dog to ignore the fenced dog - back turned, sitting calmly, the fenced dog quiets down and wanders off.

One of the main tenants I was brought up with, especially in my lifelong martial arts training, is that anything sub-physical is meaningless if I don't give it meaning. Now, if somebody attempts to lay hands on me, everything changes in that instant. Anything less than that, just walk away.

spasm
October 30 2012, 02:33:32 PM
Humans aren't dogs, and most people are empathetic and can't just shrug off what others say.

We get it, you don't care what others think. This isn't the platform to discuss it.

OrangeAfroMan
October 30 2012, 11:23:59 PM
Humans aren't dogs, and most people are empathetic and can't just shrug off what others say.

We get it, you don't care what others think. This isn't the platform to discuss it.

The basics of body language still apply.

OrangeAfroMan
October 31 2012, 02:07:58 AM
Also, how do I get negrepped for being a 'tough guy' when I'm advocating walking away from potential fights?

:psyduck:

Sofia Roseburn
October 31 2012, 02:31:14 AM
Probably because you're trying to be cool on the internet.

OrangeAfroMan
October 31 2012, 02:42:11 AM
.

We get it, you don't care what others think. This isn't the platform to discuss it.

Sorry for the multipost but that is not what I said.

What I said was I do not care what random people whose opinions I do not respect think, and I feel like that applies directly to the subject at hand.


Probably because you're trying to be cool on the internet.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

EDIT: By the way, these aren't new ideas I'm presenting here. The philosophy that you cannot control what happens around you but you can control how you react to it is core to the Buddhist belief system, Jesus' philosophy of turning the other cheek, etc.

ValorousBob
October 31 2012, 07:58:37 AM
So if I'm reading this right, setting your facebook to 'Private' (mine already is) automatically excludes you from this because it is no longer a 'public' forum?


Potentially yes, though not if you posted it to a public group AND it might be argued depending on the specific facts of the case that you were publicising it none the less (e.g. you accept every random possible as a friend).


Also I don't really 'get' people getting depressed or even miffed over stuff posted on the internet. Its just an idiot on the internet saying mean things, if you don't respect them then their opinions shouldn't matter to you :/
:facepalm: Seriously grow the fuck up and educate yourself. Next you'll be saying people who are suicidal should just cheer up.

Hm, not really. Words are words, if you let somebody get to you, then YOU are giving THEM the power. Deny them that power and it is all meaningless.

Ok everyone hating on this post by OrangeAfroMan needs to calm the fuck down. This is one of the basic parts of many philosophies. Gandhi, Buddha, I *think* Confucius all preached this idea.


edit: nvm OAF said it himself in the post right above mine...

Lallante
October 31 2012, 08:20:12 AM
Depressed people should be ashamed of themselves for falling short of the standards (of Gandhi and Zen Buddhism) that OAM demands of them then I guess

OrangeAfroMan
October 31 2012, 08:54:41 AM
Depressed people should be ashamed of themselves for falling short of the standards (of Gandhi and Zen Buddhism) that OAM demands of them then I guess

Hey, remember that time that what I had been discussing had literally nothing to do with the mental disorder that is depression? I remember that time.

Lallante
October 31 2012, 09:03:20 AM
Also I don't really 'get' people getting depressed or even miffed over stuff posted on the internet. Its just an idiot on the internet saying mean things, if you don't respect them then their opinions shouldn't matter to you :/

Sorry I somehow misinterpreted this direct reference to depression as a direct reference to depression.

Sent from tapaderp

OrangeAfroMan
October 31 2012, 09:09:46 AM
Also I don't really 'get' people getting depressed or even miffed over stuff posted on the internet. Its just an idiot on the internet saying mean things, if you don't respect them then their opinions shouldn't matter to you :/

Sorry I somehow misinterpreted this direct reference to depression as a direct reference to depression.

Sent from tapaderp

It was an accurate but poor choice of words. Replace 'depressed' with 'upset.' I did not mean to directly reference 'clincal depression.' Obviously that is different.
I.e. a happy person with normal brain chemistry should not feel depressed simply because of people saying mean things to them.

I'm honestly suprised you're still posting here, I didn't know we could call people 'dumb cunt' with literally no other post content in the 'Serious Business' forum.




EDIT: Changed 'become' to 'feel' because I'm a retard when I type at 0300

Sofia Roseburn
October 31 2012, 09:58:30 AM
Perhaps you should contact the moderator then.

Lallante
October 31 2012, 02:33:43 PM
Also I don't really 'get' people getting depressed or even miffed over stuff posted on the internet. Its just an idiot on the internet saying mean things, if you don't respect them then their opinions shouldn't matter to you :/

Sorry I somehow misinterpreted this direct reference to depression as a direct reference to depression.

Sent from tapaderp

It was an accurate but poor choice of words. Replace 'depressed' with 'upset.' I did not mean to directly reference 'clincal depression.' Obviously that is different.
I.e. a happy person with normal brain chemistry should not feel depressed simply because of people saying mean things to them.

I'm honestly suprised you're still posting here, I didn't know we could call people 'dumb cunt' with literally no other post content in the 'Serious Business' forum.




EDIT: Changed 'become' to 'feel' because I'm a retard when I type at 0300

How many happy, normal brain chemistry people do you think kill themselves over online bullying? Of course they were depressed.

I got a warning for calling you a dumb cunt. I assume I didnt get an insta-ban because it was a first offence and I started about half of the threads in this forum...




and because its true.

Itiken
October 31 2012, 02:43:44 PM
Look. Having battled with, and defeated depression one in my life already - I find belittling it extremely obnoxious.
Statistics suggest that 50-70% of people deal with mental illnesses in their lives.
A significant number of depressed people never get help simply because they do not realize they are depressed. They do, in fact, think they are normal helthy human beings who never get help. Sometimes friends or acquaintances with a higher level of empathy than OAM is displaying recognize symptoms though this can even be a double edged sword. How much affect would telling someone who is showing signs of depression, extreme anxiety etc that they are mentally ill have?

In short though - please either stop posting, or start a new thread.
Please.

Smuggo
October 31 2012, 02:44:12 PM
I assume I didnt get an insta-ban because it was a first offence and I started about half of the threads in this forum...

Starting srs threads should be a bannable offence tbh.

OrangeAfroMan
November 1 2012, 10:31:55 AM
Look. Having battled with, and defeated depression one in my life already - I find belittling it extremely obnoxious.
Statistics suggest that 50-70% of people deal with mental illnesses in their lives.
A significant number of depressed people never get help simply because they do not realize they are depressed. They do, in fact, think they are normal helthy human beings who never get help. Sometimes friends or acquaintances with a higher level of empathy than OAM is displaying recognize symptoms though this can even be a double edged sword. How much affect would telling someone who is showing signs of depression, extreme anxiety etc that they are mentally ill have?

In short though - please either stop posting, or start a new thread.
Please.

Your confusion has already been addressed.

My point is, why is a dude being jailed for being rude on the internet?

Lallante
November 1 2012, 11:28:22 AM
Look. Having battled with, and defeated depression one in my life already - I find belittling it extremely obnoxious.
Statistics suggest that 50-70% of people deal with mental illnesses in their lives.
A significant number of depressed people never get help simply because they do not realize they are depressed. They do, in fact, think they are normal helthy human beings who never get help. Sometimes friends or acquaintances with a higher level of empathy than OAM is displaying recognize symptoms though this can even be a double edged sword. How much affect would telling someone who is showing signs of depression, extreme anxiety etc that they are mentally ill have?

In short though - please either stop posting, or start a new thread.
Please.

Your confusion has already been addressed.

My point is, why is a dude being jailed for being rude on the internet?

For the same reason that you can be jailed for shouting obscenities at a funeral IRL.

Spaztick
November 1 2012, 05:15:35 PM
Let's jail OrangeAfroMan.

Keorythe
November 3 2012, 03:37:41 AM
My point is, why is a dude being jailed for being rude on the internet?

For the same reason that you can be jailed for shouting obscenities at a funeral IRL.

Funerals are on private property and a private attendance. The funeral example is closer to hacking a private forum. Though I'm speaking of US law and this is UK law we're talking about here which is a bit more strict on civil liberties.

Lallante
November 6 2012, 08:16:33 AM
My point is, why is a dude being jailed for being rude on the internet?

For the same reason that you can be jailed for shouting obscenities at a funeral IRL.

Funerals are on private property and a private attendance. The funeral example is closer to hacking a private forum. Though I'm speaking of US law and this is UK law we're talking about here which is a bit more strict on civil liberties.[/QUOTE]

Yeah in the UK there is no absolute right to freedom of speech generally, so if you stand on a public road outside a funeral and shout you can be arrested for breach of the peace (and/or several other public order and criminal offences)

definatelynotKKassandra
November 6 2012, 12:54:29 PM
So Westborough Baptist Church couldn't get up to their shenanigans in the UK?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Sofia Roseburn
November 6 2012, 01:40:28 PM
Not really no.

Itiken
November 8 2012, 08:41:56 AM
I would love to see a discussion between the old guys who got shot at and lost friends in wars deending freedom/freedom of speech and internet freedom neckbeards/westbro retards.

"rar rar freedom of speech rar rar"
"i got shot at so you can post rape 'jokes' O.o "
"rar rar freedom"
"shush son you are embarrassing your race"

Lallante
November 13 2012, 05:46:41 PM
I would love to see a discussion between the old guys who got shot at and lost friends in wars deending freedom/freedom of speech and internet freedom neckbeards/westbro retards.

"rar rar freedom of speech rar rar"
"i got shot at so you can post rape 'jokes' O.o "
"rar rar freedom"
"shush son you are embarrassing your race"

The old guys didnt get shot at to defend our freedom, they did it because it was their duty. You wont find many idealistic soldiers (plenty of nationalistic ones though).

Unless you think all the allied soldiers were motivated completely differently from the German and Jap ones?

ValorousBob
November 14 2012, 11:57:20 PM
You wont find many idealistic soldiers (plenty of nationalistic ones though).

wat


Aren't nationalists also, almost by definition, idealists?

Jason Marshall
November 20 2012, 02:23:59 AM
What does the law say about photos?

Here a man holds a dildo over another man while he sleeps, then posts it to the internet.

http://pics.stoleyour.com/20121119221731_dildo.jpg

Sofia Roseburn
November 20 2012, 02:36:39 AM
Fuck.

Rakshasa The Cat
November 20 2012, 04:55:01 PM
Facebook should include a captcha-like lock that stops you from posting when you're way too drunk. Would fix a lot of these issues.

Though I often send messages even in Japanese when beyond wasted, so not sure of effective they'd be.

Also dildo pic only counts if it's deep in one of the relevant orfices.

Itiken
November 23 2012, 08:06:58 PM
a brethalyzer on the internet? stop oppressing me.

Aea
November 23 2012, 09:28:07 PM
a brethalyzer on the internet? stop oppressing me.

Taking away your freedoms!