 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | I share your concern, Wokko, but I'm generally OK with bullying and racism being a criminal offence. There's been a shift in society over the past generation or so to recognise verbal abuse as being a serious phenomenon (perhaps not equal to physical abuse, but somewhere in the ballpark). To me, that's a positive shift, and one that speaks to a freedom every bit as important as free speech: the freedom to go about our lives without being subject to harassment or intimidation, be it violent, sexual or verbal.
The core question for me is what sort of penalty stuff like this should warrant. I agree with you and others that it is relatively minor, so that ought to be reflected in sentencing (say, a small fine or community service order). If, as some have suggested, his behaviour is related to psychiatric issues, then I'd probably prefer he bypass the legal system altogether and receive access to treatment.
If this guy actually gets jail time, then I'd be worried. And yes, the maximum penalties do seem large (I guess the crucial test is to imagine the worst possible crime that could be categorised under this law). I do have some faith in our legal system, however, and I suspect that a sensible, measured ruling will be made. If it isn't, I can assure you that I'll be there on the barricades with you.  |
Hmm not what I expected! But I see your point
However, is treatment the right word? This bugger just need to understand that being a right prick in print and bullying someone is not on.
Hopefully he gets scared straight
Cheers
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | Being accountable for words does not mean the government should kidnap you at gunpoint and keep you locked in a room for years. It means there are consequences to being a dick, either through court action by individuals or through consequences of breaching the 'social contract' to not act like a dick. |
What a lot of horseshit. Kindly inform us which poor innocent soul this terrible nasty guvvament you speak of has dragged away and locked up under these laws? Somebody? Anybody? Spare me 
You use words to harm or vilify others unreasonably you deserve whatever tickle or whack the legal system gives you. In the case you mention it will be a tickle not NINE years as you mention. Alarmist much? (As a sidebar you obviously don't trust the judiciary to apply a reasonable sentence in this case but then want to enshrine the right to free speech in the constitution where the judiciary has the ultimate say over interpreting that right - so you don't trust the judiciary but then increase their role - nice logic) 
Funny how those who bitch and moan about limits on free speech are most often the ones who use that freedom to bully and attack those with little power. Isn't tolerance and respect for difference also important for democracy? Instead of defending bigots try defending that for frigging change... |
I wish you posted more often !!!
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | King Malta wrote: | Pretty simple really, don't racially abuse people, especially from behind the relative comfort of a computer screen.
I'm comfortable with the result of this. |
Yup it's just another form of cyber bullying |
This coupled with the original story reminded me of this tweet from an American rapper. I know there is more to the issue, but I found this hilarious.
 |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | | nomadjack wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | Being accountable for words does not mean the government should kidnap you at gunpoint and keep you locked in a room for years. It means there are consequences to being a dick, either through court action by individuals or through consequences of breaching the 'social contract' to not act like a dick. |
What a lot of horseshit. Kindly inform us which poor innocent soul this terrible nasty guvvament you speak of has dragged away and locked up under these laws? Somebody? Anybody? Spare me
You use words to harm or vilify others unreasonably you deserve whatever tickle or whack the legal system gives you. In the case you mention it will be a tickle not NINE years as you mention. Alarmist much? (As a sidebar you obviously don't trust the judiciary to apply a reasonable sentence in this case but then want to enshrine the right to free speech in the constitution where the judiciary has the ultimate say over interpreting that right - so you don't trust the judiciary but then increase their role - nice logic)
Funny how those who bitch and moan about limits on free speech are most often the ones who use that freedom to bully and attack those with little power. Isn't tolerance and respect for difference also important for democracy? Instead of defending bigots try defending that for frigging change... |
I wish you posted more often !!! |
If snarky, condescending, borderline insulting posts are your thing I'm sure I could successfully devolve the discussion down to this level (see, I just did). Personally I'm appreciating the even handed and intelligent discussion from the rest of the thread despite there being a huge divergence of opinion on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | ........
I don't think I'll ever understand people who willingly and happily hand over their rights to government or the State. I can understand quiet resignation when trying to exercise rights that have already been taken away (Chinese censorship, Thai Lse-majest laws) but happily accepting the arrest and possible jailing of a fellow citizen for being a meanie on the internet just astounds me.
|
Hmmm. Sounds very much like the Tea Party arguments about the role of Government.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | ........
I don't think I'll ever understand people who willingly and happily hand over their rights to government or the State. I can understand quiet resignation when trying to exercise rights that have already been taken away (Chinese censorship, Thai Lse-majest laws) but happily accepting the arrest and possible jailing of a fellow citizen for being a meanie on the internet just astounds me.
|
Hmmm. Sounds very much like the Tea Party arguments about the role of Government. |
The Tea Party movement was about minimizing government, spending, taxes and paying down national debt. As with many idealistic grassroots political movements the establishment in the USA has aggressively attacked them or attempted to subvert the movement to their own agenda. If you're saying I'm arguing for less government intervention in the lives of private citizens then damn right I am! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | ........
I don't think I'll ever understand people who willingly and happily hand over their rights to government or the State. I can understand quiet resignation when trying to exercise rights that have already been taken away (Chinese censorship, Thai Lse-majest laws) but happily accepting the arrest and possible jailing of a fellow citizen for being a meanie on the internet just astounds me.
|
Hmmm. Sounds very much like the Tea Party arguments about the role of Government. |
The Tea Party movement was about minimizing government, spending, taxes and paying down national debt. As with many idealistic grassroots political movements the establishment in the USA has aggressively attacked them or attempted to subvert the movement to their own agenda. If you're saying I'm arguing for less government intervention in the lives of private citizens then damn right I am! |
That's a very Pollyanna view about the Tea Party. The arguments ignore power & power relations in society. Do you subscribe to La Rouche as well?
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | I don't think I'll ever understand people who willingly and happily hand over their rights to government or the State. |
You have got it completely backwards.
This is not about "handing over rights to the government", it is not even about "handing over rights" at all. It is about maintaining and defending rights, in particular the right not to be terrorised, humiliated and threatened by evil-minded bullies. The moron on the bus is a recent, very pertinent example. This scumbag went on a rampage of race-hate without any excuse whatever, and caused untold harm and distress to innocent people who had every right in the world not to be terrorised, humiliated and threatened by aggressive scum.
Race-hate is never acceptable behaviour, and using the N-word as a term of abuse counts as unacceptable hate-speech every single day of the week. He will, presumably, be charged for it and if found guilty get a modest sentence - a good behaviour bond or some such - which for a first offence is entirely just. If he has a history of flinging hatred around, with prior convictions, then a short custodial sentence might be necessary to preserve and defend the right of all citizens to be protected from scum like him.
The state exists to defend citizens' rights and freedoms. That is what it is for. Defence of its own citizens' rights and freedoms is the primary duty (and arguably the only duty) a state has. Failing to defend innocent citizens against the mindless hate of aggressive scum like this sewer rat would be a dereliction of that duty. The law exists to defend all citizens, not just white males.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
woodisgood
Joined: 30 May 2007
Location: Prahran
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | ........
I don't think I'll ever understand people who willingly and happily hand over their rights to government or the State. I can understand quiet resignation when trying to exercise rights that have already been taken away (Chinese censorship, Thai Lse-majest laws) but happily accepting the arrest and possible jailing of a fellow citizen for being a meanie on the internet just astounds me.
|
Hmmm. Sounds very much like the Tea Party arguments about the role of Government. |
The Tea Party are many things. In fact, they are so diverse that providing one definition of the Tea Party is almost impossible. To the extent that they have one thing in common across the board, it is generally a professed desire to see less government interference in private affairs.
What they actually seem to believe though, instead of profess to believe, is that the government should refrain in some areas (eg racial discrimination, affirmative action) and legislate away like a boss in others (ban gays, immigrants, enforce religious intolerance).
In short, the Tea Party if anything clothe themselves in the flag of liberty, while being just another far right bunch of nitwits who reflexively hate government because they see government as synonymous with people they dont like. In other words, the true test of Tea Party thinking is not what they say about liberty and the state, but the many and varied hypocrisies they twist themsleves into trying to reconcile that with enacting Leviticus into law.
I think based on what I've seen, characterising Wokko as a Tea Party hack is probably uncharitable. A more accurate and less loaded description would be libertarian, and one less redolent of straw man argument too. And in that regard I have to say I share his approach, if not his politics. I think a meeting between us would provide as many arguments as agreements, but at least I'd probably anjoy the arguments. And the beer.
Or how are you proposing to deal with the paradox of a left wing pinko bisexual who works in refugee advocacy like me finding nothing much in the passage you quoted that I disagree with? Maybe I'm a crypto-fascist?
_________________
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. "
Winston Churchill |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Woodisgood, may I just quickly interrupt the flow of this thread to welcome you to the VPT? It's always great to see such intelligent, thought-provoking posts. Hope you stick around.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | I don't think I'll ever understand people who willingly and happily hand over their rights to government or the State. |
You have got it completely backwards.
This is not about "handing over rights to the government", it is not even about "handing over rights" at all. It is about maintaining and defending rights, in particular the right not to be terrorised, humiliated and threatened by evil-minded bullies. The moron on the bus is a recent, very pertinent example. This scumbag went on a rampage of race-hate without any excuse whatever, and caused untold harm and distress to innocent people who had every right in the world not to be terrorised, humiliated and threatened by aggressive scum.
Race-hate is never acceptable behaviour, and using the N-word as a term of abuse counts as unacceptable hate-speech every single day of the week. He will, presumably, be charged for it and if found guilty get a modest sentence - a good behaviour bond or some such - which for a first offence is entirely just. If he has a history of flinging hatred around, with prior convictions, then a short custodial sentence might be necessary to preserve and defend the right of all citizens to be protected from scum like him.
The state exists to defend citizens' rights and freedoms. That is what it is for. Defence of its own citizens' rights and freedoms is the primary duty (and arguably the only duty) a state has. Failing to defend innocent citizens against the mindless hate of aggressive scum like this sewer rat would be a dereliction of that duty. The law exists to defend all citizens, not just white males. |
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The States function should be to defend our FREEDOM to live our lives as we see fit, not to provide safety like some overzealous bodyguard. I also don't know how many times I have to say that harassing someone verbally in public is NOT free speech, it is a breach of the peace and an infringement on another's right to freedom. Above all there must be non aggression for a functioning society and people being sanctioned for threatening, harassing or intimidation is both allowed for, expected and demanded. I don't know how much clearer I can be making the distinction between aggressiveness or violence towards an individual and the protection of freedom of expression, including the freedom to insult or offend someone.
Time to pull out the Alert but not alarmed fridge magnets and start dobbing in your fellow citizens to the Stasi for their antisocial, racist or god forbid their offensive language. Or like I've said over and over again we can rely on society, the press and peers to condemn and vilify those who subscribe to evil ideologies and we can use our own inalienable freedoms to tell them what utter wankers they are. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Bahh. An irrelevant quote, followed by self-contradiction. As you say yourself, harassing someone verbally in public is NOT free speech, it is a breach of the peace and an infringement on another's right to freedom. Case closed.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: |
That's a very Pollyanna view about the Tea Party. The arguments ignore power & power relations in society. Do you subscribe to La Rouche as well? |
From my very brief and assuredly ignorant reading on the LaRouche movement, they want to build an epic high speed rail network across Europe & Asia, tear down speculative economics and banking and colonize Mars. Where do I sign up  |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | ^ Bahh. An irrelevant quote, followed by self-contradiction. As you say yourself, harassing someone verbally in public is NOT free speech, it is a breach of the peace and an infringement on another's right to freedom. Case closed. |
Not really, you're equating verbal violence and speech that you don't like to be the same thing. If I'm sitting on the Train and someone says "**** I hate white people, those cracker scumbags are always looking down on me" then this person has engaged in Free speech. I despise what they say, I find them rude, racist, bigoted and ignorant but I believe they should be able to have this conversation (change the racial group to suit your own experience). Now if this same person sat across from me and said "**** you whitey scumbag, why don't you jump of this train before I throw you off" and then proceeded to expand upon this with more insults and threats then that is then violently infringing on MY rights.
First example leads to someone/s being offended, no damage done and probably people telling the idiot to pull his head in. The second example will and should lead to arrest. Constantly obfuscating the argument against Freedom of Expression by bringing up public verbal harassment or incitement to violence is, while quite convincing, nonetheless a strawman argument that doesn't logically lead to the necessity of infringing on basic human rights. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| woodisgood wrote: | .......
Or how are you proposing to deal with the paradox of a left wing pinko bisexual who works in refugee advocacy like me finding nothing much in the passage you quoted that I disagree with? Maybe I'm a crypto-fascist? |
Do you really want me to answer that?
I did like your joke about the tea party though. 
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
