Trolls can now be sent to prison

[sapphi_snake]

Dodece said:

sapphi_snake said:

Dodece said:
It has been said that being an asshole is every humans god given right. I would not consider what this gentlemen did to be a crime, but I live in a Republic. Which means I live in a nation of laws not men. In the United States the right to freedom of speech is almost absolute. With very few exceptions, and to be honest about that we like it that way. To be bitterly blunt anyone thinking the United States will follow Europe's lead on this doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. You might think we are the same, but we are not. I am not saying that this court is wrong in how it interprets the laws it functions under, and if that is what the people of that nation want it is fine by me. I wouldn't like to live in such a state however.

Frankly I find internet shrines to be a form of trolling themselves. Trolling is not about getting a negative reaction. It is about getting a reaction. This gentlemen is looking for negative reinforcement, but the parents were looking for positive reinforcement. Both were about getting a reaction to satisfy a emotional need. Though a pity me troll goes about getting fed differently then the asshole troll. It doesn't mean they were not all trolling. Trolling is just another word for attention seeking, and frankly I am getting tired of it only being viewed in a negative fashion.

Trolling is very much necessary for a healthy community, and without their antics the community suffers, and if you think this community doesn't thrive from its population of trolls you are deluding yourself. Someone has to push the buttons to keep a community motivated. Implying otherwise is just stupid, and in the case of this story the irony is probably this. His negative antics probably generated a ground swell of positive retorts. Defending the targets of his attacks.

So as twisted as it may seem he probably did these people a favor. What are a few negative comments if it brings about thousands of well wishes. By the way the opposite of love is indifference not hate. So he is actually a little bit ahead of the vast majority. In that he cared enough to respond. Which spurred the community into action on the behalf of his targets. Like I said I think the action was extreme on the part of that community, but you know what he got the response.

So he was doing them a favor by harassing them? Nice thinking...

Oh, and the Soviet Union was also a 'Republic'. The word doesn't describe what you think it describes.

Since when has public discourse been granted the same status as private communication?  I really want to understand this twisted logic. These parents opened a public space encouraged public discourse. They invited publi c communication, and in doing so they voided their right to privacy in that space. They still seem to have retained their privacy outside of that space. Am I missing something in this story did he make personal contact with these people. Did he send them mail, or email. Did he in any way meet them in real life. All I see is someone who made snarky comments about a dead person in a public space. Oh and yes the likes of Face Book, and other social media spaces are public. You can always choose not to participate, or withdrawal yourself from scrutiny at any time. The only real harrassment I see here is what the parents did to themselves. By indulging, and fixating on a loud mouthed shmuck.

Forgive me on the second count I was referring to a Constitutional Republic. Which is based upon inviolable law rather then majority rule. In the United States the law is final. Where as in other forms of Republics the governing body or document can be altered.

You are aware that people can be held accoutnable for what they say in public, not what they say in private, no? And describing what he did as 'making snarky comments' is a quite minimizing what he did. Go read the article.

And the constitution can be altered through constitutional amendments.