Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun May 26 17:21:12 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Britsh police are heroes
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Feb 10 10:00:57
http://plu...qifi8zWlCDvhfj55mesgehW1QIrsrk

Mom Arrested in Front of Kids for ‘Misgendering’ a Transgender Woman
Paramount
Member
Sun Feb 10 10:40:49
About

Pluralist is a tabloid that covers the US culture wars. Our beat is the absurd, the hypocritical, and the surreal. We try to counter conventional media narratives and get at what’s really at stake in the news.

- -

lol
Average Ameriacn
Member
Mon Feb 11 10:09:07
Paramount here is a well known and respected British news source:

http://www...ing-transgender-woman-man.html
Pillz
Member
Mon Feb 11 11:14:06
Her children are being placed in state care where they'll be protected from such bigotry and negative influence
Paramount
Member
Mon Feb 11 11:20:28
I don’t really question the story, although it is a bit weird story – that someone can be arrested for such thing. But I was curious about what kind of site Pluralist is, and their description of themselves was a bit funny, I think.
Rugian
Member
Mon Feb 11 11:25:55
Paramount,

I tried looking for this story on sources that you might consider more credible and came up blank.

Assuming you have faith in the story's veracity, I'd be wondering why Sam had to resort to the Pluralist to find it.
Paramount
Member
Mon Feb 11 11:47:17
”Mother, 38, is arrested in front of her children and locked in a cell for seven HOURS after calling a transgender woman a man on Twitter”


I’m thinking maybe she was drunk and aggressive, so for her own and others safety, the police locked her up for 7 hours so she could sober up.
Paramount
Member
Mon Feb 11 11:51:29
”Writing on online forum Mumsnet, Mrs Scottow – who has also been served with a court order that bans her from referring to her accuser as a man”


Okay. It seems that she was arrested for violating a court order.
NeverWoods
Member
Tue Feb 12 08:45:06
This is a fucking lie and Sam Adams is a fucking idiot.

I don't know British laws but too me this is anti-cyberbullying law. nothing to do with misgendering. This could be over anything.

"U.K. LAWS FOR CYBERBULLYING AND HARASSMENT
There is no legal definition of cyberbullying in U.K. law. However there are a number of existing laws that can be applied to cases of cyberbullying and online harassment.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Malicious Communications Act 1988
Communications Act 2003
Breach of the Peace (Scotland)
Defamation Act 2013
The Defamation Act 2013 came into effect on January 1st 2014. Read the Act in full to learn what is included and excluded from the legislation."
Rugian
Member
Tue Feb 12 17:28:17
Neverwoods,

So an overbroad cyberbullying law is being used to effectively outlaw online misgendering*. How exactly does that prove Sam wrong here?







*By which I mean actually using the correct gender

Sam Adams
Member
Tue Feb 12 17:37:45
Lol neverwoods is neverright
obaminated
Member
Wed Feb 13 01:24:23
"I’m thinking maybe she was drunk and aggressive, so for her own and others safety, the police locked her up for 7 hours so she could sober up."

you once again prove that you are a legit fascist who literally has zero interest in freedom or independence. you are a fucking totalitarian. you always find an excuse or reason to justify government overreach. i pity you.
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 13 03:26:30
Rugian:

A Court ordered her to stop harassing someone.

She kept harassing them.

It doesn't matter whether whatever she was saying was correct or not.

If I come around your house and stand outside your property and keep shouting a renditionion of Maxwell's equations over and over again into your house, it's still harassment, not an innocent attempt by me to educate you on electro magnetic theory.

The police will eventually be called, a restraining order placed if I keep coming back, and eventually I'll get out in jail time for breaking that.

Your obsession with labelling other people doesn't give you or anyone else the right to harass people on any medium.

Why is this so hard to understand.
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 13 03:29:17
"She is also alleged to have used accounts in two names to 'harass, defame, and publish derogatory and defamatory tweets' about Miss Hayden, including referring to her as male, stating she was 'racist, xenophobic and a crook' and mocking her as a 'fake lawyer'."

I.e. this isn't just an incidental one off.

Not is it just "misgendering". Use of multiple accounts demonstrates intent etc.
NeverWoods
Member
Wed Feb 13 05:31:59
Rugian/Sam do you suffer some cognitive issues?

What does this even have to do with misgendering?
It's an anti-harassment law. What part of harassment seems to be hard to understand?
NeverWoods
Member
Wed Feb 13 05:34:19
Ride the Jorden Petterson's dick on this.
Be ignorant and outraged!
Rugian
Member
Wed Feb 13 09:03:41
Seb,

Are you insane? Comparing the internet to any sort of physical setting is wildly inappropriate.

If someone on the internet is saying things you dont like, there are a number of options for dealing with it:

-Respond/fight back
-Just stop reading their posts
-Just block them (on Twitter, it's literally a three-click process)
-Just stop using the site (how important is it to be on Twitter anyway?)

The overall point here is that there's no reason whatsoever for the police and judiciary to have gotten involved in this case. Being subjected to speech on the internet that you find offensive is not justification for an anti-harassment order.

Frankly, if you think otherwise, you dont "get" the internet.
Rugian
Member
Wed Feb 13 09:05:29
Neverwoods,

Do you? If an anti-harassment law is being used to silence instances of online misgendering*, then it has effectively become an anto-misgendering* law. It doesnt take a genius to make that connection.

As for JP, you're thinking of nimi.
NeverWoods
Member
Wed Feb 13 13:25:05
WTF is that reasoning?

No man, This is beyond dumb.
Some ass logical fallacy.

If I call you a smelly breath and harras you on your facebook does make it anti-smelly breath law?

WTF is wrong with you. LMAO.

There is no such thing as anti-misgendering laws and it will never be, get over your fake outrage.

If I rob a bank wearing red snickers and get busted. does that mean there is an anti-red snickers law?
Pillz
Member
Wed Feb 13 13:31:04
Retardwood, there are anti misgendering laws in ontario
NeverWoods
Member
Wed Feb 13 13:39:42
LMAO one after one.

you are talking about the C-16 bill right?

That is a workplace anti-harassment bill.
How would you feel if your boss called you a girl or a sissy? or called a women butch?

It's to protect workers from workplace harassment and does not apply outside the workplace.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 13 14:06:45
NW and Seb on record defending caging a woman for mocking someone on Twitter.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 13 14:47:21
Euros legitimately hate free speech.
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 13 16:14:31
Rugian:
So first it was about the factual accuracy. Now it's ok because you believe the internet is a magical parallel universe where no harm can be done.

You are incorrect.

If I took out adverts in the newspaper to pursue you with derogatory comments and defamatory information, the courts would also consider that harassment.

Amazingly, simply not reading the newspaper wouldn't be considered grounds for ignoring this.

This idea that the internet should be a magical place where there's no consequences for behaviour that attracts lethal attention elsewhere is absurd.

Seb
Member
Wed Feb 13 16:16:06
Forwyn:

For breaking a court order to cease communicating with here victim.

Are you thick?
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 13 16:16:38
"court orders shouldn't apply to people I don't like"
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 13 17:16:05
"Its ok for a court to violate free speech."

-seb
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 13 17:26:05
Seb you are a woman.

Omg thought crime ban!!!!!
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 13 17:39:32
"Don't post on this woman's public Twitter profile"

Valid use of courts, according to Seb
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 13 18:04:31
Sam/Forwyn:

The court hasn't violated free speech.

You understand the issue isnt misgendering her as per report, but because she engaged a campaign of harassment which included defamation.

If I repeatedly take out full page adds in the newspaper that, for example, asserts you are lying about your professional credentials (one of the issues here), are you seriously saying you wouldn't and shouldn't be able to get a court order forcing me to desist.

Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 13 20:24:13
A public Twitter profile is not comparable to a newspaper. Don't be fucking retarded.

The "victim" has 100% control over who can access her page or post there.
kargen
Member
Wed Feb 13 21:08:57
"The overall point here is that there's no reason whatsoever for the police and judiciary to have gotten involved in this case. Being subjected to speech on the internet that you find offensive is not justification for an anti-harassment order."

Going farther, or maybe on a tangent, what opinion do you have on the girl/woman that has been convicted of manslaughter for texting her boyfriend telling him to commit suicide? There is an obvious difference in social media and private messages but overall both stories lead back to free speech in a way.
Nekran
Member
Thu Feb 14 01:29:47
"Frankly, if you think otherwise, you dont "get" the internet."

I'm sad to have to inform you that it is you that doesn't get the internet. Harassment through means of the internet is still harassment.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 01:54:59
Forwyn:

Explain, specifically, why you think a Twitter post is different than a news paper add and how you would encode that in law.

"The "victim" has 100% control over who can access her page or post there."

Nope. I can @ someone or just mention turn in plain text - it'll show up in mentions etc.

You could ban the individual but they can make a sock puppet account, follow them and engage third parties, as this woman appears to have done.

So in many ways worse than the newspaper add.



Paramount
Member
Thu Feb 14 04:25:24
Facebook Group of French Journalists Harassed Women for Years

http://www...-du-lol-sexual-harassment.html


Harassment or free speech? Either way they have now been made to apologize and have been suspended from their jobs. lolz


"Some of the men behind the group, whose name means the League of LOL, have issued apologies, and several have been suspended from their jobs."
NeverWoods
Member
Thu Feb 14 05:48:01
Seb I hope you understand they sam/Rugian/Forwyn

Gives a shit about reason and logic as they are more emotional and feel driven on this.

Let them make the argument why they should be free to say the N-word, because that is too free-speech.
NeverWoods
Member
Thu Feb 14 05:57:47
"Going farther, or maybe on a tangent, what opinion do you have on the girl/woman that has been convicted of manslaughter for texting her boyfriend telling him to commit suicide? "

That is serious and it should be taken seriously and investigated. Is it a repeat thing she does, does she harass him. Was it a leading cause.

Just because something is online, it does not give you the right to break laws that are in place for populous protection.

The social world is way more social media driven then the real world.
We should protect people from harm even in the cyber world.

People don't understand how freedom works. You are all given unrestricted freedom and bits are taken away of that freedom that does not serve anyone's wellbeing or the society in general.

There is nothing wrong with that unless you don't value your own or anyone elses wellbeing.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 11:12:09
"Nope. I can @ someone or just mention turn in plain text - it'll show up in mentions etc.

You could ban the individual but they can make a sock puppet account, follow them and engage third parties, as this woman appears to have done."

You can still protect your page.

If discussion is going on afterward about you between others, that's not harassment.

"Gives a shit about reason and logic as they are more emotional and feel driven on this.

Let them make the argument why they should be free to say the N-word, because that is too free-speech."

Ironic, retard, as you think that caging people for hurting others' feefees is a valid function of government.

"People don't understand how freedom works."

LOL
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 11:15:27
Euros don't understand how freedom works. You are given unrestricted freedom and bits should only be taken away to protect citizens from violent or property crime, not for abstract wailing about wellbeing to protect your feefees.

There is absolutely something wrong with caging someone for hurting your feefees, and you have to be a pretty fucking horrendously immoral lout not to see it.
NeverWoods
Member
Thu Feb 14 13:11:45
Awww did you get your fefe get hurt?

This your feels over reals now?

"Ironic, retard, as you think that caging people for hurting others' feefees is a valid function of government. "

It's a function of the government to ensure
the wellbeing of the populous, that is a job for the government to protect and uphold.

Do you feel like your being oppressed for not saying the N-word or harassing people?.

Try to make an argument less with your fefe more with what is real.

This is why the right can be so overtly stupid. They are all in their feelings.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Feb 14 13:34:43
Neverwoods is like " speech that hurts my feelings should be banned".

Lol what a clown.
Paramount
Member
Thu Feb 14 13:37:14
Well, your grandparents stormed the beaches of Normandy so we could jail people who says something ”wrong” about the Holocaust.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 13:45:40
"It's a function of the government to ensure
the wellbeing of the populous"

Right. That includes protecting them from violent crimes and property crimes - not from being offended.

"Awww did you get your fefe get hurt?
This your feels over reals now?
Try to make an argument less with your fefe more with what is real."

I'm not the retard arguing that it's legitimate to cage people for mean words.

"Do you feel like your being oppressed for not saying the N-word or harassing people?."

I can say it all I like, because I don't live in a cucked shithole. My employer might cut ties with me if I cause a negative shitstorm, my personal circle may distance themselves, but none of these include the gubmint kicking in my door to haul me off to "ensure the wellbeing of the populous".

What an incorrigible retard you are.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 13:56:42
Forwyn:

"You can still protect your page. "

But you accept then, you can still be harassed? And if the harasser is determined to pursue you, this will mean constantly monitoring your timeline to mute or block new accounts?

"discussion is going on afterward about you between others, that's not harassment"

Lol! No. It's absolutely harassment. If I track down your contacts and bombard them with negative info about you, particularly false negative info that's still harassment. Hence my example of the news paper add.

Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:02:47
Forwyn:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

Ho hum. The woman in question appears to have committed aggravated harassment in the first degree under this particular example of a US state's harassment law.

Good to know Forwyn is on the ball. He might not know the truth of US law, but he feels what it should be.

Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:03:57
"you can still be harassed?"

I would use this term loosely, because Twitter is an entirely optional facet of life that the user still has control over. Even if you don't mute/block/protect, what's the worse that happens? Someone says something mean? They misgender you?

Whoopdeedoo.

"If I track down your contacts and bombard them with negative info about you"

So now we're saying the court can legitimately tell you not only to not contact the petitioner, but don't contact their friends, or friends of friends, or friends of friends of friends. So if the petitioner knows the "harasser" and they share a social circle, you've effectively banned the user from using the platform at all - if the order is relegated to the platform.

"Hence my example of the news paper add."

A newspaper ad is like a billboard - totally available to the public, paying a third party to trumpet your insults. Still not really comparable to a dying social media site that someone has to proactively look for you on to run into the content in question.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:05:03
Class E felony apparently. 1-4 years.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:06:56
Ho hum.

1. "Public place" means a place to which the public or a substantial
group of persons has access, and includes, but is not limited to,
highways, transportation facilities, schools, places of amusement,
parks, playgrounds, and hallways, lobbies and other portions of
apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments
designed for actual residence.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:07:16
Ho hum.

"Public place" means any enclosed indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place of work containing two hundred fifty or more square feet of floor space, including, but not limited to, all restaurants with a seating capacity greater than fifty, all retail stores, lobbies and malls, offices, including waiting rooms, and other commercial establishments; public conveyances with departures, travel, and destination entirely within this state; educational facilities; hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and other health care and medical facilities; and auditoriums, elevators, theaters, libraries, art museums, concert halls, indoor arenas, and meeting rooms. "Public place" does not include a retail store at which fifty percent or more of the sales result from the sale of tobacco or tobacco products, the portion of a retail store where tobacco or tobacco products are sold, a private, enclosed office occupied exclusively by smokers even though the office may be visited by nonsmokers, a room used primarily as the residence of students or other persons at an educational facility, a sleeping room in a motel or hotel, or each resident's room in a health care facility. The person in custody or control of the facility shall provide a sufficient number of rooms in which smoking is not permitted to accommodate all persons who desire such rooms.
NeverWoods
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:08:26
Sam Adams, the sissy of insults.
You could do so much better.

You are 35-40 years old and this is what outrages you? not being able to harras people on your FB page? You will turn into hotrod soon and be outraged over women's clothing.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:11:17
Forwyn:

"would use this term loosely, because Twitter is an entirely optional facet of life that the user still has control over"

Can you show me in the law, either in the UK or the US state law I linked to, where there is a requirement on the victim to first have minimised their exposure?

There isn't. This is like blaming a mugging victim for carrying cash when he could simply only carry plastic.

"we're saying the court can"
No, I'm saying many jurisdictions legislatures have specifically drafted laws that make this illegal.

"So if the petitioner knows the "harasser" and they share a social circle,"

No. The nature of the communication matters. Idiot.

"newspaper ad is like a billboard"
So is a fucking tweet you idiot. It's there for anyone to see. And most platforms algos are pretty good at routing people to each other. Cf. Facebooks spooky Friens recognition algo.


NeverWoods
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:16:26
"A newspaper ad is like a billboard - totally available to the public,"

"Still not really comparable to a dying social media site "

Why not? both can be viewed by anyone?
arguing that because people have to look you up, can be made for billboards and newspapers too.

He adds daying too for that extra effect of feels.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:17:15
Forwyn:

"S 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:

Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; "

Yup, she did that, hence first court order.

"S 240.31 Aggravated harassment in the first degree.

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of a belief or perception regarding such person`s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, he or she:
...

2. Commits the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree in the manner proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 of this article and has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree for the commission of conduct proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30"

So the second offence, which in the UK was breach of court order, would clearly be aggravated first degree harassment.

Don't know why you are wittering on about public spaces, when Twitter is clearly an electronic communication.

Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:19:33
"There isn't."

Curious, because you're peddling the fact that the accused used a sock account as an exacerbating factor

"This is like blaming a mugging victim for carrying cash when he could simply only carry plastic."

Insofar that a violent robbery is comparable to a tweet. rofl

"No. The nature of the communication matters. Idiot."

"No, I'm saying many jurisdictions legislatures have specifically drafted laws that make this illegal."

And we're discussing whether that's a valid function of government. You think it's valid to cage people for being mean on social media, if enough people vote for it. Ochlocratia.

"No. The nature of the communication matters. Idiot."

Sure. I trust a judiciary that cages people for mean tweets to logically delineate, say, heated political debate that includes insults, and dedicated trolling.

"So is a fucking tweet you idiot. It's there for anyone to see."

False. One has to actively utilize the platform. As you say, one has to be routed there if they're not searching for it.

Far cry from a billboard on a thoroughfare.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:22:01
"arguing that because people have to look you up, can be made for billboards and newspapers too."

Not really. Virtually every working adult commutes in some fashion.

"He adds daying too for that extra effect of feels."

No. I add it because membership is decreasing, unlike commuter figures. Ten years from now, will anyone give a shit about Twitter? Unlikely, it will be even more of a niche platform, ala Myspace.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:22:15
Scrub that, it only applies to subsection 3 which involves a threat to physical violence.

Which I don't know is she did.

But a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year. So yeah, you can totes be arrested for it in at least one US state!
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:25:36
You're dancing around your own link to avoid first degree harassment. Good luck escalating that to aggravated without first proving the harassment.

"A person is guilty of harassment in the first degree when he or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person by following such person in or about a public place or places or by engaging in a course of conduct or by repeatedly committing acts which places such person in reasonable fear of physical injury. This section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended."
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:26:58
"you can totes be arrested for it in at least one US state!"

I wouldn't be surprised if there are at least five shitholes in which you can be arrested for hurting feefees online. California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, and Connecticut come to mind.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:31:59
Forwyn:

"Curious, because you're peddling the fact that the accused used a sock account as an exacerbating factor"

No, I said it helps prove intent to annoy.

"Insofar that a violent robbery is comparable to a tweet."
No, insofar as your strange and unevidenced belief that crimes are only committed if the victim has exhausted measures to defend themselves first.

"And we're discussing whether that's a valid function of government"
1. Then it matters to look in practice as to whether govts in general consider it so (they do)
2. Really? "I can say it all I like, because I don't live in a cucked shithole"

"I trust a judiciary that cages people for mean tweets to logically delineate, say, heated political debate that includes insults, and dedicated trolling"
You are the one that seems confused between a mean tweet and the rather high legal threshold for harassment. It seems to me the courts are perfectly able to tell the difference, it's just you and the retards that have difficulty. In any case, the court order ought to have given her the hint?

"One has to actively utilize the platform"
One has to pick up and open the paper, which is the analogy I chose. If you accept it's not like the billboard, do you retract your shit explanation ("a newspaper is like a billboard") of how Twitter isn't like a newspaper and want to have another go? It's not my fault if you have tied yourself in knots.


Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:34:55
Forwyn:

I literally posted the definition. You don't need to commit first degree harassment to be guilty of aggravated first degree harassment if you are previously guilty of a certain type of aggravated second degree harassment and the nature of your harassment is motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim.

So no, the definition of first degree harassment isn't relevant.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:36:04
Basically, forwyn is demonstrably wrong about everything, and very upset that people aren't allowed to harass others over the internet.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:46:00
"No, I said it helps prove intent to annoy."

And you think annoying someone justifies a goon squad kicking in your door and caging you, and killing you if you resist. Noted.

"crimes are only committed if the victim has exhausted measures to defend themselves first."

Crimes are only committed if the victim is caused damages, or if there is an intent to cause them.

Annoyance is not a damage.

'2. Really? "I can say it all I like, because I don't live in a cucked shithole"'

Yeah, it is a relatively new trend (far newer than online trolling) for cuck governments to crack down on online speech that is neither threatening nor violent.

"You are the one that seems confused between a mean tweet and the rather high legal threshold for harassment."

Doesn't seem to be "rather high". The injunction specifically bars her from calling her a man or referencing her past as a male. It is a mean tweet with a personal streak, a key ingredient to a harsh insult.

So yeah, the court order gives us a hint. They can have a two day discussion on the merits of evolving gender studies, and the moment she responds with, "Coming from a man, I don't trust your word on it" it's now court-defined harassment. lulz.

"One has to pick up and open the paper, which is the analogy I chose."

Historically paper rates were far higher than Twitter use. Every family read them, from parents to kids.

Now, of course, it's about as wide-spread as Twitter. Who cares?



NeverWoods
Member
Thu Feb 14 14:48:06
I am so glad that we have smart people that disagree with him.

forwyn If you are unhappy with this maybe you should campaign for it, write to your representative and post it on your insta,twitter and FB page to let people know that you want to be able and have the right to harass and attack anyone you want.

let us see how that goes over.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 15:08:57
Don't need to. Again, I don't like in a shithole that has actively legislated to have people caged because your feefees got hurt over a tweet.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 14 15:31:44
Forwyn:

"And you think annoying someone justifies a goon squad kicking in your door and caging you, and killing you if you resist. Noted."

No, but then:
1. We are a free country and our police are not habitually armed so there is no possibility of being killed for resisting arrest for a non violent crime. Unlike in the US.

2. You couldn't have your house broken into or kicking down the door simply for doing that - and indeed this is not what happened in this case. What happened is she was served a court order. When she decided to ignore the court order, that became a much more serious offence which you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

"Crimes are only committed if the victim is caused damages,"

Do you not understand what defamation is? You seem to have this weird idea that if somehow, the victim can take action to avoid seeing the defamatory material, it doesn't exist in the mind of others. It's kind of like a failure to have a theory of mind. In any case, the law is clear (both in the example US one and the UK) - intent to cause distress, alarm or annoyance is sufficient. You do not need to prove damages for harassment, and the point of defamatory materials (telling others she lacked professional qualifications she had) is clearly motivated as an intent to cause damage to reputation.

"or if there is an intent to cause them."
Yes, and in this case there clearly was.

"The injunction specifically bars her from calling her a man or referencing her past as a male."

Yes, but to get such an injunction requires a significant set of hurdles to be overcome. The court was already convinced she was intending to cause alarm and distress and this was a sufficiently long standing and concentrated campaign that a court order was warranted.

She then broken that court order. Which is quite serious. Proving that was quite trivial.

"Historically paper rates were far higher than Twitter use."

1. So you concede your billboard analogy was idiotically flawed?

2. Sorry, why are we talking historically? Can you name a newspaper that has ever had the readership or circulation figure as high as twitters user base?

3. And can you tell me what the threshold is, exactly, in your mind, for the law to kick in?

Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 15:48:31
"We are a free country"

lol

"there is no possibility of being killed for resisting arrest for a non violent crime."

Nonsense. Just depends on your level of resistance.

"2. You couldn't have your house broken into or kicking down the door simply for doing that - and indeed this is not what happened in this case."

Because she didn't make it worse, and voluntarily went with them, to sit in a cage.

"Do you not understand what defamation is?"

Arguing with someone and throwing in a "Oh, and you're a man / fake lawyer / racist crook" (a sample of her insults) is not defamation. Retarded.

"significant set of hurdles"

If by significant, you mean the petitioner made a complaint, and a judge saw that she made a sock account to continue trolling her, yeah, totally significant.

"She then broken that court order. Which is quite serious."

Sure, if you believe that it is a valid function of courts to file injunctions against individuals to prevent them from being mean on social media. I believe I made it clear in my first or second post that this is lunacy. But hey, your tax dollars.

"1. So you concede your billboard analogy was idiotically flawed?"

Newspapers are closer to billboards than Twitter is to newspapers.

"Can you name a newspaper that has ever had the readership or circulation figure as high as twitters user base?"

Total Twitter user base is a useless figure. Half of them are bots, and far less than that half have access to some random tranny lawyer that debates politics. How many followers do you think the petitioner has? 100?

"3. And can you tell me what the threshold is, exactly, in your mind, for the law to kick in?"

None. It's fucking social media. Who gives a shit? I see far more vitriolic shit lobbed on every politician's tweet, but we're busy delineating an arbitrary distinction for public figures.

Or, we can just ignore anything on social media that isn't outright threatening or violent. Not worth caging people over.
NeverWoods
Member
Thu Feb 14 15:51:58
"Don't need to. Again, I don't like in a shithole that has actively legislated to have people caged because your feefees got hurt over a tweet."

You dumb fuck, you have no ideas on your own law.
Not only that you are such a goddamn coward that you won't even write it on your social media page because you know you would be lambasted by the people you know.

If they knew the shit you say in here, they might never talk to you. I know I would.

who needs to talk to a piece of shit that has no grounding in reality.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 17:36:45
"You dumb fuck, you have no ideas on your own law."

lulz. New York law doesn't affect me.

"Not only that you are such a goddamn coward that you won't even write it on your social media page"

What is it you think I would write? "Fuck niggers burn kikes"? I'm not Sam Adams. I would have absolutely zero issue posting about the cyberspeech legislation. Not difficult, could probably find an ACLU article about it.

And the majority of my social circle would agree with me. Even the leftwingers would be the first to say that those peddling hate speech aren't shielded from private action, but we shouldn't cage people for trolling online.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 17:42:05
That wasn't hard.

Fucking hate speech mongers.

http://www...free-speech-and-cyber-bullying

In an earlier entry, I discussed some of the legislative challenges we faced in a series of online censorship bills introduced in Congress in 2007. So-called "cyber-bullying" is the most recent threat to online speech to come into the public vernacular. The term has become popularized following the much-publicized story of Megan Meier, a teen who committed suicide after reading abusive messages allegedly sent through MySpace by a classmate's mother. The incident has become the latest rallying cry to regulate content on the Internet.

"Cyber-bullying" is a loaded term to be avoided by anyone interested in engaging in an objective look at online speech. Like past legislative attempts to justify online censorship, such as the "Deleting Online Predators Act" (DOPA) and the "Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act" (SAFE Act), the term is intended to stack the deck against the First Amendment. Specifically, it is meant to imply the regulation of unlawful conduct, not the censorship of protected speech, under the guise of protecting our children.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As reprehensible as some online speech may be, the First Amendment protects the bad with the good. Many commentators vilified the ACLU for defending the right of Nazis to protest in Skokie, Illinois, a town with a Jewish population of over 40,000, including over 7,000 survivors of Nazi death camps. Indeed, the ACLU lost over 30,000 of its own members by taking that courageous stand.

Quoting Cohen v. California ,the Illinois Supreme Court explained why the Nazis had a right to protest and display an offensive symbol like the swastika in a predominately Jewish community:

We do not doubt that the sight of this symbol is abhorrent to the Jewish citizens of Skokie, and that the survivors of the Nazi persecutions, tormented by their recollections, may have strong feelings regarding its display. Yet it is entirely clear that this factor does not justify enjoining defendants' speech.... we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech. The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.
Ashcroft v. ACLU, which struck down the "Child Online Protection Act," and Reno v. ACLU both tell us that online speech is entitled to similar protection. The First Amendment does not permit targeting speech merely because it is offensive, reprehensible, or even hurtful to the unsuspecting listener.

Instead, censoring online speech is impermissible under the First Amendment, unless it falls into one of a few narrow exceptions or amounts to unprotected conduct. Recent news reports indicate that law enforcement has concluded that the mother's alleged speech in the MySpace case did not cross either line. Laws on the books that criminalize intentionally harmful behavior and conduct are sufficient to address "cyber-bullying" to the extent that online activities do not encompass protected speech or other First Amendment rights.

The solution to offensive online speech is not to engage in the knee-jerk reaction of saying it should be banned. Rather, like any product available in a marketplace, it highlights the need for greater consumer awareness. Caveat emptor applies to the Internet's marketplace of ideas. Parents, not the government, are best positioned to police the websites and content that their children access. Efforts to inform parents and their children about what is available online should be encouraged. Ultimately, the only way for the Internet to remain a true marketplace of ideas for the 21st Century is to continue to promote the free exchange of information and speech, with the understanding that online speech can be as beneficial or as hurtful as speech occurring offline.
NeverWoods
Member
Thu Feb 14 18:39:30
What is your point with a blog post?
make a better argument about why online harassment is equal to free speech.so far you haven't even made any reasonable argument. all you have done is being in your feelings.


"What is it you think I would write? "Fuck niggers burn kikes"?"

I never said that. You can make an argument about why online harassment is an essential part of the first amendment.
You can't and won't. because that is a stupid argument

"And the majority of my social circle would agree with me"
majority of your social circle are cancer.

Even the leftwingers would be the first to say... no, they would not. leftwing are not in this for the feels like the right.

unless you are talking about redpilled "centers", they are not left.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 14 20:16:55
"your feelings"
"in this for the feels"

Again, I'm not the one whining to put people in cages for the "wellbeing of the populace".

Seb
Member
Fri Feb 15 02:48:23
Forwyn:

Saying someone who is actually a lawyer is lying about being a lawyer isn't defamation?

Forwyn, you've lost the fucking plot.

A court found her actions sufficient to put a court order banning her from harassing her. She continued to do so, therefore she was arrested. Contempt of court is a serious offence with a custodial sentence. Thats why she was arrested.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 15 02:49:55
And the only way she'd have risked death is if she had a gun or threatened to kill her kids or something. That's about the only situation UK police would call in firearms units.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Feb 15 10:59:00
If you really think you'd win a defamation case in the states because someone on Twitter called you a fake lawyer, you're a fucking lunatic.

And if that case would actually fly in the UK, the entire place should be nuked.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 15 12:35:07
Forwyn:

She didn't win a defamation case here (that would be an expensive civil procedure).

What she won was a court order telling the woman in question to stop harassing her.

Which she didn't. Instead, she made a second account, and continued to harass her, in defiance of a court order, continuing to defame her against third parties - for which twitter offers no protection (contrary to your entire line of argument), not that a technical means of protection would prevent the victim from availing themselves of the law anyway.

The woman was not arrested for misgendering the plaintiff. She was not arrested even for harassing the plaintiff. She was arrested for flouting a court order that had been placed on her to cease this activity.

This woman may have issues with transgender as a concept, and she is free to campaign on that issue. What she isn't free to do is harass an individual, and the fact that the harassment happened over the internet is completely irrelevant.

Literally everything you have said is wrong or dishonest..
Forwyn
Member
Fri Feb 15 12:55:35
You're the one who brought up defamation, and you're a fucking idiot for presenting this as an issue of honesty.

You want to present this as some serious case of a court issuing legitimate orders to stop a horrific case of cyber-bullying.

Go for it. I'll continue fucking laughing at you and your wig-wearing chumps' orders.
American Democrat
Member
Sat Feb 16 06:10:59
" Being subjected to speech on the internet that you find offensive is not justification for an anti-harassment order. "

I guess those order of protection orders and restraining orders that explicitly state to not contact in any medium, which includes social media, should basically be tossed out and ignored by the courts.

Setting aside your own personal opinions regarding how petty or trivial you think this particular incident is. But this is similar to our own laws in the states. But, I am sure in your extensive experiences you have complete understanding of the parameters of restraining orders and order of protections.


1) Typically they would state something of the following; 'do not contact that this victim; in person, social media, or by third-party, or any other avenue that relates any type of communication if done so would violate the order'

2) I will include forwyn on this as well because it appears he has gone off the deep end and completely misconstruing laws and such anyways;

So basically this means, despite if the person has a facebook, myspace, twitter, Instagram, snapchat, any such social platform that have, a person can violate that order and be subjected to penalties that include being arrested. It doesn't matter if they can block the person or not as the order may have explicitly stated not to contact them.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share