If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Man pleads guilty to joking about missing white girl. Unclear whether he will serve more or less time than the man who killed her   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 141
    More: Misc, Madeleine McCann, Chorley Magistrates, missing children  
•       •       •

11718 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Oct 2012 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-08 01:47:46 PM  

Perducci: My dog has no nose.


How does he smell?
 
2012-10-08 01:48:34 PM  

logistic: I can't tell if it's Saudi Arabia or England anymore.


I think that Americans in general (myself included) don't understand the difference between what we considered free speech, and what the rest of the world calls 'free speech'.

It's perfectly legal - not to mention reasonable and expected - in pretty much every other country in the world, to - for example - jail someone for speaking negatively about the current government or public workers. Sure, they don't always jail someone for it, but they almost always have the option. This is often extended to every member of the public. Speaking the truth about someone in a way that damages their reputation can be a crime - even if it's 100% provable truth!

In most places that even pretend to have it, 'freedom of speech' is not a freedom to say what you want. That's the American definition. In fact, pretty much everywhere outside of the US, when you hear the term 'freedom of speech' they are actually explaining that what you say is tightly limited and controlled. This is 'freedom' in the same way that jail represents a certain freedom from choice.

It's reciprocal though - other countries don't get us either.

Think about it from this mindset: Your government locks down on speech, and you expect every other government to do so as well. Then someone in another country speaks badly about your religion, and they are NOT jailed! This means that country is EXPLICITLY supporting that viewpoint!

What a change from what we see as Americans, where the onus is on the listener to not be offended, not on the government to jail the speaker.

... anyway, the problem here is that you ever thought that freedom of speech meant to the British what it means to Americans.  It never has.
 
2012-10-08 01:50:33 PM  

Saners:
So... British law is based on mob rule now.


When you consider the fact that he's actually being charged with child abduction over some Facebook posts, it's hard to argue with that claim.
 
2012-10-08 01:51:03 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Perducci: My dog has no nose.

How does he smell?


badly
 
2012-10-08 01:51:45 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: Treygreen13: [www.polyvore.com image 300x300]

I get it. Caterpillars are juveniles, and the article concerns someone having sex with a juvenile.

Where the cartoon fails, is its depiction of the juvenile being the sexual aggressor.

-1 Internets 4 u.


It's a reference to an old Drew Carey bit about censorship. Had to be there.
 
2012-10-08 01:55:30 PM  
He's offensive, has a sick sense of humor and he's unemployed -- what's his Fark handle?
 
2012-10-08 01:56:12 PM  
The joke this guy made is sick, offensive, and most importantly, nowhere near funny enough to justify it. I've seen worse, but those were always way the hell more clever than this. He should be ashamed of himself and he deserves to be punished. Specifically, the punishment should be for someone to yell "Dude, too soon!" at him. Actual prosecution is just plain nuts, though. I can MAYBE see justifying a civil suit, depending on UK standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but criminal charges? What the farking fark?
 
2012-10-08 01:56:25 PM  
jailed for Facebook posts

One down...
 
2012-10-08 01:56:58 PM  

stevarooni: farkeruk: The UK instead has huge numbers of laws that are only prosecuted when the authorities feel like it, which is actually like a feudal state.

That's the key to any authoritarian society. Make everyone a criminal, so that there's no question of if you can prosecute them, only if you will...subject to their behaving in accordance with the required patterns. Almost as popular in the U.S.


just yesterday in another post a Farker explained that the Soviet Union is this way, and made mention of how quickly the USA is copying making damn near everything illegal. so they can make anyone disappear anytime. very scary indeed.

being a prick doosh on Fark is one of the few things i have to live for. i feel bad for this young lad in the UK. my god, they were once a mighty empire. and the USA is right on their heels to being Nanny Country because millions of homos are afraid to make good use of their closets filled with firearms. so farking sad.
 
2012-10-08 01:57:24 PM  

theMagni: namegoeshere: Heinrich von Eckardt: reillan: It's assholey of him, sure, but I've seen worse on Fark. And laughed at worse. And posted worse.

I would have to disagree that you have posted worse.

This guy's electronic communication was so grossly offensive that it incited a mob of fifty to try to lynch him. He was arrested for his own safety.

You and the other Farkers are amateurs compared with this guy.

What did he post?

He said, "What's the difference between [the guy who raped and murdered the kid] and Santa Claus?

[the rapist] comes in April!"

Fark the Brits, I was making 9/11 jokes before lunchtime. Being an asshole is not a crime, I don't care what they think they're doing over there.

They probably threatened him with tens of thousands of dollars worth of legal costs vs. some community service. Lose years of your life fighting the charges or serve at a community centre for 100 hours? Take the hours and hope for superpowers.


Oh please. Farkers are way worse than that. Did you read any of the Catholic Church, BSA, Sandusky threads? (not you specifically, theMagni.)

*sigh* I guess UK is now on the list of places I can no longer visit, along with Iran, North Korea, and Maricopa County ...
 
2012-10-08 01:57:45 PM  

machoprogrammer: Say what you want about America, but at least we have pretty damn good freedom of speech here. Despite a lot of peoples' efforts, you cannot be arrested for offending people here, thankfully.


On the other hand, we can post the N-word on websites without everybody getting into a fainting fit about it. Sure, it's deeply offensive, but what's the point of having freedom of speech if it doesn't cover deeply offensive stuff.
 
2012-10-08 02:01:35 PM  

orbister: machoprogrammer: Say what you want about America, but at least we have pretty damn good freedom of speech here. Despite a lot of peoples' efforts, you cannot be arrested for offending people here, thankfully.

On the other hand, we can post the N-word on websites without everybody getting into a fainting fit about it. Sure, it's deeply offensive, but what's the point of having freedom of speech if it doesn't cover deeply offensive stuff.


n00b
 
2012-10-08 02:01:50 PM  
Stories like this make me so glad I live in America.

Yes the guy was an asshole. Being an asshole should not be a criminal offense. You are not entitled to not to be offended.
 
2012-10-08 02:03:31 PM  

Bhruic: Saners:
So... British law is based on mob rule now.

When you consider the fact that he's actually being charged with child abduction over some Facebook posts, it's hard to argue with that claim.


No one's being charged with child abduction over Facebook posts.
 
2012-10-08 02:07:57 PM  

Girion47: Uchiha_Cycliste: Perducci: My dog has no nose.

How does he smell?

badly


fark, no. Awful. The answer is "awful". "badly" is not funny. Tell it right.
 
2012-10-08 02:17:49 PM  

Nightsweat: Girion47: Uchiha_Cycliste: Perducci: My dog has no nose.

How does he smell?

badly

fark, no. Awful. The answer is "awful". "badly" is not funny. Tell it right.


If one is going to blow a joke, this is the thread to do it in.
If one is going to blow a seal OTOH... eh probably still applies.
 
2012-10-08 02:21:01 PM  

theMagni: "What's the difference between [the guy who raped and murdered the kid] and Santa Claus?

[the rapist] comes in April!"



"Santa comes in December" is a better punchline.
 
2012-10-08 02:21:03 PM  

orbister: Sure, it's deeply offensive, but what's the point of having freedom of speech if it doesn't cover deeply offensive stuff.


Today's offense, tomorrow's truth.
 
2012-10-08 02:23:19 PM  

Nightsweat: Girion47: Uchiha_Cycliste: Perducci: My dog has no nose.

How does he smell?

badly

fark, no. Awful. The answer is "awful". "badly" is not funny. Tell it right.


I prefer "terrible"
 
2012-10-08 02:23:49 PM  

Heinrich von Eckardt: theMagni: "What's the difference between [the guy who raped and murdered the kid] and Santa Claus?

[the rapist] comes in April!"


"Santa comes in December" is a better punchline.


Would you change your mind if I told you April was the girl's name?
 
2012-10-08 02:24:59 PM  
That asshole should have been jailed. There's a difference between free speech and harassment.
 
2012-10-08 02:25:23 PM  
Santa Claus has no comment other than to thank Mrs. Claus for the "once-a-year" in December.
 
2012-10-08 02:26:10 PM  

quietwalker: ... anyway, the problem here is that you ever thought that freedom of speech meant to the British what it means to Americans.  It never has.


You seriously think that's the problem? Governments "lock down on speech" and Americans are the ones with the problem when they point out the repression?

I believe that restricting free speech has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with power and politics. Oppressive political climates may affect a culture and how that culture sees us, but you cant sugar coat something like Iranian law and say that what little expression Iran allows is freedom of speech. With its blasphemy laws and censorship, the words do not apply.

I appreciate your point about perspective, but we should appreciate what freedoms we have in the US. While the our speech protections are imperfect, they are among the best in the world...and that sucks for the remaining countries with crummy speech protections.
 
2012-10-08 02:39:21 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Perducci: My dog has no nose.

How does he smell?


You sick bastard, the poor little thing doesn't have an olfactory system, and you make a joke about it? You should be locked up!
 
2012-10-08 02:45:36 PM  

Last Man on Earth: Heinrich von Eckardt: theMagni: "What's the difference between [the guy who raped and murdered the kid] and Santa Claus?

[the rapist] comes in April!"


"Santa comes in December" is a better punchline.

Would you change your mind if I told you April was the girl's name?


No, Heinrich is right and I was thinking the same thing when I shared the joke. Santa comes in December is a better punchline, because it requires more thought plus knowledge of the case. The "April" punchline is more of a "please take my wife" vs. "take my wife... please". Sort of a DID YOU SEE THE JOKE? mentality.

We laugh at shiat like this because we're humans. We laugh or we die.
 
2012-10-08 02:48:57 PM  
From the Constitution of the People's Republic of China:

Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.

Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable.

Article 38. The personal dignity of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Insult, libel, false charge or frame-up directed against citizens by any means is prohibited.

Article 39. The home of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen's home is prohibited.

Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law.

Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary.
 
2012-10-08 02:51:00 PM  

JeffDenver: Stories like this make me so glad I live in America.

Yes the guy was an asshole. Being an asshole should not be a criminal offense. You are not entitled to not to be offended.


Is that the America where a teacher has been disciplined for using the word "squaw", because someone found it offensive?

By and large, you're free to be offensive in the UK. What you are not free to do is to cause distress - the courts interpret that as causing harm in much the same way as physical assault causes harm.
 
2012-10-08 02:58:46 PM  

machoprogrammer: Say what you want about America, but at least we have pretty damn good freedom of speech here. Despite a lot of peoples' efforts, you cannot be arrested for offending people here, thankfully.


Tell that to Max Hardcore.
 
2012-10-08 02:59:52 PM  

orbister: JeffDenver: Stories like this make me so glad I live in America.

Yes the guy was an asshole. Being an asshole should not be a criminal offense. You are not entitled to not to be offended.

Is that the America where a teacher has been disciplined for using the word "squaw", because someone found it offensive?

By and large, you're free to be offensive in the UK. What you are not free to do is to cause distress - the courts interpret that as causing harm in much the same way as physical assault causes harm.


Getting distressed over something posted on a privately-owned and maintained website is entirely optional. Facebook isn't a necessity or broadcast in any way. You actually have to point your browser towards facebook to see any of the content.
 
2012-10-08 03:00:25 PM  

orbister: JeffDenver: Stories like this make me so glad I live in America.

Yes the guy was an asshole. Being an asshole should not be a criminal offense. You are not entitled to not to be offended.

Is that the America where a teacher has been disciplined for using the word "squaw", because someone found it offensive?

By and large, you're free to be offensive in the UK. What you are not free to do is to cause distress - the courts interpret that as causing harm in much the same way as physical assault causes harm.


Disciplined vs Jailed hmmmm

Let the mob kick his ass and drop the charges Of assault on the mob.
 
2012-10-08 03:17:52 PM  

namegoeshere: Wow. So being a douchebag is illegal in Britain?


Yeah. You'd be locked up, better stay away.

proteus_b: Try to remember not to think if you're ever in the UK. They are listening and they will find you...


In that case you would be just fine.
 
2012-10-08 03:23:21 PM  
orbister:

Is that the America where a teacher has been disciplined for using the word "squaw", because someone found it offensive?

By and large, you're free to be offensive in the UK. What you are not free to do is to cause distress - the courts interpret that as causing harm in much the same way as physical assault causes harm.

You are confusing the issue. The teacher was disciplined by her employer for using language deemed inappropriate due to the nature of the word; when you work for someone you have to follow their employment code when you are on the job. This is a case where the police powers of the state have come down to remove someone's freedom for making a joke on the internet.

Do you see the difference between the two situations?
 
2012-10-08 03:36:38 PM  

theMagni: namegoeshere: Heinrich von Eckardt: reillan: It's assholey of him, sure, but I've seen worse on Fark. And laughed at worse. And posted worse.

I would have to disagree that you have posted worse.

This guy's electronic communication was so grossly offensive that it incited a mob of fifty to try to lynch him. He was arrested for his own safety.

You and the other Farkers are amateurs compared with this guy.

What did he post?

He said, "What's the difference between [the guy who raped and murdered the kid] and Santa Claus?

[the rapist] comes in April!"

Fark the Brits, I was making 9/11 jokes before lunchtime. Being an asshole is not a crime, I don't care what they think they're doing over there.

They probably threatened him with tens of thousands of dollars worth of legal costs vs. some community service. Lose years of your life fighting the charges or serve at a community centre for 100 hours? Take the hours and hope for superpowers.


Not sure how that threat would work - in the UK you can get Legal Aid, meaning the state picks up the tab for your lawyer. It's so that people on a low income can't be threatened with your scenario.
 
2012-10-08 03:36:58 PM  

quietwalker: logistic: I can't tell if it's Saudi Arabia or England anymore.

I think that Americans in general (myself included) don't understand the difference between what we considered free speech, and what the rest of the world calls 'free speech'.

It's perfectly legal - not to mention reasonable and expected - in pretty much every other country in the world, to - for example - jail someone for speaking negatively about the current government or public workers. Sure, they don't always jail someone for it, but they almost always have the option. This is often extended to every member of the public. Speaking the truth about someone in a way that damages their reputation can be a crime - even if it's 100% provable truth!

In most places that even pretend to have it, 'freedom of speech' is not a freedom to say what you want. That's the American definition. In fact, pretty much everywhere outside of the US, when you hear the term 'freedom of speech' they are actually explaining that what you say is tightly limited and controlled. This is 'freedom' in the same way that jail represents a certain freedom from choice.

It's reciprocal though - other countries don't get us either.

Think about it from this mindset: Your government locks down on speech, and you expect every other government to do so as well. Then someone in another country speaks badly about your religion, and they are NOT jailed! This means that country is EXPLICITLY supporting that viewpoint!

What a change from what we see as Americans, where the onus is on the listener to not be offended, not on the government to jail the speaker.

... anyway, the problem here is that you ever thought that freedom of speech meant to the British what it means to Americans.  It never has.


tl;dr
 
2012-10-08 03:37:30 PM  

The Envoy: namegoeshere: Wow. So being a douchebag is illegal in Britain?

Yeah. You'd be locked up, better stay away.


YOUR MEAN COMMENT OVER THE INTERNET HAS CAUSED ME DISTRESS!

The police are on the way.
 
2012-10-08 03:45:41 PM  

namegoeshere: The Envoy: namegoeshere: Wow. So being a douchebag is illegal in Britain?

Yeah. You'd be locked up, better stay away.

YOUR MEAN COMMENT OVER THE INTERNET HAS CAUSED ME DISTRESS!

The police are on the way.


Up your butt with a coconut, doody head!

/They'll bring back Tyburn for that one.
 
2012-10-08 03:47:26 PM  

mauricecano: Is that the America where a teacher has been disciplined for using the word "squaw", because someone found it offensive?


And what is stupid about that mess is "squaw" is not an offensive word. It means "woman" in the Algonquian language. That's it. Many people incorrectly think it is the word for female parts or slut, but they are wrong.
 
2012-10-08 03:50:14 PM  

logistic: I can't tell if it's Saudi Arabia or England anymore.


Look out the window. If it's sandy, it's not England.
 
2012-10-08 04:02:51 PM  

logistic: quietwalker: logistic: I can't tell if it's Saudi Arabia or England anymore.

I think that Americans in general (myself included) don't understand the difference between what we considered free speech, and what the rest of the world calls 'free speech'.

It's perfectly legal - not to mention reasonable and expected - in pretty much every other country in the world, to - for example - jail someone for speaking negatively about the current government or public workers. Sure, they don't always jail someone for it, but they almost always have the option. This is often extended to every member of the public. Speaking the truth about someone in a way that damages their reputation can be a crime - even if it's 100% provable truth!

In most places that even pretend to have it, 'freedom of speech' is not a freedom to say what you want. That's the American definition. In fact, pretty much everywhere outside of the US, when you hear the term 'freedom of speech' they are actually explaining that what you say is tightly limited and controlled. This is 'freedom' in the same way that jail represents a certain freedom from choice.

It's reciprocal though - other countries don't get us either.

Think about it from this mindset: Your government locks down on speech, and you expect every other government to do so as well. Then someone in another country speaks badly about your religion, and they are NOT jailed! This means that country is EXPLICITLY supporting that viewpoint!

What a change from what we see as Americans, where the onus is on the listener to not be offended, not on the government to jail the speaker.

... anyway, the problem here is that you ever thought that freedom of speech meant to the British what it means to Americans. It never has.

tl;dr



I read some of it. It really wasn't worth it.
 
2012-10-08 04:04:53 PM  

Girion47: Getting distressed over something posted on a privately-owned and maintained website is entirely optional. Facebook isn't a necessity or broadcast in any way. You actually have to point your browser towards facebook to see any of the content.


So what? Does that lessen the distress of people hurt by the deliberate and cruel actions of this man?
 
2012-10-08 04:05:42 PM  

Dookie-chute: Disciplined vs Jailed hmmmm


Penalised by the state. Everything else is degree.
 
2012-10-08 04:06:09 PM  
Ever been in a Welsh prison?

i305.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-08 04:08:24 PM  

mauricecano: You are confusing the issue. The teacher was disciplined by her employer for using language deemed inappropriate due to the nature of the word; when you work for someone you have to follow their employment code when you are on the job. This is a case where the police powers of the state have come down to remove someone's freedom for making a joke on the internet.

Do you see the difference between the two situations?


I see many differences. I see, for example, that in the first case an agency of the state imposed a penalty for an unintentional act and in the second case an agency of the state imposed a penalty for an act of deliberate harassment.

Do you, by the way, see the difference between "posting a joke on the internet" and "posting a sexual slur on a support group for parents of a missing child with the intent of causing distress"?

Ian
 
2012-10-08 04:12:33 PM  

machoprogrammer: Say what you want about America, but at least we have pretty damn good freedom of speech here. Despite a lot of peoples' efforts, you cannot be arrested for offending people here, thankfully.


Sorry, but people continue to use "freedom of speech" wrong. Freedom of speech (even here in the good ole US of A) does NOT mean you can say anything you want. Like all rights, it is limited when it infringes on the rights of others. For example, despite freedom of speech it is still illegal to slander, lie under oath, misrepresent under contract, incite to riot, harass, threaten, conspire to commit a crime, relate information to which you are bound to confidentiality, violate noise bylaws, endanger, etc.

In this case, it could easily be considered to rise to the level of harassment, which would be prohibited here in US.
 
2012-10-08 04:14:11 PM  

orbister: Girion47: Getting distressed over something posted on a privately-owned and maintained website is entirely optional. Facebook isn't a necessity or broadcast in any way. You actually have to point your browser towards facebook to see any of the content.

So what? Does that lessen the distress of people hurt by the deliberate and cruel actions of this man?


It makes it non-criminal.
 
2012-10-08 04:18:13 PM  

jabelar: machoprogrammer: Say what you want about America, but at least we have pretty damn good freedom of speech here. Despite a lot of peoples' efforts, you cannot be arrested for offending people here, thankfully.

Sorry, but people continue to use "freedom of speech" wrong. Freedom of speech (even here in the good ole US of A) does NOT mean you can say anything you want. Like all rights, it is limited when it infringes on the rights of others. For example, despite freedom of speech it is still illegal to slander, lie under oath, misrepresent under contract, incite to riot, harass, threaten, conspire to commit a crime, relate information to which you are bound to confidentiality, violate noise bylaws, endanger, etc.

In this case, it could easily be considered to rise to the level of harassment, which would be prohibited here in US.


I doubt it would be considered harassment here in the US, since harassment usually only involves repeated action (if he posted it just once, it wouldn't likely be considered harassment). And yes, there are limits (i.e. slander, inciting riots, etc) but in general, freedom of speech is pretty good here.
 
2012-10-08 04:25:59 PM  

machoprogrammer: jabelar: machoprogrammer: Say what you want about America, but at least we have pretty damn good freedom of speech here. Despite a lot of peoples' efforts, you cannot be arrested for offending people here, thankfully.

Sorry, but people continue to use "freedom of speech" wrong. Freedom of speech (even here in the good ole US of A) does NOT mean you can say anything you want. Like all rights, it is limited when it infringes on the rights of others. For example, despite freedom of speech it is still illegal to slander, lie under oath, misrepresent under contract, incite to riot, harass, threaten, conspire to commit a crime, relate information to which you are bound to confidentiality, violate noise bylaws, endanger, etc.

In this case, it could easily be considered to rise to the level of harassment, which would be prohibited here in US.

I doubt it would be considered harassment here in the US, since harassment usually only involves repeated action (if he posted it just once, it wouldn't likely be considered harassment). And yes, there are limits (i.e. slander, inciting riots, etc) but in general, freedom of speech is pretty good here.


True, but there's a basis for a civil suit under Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Typically, that only really applies in extreme situations, like a cop or similar authority figure psychologically abusing someone reporting a rape (it's happened, there's been at least one case), but in context like this, the postings may qualify.
 
2012-10-08 04:29:12 PM  

The Envoy: namegoeshere: The Envoy: namegoeshere: Wow. So being a douchebag is illegal in Britain?

Yeah. You'd be locked up, better stay away.

YOUR MEAN COMMENT OVER THE INTERNET HAS CAUSED ME DISTRESS!

The police are on the way.

Up your butt with a coconut, doody head!

/They'll bring back Tyburn for that one.


I think he was prepared to do it! Except I saw no coconut. He, uh, he had no coconut to my knowledge.
 
2012-10-08 04:37:44 PM  

Last Man on Earth : machoprogrammer: jabelar: Sorry, but people continue to use "freedom of speech" wrong. Freedom of speech (even here in the good ole US of A) does NOT mean you can say anything you want. Like all rights, it is limited when it infringes on the rights of others. For example, despite freedom of speech it is still illegal to slander, lie under oath, misrepresent under contract, incite to riot, harass, threaten, conspire to commit a crime, relate information to which you are bound to confidentiality, violate noise bylaws, endanger, etc.

In this case, it could easily be considered to rise to the level of harassment, which would be prohibited here in US.

I doubt it would be considered harassment here in the US, since harassment usually only involves repeated action (if he posted it just once, it wouldn't likely be considered harassment). And yes, there are limits (i.e. slander, inciting riots, etc) but in general, freedom of speech is pretty good here.

True, but there's a basis for a civil suit under Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Typically, that only really applies in extreme situations, like a cop or similar authority figure psychologically abusing someone reporting a rape (it's happened, there's been at least one case), but in context like this, the postings may qualify.


I can't confirm it with any of the news stories online (though most articles say that the guy posted the comments on "his Facebook page"), but the posters in this thread say that the family only learned about the offensive comments because some busy body took a screen shot of the comments and shared the image on the family support page. I don't see how anyone could make an argument for harassment or even "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" unless the guy actually tried to share his jokes with the little girl's family.
 
2012-10-08 04:40:17 PM  
man, england blows
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report