17 year old girl arrested over 'offensive' Facebook comment

[Vulgarian]

So you'd be fine if they arrested someone who they thought intended to commit psychological violence against someone else?

 

Or should I say, if they violently arrested an innocent person and used force to prevent them from using their right to free speech?

 

This is all very confusing.

 

If you are confused it's because you haven't been paying attention, or for other reasons. I said earlier that psychological violence should not be dealt with using physical violence.

 

What are your views?

[Lisenchuk]

If you're not a dick about it, the police won't use force when arresting you - of course, many people are massive dicks about it and get treated accordingly I guess...

Don't you just love the burning sensation that comes with a squirt of pepper spray and the warm feeling of pissing your pants after being tasered ?

 

On second thought,I'll just come quietly.

[Lisenchuk]

For me this all boils down to boundaries of reasonable and acceptable conduct toward others.

 

Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you.

[Chutney]

Force is always used in arresting someone, whether it is simply threatened or actually used. Without it the police would have no power. Police powers are predicated on the use of force.You ought to know that.

No force is ever threatened it is simply used when required to effect an arrest. Ought I indeed !, but no they are not, I think that's in your head only.

[Vulgarian]

 

Force is always used in arresting someone, whether it is simply threatened or actually used. Without it the police would have no power. Police powers are predicated on the use of force.You ought to know that.

No force is ever threatened it is simply used when required to effect an arrest. Ought I indeed !, but no they are not, I think that's in your head only.

 

Force is always threatened in making arrests. If it weren't, what's to stop people from simply refusing to be arrested? The threat of force. And all police powers are indeed predicated on the use of force, which the state claims a monopoly on.

[ans]

It's good to see impartial moderators encouraging people to start debates. If you've got any rhetoric let's hear it.

What has my administrator status have to do with the fact that I think you're a gigantic arsehole? Unless you feel that I have in some way (ab)used my admin privileges in this thread, I don't really see what your point is?

 

When the facts come out about this specific case, I'll probably have a view on it. Please continue on posting your uninformed drivel though, it's what you're exceptionally good at. That and getting high.

[Chutney]

FFS how can there be a threat of force when no act, words or gesture that threaten have taken place. Without these There cant be 'a threat' whether its by the establishment or not. By your reasoning simply the presence of a police officer is a threat ! And bear in mind that most of the powers of arrest are not specifically for police but are there for everyone. Anyone can arrest another person that is committing or has committed an arrestable offence.

[HeliX]

Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.

 

we're constantly getting the believes of others forced on us, under the guise of free speech, whilst those who express an alternative view are victimised. Same gender marriage is the perfect example. Those who oppose, whether on religious or other grounds, are homophobes and victimised in the society. When, in reality, they are exercising their right to free speech and opposition, which they should always have the right to exercise in a democracy. Another example is the desire not to offend muslim people, yet they have the ability to preach hate against christianity/western society and the desire of the extremists to end the UK state.

 

This isn't free speech, and it's time the people learned that and revolted against the morons who made these rules.

 

How is that anti freedom of speech? Nobody stops homophobes saying homophobic things. You seem to think freedom of speech should give you freedom from criticism. It doesn't.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Hateful speech can become a problem, but in a society such as ours which desires to reduce hateful speech, where the general consensus is that it is bad, this situation is less likely to occur anyway. A society which does not desire to reduce it, where people don't challenge or speak against it, has wider problems.

I was talking about speech that comes from hatred, but rather oppressive speech that needn't be motivated by hatred but which operates in such a way to oppress. Such an example may be the harmful effect of the use of 'gay' to disparage things or people.

 

Though when talking about either or just hate speech, people tend to have a recognition of what is bad only because there are punishments involve. Or at least to punishments keep the idea of something being wrong close to mind. What is lacking is an awareness of why such things are bad. I do wonder whether the absence of any punishment would lead to a far greater usage of racist speech, for example.

 

We have other means of challenging and discouraging oppressive speech besides criminalisation.

There is the State, which has encouraged what is known as 'political correctness'. Also, you can educate but are we to rely on the State to do this? If not, then who?

 

The problem with oppressive speech is that there is definite harm in its use. Should it be ignored until people wise-up to better ways of being?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

we're constantly getting the believes of others forced on us, under the guise of free speech, whilst those who express an alternative view are victimised. Same gender marriage is the perfect example. Those who oppose, whether on religious or other grounds, are homophobes and victimised in the society. When, in reality, they are exercising their right to free speech and opposition, which they should always have the right to exercise in a democracy. Another example is the desire not to offend muslim people, yet they have the ability to preach hate against christianity/western society and the desire of the extremists to end the UK state.

 

This isn't free speech, and it's time the people learned that and revolted against the morons who made these rules.

Your post doesn't make much sense. How does same-sex marriage have anything to do with free speech?

And if people did object to the same-sex marriage and were called homophobes then that doesn't necessarily mean there is no free speech for all, but rather means that people have objected to criticisms of this form of marriage for specfic reasons. Just because someone is labelled a homophobe doesn't mean that they can't continue to be homophobic.

If you object to people being called homophobic then the issue is really one of dealing with others ignorance of what is and what is not homophobic. Free speech is a different issue.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

It's good to see impartial moderators encouraging people to start debates. If you've got any rhetoric let's hear it.

What has my administrator status have to do with the fact that I think you're a gigantic arsehole? Unless you feel that I have in some way (ab)used my admin privileges in this thread, I don't really see what your point is?

When the facts come out about this specific case, I'll probably have a view on it. Please continue on posting your uninformed drivel though, it's what you're exceptionally good at. That and getting high.

As long as it is recognised that your 'argumentation' relies on ad hominem, which is poor argumentation. I think this is an excellent example of where people ought to have a better recognition of what is and what is not good argumentation technique.

I read your post and think you're being sneaky and underhand in order to try and dismiss a person's views, but some others might not because they lack the ability to recognise the method.

[ans]

I didn't think there was anything sneaky or underhand about it, I thought I was expressing myself quite plainly. I'm exercising my right to free speech. You obviously lack the ability to recognise that.

 

Your "argumentation technique" appears to be to bury people under swathes of relentless delusion to the point where they just give up trying to understand your unrealistic view of the world. Whatever works for you.

[Declan]

Firstly, I think that ans and the other mods should post their opinions on threads. The strength of the system here is that it is user moderation, that people who post and contribute to the forum help run it.

 

Secondly, I think the problem is this concept of offence. Mary Whitehouse was offended by toilet jokes, the Life of Brian offended Christians, the Sex Pistols offended royalists, modern art offends traditionalists, and Frank Zappa's music offends the hearing. It feels like causing offense is too low a bar. It should be shown to cause harm - bullying, inciting hated, libel etc. - cause harm and judges and juries can asses that harm.

[Vulgarian]

 

It's good to see impartial moderators encouraging people to start debates. If you've got any rhetoric let's hear it.

What has my administrator status have to do with the fact that I think you're a gigantic arsehole? Unless you feel that I have in some way (ab)used my admin privileges in this thread, I don't really see what your point is?

 

When the facts come out about this specific case, I'll probably have a view on it. Please continue on posting your uninformed drivel though, it's what you're exceptionally good at. That and getting high.

 

I would really just expect that moderators would not accuse forum members of criminal acts without any evidence, while attempting to use that accusation to discredit a member's arguments. Nor would I expect them to use abusive language toward a member, especially when the member has never directed any at the moderator. All this while not actually engaging in the debate in any meaningful way. Great job!

[Chinahand]

I always think it is a bit odd when people start criticizing the Mods. It shows they don't understand what the job of a Mod is. They aren't there to be arbiters of fairness, to put people on the right path or any such thing. To do that would put them at risk of libel and go against the fundamental idea of these forums - you are responsible for what you post. It isn't going to be edited, or removed by a mod if they think it isn't right. That would make them editors and so responsible for the site.

 

The mods are there to react to reports and complaints. Apart from that narrow job (yeah and housekeeping when people open multiple threads on the same subject etc) they are just like anyone else and their opinions and postings are just like everyone else - their responsibility, their opinion. They aren't providing an official view, or bound to some code of impartiality.

 

It amazes me from reading what the Mods actually post anyone could think they are like this.

 

But it happens again and again.

 

Some people never learn, clearly don't understand the rules of the forum, and are unable to interpret evidence. Hey ho, that's Manx Forums for you!