Manchester's Self-Described 'Internet Troll' Jailed For Offensive Web Posts 321
noob22 writes "According to BBC Online, 'An "internet troll" who posted obscene messages on Facebook sites set up in memory of dead people has been jailed. Colm Coss, of Ardwick, Manchester, posted on a memorial page for Big Brother star Jade Goody and a tribute site to John Paul Massey, a Liverpool boy mauled to death by a dog. The 36-year-old "preyed on bereaved families" for his "own pleasure," Manchester Magistrates Court heard.'" My favorite line: "Unemployed Coss was only caught when he sent residents on his street photos of himself saying he was an internet 'troll.'"
Why so few posts? (Score:5, Funny)
First they came for the trolls...
Then it was a lot quieter?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm so reporting you to the Manchester police for trolling trolls on slashdot. You've been backtraced and you'll face what will never be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... and nothing of value was lost?
The Law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"a message which is indecent or grossly offensive"
I'm offended by your comment! Why haven't you been jailed!?
Re: (Score:2)
Because whilst you might make any random claim to be offended, you have persuade the Police to agree, who have to get the Crown Prosecution Service to agree, who have to persuade a jury of twelve ordinary people to agree.
By this time you can be sure that the message was indeed "indecent or grossly offensive" in the eyes of the average reasonable person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I think 18 weeks is too steep, even here in the US there have been limitations on free speech beyond your examples. I think the key difference in the US and UK here is that it would very difficult to prosecute under the comments being "obscene" in the US, as that particular word has always been considered too subjective for most courts. There would have been a better chance to sue (and win) in a civil court for harassment/mental distress, which has a lower standard. The whole O.J. incident demonstr
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't have worked, as the troll could have created a new account and continued. Even IP bans don't work, as disconnecting and reconnecting to an ISP (possibly after a timeout) tends to result in the allocation of a new IP.
The expectation on facebook isn't the same as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
serious threats and harassment are one thing. Posting obscene or mean things is another.
Can you provide clear guidelines for telling those apart? E.g. in case of this guy, why do you believe that his actions did not constitute harassment?
Why would you think like that? (Score:2, Interesting)
There are several reasons why "free speech" is important. One of the primary ones is that it allows people to criticize the society/government/etc. which is very important part of the democratic system. Another common one is that it is a human right to freely express yourself (creating whatever type of art, shouting out your sexual identity, whatever) without being restricted by laws. Actually, in most of Europe the constitutions are based on these two concepts. For example, finnish constitution [finlex.fi] states that
Re: (Score:2)
In pretty much all countries . even the US - freedom of speech is not absolute. Because there always are dickheads who abuse otherwise good things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations_on_freedom_of_speech [wikipedia.org]
Not about viewpoints or beliefs (Score:2)
This is not about expressing an objectionable belief. The guy in question was not expressing his beliefs at all. He boasted that he was trolling - and that's what a troll is, someone who makes statements not because they believe in them, but to hurt other people and cause outrage. I see no reason why that should be given the same protection as expressing your beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "Internet Performance Art"
Now it's an art.
Now it's protected.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
The right of free speech is a great thing, and it's wonderful that Americans are champions for it. But it's not the only right of i
Re: (Score:2)
"Except that in the UK there is no right to "free speech""
Everyone has a right to free speech, regardless of whether or not a corrupt government wants them to.
"It's not like the US has unrestricted free speech either"
That doesn't make it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they do. People are able to talk and act. Their bodies allow them to do these things. It is their freedom to do them. When someone restricts these freedoms for no good reason (such as speech), what we have is this thing called "censorship."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument against the dick in TFA and the "god hates fags" mob is similar to the argument against graffiti, it's more about the methods they use than it is about the things they say.
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad for him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone who is lonely and has an inferiority complex. He gets a feeling of importance proportional to the number of people that reply to him. And the most reliable way of getting a good number of responses is to troll. Trolls with little imagination just rely on being offensive.
18 weeks? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no level of rationality to computer crime sentences because the "old people" on both sides of the bench are simply too ignorant and out of touch to really know what the crime involved or how serious it was. This case should never have wasted the UK's courts time and public money let alone the cost of keeping him in jail for any period at all.
Frankly I have a VERY low opinion of the police, judge, and state for this one. I want a million pounds spent on arrested serious criminals and keeping them locked away. Give the mugger, violent thug, or drug dealers 18 week sentences instead of saving them for the "omg computer terrurist?! he uses microsoft and word to send deadly communications of doom!"
What's more - he wasn't even punished for threatening people. It is one thing to make threats and to scare people. It is another thing entirely to offend or upset them. While I think the things he said were extremely rude and offensive - nobody felt in fear for their security.
Re:18 weeks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really suppose that young Internet geeks have a better idea of "how serious" such a crime is than "old people" in the courts? This has almost nothing to do with technology, beyond the fact that technology was an enabling medium - the crime was incredibly anti-social behavior in the form of harassment. I'm not convinced this was the right law to try him under, but tossing someone in a cell for 4 months for harassing grieving families - with the sole purpose of that harassment - doesn't seem all that off to me.
Threatening someone would have made it worse, yes, but harassment is a crime itself.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, the law gives the judge / jurors some discretion when they assess the issue. It is not "crime A" --> "punishment A", but "crime A" --> "punishment A" +/- delta.
In this case, Coss accepted the charges but clearly refused to express regret by his actions. To the judge, that may have been sound like "Ok, do what you can, because as soon I get out of here I will do it again" and decided him to impose a harsher sentence. Probably, if you break a glass bottle in someone's head and do the same while be
Re:18 weeks? (Score:5, Informative)
So there it is, the guidelines wanted 12 weeks but that was more than doubled by the seriousness of the case and the specific fact-pattern. 8 weeks were then lopped off for making a guilty plea. Bit of math to help the geek cred.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no jury. The BBC describes the 'chairwoman of the bench', which means that this case wasn't even tried by a qualified judge. Just three people virtually plucked off the street and given a couple of weeks training before being handed the power to screw someone's life up. This case seems to demonstrate most of the things wrong with the magistrates court system in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
He had the right to a jury trial in crown court but chose to be dealt with by the magistrates. Had he chose a jury trial he would have most likely had a stiffer sentence, so it was a wise choice on his part.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can go bottle someone (break a glass bottle over their head) and you get an average of zero days in jail (suspended for two years). You can go mug someone and get only a week of "hard time" with a year of parole. I mean heck you can go run someone down in your car and still get a lighter sentence than 18 weeks...
[Citation needed]. I think 18 weeks is fine, if there's an issue with anything you've said it's just that those sentences are obviously too light, but I've never heard of that (perhaps beyond exceptional cases).
I have met men. (Score:4, Interesting)
A what? (Score:4, Funny)
Asperger's is the new sheik.
Asperger's is the new Arabian tribal elder?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The question is why don't we see more actual cruel acts? I would say it is because in normal societies social inhibitions prevail. But when societies break down, e.g. in times of war, acts of the cruelty are everywhere.
One might note that cruelty is easier when it's more impersonal. You will see many people making statements and expressing views on the internet that they would never actually say right to someone's face. (I am not one of these, I am an asshole, er I mean I speak my mind, in person also. If some douche does something douchey I say something.) When someone gets mad at you then there's possible consequences at arm's length. This is just a way of putting consequences back into the equation.
I don't get it. (Score:2, Funny)
"Unemployed Coss was only caught when he sent residents on his street photos of himself saying he was an internet 'troll.'"
I'm not sure which is weirder - that his street photos have residents, or that a still photograph could convey him saying something. Was there a speech bubble drawn on the photograph or something?
Re: (Score:2)
He sent pictures of himself to his neighbours after writing something on the pictures to identify himself as an "internet troll". GNAA must be cringing now. Maybe the shame will push them into paying for a hit.
So he invented a new form of trolling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone believe him?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone believe him?
I believe that this sets the precedent for the general behavior of internet trolls:
Colm Coss's activities were uncovered when he posted photos of himself to neighbours
That's what they do.
They troll you online, and then they send you photos of themselves. That's their nature and MO. They can't help it cause they are a bit wrong in the head like that.
Ergo, when you get a photo in your mail - it's the person who's been trolling you. Call the police to arrest him/her.
Newspaper website "troll" punished (Score:5, Funny)
An "internet troll" who posted offensive messages on the World Wide Web has been revealed to be the Daily Mail [newstechnica.com].
The Mail "preyed on bereaved families" for its "own pleasure", the Press Complaints Council heard.
The paper was charged with sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive. The posts included comments claiming the victims had brought it upon themselves by being asylum-seeking homosexual Poles who caused EU cancer.
it was only caught when it sent residents copies of itself saying "FREE DVD FOR EVERY READER."
The term "troll" was described in court as someone who creates numerous identities, called "columnists," and then posts offensive bollocks to upset or provoke a reaction from others and gain page hits and advertising revenue.
"You preyed on bereaved families who were suffering trauma and anxiety," said chairwoman of the bench Pauline Salisbury. "We know you gained pleasure and you aren't sorry for what you did."
The paper has been convicted of sending "malicious communications" and the editor has been given a knighthood and a rôle as official advisor on government policy.
The defence raised possible mental health issues, but this was dismissed by the bench.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha thank you for the smile :-) Someone mod this up please
Looks like... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They might not have charged him under that act, but going up to some grieving parent and shouting abuse at them through a megaphone is not something that we could tolerate in the UK. At the very least doing that would be likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite clearly it was harassment.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Not harassment?"
Who decides what is offensive and what is not? I find it shocking how many people here seem to be against freedom of speech, or at least speech that offends them. In fact, your very post is offensive to me in and of itself. You need to be jailed, and fast!
"denying it happened is to disrespect the dead"
Freedom of speech. The dead can deal with it. Oh, wait, they already have!
"and an attempt to bring about conditions to repeat the atrocity"
Might as well arrest everyone in the world, then. Someone *might* kill another person. Just like this *might* (not a chance) bring about another holocaust!
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, the line of "what is offensive" is drawn at "Harrassment" which is decided by a Jury.
The bar depends on the jury, and the state in which you're being charged in.
Federally, this is still pretty new territory as far as I'm aware of.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does that mean Gay persons can be arrested for "harassment" when they have their marches? Or maybe the Christians standing by with "god hates gay" signs in the periphery? Or maybe both?
This law seems ripe for abuse in order to suppress free speech.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if he'd used a megaphone and said to their faces they wouldn't have been able to charge him?
No, they would just charge him under a different law, such as disturbing the peace. They have thousands of laws, so in most cases the police can find something with which to charge you if they put their minds to it.
...it's just another example of how free-speech laws have diverged from today's technology.
How do you figure that? He was successfully convicted under the current laws when using new technology. It seems to me that the law coped quite happily with new technology. Your problem appears to be if he had used old technology.
Re: (Score:2)
They have thousands of laws, so in most cases the police can find something with which to charge you if they put their minds to it.
I think this only serves to demonstrate that there are, in general, way, way too many laws on the books.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead they've had to resort to the telecoms act to catch him.
He was targeting and harassing people via a telecommunications system. Part of our telecommunications laws specifically deal with that situation.
I can't see how that is anywhere near being a technicality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I don't agree with what she did, and I don't like the actions of this asshat either. But twisting the law to get a prosecution? Perhaps I'm naive, but the democratic process is screwed when stuff like this happens.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest threat to democracy is wilfully uninformed voters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the biggest threat to democracy is selfish voters. Vote on principal and employ abstract thinking rather than "is this going to reinforce my beliefs or directly reward me with some goodies". You don't have to be extraordinarily empathetic to think that people like the guy in this story (or Lori Drew) are vile human beings that disgust you and make you feel awful for their "victims". It takes a little effort to step outside yourself and recognize that just because something isn't nice or doesn't directly
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy is a dick but this is ridiculous. It's not illegal to be a dick, nor should it be. Things like this make me worried for the future.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thus it really depends on the threshold of "being a dick" for a law to be established. In my opinion this kind of behavior of the man in the story is atrocious and no one should be allowed to behave in such a manner without some punishment.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy is a dick but this is ridiculous. It's not illegal to be a dick, nor should it be.
Dickery is illegal when you cross a line which moves around a bit, but we call it "harassment" and it's definitely against the law. This is just another form of harassment and there's no moral reason not to convict him for it if that's what it takes to stop him. If you want to manipulate the mental state of others for personal gain, you must use advertising.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:4, Insightful)
So free speech is well and good, and should be protected...until you disagree with it? Somehow I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Under your description, anyone who was offended by something said to them could claim it was 'harassment' and try to file charges. Do you really want the world to suck that bad?
It's generally expected that you will have to put up with a certain level of minor harassment on a day-to-day basis. On the internet, you should expect that level to rise by default. The anonymity of an internet message is quite appealing to people, and often results in them not self-censoring as much as they might in a real-world encounter. The fact that the police have the ability to actually act on it is frightening to say the least.
I'm very happy laws like this haven't quite made it into the US. This is the sort of threat we're facing with all of this 'Cyber Bullying' legislation they are trying to pass. Fight it. Vote it down. Do your duty to protect the constitution. It is the parents' responsibility to protect their children, not the government's.
If you're a grown-ass adult, you should have a tough enough skin that you don't need to have people ARRESTED for trolling you on the internet. If you can't manage, turn off the computer. Nobody's forcing you to surf Facebook or forums. You CHOSE to be there and read what people wrote.
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:4, Insightful)
So free speech is well and good, and should be protected...until you disagree with it?
If you really think that's what's happened here, you need to think again.
This is the sort of threat we're facing with all of this 'Cyber Bullying' legislation they are trying to pass.
That people might be held accountable for their actions? Say it ain't so!
If you're a grown-ass adult, you should have a tough enough skin that you don't need to have people ARRESTED for trolling you on the internet.
I disagree. Where technical means are sufficient to prevent them from harassing you, you might have a point. There is functionally no difference from harassing someone online as compared to harassing them in person when they cannot avoid it. Society gains nothing by permitting this type of speech, and speech has always been regulated to some degree. If you have a message and you want to get it out, then get it out. This person admits to having engaged in this activity specifically to cause suffering and defending that is not only morally bankrupt but also stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you're all for the prosecution of Wikileaks then, eh?
You are a troll fuckbag. I have repeatedly spoken in defense of Wikileaks. Still zero deaths shown to be due to wikileaking.
Here's a hint: I can write a novel about how awesome it is to murder people. I can publish porn where people shit on each other. These do not contribute to society. It is speech that only amuses a few.
If it amuses a few then it contributes to society. Even if it only amuses you. And it harms no one. Clearly (to anyone with two neurons to rub together) these are not the same thing. Try again, kiddo.
I basically find your longwinded diatribe to be a rationalization for prosecuting someone for hurting someone else's feelings.
I basically find you to be too fucking stupid to understand my comments and would appreciate it if you would go respond to someone who writes simpler ones.
Grow some thicker skin, and get that boot out of your mouth.
Shut the fuck up until you get my
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:4, Insightful)
So free speech is well and good, and should be protected...until you disagree with it? Somehow I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Under your description, anyone who was offended by something said to them could claim it was 'harassment' and try to file charges. Do you really want the world to suck that bad?
Make it so that no matter how intrusive, offensive, repetitive cases of harassment you can not make them stop? Sorry, there's more than two colors in my world.
It's generally expected that you will have to put up with a certain level of minor harassment on a day-to-day basis. On the internet, you should expect that level to rise by default. The anonymity of an internet message is quite appealing to people, and often results in them not self-censoring as much as they might in a real-world encounter.
What great logic, this is the same kind of logic those that say "if you dress slutty it's your fault you got raped" use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Charles Manson was a dick... it's not illegal to be a dick. Sorry the argument doesn't work. This guy was not prosecuted for being a dick. He was prosecuted for breaking a specific law. One which says:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So he was done on a technicality? (Score:5, Insightful)
The offended parties voluntarily read his comments of their own free will, from a site which they do not own or administrate, which isn't even located in a country governed by the laws which you described.
The problem is that this sets a dangerous precedent. Pretty soon, you'll have to watch what you say on the internet for fear that it might offend someone and then the cops will come knocking. Everyone on 4chan will be screwed.
Just because the person offended was bereaved and the offense was directed at a deceased party does not mean there should be any sort of exceptional limit to what is legally acceptable. This is quickly spiraling into China-sized censorship.
Absolute rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, no that would just be a different crime.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Informative)
Even in Europe, you can believe what you want. Publicly denying the holocaust might result in fines. If you do it to instigate hatred, you might do some jail time, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
And yet, if I go around saying that MacGyver2210 kept me locked in his basement for three years while he raped me every night, I expect you will try to have me silenced. In most places, I'd even be subject to fines and possibly imprisonment if I'm vocal enough in my speech. If I shout outside your bedroom window through a megaphone all night, I expect you'll try to have me silenced.
Your quote refers specifically to political speech, especially the right to criticize government, corporation, and personal behavior. A society demands limits on speech, or it degenerates into anarchy. Prohibitions against telling lies and inciting violence are among the most common limits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where laws regarding defamation of character, inciting violence/panic, and noise pollution come into play.
Over the long run, people who make untruthful speech or otherwise misuse their speech are generally recognized for this, at which point society can ignore them. That is why regardless of how hateful or untrue certain speech might be, I fully support the ability of a person to cry it from their soa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because one of the prerequisites for repeating Holocaust is getting people to forget how bad the previous one was. Your crime when you deny that Holocaust happened is not ignorance, but an attempt at social engineering conditions favorable for another Holocaust.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is there was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and so it doesn't seems like anyone has learned from it.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is, Yugoslavia was one of the "victorious" countries, so they were never subjected to strict laws about ethnic cleansing, despite history Serbia has of doing it to neighboring nations, e.g. Bulgaria.
So, you could argue that the seeds for later problems were planted by the policy that excused any and all war crimes, perpetrated by the winning parties.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
War crimes are violations of the laws of war, regardless of the side, which commits them.
Actually, I should correct my post above -- as ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, not a war crime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct. The term you are looking for is jus cogens. International law is usually laterally oriented with nobody above anyone else, even the UN, but war crimes, piracy, genocide, and torture are acts that every nation has an erga omnes obligation to follow. Being victorious allows you to defend your actions, but does not grant immunity due to sovereignty. Unfortunately, nobody ever actually holds anyone accountable for these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody cares about a small country nearly as much as they care about an entire religion.
There's this little matter of scale...
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean scale of how the Albanians, Bulgarians, Armenians, etc, don't all have relatives with controlling shares in major Western media outlets to make sure we never, ever get to stop hearing about it? After all, to quote Adolf Hitler, "Who now remembers Armenia?"
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem:
Let's kill everyone in $COUNTRY < Let's kill everyone everywhere who's $ATTRIBUTE
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is ethnic cleansing in Palestine which is far more ironic...
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Informative)
Ethnic cleansing shouldn't be confused with the methods used to achieve it, such as genocide. Ethnic cleansing is the removal of an ethnic group from a certain location by any targetted means, either legal, semi-legal or otherwise. Ethnic cleansing is fairly universally acknowledged as having taken past in Israel in the past:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus [wikipedia.org]
Arguably the creeping borders of the security fencing and steady expansions of Jewish settlements represents a low-intensity ethnic cleansing to this day. How welcome do you think local Arab farmers would feel in buying a house in the new Jewish settlements?
I'm no expert, but it doesn't sound preposterous to call that ethnic cleansing.
Re: (Score:2)
Your crime when you deny that Holocaust happened is not ignorance, but an attempt at social engineering conditions favorable for another Holocaust.
No, it is an opinion. I think it is wrong to say that a person cannot believe that the holocaust did not happen or that it happened differently to how history portrays it. It is not social engineering, it is just a minority opinion. There are countries where you can get into trouble for deciding that Mohammed was not a prophet or that Osama bin Ladin is an OK
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I highly doubt many people really disbelieve the evidence left behind by the Holocaust. It's too overwhelming to deny. However, many people deny it because they want a second Holocaust. The bigotry and hatred they encourage and keep alive is their reason for the denial. It's their agenda that makes them deny it happened, not lack of evidence or doubt that it really happened. IOW's their denial is a lie as they don't actually believe their own denial.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also stemming from sheer stubbornness and lack of contact with reality sometimes. I'm reminded of the bit in Douglas Hoffstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach", where the Tortoise character gets into an infinite regression: "So if I accept A, B, and C, then I have accepted your premise? Not so fast - lets call that statement D - don't I have to include A, B, C, and D to really accept your premise? Now lets call that claim statement E - Don't I now have to accept A, B, C, D, and E to accept your premise? We can see where this is going - How dare you demand I accept your infinite series of claims without inspection!".
Part of the frustration many of us feel over, say, the climate change or abortion debates seems to be the same sort of thing. There's always some person on the side we don't agree with, taking an 'obviously impossible, absurd' stance, and the possibly more reasonable people on that same side don't distance themselves from their own fanatics. One of the things I saw during my own involvement in the abortion debate was that on the Pro-Choice side, there were a few women who claimed all sex with males was rape, so the 'except in cases of rape and incest' clause always applied anyway. Some of these wanted to do away with all men and use cloning to copy human females only. There's an odd feeling when somebody casually advocates the genocide of 3 billion people and the use of a technology we don't actually have as the solution to all the world's problems, and nobody else in the room is willing to call them crazy. On the Pro-Life side I saw people (mostly Roman Catholic priests), who saw banning abortion as only the first step in passing laws banning all extramarital sex, then banning masturbation and all pornography including the bra section of the Sears catalog, bringing back the laws that required showing all married couples in movies as sleeping in twin beds, the ones dictating skirt lengths, and on and on.
I suspect many organisations would actually be stronger if they tossed out some people who claim to be part of their coalitions, even if their overall numbers of members dropped. Sometimes the smart thing to do is to say "He doesn't speak for me, even if he claims to.".
The real key is, whether somebody is lying (as you suggest), or insane (as I suggest here), doesn't really matter, and nobody ought to be given a free pass to disrupt discourse because we can't tell if they are one or the other. I don't know if Glenn Beck is insane or mendacious, and the people who say he is crazy like a fox may be the rightist of all, but what he does sheds more heat than light, either way. I don't have to decide if he is nuts or faking it to realise he isn't contributing anything useful. That goes in spades for the holocaust denialists. A specific statement of theirs may seem insane, or a deliberate lie, or sometimes a reasonable statement, but examining a whole series of statements they make, sooner or later you realise they are not adding anything constructive to any of the processes of debate, discussion or education.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also stemming from sheer stubbornness and lack of contact with reality sometimes. I'm reminded of the bit in Douglas Hoffstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach", where the Tortoise character gets into an infinite regression: "So if I accept A, B, and C, then I have accepted your premise? Not so fast - lets call that statement D - don't I have to include A, B, C, and D to really accept your premise? Now lets call that claim statement E - Don't I now have to accept A, B, C, D, and E to accept your premise? We can see where this is going - How dare you demand I accept your infinite series of claims without inspection!".
Part of the frustration many of us feel over, say, the climate change or abortion debates seems to be the same sort of thing. There's always some person on the side we don't agree with, taking an 'obviously impossible, absurd' stance, and the possibly more reasonable people on that same side don't distance themselves from their own fanatics. One of the things I saw during my own involvement in the abortion debate was that on the Pro-Choice side, there were a few women who claimed all sex with males was rape, so the 'except in cases of rape and incest' clause always applied anyway. Some of these wanted to do away with all men and use cloning to copy human females only. There's an odd feeling when somebody casually advocates the genocide of 3 billion people and the use of a technology we don't actually have as the solution to all the world's problems, and nobody else in the room is willing to call them crazy. On the Pro-Life side I saw people (mostly Roman Catholic priests), who saw banning abortion as only the first step in passing laws banning all extramarital sex, then banning masturbation and all pornography including the bra section of the Sears catalog, bringing back the laws that required showing all married couples in movies as sleeping in twin beds, the ones dictating skirt lengths, and on and on.
I suspect many organisations would actually be stronger if they tossed out some people who claim to be part of their coalitions, even if their overall numbers of members dropped. Sometimes the smart thing to do is to say "He doesn't speak for me, even if he claims to.".
The real key is, whether somebody is lying (as you suggest), or insane (as I suggest here), doesn't really matter, and nobody ought to be given a free pass to disrupt discourse because we can't tell if they are one or the other. I don't know if Glenn Beck is insane or mendacious, and the people who say he is crazy like a fox may be the rightist of all, but what he does sheds more heat than light, either way. I don't have to decide if he is nuts or faking it to realise he isn't contributing anything useful. That goes in spades for the holocaust denialists. A specific statement of theirs may seem insane, or a deliberate lie, or sometimes a reasonable statement, but examining a whole series of statements they make, sooner or later you realise they are not adding anything constructive to any of the processes of debate, discussion or education.
It's also stemming from sheer stubbornness and lack of contact with reality sometimes. I'm reminded of the bit in Douglas Hoffstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach", where the Tortoise character gets into an infinite regression: "So if I accept A, B, and C, then I have accepted your premise? Not so fast - lets call that statement D - don't I have to include A, B, C, and D to really accept your premise? Now lets call that claim statement E - Don't I now have to accept A, B, C, D, and E to accept your premise? We can see where this is going - How dare you demand I accept your infinite series of claims without inspection!".
Part of the frustration many of us feel over, say, the climate change or abortion debates seems to be the same sort of thing. There's always some person on the side we don't agree
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As screwed up as the US is sometimes, at least it's not illegal to be ignorant.
Probably just as well
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes I wonder if "gold spammers" are not only spamming gold, but a digital version of a Numbers station. [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are the only people you see denying the Holocaust? I'll tell you. Bigots, that's who. People who hate Jews because they're Jews. I've never seen a denial of the Holocaust by anyone outside that group.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:4, Insightful)
It enables further promotion of bigotry against Jews, Homosexuals, and other groups. If you claim it didn't happen then you can much more easily glorify Hitler and the NAZI party...the funny thing is that this is done primarily (in the US at least) by people who really don't know much at all about Hitler or the NAZI's.
It also allows an argument that "evil Jews have completely character assassinated poor Hitler with this Holocaust nonsense and that's why they should be killed."
In my somewhat limited experience, it's a white man's version of "the man is keeping me down" which is used as a call to arms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood the movement of holocaust denial. What is the aim / benefit of teaching that it didn't happen or what world view does it enable?
Not to mention, the evidence is completely overwhelming and undeniable. The only possibly point of contention is exactly how many millions were murdered. At which point, you're splitting hairs. Does eight million fail to qualify where ten million does - or whatever the actual numbers are? I mean, where exactly is the cut off, where mass murder and genocide on an epic scale no longer qualifies as a holocaust?
And I completely agree with you - what is the benefit of splitting hairs where its a disagreement wit
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Our royalty's bloodlines still exist but they aren't in power anymore, the most they manage is make an ass of themselves in public.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You think they aren't close to doing this in the states, too?
The 36-year-old "preyed on bereaved families" for his "own pleasure," Manchester Magistrates Court heard.'"
As opposed to the media and politicians, which prey on bereaved families for the pleasure of their viewers and ratings.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And considering just these two cases, it's clear that the UK law has served the people better than the US law.
Whether there's a wider argument that that's not generally true needs demonstrating. Feel free to bring up some more cases.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
how little it takes to get people upset enough to give away their own freedoms
So you want the freedom to shout obscenities at grieving families during the funerals of soldiers who died giving you all your freedoms?
There are exceptions to every rule. You can't shout "Fire!" in a theater. And you shouldn't be able to shout and display obscenities at and during the time of a funeral. Simple as that... we don't have to change the rule, just make rare and necessary exceptions.
Re:They jail for this in Europe now? (Score:4, Insightful)
We have come to a point where all the test cases for free speech are people being unambiguous assholes, rather than people simply stating unpopular political opinions. As a result, we are put in a situation where we have to choose between an absolute commitment to free speech and a society where people can mourn their dead in peace. The latter will win, ultimately, even if it means using the Constitution as toilet paper (hopefully, it won't come to that.) And I think, ultimately, I would rather that the latter won. I don't value free speech for its own sake: I value it as a means of checking power, of keeping discourse lively and intellects rigorous, of keeping us from getting complacent, dumb, or too obedient.