victory for the trolls

D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
If you're being seriously hurt or getting "PTSD" (effing lol) from Twitter comments, you're doing the internet wrong and should probably get off the computer.

Way too many overly-sensitive people these days, SMH...
 

KineticChain

Hall of Fame
Good. Someone shouldn't have to go to prison just because they disagree with a SJW.
dNVvntX.gif
 

Digital Atheist

Hall of Fame
I'll refrain from the trigger warning while waving my "jazz hands" in vehement approval.

The really sad thing is what that dude had to go through just BECAUSE of an accusation. While he was waiting to be found innocent, the poor sod was prohibited from accessing the internet, which, given his profession, naturally impacted severely upon his ability to make an income. Will he be compensated for lost earnings, or does Canada allow for a civil suit of sorts to be brought against the Crown or the women in question? And if not, how can this be right?

Thank God (small joke there) NZ isn't as bad as Canada, but it's well on the way. I'd like to be able to say I'll pack up and move to Aussie if we ever have an SJW Prime Minister ... but ... it seems there's no escape!!! Sweden seems a bit far away, and the girlfriend would disapprove :p
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The reality is that this person would have been found guilty of harassment in many jurisdictions. The law above only prohibits threats. The rather ridiculous aspect of the above decision is that anyone making a threat can already be charged with a crime no matter what media is used so the law appears simply redundant. This is the wider law in one Australian state:


Menacing, harassing or offensive use of the internet or a mobile
It is a crime to use a phone or the internet in to threaten, harass or seriously offend somebody . A message or post could be considered offensive if it is likely to cause serious anger, outrage, humiliation or disgust. The maximum penalty is 3 years in jail .

Real life examples:
In 2010, a 20 year old guy in QLD sent threats and hate-filled texts and Facebook messages to his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. He was found guilty of using phone and internet services in a menacing, harassing or offensive way and placed on probation with an order to attend counselling.

In 2011, a teenager in NSW made a Facebook page called “All ___ Police Are Corrupt”, which included the names of several local police officers. He was charged with harassing and offensive use of the internet .

Threats
It is a crime to intentionally frighten someone by threatening to hurt them. This can be through your phone, text message, emails or online posts. Threatening to kill someone carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail. .

It is also a crime in South Australia to make (or encourage others to make) threats of physical harm to a person because of their race,.

Real life examples:
In 2006, a teenager in NSW threatened to kill two of his teachers and a girl at his school on his MySpace page. He was charged with making threats.

In 2009, a guy in WA posted a video on YouTube that showed him making threatening comments towards people of a particular ethnic and religious background. He was charged under racial hate laws.

Stalking
Stalking is when someone gets repeated attention that intimidates or frightens them. Stalking can include making unwanted phone calls, emails, text messages and messages on Facebook/Twitter etc. Stalking is a crime in South Australia if you call, message or otherwise bother somebody twice or more with the intent to harm, harass or scare them. The maximum penalty is 3 years in jail (but can be higher if the person uses a weapon or breaks a court order).

Real life example
In 2009, a guy in VIC copied pictures from a girl’s profile and posted them on adult websites, along with her name and contact details. He was found guilty of stalking and sentenced to jail.

In 2011, a teenager in WA who had befriended an American girl on Facebook began sending her threatening messages and unwanted gifts. He was arrested for stalking.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The Canadian law states:

The Criminal Code defines criminal harassment, in part, as engaging “in conduct… that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.”

Criminal harassment carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.


The guy was probably correctly freed because he stayed on the right side of making threats, but he obviously harassed and stalked the women on the evidence provided.

Whether you think this should be allowed is a matter of opinion, but the rules of this forum prohibit such activity, no?
 
Time for those delicate flowers to get a life.
As long as he didn't physically threaten them, he shouldn't be arrested. When people are arrested for hurt feelings, we are talking about a fascist police state.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
So you'd cope with someone stalking your wife and children, taking pictures of of them in public and putting your wife and adult children up on adult porn sites?

As well, of course, as making lewd suggestions every time they turned around as it is, after all, free speech without the slightest threat involved.

Time for those delicate flowers to get a life.
As long as he didn't physically threaten them, he shouldn't be arrested. When people are arrested for hurt feelings, we are talking about a fascist police state.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
So you'd cope with someone stalking your wife and children, taking pictures of of them in public and putting your wife and adult children up on adult porn sites?
Wait, no-one's doing that though are they?
That's obviously an offense and should be.

But words alone, with no compromising info?
"SJWs" just need to grow up.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
I give the judge a 5/7.
Mmm, sounds like their decision was based on the Twitter troll posts not being strongly-worded enough.
So in other words, he could still have gone to jail for making online comments. :rolleyes:

What a failure of the system.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It's not an offense of criminal harassment under Canadian law, it would appear. What obvious offence is it if it takes place online?

It's not obvious to me.

Wait, no-one's doing that though are they?
That's obviously an offense and should be.

But words alone, with no compromising info?
"SJWs" just need to grow up.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
It's not an offense of criminal harassment under Canadian law, it would appear. What obvious offence is it if it takes place online?

It's not obvious to me.
Posting actual pictures of someone on a p0rn site without their permission isn't criminal?
Are you serious? :eek:
 

Digital Atheist

Hall of Fame
So you'd cope with someone stalking your wife and children, taking pictures of of them in public and putting your wife and adult children up on adult porn sites?

As well, of course, as making lewd suggestions every time they turned around as it is, after all, free speech without the slightest threat involved.

Oh come now, for the love of God!

When Bhagi Katbamna made the comment about "physically threatening", given the case in question, one could reasonably infer it was a direct comparison to potentially being jailed for "online threatening", and the follow-up "hurt feelings" comment was directly connected to that. But I think you know it already, and damnit, now you just cost me a parking ticket :p What's your physical address so I can forward the bill? Or perhaps I just want it for the express purpose of stalking you!!!
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Which criminal law would be broken? In South Australia it would be stalking, I'd presume:

Stalking
Stalking is when someone gets repeated attention that intimidates or frightens them. Stalking can include making unwanted phone calls, emails, text messages and messages on Facebook/Twitter etc. Stalking is a crime in South Australia if you call, message or otherwise bother somebody twice or more with the intent to harm, harass or scare them. The maximum penalty is 3 years in jail (but can be higher if the person uses a weapon or breaks a court order).

Real life example
In 2009, a guy in VIC copied pictures from a girl’s profile and posted them on adult websites, along with her name and contact details. He was found guilty of stalking and sentenced to jail.

In 2011, a teenager in WA who had befriended an American girl on Facebook began sending her threatening messages and unwanted gifts. He was arrested for stalking.


But criminal harassment does not include stalking in Canada, only direct threats to safety. The judge makes reference to things like stalking and harassment.

He concludes however there are no threats to safety and therefore no infraction of the law.


Posting actual pictures of someone on a p0rn site without their permission isn't criminal?
Are you serious? :eek:
 

pushing_wins

Hall of Fame
So you'd cope with someone stalking your wife and children, taking pictures of of them in public and putting your wife and adult children up on adult porn sites?

As well, of course, as making lewd suggestions every time they turned around as it is, after all, free speech without the slightest threat involved.


i can take a photo of anyone in public without their permission. and i have ownership rights to those photos. for that reason, i should be able to post them anywhere as long as i dont slander anyone. correct?
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Which criminal law would be broken? In South Australia it would be stalking, I'd presume:

Stalking
Stalking is when someone gets repeated attention that intimidates or frightens them. Stalking can include making unwanted phone calls, emails, text messages and messages on Facebook/Twitter etc. Stalking is a crime in South Australia if you call, message or otherwise bother somebody twice or more with the intent to harm, harass or scare them. The maximum penalty is 3 years in jail (but can be higher if the person uses a weapon or breaks a court order).

Real life example
In 2009, a guy in VIC copied pictures from a girl’s profile and posted them on adult websites, along with her name and contact details. He was found guilty of stalking and sentenced to jail.

In 2011, a teenager in WA who had befriended an American girl on Facebook began sending her threatening messages and unwanted gifts. He was arrested for stalking.


But criminal harassment does not include stalking in Canada, only direct threats to safety. The judge makes reference to things like stalking and harassment.

He concludes however there are no threats to safety and therefore no infraction of the law.
Anonymous threatening messages online are not threats to safety - the threats are almost without exception completely empty and often only half-hearted anyway.
Words are very, very cheap.

I think that a person would have to demonstrate justified, reasonable belief that a threat was not empty before it even came close to being a criminal issue.
An anon troll on Twitter simply does not satisfy this - a better example would be someone you know IRL sending you a private email saying they're going to do bad and illegal things to you. There is good reason to suspect, in that case, that the offender may be willing and/or able to actually carry through with the threat.

"Hurting feelings" should never be a crime - growing a spine might help those affected by that one.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Physically threatened is a term that comes from the case and if you can do everything but that you are indeed permitted a wide range of conduct, no?

Oh come now, for the love of God!

When Bhagi Katbamna made the comment about "physically threatening", given the case in question, one could reasonably infer it was a direct comparison to potentially being jailed for "online threatening", and the follow-up "hurt feelings" comment was directly connected to that. But I think you know it already, and damnit, now you just cost me a parking ticket :p What's your physical address so I can forward the bill? Or perhaps I just want it for the express purpose of stalking you!!!
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
That's my understanding. I'm not sure you can commercially exploit the image of a non-public person in all circumstances without the agreement of the model, but that varies.

But if the person has a public profile or the image is not commercially exploited it's fine in most places.

i can take a photo of anyone in public without their permission. and i have ownership rights to those photos. for that reason, i should be able to post them anywhere as long as i dont slander anyone. correct?
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
i can take a photo of anyone in public without their permission. and i have ownership rights to those photos. for that reason, i should be able to post them anywhere as long as i dont slander anyone. correct?
Can you also do that with a concealed camera?

Lol, I know, but serious question. :D :)
 

Digital Atheist

Hall of Fame
Posting actual pictures of someone on a p0rn site without their permission isn't criminal?
Are you serious? :eek:

Well if you got the pictures (porn, right?) by taking them when an individual was in a private setting, there are strict privacy laws. There's the voyeurism law in the Sexual Offences Act. There's another here (NZ) against publishing any explicit photo without consent. There are also obscenity laws prohibiting the making or dissemination of obscene images.

I'm no expert in Australian or Canadian law, but I would suspect some if not ALL of those exist to some degree.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Well if you got the pictures (porn, right?) by taking them when an individual was in a private setting, there are strict privacy laws. There's the voyeurism law in the Sexual Offences Act. There's another here (NZ) against publishing any explicit photo without consent. There are also obscenity laws prohibiting the making or dissemination of obscene images.

I'm no expert in Australian or Canadian law, but I would suspect some if not ALL of those exist to some degree.
My thoughts and understanding exactly.

Maybe I misunderstood what Bart's on about though.
 

pushing_wins

Hall of Fame
Hormesis is an example of mild antifragility, where the stressor is a poisonous substance and the antifragile becomes better overall from a small dose of the stressor.

as the saying goes, whatever doesnt kill you makes you stronger
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It used to be legal or, more accurately, unprohibited by law to photograph a woman in a skirt from behind while she travels up an escalator.

It's a perfectly good argument that women should arrange their affairs before so doing, but the law took a different view.

Can you also do that with a concealed camera?

Lol, I know, but serious question. :D :)
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
It used to be legal or, more accurately, unprohibited by law to photograph a woman in a skirt from behind while she travels up an escalator.

It's a perfectly good argument that women should arrange their affairs before so doing, but the law took a different view.
I mean like, for instance, having a micro-camera in the side of one's sunglasses and snapping photos of people 40m away from you at a beach or in a shopping complex, in a non-sexual manner (or at least apparently so).
Does the law frown upon that?

(God that sounds dodgy :lol: )
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
We weren't talking about pictures likely to be degrading or pornographic taken in a space understood to be private. These laws are quite new, by the way.

And I wasn't talking about publishing obscene images. I was talking about posting images taken in public in places individuals would not necessarily approve.

Well if you got the pictures (porn, right?) by taking them when an individual was in a private setting, there are strict privacy laws. There's the voyeurism law in the Sexual Offences Act. There's another here (NZ) against publishing any explicit photo without consent. There are also obscenity laws prohibiting the making or dissemination of obscene images.

I'm no expert in Australian or Canadian law, but I would suspect some if not ALL of those exist to some degree.
 
Last edited:

Digital Atheist

Hall of Fame
Physically threatened is a term that comes from the case and if you can do everything but that you are indeed permitted a wide range of conduct, no?

To quote the article:

"Elliott was cleared, in part, because — though the judge noted his words were sometimes “insulting and homophobic” — his tweets were not considered overtly sexually or physically threatening."

Just because the Judge specifically mentioned those two things, that does not automatically mean you can do everything BUT said things. Unsurprising however, given your frequent use of contextomy and straw men. Please repeat after me "Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies"!!
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Apparently there is a law now in Australia that if someone is dropping their trousers in an obscure part of the beach a photograph of that may be a problem.

But if someone just does it brazenly on a public beach without a care in the world then how could they have a right to privacy? They've waived it by their actions.

You can photograph and film police interviewing you so you can pretty much do that to anyone absent privacy considerations.

A shopping complex is a private space so the centre may move against you.


I mean like, for instance, having a micro-camera in the side of one's sunglasses and snapping photos of people 40m away from you at a beach or in a shopping complex.
Does the law frown upon that?

(God that sounds dodgy :lol: )
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Apparently there is a law now in Australia that if someone is dropping their trousers in an obscure part of the beach a photograph of that may be a problem.

But if someone just does it brazenly on a public beach without a care in the world then how could they have a right to privacy? They've waived it by their actions.

You can photograph and film police interviewing you so you can pretty much do that to anyone absent privacy considerations.

A shopping complex is a private space so the centre may move against you.
Seems reasonable enough.
Now to get those sunglasses... :D
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Did you read the definition of criminal harassment that I quoted. It has to be a threat to reach the threshold.

If there were lesser charges of harassment or stalking they could have prosecuted under they would have presumably.

Given the judge's remarks, lesser charges would have been easy to make out.

To quote the article:

"Elliott was cleared, in part, because — though the judge noted his words were sometimes “insulting and homophobic” — his tweets were not considered overtly sexually or physically threatening."

Just because the Judge specifically mentioned those two things, that does not automatically mean you can do everything BUT said things. Unsurprising however, given your frequent use of contextomy and straw men. Please repeat after me "Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies"!!
 

Digital Atheist

Hall of Fame
We weren't taling about pictures likely to be degrading taken in a space understood to be private. These laws are quite new, by the way.

And I wasn't talking about publishing obscene images. I was talking about posting images in places individuals would not necessarily approve.

When you say "we", you are mistaken. Firstservingman said the following:
Posting actual pictures of someone on a p0rn site without their permission isn't criminal?
Are you serious? :eek:

And that is who I was responding to regarding the legal ramifications of his question. That's also why I quoted him and only him in my response because I know he misunderstood you.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I don't see how anonymity is that relevant if behind that veil there is the same person stalking and harassing you.

In Australia this would immediately be a criminal issue, but perhaps not in Canada where the threat has to be to safety.

Anonymous threatening messages online are not threats to safety - the threats are almost without exception completely empty and often only half-hearted anyway.
Words are very, very cheap.

I think that a person would have to demonstrate justified, reasonable belief that a threat was not empty before it even came close to being a criminal issue.
An anon troll on Twitter simply does not satisfy this - a better example would be someone you know IRL sending you a private email saying they're going to do bad and illegal things to you. There is good reason to suspect, in that case, that the offender may be willing and/or able to actually carry through with the threat.

"Hurting feelings" should never be a crime - growing a spine might help those affected by that one.
 

Digital Atheist

Hall of Fame
It took me a decade or so to avert my eyes completely when women in short skirts jumped on an escalator and I'm only just there.

Yeah, that one can be tricky. As long as you don't hold the gaze and it's accidental, what can you do? Upskirting was a practice that went unpunished for a while here - somewhat disgusting and I just don't get that kind of behaviour.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I see now. We are by the way venturing into the terrain of that famous pre-internet film:

27330%20-%20Cape%20Fear.jpg



When you say "we", you are mistaken. Firstservingman said the following:


And that is who I was responding to regarding the legal ramifications of his question. That's also why I quoted him and only him in my response because I know he misunderstood you.
 

Digital Atheist

Hall of Fame
I see now. We are by the way venturing into the terrain of that famous pre-internet film:

OK that was kinda funny ;) Still, this damned interweb has a lot to answer for!!!

Speaking of funny, I used to watch 2 Broke Girls on occasion when in need of a laugh, but recently I discovered a sureshs tribute thread. I gotta tell you, it's a gold mine!
 

Digital Atheist

Hall of Fame
^^^ Actually, I don't think it's even about geographical location (Merica aint anywhere near me!) but you're right -- the topic is somewhat polarising and could be considered a form of clickbait, even though the OP probably never intended such a thing! Benefit of the doubt and all that :D And I certainly can't cry foul, because I went and had a little nibble and was instantly hooked!
 
Time for those delicate flowers to get a life.
As long as he didn't physically threaten them, he shouldn't be arrested. When people are arrested for hurt feelings, we are talking about a fascist police state.
While I support the guy's freedom to be a jerk without getting thrown in prison, just because you don't like something doesn't make it fascist.
 
Top