17 year old girl arrested over 'offensive' Facebook comment

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

Yes, yes, it isn't hard to see the point you are trying to make. You've made it before in this manner. But there is a problem with the thinking behind it.

It is necessarily the case that free speech encourages people to say whatever is on their mind and it doesn't necessarily encourage offensive behaviour. The issue is about whether there should be punishments for using forms of speech or whether speech is allowed. Encouragement is a different matter.

 

To retain whatever...standing you have on this forum in the eyes of other users, you wouldn't be very popular and may well be thought to be the biggest prick on here if you did launch into ad hominem and did slag off users. Or you could end up in a situation where you are simply ignored. That's the cost to you.

 

Your posts directed at Vulgarian can be seen to be underhand, sneaky, and cowardly and maybe there is punishment for it were there to be free speech, but you don't have to say those things.

 

But seeing as you're not allowed to be outright offensive and recognising that you agree with this policy, I think you should punish yourself. Maybe some warning points are deserved. I'll write the reason for you, if you don't get it.

[piebaps]

unable to interpret evidence.

On the rare occasion that any is posted

[Vulgarian]

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!

 

Have you read the Terms and Conditions? I will provide some extracts, as evidence, if you like.

 

"No obscenities, no defamation, no tasteless or otherwise unpleasant or injurious posts and no posts which break either the civil or criminal law are allowed."

"Manxforums is for the exchange of views, information and opinions in a friendly non judgemental atmosphere."

"Do not post material which is offensive or defamatory of anyone else."

"Any breaches may result in warnings, suspensions, edits or deletions, that your posts are put on preview by a moderator or the ending of your Membership entirely."

 

I am not in any way appealing to the Terms and Conditions. I do not particularly care what Ans thinks of me or my posts, and I'm not terribly bothered about what language he uses with me. But the T&Cs suggest that mods are supposed to do more than respond to complaints. They are meant to enforce the T&Cs, and as such probably shouldn't be breaking them themselves.

[alibaba]

Frank Zappa's music offends the hearing?? Declan, this is for you

 

[Declan]

That's even offensive on mute.

[alibaba]

You're always walking around with massive headphones, you have a picture of Mark E Smith as your avatar, you might even have a Mogwai bag, I assumed you liked decent music. Maybe Zappa is too much fun for you?

[ans]

Brilliant. Proponents of free speech resorting to quoting T&Cs when someone speaks freely with a view they don't like. My work here is done, well played chaps. In real life, T&Cs are called "laws" and the mods are called "police". Now go sit in a corner.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well you're thinking certainly isn't brilliant here, but I know you're not this stupid so I take it you just don't get it yet.

 

Calling for free speech doesn't mean you that should be rude and offensive, does it? If you are rude and offensive in the absence of punishment then people condemn, criticise and dislike you. If you say those things to Vulgarian then people might well read them and think they are terrible and think less of you, but you can still say them without fear of punishment or censorship.

 

If you weren't trying to make a point and your post was just like a number of dunderhead posts I've seen on this forum here where people use ad hominem, you ought to be rightly seen as cowardly and underhand in your methods. And, believe it or not, I was being facetious about punishing yourself, but in the absence of a good case I think your methods are rather crass.

[Declan]

Are you stalking me, Ali Baba?

 

To be honest Zappa always comes across as one of those overbearing office jokers. Zany. It seems to me he had lots of ideas but never really followed them through and goes off half cock reapeating the idea ad nausseum. It's boring in a way, say, Beefheart could never be.

 

But my real reason for including "Zappa offends the hearing" in my earlier list was because Zappa fans are very quick to take offence when he's criticised, and I thought that someone would bite help prove my point that "offense" is not really something that should be criminalised.

[alibaba]

I know what you mean about the lots of ideas argument, but the stuff on Sheik Yerbouti, and the live performances of those songs are amazing. He's not everyones cup of tea for sure.

 

And stalking? No, I haven't the time or inclination. Plus, you're probably not that interesting

[Mr. Sausages]

 

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?

 

If you were paying attention you'd notice that you said that after my post.

 

Before that you stated that people (innocent people that is) should be arrested (an act of violence) if they had (or rather if it is alleged that they had) committed violence or if it is thought that the might commit violence (which of course they'd be innocent of doing unless convicted in court). And that violence can be psychological.

 

Which seems to fit pretty well to someone posting horrible things on facebook.

 

But now you're saying that psychological violence doesn't count (unless of course it's committed by the police on innocent people).

 

My views? That it's really easy to use emotive language and pretend everything is black and white.

[Declan]

And stalking? No, I haven't the time or inclination. Plus, you're probably not that interesting

 

I'm not.

[Vulgarian]

In my first post I stated,

 

"The law has long strayed over the bounds in which it ought to operate. It ought to have very limited interference in speech and expression, if any at all.

It may be argued that offending someone, or causing them distress or alarm, are forms of violence, and I would agree with this, but physical violence is a much more serious form, and its use by the state against innocent civilians should be used sparingly and only when most necessary; furthermore its use must by proportionate to the crime."

 

Maybe I wasn't too clear. Basically, I think that the state should have very little interference in speech. (I might consider clear cases of defamation as an exception). Psychological violence (verbal abuse) should not be responded to with physical violence. I've tried to make my position quite clear, and it is rather a simple one. I have asked other posters to give their views and have mostly had the response that it's too cloudy an issue to make any rules for, but that they think it's sometimes right to criminalise speech, without being too clear on when. I am pleased to talk to someone who wants to engage with the issue though. Thanks.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I could make a good case for why oppressive speech should be punished by a society (or even the State). But are we just talking about stuff that is considered offensive, which is such a subjectve matter?

[Vulgarian]

Oh yeah, I didn't reply to that. Oppressive speech shouldn't be punished either. I understand that it can be very harmful and a big problem in society, and any reasonable methods to reduce it are fine with me, but I still don't think that force should be employed, and I believe that common social interaction should be used to combat it. If we are collectively that bothered about it we should all be dealing with it. Can you with good conscience delegate this to the police, to employ violence on your behalf against those who have used some kind of oppressive speech?

 

How do you think society should respond?