Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Misc, Madeleine McCann, Chorley Magistrates, missing children  
•       •       •

11728 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Oct 2012 at 12:54 PM (3 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
 
2012-10-08 10:20:01 AM  
I can't tell if it's Saudi Arabia or England anymore.
 
2012-10-08 10:47:50 AM  
Does anybody who lives in a country that actually has freedom of speech have a copy of the joke? If it offended that many people, it's got to be funny right?
 
2012-10-08 10:58:00 AM  

serial_crusher: Does anybody who lives in a country that actually has freedom of speech have a copy of the joke? If it offended that many people, it's got to be funny right?


It's the Weeners here

As far as I understand it, it's not so much that he posted the joke (which isn't even particularly good), but that he posted it on the support page people had set up for the family.

If he'd said it within earshot of any of her family, or anyone who knew them, he'd probably be waking up in the hospital.
 
2012-10-08 10:58:41 AM  
Hmm. Unintentionally appropriate filter win.
 
2012-10-08 10:59:33 AM  
Dunno. Supposedly he got the idea from Sickipedia, but this is all I can find there:

"So April Jones has just covered a song by Proud Mary and Creedence Clearwater Revival-Rolling On A River"

Seriously, if that' the criminally prosecutable offense, not only is your law stupid, but you people are stupid.

OOh, found a bunch:

"I woke up this morning in the back of a transit van with two beautiful little girls, I found April in a hopeless place."

"Who in their right mind would abduct a ginger kid?"

Others stated "I love April Jones" and "Could have just started the greatest Facebook argument ever. April Fools, Who Wants Maddie?"


Seriously though: who would abduct a ginger kid? They aren't any use until they are of age.
 
2012-10-08 11:03:24 AM  
Wow, yeah I wouldn't have had a lot of sympathy for the guy if he had turned up in a hospital.
 
2012-10-08 11:30:38 AM  
"He fully accepts he was the author of his own misfortune."

Now this is a joke that deserves severe punishment..
 
2012-10-08 12:57:27 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-08 12:58:26 PM  
Wow. So being a douchebag is illegal in Britain?
 
2012-10-08 12:58:40 PM  
www.polyvore.com
 
2012-10-08 12:58:42 PM  
It's the illusion that the internet supplies anonymity. That's true in some messageboards, but not using your own poxy facebook account
 
2012-10-08 01:01:44 PM  
As far as I can tell, he didn't post it on the support page. He posted it to his own page on facebook, and somebody else (as yet unidentified) posted a screen shot the the support page.
 
2012-10-08 01:01:54 PM  
In other news, Frankie Boyle seen headed towards the airport wearing a trench coat, fedora and novelty nose and mustache disguise.
 
2012-10-08 01:03:22 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: serial_crusher: Does anybody who lives in a country that actually has freedom of speech have a copy of the joke? If it offended that many people, it's got to be funny right?

It's the Weeners here

As far as I understand it, it's not so much that he posted the joke (which isn't even particularly good), but that he posted it on the support page people had set up for the family.

If he'd said it within earshot of any of her family, or anyone who knew them, he'd probably be waking up in the hospital.


But on the plus side, his doctor's visit would be free.
 
2012-10-08 01:03:50 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: serial_crusher: Does anybody who lives in a country that actually has freedom of speech have a copy of the joke? If it offended that many people, it's got to be funny right?

It's the Weeners here

As far as I understand it, it's not so much that he posted the joke (which isn't even particularly good), but that he posted it on the support page people had set up for the family.

If he'd said it within earshot of any of her family, or anyone who knew them, he'd probably be waking up in the hospital.


It's assholey of him, sure, but I've seen worse on Fark. And laughed at worse. And posted worse.

/ticket please
 
2012-10-08 01:05:55 PM  
If making fun of missing white girls were illegal Fark would be shut down.
 
2012-10-08 01:06:33 PM  

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


Saudi Arabia is hot.
 
2012-10-08 01:07:35 PM  
Try to remember not to think if you're ever in the UK. They are listening and they will find you...
 
2012-10-08 01:08:04 PM  

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


LOL!
 
2012-10-08 01:08:09 PM  
It's funny when an internet troll gets biatchslapped right back.
 
2012-10-08 01:08:19 PM  

cgraves67: If making fun of missing white girls were illegal Fark would be shut down.

 
2012-10-08 01:08:33 PM  
My dog has no nose.
 
2012-10-08 01:09:03 PM  
I'm from the UK (though moved) and can't believe how much it's become a indignant mob society.
 
2012-10-08 01:10:25 PM  
In other news, Fark posts have mysteriously dropped by 30%.
 
2012-10-08 01:11:00 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-08 01:12:06 PM  
I'm not familiar with April's case, but the McCanns are scary people. They no likey anyone questioning their version of things. I can see them behind prosecuting this guy.

This post is the opinion of the Farker known as namegoeshere. It is not to be taken as fact. It is for entertainment purposes only. So fark off, McCanns' legal team.
 
2012-10-08 01:12:37 PM  
So is Fark looking to recruit the judge and prosecutor as modmins?
 
2012-10-08 01:12:45 PM  
Just another fact of life in Formerly Great Britain.
 
2012-10-08 01:12:47 PM  
The most alarming part of the article is not that he was arrested, or prosecuted, or sent to jail. The most alarming part is this:

"Chorley magistrates heard members of the public were so upset about his posts they reported them to the police."


Cripes. "Help us, police! Spare us from being offended!"
 
2012-10-08 01:13:38 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-08 01:15:41 PM  

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.


I can incite riots in the middle east by insisting that the holocaust was not a jewish lie.

It really depends on the audience in most cases.
 
pla
2012-10-08 01:18:47 PM  
ElLoco : It's funny when an internet troll gets biatchslapped right back.

Yep. Funny indeed. Not much more satisfying than seeing a good comeback put a troll in his place.

Not quite so funny, however, when a 19YO gets sent to prison for three months for a bad joke. Personally, I'd call that the only crime here (well, other than, y'know, whoever abducted the kid).

Sense of proportion, folks. Get one.
 
2012-10-08 01:19:05 PM  
People on Fark say things that offend me every day. If they're in the UK can I have them thrown in jail?
 
2012-10-08 01:22:13 PM  

jjorsett: People on Fark say things that offend me every day. If they're in the UK can I have them thrown in jail?


Start with the politics tab
 
2012-10-08 01:22:27 PM  

Ken at Popehat: The most alarming part of the article is not that he was arrested, or prosecuted, or sent to jail. The most alarming part is this:

"Chorley magistrates heard members of the public were so upset about his posts they reported them to the police."


Cripes. "Help us, police! Spare us from being offended!"


This was the part that really bothered me:

"The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive."

So... British law is based on mob rule now.
 
2012-10-08 01:23:23 PM  
Imagine what would have happened if he had insulted the Prophet( PBUH)!
 
2012-10-08 01:30:40 PM  
here I was browsin through the latest issue of throb,
When I saw bambi starin at me from the back of a milk carton.
Well, my heart just dropped.
So, I decided to do what any good christian would.
You can not imagine how difficult it is to hold a half gallon of moo juice
And polish the one-eyed gopher when your doin seventy-five
In an eighteen-wheeler.
I never thought missing children could be so sexy.
Did I say that out loud?
 
2012-10-08 01:31:09 PM  
UK to declare war on *insert country here* for dead baby jokes
 
2012-10-08 01:33:14 PM  
img.thesun.co.uk
Hi, My name is April Jones. I am 5 years old. I am missing.
 
2012-10-08 01:34:40 PM  
As a Brit, I consider this as not only against freedom of speech but also vindictive punishment.

The law they used is never normally prosecuted. Calling Tony Blair or David Cameron a coont also falls under this law. Technically speaking its illegal to cuss on the phone or send photos of your penis to your girlfriend.

That's what is most objectionable about this case and makes an ass of the law. The law should be applied equally. 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.
 
2012-10-08 01:34:56 PM  
I was going to make a joke about his post combining 'coming' and the rather clique term 'too soon.' But I don't want to be jailed.
 
2012-10-08 01:38:50 PM  

Perducci: My dog has no nose.


I had some wine last night that had a very nice nose...perhaps we could get them together...
 
2012-10-08 01:39:53 PM  

GungFu: [img.thesun.co.uk image 620x770]
Hi, My name is April Jones. I am 5 years old. I am missing.


Too old
 
2012-10-08 01:40:13 PM  

GungFu: [img.thesun.co.uk image 620x770]
Hi, My name is April Jones. I am 5 years old. I am missing.


Just look at the way that little tart was dressed. And flirt-smiling like that? What did she expect, the whore.
 
2012-10-08 01:40:58 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-08 01:42:40 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-08 01:43:56 PM  
Wow so England will put the "max" for some social post that harmed nobody, but let a child molester free from jail because he's "afraid of jail"? UK has become a seriously farked up country.
 
2012-10-08 01:44:02 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-08 01:44:38 PM  
Reminds me of this other thread.

First everyone gets all bent out of shape about hurting each others' feelings, then the speech codes come, and finally you get some guy thrown in jail for posting a (gross/cruel/funny) joke.

Is this your Utopia?

If it is, you've definitely traded freedom for security! Even worse, you've made a hell in which all opinion will soon converge on groupthink with all the depth of a Hallmark card.
 
2012-10-08 01:45:04 PM  

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.


He didn't incite them, the newspapers that picked up on the story incited them. Such is the British way. They sit at home braiding rope and sharpening pitchforks waiting for the paper to be delivered so they can find out who to go and lynch.
 
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
 
2012-10-08 04:40:58 PM  

elysive: 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.


Yeah, if that's the case, then I'd completely agree. If they weren't actually targeted by his comments, then he's in no way liable. He had no way of knowing they'd see it under those circumstances, nor any reason he should have known. He can't be held responsible for reposts. At least I don't think so. Thanks for correcting my fact pattern, I had it wrong.
 
2012-10-08 04:41:48 PM  
Freedom isn't always pretty - it's not government's responsibility, role or even right to make YOU a better person.

what a load of nonsense
 
2012-10-08 04:42:42 PM  

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


yeah - why do you think most of their celebrities move to America?
 
2012-10-08 04:43:20 PM  

ElLoco: It's funny when an internet troll gets biatchslapped right back.


not like this it isn't.
 
2012-10-08 04:48:15 PM  

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

yeah - why do you think most of their celebrities move to America?


Jeremy Clarkson isn't in jail.
 
2012-10-08 05:09:26 PM  

Perducci: My dog has no nose.


How does he smell?
 
2012-10-08 05:14:57 PM  

Canned Tamales: Perducci: My dog has no nose.

How does he smell?


Well, I wouldn't lift his tail.
 
2012-10-08 05:16:14 PM  

Pathman: man, england blows


..like a pendulum do
 
2012-10-08 05:16:29 PM  

OgreMagi: 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.


Algonquians need their mouths washed out with soap.
 
2012-10-08 05:30:42 PM  

quietwalker: 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!


This. It's why every time someone says something offensive and the US government doesn't censor them, some group somewhere goes into THIS IS AN OUTRAGE mode.
 
2012-10-08 05:36:34 PM  
www.issues.cc

Freedom isn't free, and this is the price we pay (see above). Is it worth it? Discuss.
 
2012-10-08 05:39:24 PM  
Wow, just think of all the comics that would be jailed in America. I think of quite a few after the Colorado theater shooting alone.
 
2012-10-08 05:49:10 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.


So much THIS.

You are free to criticise the government,the royal family,the police, etc. You can make sick jokes on any subject you like.

What you can't do is deliberately go out of your way to publish something deliberately that will, in all likelihood, cause huge emotional distress to a great many friends and family of a missing child and who are already gong through hell.

Joke down the pub to friends is one thing. Publishing something is different. Live with the consequences.
 
2012-10-08 05:57:21 PM  

ElLoco: It's funny when an internet troll gets biatchslapped right back.


Yes, there should be real and significant consequences for having not acting like everyone else
 
2012-10-08 06:00:21 PM  
I think it's past due for us to start referring to the UK by its rightful name: "Airstrip One".
 
2012-10-08 06:06:07 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.


Yet
 
2012-10-08 06:16:59 PM  

Pert: 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.

So much THIS.

You are free to criticise the government,the royal family,the police, etc. You can make sick jokes on any subject you like.

What you can't do is deliberately go out of your way to publish something deliberately that will, in all likelihood, cause huge emotional distress to a great many friends and family of a missing child and who are already gong through hell.

Joke down the pub to friends is one thing. Publishing something is different. Live with the consequences.


Posting on facebook isn't publishing. He put it on his wall, someone else put it on their page.
 
2012-10-08 08:04:01 PM  

Saners: This was the part that really bothered me:"The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive."So... British law is based on mob rule now.


What do you think trial by jury is?
 
2012-10-08 08:07:09 PM  
A custodial sentence seems excessive for a bad-taste joke, especially when you read about people avoiding jail for physical assault causing permanent injuries.
 
2012-10-08 08:25:48 PM  
So.. I thought the joke was pretty funny
 
2012-10-08 09:01:20 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.


Oh, the progressive PC word police do their best to control thought through speech.

They might rally the troops to get you censured at work or do their best to have you shunned in public, but it still doesn't end up in jail time.
 
2012-10-08 10:21:44 PM  

farkeruk: As a Brit, I consider this as not only against freedom of speech but also vindictive punishment.

The law they used is never normally prosecuted. Calling Tony Blair or David Cameron a coont also falls under this law. Technically speaking its illegal to cuss on the phone or send photos of your penis to your girlfriend.

That's what is most objectionable about this case and makes an ass of the law. The law should be applied equally. 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.


If sending photos of my penis is wrong, I don't want to be right.

/EIP
 
2012-10-08 10:46:23 PM  

Last Man on Earth: Yeah, if that's the case, then I'd completely agree. If they weren't actually targeted by his comments, then he's in no way liable.


Except he is, and has already been convicted and sentenced. So if you've ever posted anything on the internet that might offend someone in Britain if someone were to take a picture of it and post it on someone else's web page, get out now if you're there, or don't go there if you're not.

/don't go to Canada or Australia either
//they're still bound by British law, even if their own laws are different
 
2012-10-08 11:35:57 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: serial_crusher: Does anybody who lives in a country that actually has freedom of speech have a copy of the joke? If it offended that many people, it's got to be funny right?

It's the Weeners here

As far as I understand it, it's not so much that he posted the joke (which isn't even particularly good), but that he posted it on the support page people had set up for the family.

If he'd said it within earshot of any of her family, or anyone who knew them, he'd probably be waking up in the hospital.


That being the case I'm kinda glad he lives somewhere they will punish him. I don't want free speech curtailed in the US, but this guy needs a bag of hammers upside the head for posting that on the family page.
 
2012-10-08 11:53:06 PM  

notatrollorami: DammitIForgotMyLogin: serial_crusher: Does anybody who lives in a country that actually has freedom of speech have a copy of the joke? If it offended that many people, it's got to be funny right?

It's the Weeners here

As far as I understand it, it's not so much that he posted the joke (which isn't even particularly good), but that he posted it on the support page people had set up for the family.

If he'd said it within earshot of any of her family, or anyone who knew them, he'd probably be waking up in the hospital.

That being the case I'm kinda glad he lives somewhere they will punish him. I don't want free speech curtailed in the US, but this guy needs a bag of hammers upside the head for posting that on the family page.


If he didn't post it on the family page then I retract that and say Britain sucks.
 
2012-10-09 12:47:07 AM  

Sticky Hands: 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.


There was the guy who tried to buy an obviously fine and healthy horse from a Mexican man, who tried to persuade him, "This horse, he not look so good." "Well, I want to buy it anyway." "But this horse, he no look so good!" "Here's my offer, take it or leave it." The seller takes the money and hands over the horse. In a couple hours he's back and furious. "This horse is blind!" And the Mexican guy says "I tell you over and over again..."
 
2012-10-09 02:08:31 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Last Man on Earth: Yeah, if that's the case, then I'd completely agree. If they weren't actually targeted by his comments, then he's in no way liable.

Except he is, and has already been convicted and sentenced. So if you've ever posted anything on the internet that might offend someone in Britain if someone were to take a picture of it and post it on someone else's web page, get out now if you're there, or don't go there if you're not.

/don't go to Canada or Australia either
//they're still bound by British law, even if their own laws are different


Canada and Australia are not BOUND by British law.
 
2012-10-09 02:10:57 AM  
Malignant positive liberalism. Take a population with a history of being subject to the whims of monarchy and add an out of control system of nuisance laws at every level of government. This graduates from a nanny state to a nun with a ruler state.
 
2012-10-09 04:31:06 AM  

Girion47: 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.


Not over here it doesn't. As the twelve week prison sentence shows.
 
2012-10-09 04:33:28 AM  

Pathman: Freedom isn't always pretty - it's not government's responsibility, role or even right to make YOU a better person.


So no prosecutions or imprisonments for rape, murder, fraud or exceeding the speed limit, then?
 
2012-10-09 04:40:01 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: Malignant positive liberalism. Take a population with a history of being subject to the whims of monarchy and add an out of control system of nuisance laws at every level of government. This graduates from a nanny state to a nun with a ruler state.


Are you posting this from a country which allows the government to strap people to a table and inject a series of drugs in order to kill them, cold-bloodedly and deliberately. Because if so, I suggest you take your putative "freedom" and stick it where the sun don't shine.
 
2012-10-09 06:15:33 AM  

quietwalker: 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


Not really. Not-banning-something is seen as the government being overtly complicit in America quite often too.

That said, given where this came from, this is not overly surprising to me.
 
2012-10-09 06:53:29 AM  

orbister: Pathman: Freedom isn't always pretty - it's not government's responsibility, role or even right to make YOU a better person.

So no prosecutions or imprisonments for rape, murder, fraud or exceeding the speed limit, then?


you can't possibly be serious with this retort to what i said.
 
2012-10-09 07:01:17 AM  

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.


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.



I don't know what you are talking about with that teacher getting in trouble for using the term Squaw but i doubt she was "disciplined" by the state.
the same goes for using the n-word on a website.

you seem to be unclear as to what the term "freedom of speech" means.
freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

For example, I am free to say "Burger King is better than McDonalds"
However if I work at McDonalds and say it at work, I might get fired.
That's not violating my freedom of speech.

Now if the police are waiting for me outside and arrest then my freedom of speech HAS been violated.
 
2012-10-09 07:26:17 AM  

Pert: What you can't do is deliberately go out of your way to publish something deliberately that will, in all likelihood, cause huge emotional distress to a great many friends and family of a missing child and who are already gong through hell.


is that what he did, by posting his idiocy on his facebook wall?

nobody should be put in prison for making jokes we don't like
that's nonsense.

orbister made some vague and completely irrelevant to a teacher getting in trouble for using the term "squaw" to show that this sort of thing happens in America.

Perhaps a better example would have been THIS STORY about Jennifer Petkov, that asshole who harassed her neighbour's dying child over the internet and ended up getting herself arrested.

Freedom of speech isn't limitless - nobody is claiming that it is. But what this kid did should NOT have landed him in prison.

Also arrested for his own protection when 50 people circled his home? Seriously? I hope that was voluntary protective custody. Sounds to me like they should have arrested the mob.

Whatever way you slice it this is an egregious violation of liberty.
And like I said before, Freedom isn't always pretty - it's not government's responsibility, role or even right to make YOU a better person.

To clarify for any simpletons who might think that means i believe in anarchy or freedom to rape, steal or drive fast - what that means is simply your rights end where mine begin.

You do not have the right to violate someone else's rights.
So you have the right to not be raped or murdered which clearly means i don't have the right to commit rape or murder.

You do not have the right to not be offended by jokes on the internet or someone else's opinion on stuff.
 
2012-10-09 07:27:15 AM  
vague and completely irrelevant reference to a teacher...

oops - i'm dumb. please don't lock me up
 
2012-10-09 01:32:54 PM  

SkunkWerks: quietwalker: 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

Not really. Not-banning-something is seen as the government being overtly complicit in America quite often too.

That said, given where this came from, this is not overly surprising to me.


I think of the difference in computer terms. In the US, freedom of speech means you can say anything, anytime, except there's a small blacklist (like shouting 'fire' in a theater). Everywhere else, freedom of speech is a whitelist: Everything is banned except what the government explicitly, with forethought and deliberation, allows. Those allowances are your 'freedom of speech'.

We really don't have problems with the government banning freedom of speech in the US. If that's the case, we wouldn't have to wait for the blues brothers to show up to get something done about those illinois nazis.
 
2012-10-09 03:14:55 PM  

quietwalker: We really don't have problems with the government banning freedom of speech in the US.


Wasn't suggesting we did. But the complaint that the government not expressly forbidding something (lets say "gay marriage" or "abortion") makes it complicit in such activities is an all-too common rationale used by those whose agenda lies in those stagnant backwaters.

It's not really all that strange a concept to us.
 
pla
2012-10-09 07:57:30 PM  
theMagni : He said, "What's the difference between [the guy who raped and murdered the kid]

Any particular reason why no one has said the actual joke yet, only a fill-in-the-blank version?

Or does the name "Mark Bridger" count as some sort of joke in its own right that I don't get? Like he actually works as the Queen Mother's wet-nurse or something like that, and has nothing to do with the missing kid?
 
2012-10-09 10:21:22 PM  

pla: Any particular reason why no one has said the actual joke yet, only a fill-in-the-blank version?

Or does the name "Mark Bridger" count as some sort of joke in its own right that I don't get? Like he actually works as the Queen Mother's wet-nurse or something like that, and has nothing to do with the missing kid?


Because we might want to visit the UK some day, and we don't want to end up like that guy that insulted the King of Thailand and was jailed while visiting the country thirty years later for it.
 
2012-10-10 02:02:14 PM  

Tatterdemalian: pla: Any particular reason why no one has said the actual joke yet, only a fill-in-the-blank version?

Or does the name "Mark Bridger" count as some sort of joke in its own right that I don't get? Like he actually works as the Queen Mother's wet-nurse or something like that, and has nothing to do with the missing kid?

Because we might want to visit the UK some day, and we don't want to end up like that guy that insulted the King of Thailand and was jailed while visiting the country thirty years later for it.


yeah....america is far from perfect, but it is because of the UK and crap like this that the US has its concept of freedom and liberty in the first place
 
Displayed 141 of 141 comments

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


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report