[Grizzly]

You may not be, but it's quite clear that other people are. You link to an obviously slanted website linking to an obvious slanted website quoting an obviously slanted defense laywer of an obviously slanted man who may or may not be a harasser (currently in court, so...) - All of them with the intent of ensuring that they are can not be held accountable for the awfull **** people utter on the internet (because what is the internet coming to!).

Very well, I challenge you to find a liberal outlet reporting on this case in a "reasonable" manner that better exposes the facts. Funny thing, I haven't found it.

Off course not! People get charged for harassment all the time. The case is only interesting for people who want to construct some sort of narrative of feminists arresting you for your opinions on the internet. It's part of this "THERE IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE WE ARE HEADING DOWN ON" narrative that has to be created in order to rally people for a cause.

[Luis Dias]

Meanwhile the guy is facing jail and wasting huge resources on courts and lawyers due to some twitter conversations, but that's alright, because that reality isn't really real you see, it's just "right wing paranoia". I'm sure that's a whole lot of comfort for the guy who has lost his job and all his savings.

I can't make this stuff up, it's like Twillight Zone here.

[headdie]

Yeah nothing to look here, move on, it's just jailing someone for 3 weeks because they made a jokeish hashtag on twitter. Really people, what the fuss is all about? I mean, if we allow stupid hashtags like that, what else will we allow? We must stop this "allowing" stuff. People might confuse this place with a "free society" or something equally disturbing and horrendous.

If she is in a police cell right now I would be surprised.  unless it is a serious crime or it is felt she is a credible threat to society the usual form is arrest, interview, size relevant items, charge, bail until court date, everyone turns up to the trial.
at the trial the prosecution and defence offer their evidence, the defence will argue intent as part of the case, the jury will come to a verdict, then the judge passes sentence if guilty which in this case ranges from a fine to imprisonment.

also 6 months is nothing, she will probably be out on a tag after 3 weeks.  I would also like to add that quite frankly I find it backwards that the person causing offense has more rights that the offended party in the US

So the UK is comparable to a Middle Eastern state?  do you really want to go there?

Accused should always have more rights than the victims. It is the old maxim "better a hundred criminals go free than an innocent go to jail". Certainly much older than a 25 years old weird law. Victim centric legal system is wrong. Punitive power of the government should be restricted by various checks and balances even if it means some people will be offended without compensation. Especially when it comes to trivial offenses such as in this case.

And yes, the UK is comparable to Middle eastern state when it comes to freedom of speech. Especially in last decade or two, after various hate speech laws have been enacted. Just replace "blasphemers, apostates, homosexuals" with "racists, bigots, hate speechers", or whatever the state sanctioned enemy is in this zeitgeist. You probably dont realize how really broad UK laws are to even prosecute something like this. You should read them, it is pretty absurd on paper. I mean, Slovakian laws are pretty oppressive in this, too, and they are still a lot less broad than UK ones. And at least we have the advantage of our government continuing to ignore the very existence of the internet, lol. For once I am glad that it is so incompetent, lol.

and she will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

You make it sound like I live under the cloud of oppression, and yet sitting here that is not the case, I can say what I want so long as I dont go threatening people, promote violence, crime or hate....... that's it and I dont want the right to do that either as I am not the disgusting kind of person who would do such a thing and I am glad that people of a lower moral standard are held to that baseline.

[Ghostavo]

While I get quite a bit of schadenfreude from this, since I had heard of this individual before, I have to agree with Bobboau and Luis Dias.

Speech is incredibly difficult to qualify, bordering on the impossible. And while we personally feel there should be a limit somewhere, none of us can tell exactly where that should be.

In the end, I'd prefer to err on the side of unlimited speech and all the negatives that it can entail, than on the side of censorship.

[Grizzly]

Meanwhile the guy is facing jail and wasting huge resources on courts and lawyers due to some twitter conversations, but that's alright, because that reality isn't really real you see, it's just "right wing paranoia". I'm sure that's a whole lot of comfort for the guy who has lost his job and all his savings.

Untill the verdict is out, we can't really know for sure can we? I'm skeptical because three women individually standing up to a man to hold him accountable for his actions (Accusations of stalking were made) is not something that just happens for the sake of it, thanks to the usual ****vortex that comes with standing up for yourself. Untill the verdict is out and we can read the report, it's really not supporting any of your arguments.

[zookeeper]

I find this thread kinda odd. It seems like before you could have had a thread like this and the idea of shouting fire in a crowd or incitement to violence would have rather universally been agreed to be acceptable exceptions to freedom of speech, whereas now there's many people here suddenly specifically advocating unlimited freedom of speech.

Did people change or do I remember things wrong?

[666maslo666]

You make it sound like I live under the cloud of oppression, and yet sitting here that is not the case, I can say what I want so long as I dont go threatening people, promote violence, crime or hate....... that's it and I dont want the right to do that either as I am not the disgusting kind of person who would do such a thing and I am glad that people of a lower moral standard are held to that baseline.

You are living under the cloud of oppression, you just dont realize it because you are part of the oppressors and lack empathy with those who are prosecuted by these laws, while at the same time pretending to have some illusory moral high ground. Heck, I too am living under the cloud of oppression, and our speech laws and their enforcement are a lot more liberal than UK ones. As I said, this is something I would expect from some third world dictatorship or communist one, not a modern developed nation.

[karajorma]

I wouldn't be so certain your laws are more liberal at all. Remember that the entire EU exists under the European Convention on Human Rights. Which is far more liberal than the constitution in many, many ways. It's simply that we've chosen a different balance than you.

Untill the verdict is out, we can't really know for sure can we? I'm skeptical because three women individually standing up to a man to hold him accountable for his actions (Accusations of stalking were made) is not something that just happens for the sake of it, thanks to the usual ****vortex that comes with standing up for yourself. Untill the verdict is out and we can read the report, it's really not supporting any of your arguments.

Not to mention, let's say that we knew he is 100% innocent. That doesn't automatically mean the law is bad. Are people going to say we should repeal the laws on child pornography cause of this case? Or are we simply going to say that this was an overzealous interpretation of a law which usually protects those who need it. In both the UK and US it's not as simply as law broken = court case. In both cases the choice to prosecute has to go up before someone. The CPS in the case of the UK.

[666maslo666]

I find this thread kinda odd. It seems like before you could have had a thread like this and the idea of shouting fire in a crowd or incitement to violence would have rather universally been agreed to be acceptable exceptions to freedom of speech, whereas now there's many people here suddenly specifically advocating unlimited freedom of speech.

Did people change or do I remember things wrong?

People probably did not realize that "incitement to violence" also describes a stupid tweet or similar trivial matters. Incitement to violence is illegal even in the US however there are some other very strict conditions about what qualifies for that. On the other hand, European laws are extremely broad, to the point where thousands upon thousands of criminal offenses are routinely committed every day, and it is only up to the authorities to decide which ones will they choose to prosecute.

[The E]

I find this thread kinda odd. It seems like before you could have had a thread like this and the idea of shouting fire in a crowd or incitement to violence would have rather universally been agreed to be acceptable exceptions to freedom of speech, whereas now there's many people here suddenly specifically advocating unlimited freedom of speech.

Did people change or do I remember things wrong?

There's a definitive difference to those two things. Incitement to violence, to panic, those things are still bad and punishable. But posting to a hashtag? One that, even to a casual observer, is more about irony and sarcasm and misunderstood feminism than it is about actually going out and murdering some white dudes? That's many things, but a fireable offence it probably isn't.

It's a question of context, basically.

[666maslo666]

Not to mention, let's say that we knew he is 100% innocent. That doesn't automatically mean the law is bad. Are people going to say we should repeal the laws on child pornography cause of this case?

Yes, that law is absolutely bad and it should be at least clarified so that there is an exception for photos of yourself, or near age exceptions, or something like that.

[karajorma]

No law will ever be so perfect it can't be abused by someone bloody minded enough to do it. The problem is not just the law, but the people prosecuting them.

[Luis Dias]

If she is in a police cell right now I would be surprised.  unless it is a serious crime or it is felt she is a credible threat to society the usual form is arrest, interview, size relevant items, charge, bail until court date, everyone turns up to the trial.
at the trial the prosecution and defence offer their evidence, the defence will argue intent as part of the case, the jury will come to a verdict, then the judge passes sentence if guilty which in this case ranges from a fine to imprisonment.

The process is part of the punishment. I seriously advise people to read more Kafka.

[zookeeper]

People probably did not realize that "incitement to violence" also describes a stupid tweet or similar trivial matters. Incitement to violence is illegal even in the US however there are some other very strict conditions about what qualifies for that. On the other hand, European laws are extremely broad, to the point where thousands upon thousands of criminal offenses are routinely committed every day, and it is only up to the authorities to decide which ones will they choose to prosecute.

There's a definitive difference to those two things. Incitement to violence, to panic, those things are still bad and punishable. But posting to a hashtag? One that, even to a casual observer, is more about irony and sarcasm and misunderstood feminism than it is about actually going out and murdering some white dudes? That's many things, but a fireable offence it probably isn't.

It's a question of context, basically.

I wasn't referring to the tweet, but the seemingly unrelated statements made since.

"You are living under the cloud of oppression"
"I'd prefer to err on the side of unlimited speech and all the negatives that it can entail"
"Do I agree with absolute free speech? Yes."
"never communication of ideas, thoughts, feelings or desires"
etc.

Ok, so, in retrospect that's only like 4 people who have just posted a lot, not "many people".

[headdie]

You make it sound like I live under the cloud of oppression, and yet sitting here that is not the case, I can say what I want so long as I dont go threatening people, promote violence, crime or hate....... that's it and I dont want the right to do that either as I am not the disgusting kind of person who would do such a thing and I am glad that people of a lower moral standard are held to that baseline.

You are living under the cloud of oppression, you just dont realize it because you are part of the oppressors and lack empathy with those who are prosecuted by these laws, while at the same time pretending to have some illusory moral high ground. Heck, I too am living under the cloud of oppression, and our speech laws and their enforcement are a lot more liberal than UK ones. As I said, this is something I would expect from some third world dictatorship or communist one, not a modern developed nation.

Ok while in the abstract what you say has merit, in the real world it fails to take into account the problems caused by human nature.

[AtomicClucker]

Well, the issues are defining limits of what constitutes as the limits of "harmful" in free speech.

The age old anecdote of yelling fire in a crowded theatre applies. Free Speech is a double edged sword - make outrageous and potentially criminal claims? Prepare to own up to it.

Vagueness is the greatest danger and strength of free speech. And unlike like many European countries its enshrined in our policies, even if our government does a terrible job at administering it.

This isn't a swipe at you Euros, but my government, at least at the onset, understood that a robust protection of basic dialogue rights was needed. Various legal cases, court battles, etc have established a clear requirement of establishing that "harm" actually has to have strong evidence showing the accused seeks to carry out on their threats, not merely to incite.

As for the kook who spun #killallwhitemen? Well, this should be a cautionary tale of special interest groups demanding the right to define what is and isn't harmful speech. The crazy RadFems want the exclusive right to determine which speech is harmful or not, but I find it pretty great the methods they're trying to use can and will be deployed against them as well.

[Ghostavo]

Going by twitter, she might be even crazier than we thought.

Remember kids, "any violence that happens to tories at an anti #tory #demo ain't violence. Its[sic] self defense."

[Bobboau]

well, hey, you know all the stuff that happens when women try to defend themselves in the patriarchy, she's a victim you aren't allowed to oppress her.
wow, she must have a very interesting definition of "fascist" to claim to be anti.

there,  see the system works, she didn't need to be escorted to jail, a little bit of sarcastic ridicule of her and her victimhood cult and everything is settled again.

[Grizzly]

You guys seriously should grow a thicker skin.

[Bobboau]

hey, Josh, the eh... the wage gap isn't real...