Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4560478)

Aggressive passive stance by chance?

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

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 4560432)

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?

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4560478)

Aggressive passive stance by chance?

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

Originally Posted by Conor (Post 4560488)

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.

Originally Posted by Conor (Post 4560488)

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.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 4560498)

Fair points but I don't think we'll ever agree on it, I just think it's a waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 4560500)

Stick to the topic and stop getting personal with Dezzy please Pyramid. Your last few posts seem to be an attack on him rather than debating the topic of the thread.

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4560524)

It is very difficult not to correlate the very clear thoughts as put over by Dezzy himself (ie: his opinion) on the subject, and to ignore such passion on his part, given Dezzy's position - it's the conflict in what is being said vs what happens in actual fact - it's the disparity I've been raising / questioning : rather than an attack on Dezzy as a person.

Although I have to say: I'm not the only one who has addressed this same conflict, perhaps the manner in which I've done has been harsher than intended.

I'm happy to accept that if that is the way I personally coming over, it is the disparity I have been questioning and bemused by: not the person as an individual.

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 4560509)

What is the waste of money though?

The prosecution? No I think the prosecution is right, it helps to show people what the actual relevant law is, it educates them to behaviour that wont be tolerated, it gives back a sense of protection to those suffering harrassment etc, new hope if you like.

The punishment? Yes will agree with your point there, I think 360hours+ on a community payback order in addition to some sort of properly supervised counsilling sessions etc would have been more beneficial to him. But the punishment is down to the bench to decide. Dont forget though before a custodial sentence is imposed there will have been input from social workers, psychiatrists and other relevant professionals.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 4560600)

The prison sentence really, it costs a lot to keep someone in custody and I generally think that custodial sentences shouldn't be handed out if they're only gonna be for a few weeks since it's kind of pointless.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 4560600)

The prison sentence really, it costs a lot to keep someone in custody and I generally think that custodial sentences shouldn't be handed out if they're only gonna be for a few weeks since it's kind of pointless.

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4560673)

It could be appealed against.... by the CPS. His sentence could increase.

A short sharp spell in amongst some real proper hard men, might knock some sense into him. (in every sense of the word)

Now that it has been publicised - people in 'real life' will know what he is capable of - that would not happen necessarily if he was some anonymous FB persona. Therefore the impact on him, short sentence or not: will be far greater than simply 'banning' him from Facebook.

Originally Posted by James (Post 4560736)

The trouble with the Internet / social media / online communities etc. is there's too many people thinking they can post things without ever having to be held responsible for them. (Incidentally, I think that was a major contributing factor to the recent riots as well).

Banning from Facebook and using ignore facilities isn't very effective because users just get around it by creating new identities. It needs stronger action to show that actions like this have consequences.

Originally Posted by James (Post 4560736)

The trouble with the Internet / social media / online communities etc. is there's too many people thinking they can post things without ever having to be held responsible for them. (Incidentally, I think that was a major contributing factor to the recent riots as well).

Banning from Facebook and using ignore facilities isn't very effective because users just get around it by creating new identities. It needs stronger action to show that actions like this have consequences.

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 4560717)

Nah he got the maximum sentences for the crime he was on trial for, they wouldnt ask for an increase. They cant really.

Only grounds he could have sentenced increased was if they decided to go for a different charge but again in the scheme of things that would only be done if they found some point of law to give them the opportunity. As much chance of that as I have of having the christmas number one this year.

Originally Posted by James (Post 4560736)

The trouble with the Internet / social media / online communities etc. is there's too many people thinking they can post things without ever having to be held responsible for them. (Incidentally, I think that was a major contributing factor to the recent riots as well).

Banning from Facebook and using ignore facilities isn't very effective because users just get around it by creating new identities. It needs stronger action to show that actions like this have consequences.

Originally Posted by Eoin (Post 4560739)

You got the list of trolls I PM'd you? :tongue:

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 4560495)

I'm not lowering myself to your level Pyramid, instead of trying to rile me up into a confrontation you should report anything you have a problem with and the other mods will look at it.

Originally Posted by Eoin (Post 4560739)

You got the list of trolls I PM'd you? :tongue:

Originally Posted by ▲¯\_(ツ)_/¯▲ (Post 4560800)

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

Believe me, I despise this guy.

Originally Posted by Grimnir (Post 4561556)

i thought asperger's syndrome was a mental illness

so should he not be sent hospital rather than jail? :shrug:

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 4560264)

It is NOT free speech.

I can't imagine where people are getting the idea that mocking someone who is dead, causing people untold grief and anxiety is that same thing as free speech? Is it not!

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4562646)

It is free speech though. He did nothing but write words. To claim that someone's speech is responsible for other people's actions, is to take the responsibility from the people who ACTUALLY acted and did wrong.

People should be judged by what they DO, not by what they say or write.

the US first amendment get's it right. You may say or write whatever you like. Everyone will be held to account for their own ACTIONS, you cannot blame someone's actions on another person for saying or writing something.

Words are just words. Words are NOT violent. Actions are violent. and anyone who acts violently should be punished.

No one should be punished for WORDS.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 4562695)

Do me a favour... walk into your local airport and say you support Al Qaida's right to bomb the west. Claim it's free speech. See how far it gets you.