Quote:
Originally Posted by Josy
I disagree that what this man done was 'Freedom of Speech' he intentionally created that twitter account with the sole purpose of inflicting abuse on this family.
If anything what this idiot done would be described in law as nearer to a 'hate' speech which is speech, gesture, conduct or writing, that disparages or intimidates or incites violence etc
But even calling it any kind of speech is reaching IMO, he set out to do one thing and that was to deliberately cause distress to the child's mother and family.
I don't see how censorship comes into at all, if he was giving his opinion on something then fair enough I could understand the freedom of speech/censorship argument but no he was just being a 100% nasty git for the sake of causing hurt to others.
|
Absolutely right, I am not in favour of internet censorship but when people are found to be doing things like this,they should face the consequences for their deliberate actions.
I try to imagine these things in the context of what if it was my child or nephew or niece had been taken,tortured and murdered and left to rot,then some daft cracker comes along and sets up something saying it is the ghost/spirit of the murdered child.
I would really be going off it and demanding action.
How sick is that,it should be a crime and he should be punished,in fact he shouldn't be allowed on the internet again.
The worst part of this he is over 60, we are not even talking about a child/teen here.
If something is reported to the police, they generally have to investigate, if they can find something to charge someone with then so be it and I hope they do in this case.
This person is vile to prey on peoples grief and the torment they have already suffered since little Jamie's horrific and despicable murder.
I would have not an ounce of sympathy for this idiot that set out deliberately to bring more distress to James family.