So like sort of a sadist?

Therefore again: you are saying it's perfectly fine for people to be insulted, abused and harassed online - your answer is to just ignore it.

My answer would be: boot such a person off a forum. Your answer is let them say what they want, regardless.

I'm stunned. (and I have to be honest and consider the meaning of the word 'troll').

Facebook doesn't allow free speech, I just looked at their rules

So it would be a waste of time reporting any post on this forum that offended me if you were the only Mod online at that time?

Have you since being made mod ever infracted, warned or even banned anyone for something offensive?

You obviously dont have to answer that question above. I can just browse the ban list ;)

Yeah, I suppose so, I mean not feeling anything isn't motivation to something like this, feeling good at others misery is

You're so determined to make a personal response that you completely missed the point. I never said that it's okay to abuse someone online just that it's easier to deal with then in it is real life as a user can be ignored, blocked and banned ETC. That's a fact, a lot of sites put measures in place to deal with abuse. Such measures don't exist in real life where abuse can and often will escalate into something more.

C'mon guys stick to the point. Try not to make personal digs

Reporting a post would come under the same umbrella as my ignoring argument, it's a passive response instead of an active one so that the troll isn't getting the reaction they want.

It does beg the question: what point is there in reporting posts - ie; if the report is being attended to be a moderator who thinks there is nothing wrong with insulting and being abusive.


As for the question you asked above: I can categorically confirm that has happened to me on a personal level and to no small amount either.

Yes but in you dealing with the report, you are then effectively taking over the job of the CPS in this case.

You have to decide about the post, whether it follows site rules, whether the person reporting has a genuine greivance or point. But most of all whether the poster of the offending post should in some way be dealt with.

If this is the case and you genuinely believe what you have already stated about free speech, then by following your beliefs, you would simply leave the post and tell the reporter to ignore the post/thread/poster

TBF: it's a pretty shocking admission for a moderator to state - and continually. It has only become 'personal' because Dezzy has been so very open about his feeling on the matter - that online insults and abuse are acceptable.

it would have no bearing at all if those comments were from a general member, but I'm sure you can see why there is the reaction there is: and in raising 'alarm bells'.

:conf:

You brought your personal stance on the matter onto the forum. Not I.

I'm so determined?? I see you have refused blank to address the two examples that I gave you - it is clear that you probably don't agree that even online, those example are acceptable otherwise you would have said so, but you avoided doing that: I'm sure if someone had to say that to you personally, they'd get infracted. In fact. I know they would.

Which takes us right back to the points many others have stated: the terminology 'Free speech', means within the realms of accepability, reasonability and respecting another individual.

it doesnt mean carte blanche to go around saying whatever about anyone you feel you want to annoy, harrass, be rude to, insult or defame.

I believe that free speech shouldn't be punishable by law, the law and the rules of an informal website such as this are two different things and it's ridiculous to compare them. Banning someone is in no way comparable to sending them to prison thus I don't see the point in this continued attack on my mod status.

Thats the problem, unfortunately for Mr Duffy thats the law of the land. Just as he has a right to free speech

People have a right not to be insulted.
People have a right not to be harrassed.
People have a right not to be bullied.

And that is what the courts are for to decide where one person rights and freedoms infringe on anothers.

In this particular case he didnt just do that to one person, if he had he would have probably just received a caution or an ASBO. Nor in any of the cases in court did he only do it once, it was systematic harrassment or offensive behaviour over a period of time.

He done it to several people, 5 cases of it were brought to the attention of the court, how many others were detected or investigated? How many others did he manage to keep concealed?

I find it interesting that there are so many people weeping and wailing for this man - and I use the term in the loosest possible sense. Everyone's quacking on about freedom of speech without the slightest notion what it means. He was found guilty, in a court of law. I guess the people who tried him and the person who sentenced him know a little bit more about the law than most people on here.

Also, interesting to see a moderator banging on about freedom of speech on a moderated board.

A custodial sentence is ridiculous no matter how you cut it, it's a drain on resources when Facebook should have just banned him and ended the matter there.

I don't see anyone attacking Dezzy. What I do say is some very serious, personal opinion made by you yourself on the subject matter, which is what is being addressed - your opinon, not you personally. By coincedence you happen to be a moderator of an online form. By default it is natural for people therefore to question: would reports of such a nature would not necessarily be dealt with by you (in accordance with that forums online rules) because you feel that what one person regards as an insult, you wouldn't.


Now you appear to be saying: Freedom of Speech should not be punishable by law (yet you mentioned earlier

Quote:

I never said he shouldn't be punished,

. If you think by law it should not be punishable: what do you think he did that was wrong enough for you to say 'he shouldnt be punished'

He gets a new email address and resets his IP, changes ISP, whatever, he is back online and can do the same again any time he likes.

Not all the ins and outs of evidence presented to the court has been published. Therefore he may have slready sidestepped bans imposed.

Eventually someone using the anonymity of the internet to repeatedly harass and offend others has to be held accountable and if need be punished.

You have stated over and over again: that such people should be ignored, that it has no impact in real life.

Why should FB just ban him then, given your repeated stance on the position as far as online is concerned.

The point was raised with regards to that same person not stopping at FB - but uploading youtube clips and mocking, insulting, being abusive there. It's only another example of a million that can be given.

in the very same way that you have clearly ignored several very pertinent examples of online abuse, that have been put to you?

Actully, now I read your reply again: I'd say you were calling others who are replying to you here on this thread, trolls.

I'd consider that pretty much bordering on insulting behaviour.

I'm not weeping for him but good job in trying to make out them I'm some sort of sympathiser instead of trying to tackle my points head on.

The internet as a whole is unmoderated and that's how it should stay as it's the one place, whether for good or bad, allows people to truly say what they think. Of course some places have rules but it's your choice to follow them or not, if you get banned from Tibb it won't affect your real life, you could just join another forum with rules you agree with or even create your own et cetera. I adhere to the rules of this forum and enforce them because I like it here and like I mentioned before my views on free speech don't really come into play here since it's just a light hearted website that holds no impact on any of our lives.

I don't believe someone should be jailed for what this man did, as despicable as he is, what he said was just words and I don't think someone should be sent to prison unless they turn their words into criminal actions.

Thats the problem Dezzy it is a crime thats why he was prosecuted, the court didnt just decide he had upset he few people.

They decided what he had done had broken a law set into stature by Parliament.

He set out on a course to harrass, annoy and offend others. Using the internet as his means of harrassment.

Its against the law of the land.

It could have been dealt with in the past under breach of the peace, however older laws didnt have a capacity to deal with online harrassment.

He caused fear or alarm (offense and harrassment).

Not only in one case but in numerous cases, to numerous people, not once though on a regular basis.


As for being sent to prison for just words.

Go get really drunk, then late one saturday night at chucking out time find a young black copper who is at the end of a long shift. Annoy him and then when he tells you to go home give him a bit of lip, you know as close as you like to being but not quite being racist. After all its just words.

Dont just do it the once though, when you get released do it again, and then again and again.

Aggressive passive stance by chance?

Does insulting and being abusive to other members count as adhering to the rules Dezzy.....?

As I said, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It doesn't matter how horrible or insulting it is that was said.

Yes, both those examples are freedom of speech- however you've purposely picked extreme examples.

But that is exactly what freedom of speech means in it's purest form. There will always be controversy over the matter. There is no black and white.