News - A bad day for careless tweeters

[Scott B]

There is definitely a moral dimension, but that's not necessarily a matter for the law. There are new laws brought in, in response to the current Islamist terrorism threat and these cases indicate they're starting to be used more widely, so I'm just asking: "where's the line in the sand?"

I don't think there is one right now and I hope it eventually gets drawn at a sensible point. It's very hard to determine when stupidity becomes malicious, and I personally never intend to walk that fine line, but we had better start investing a lot more in police and prisons if we're going to prosecute people for the former.

Having said that, nicho, I agree with your point about public incitement to illegal activity, and the precedent has clearly been set, once more, that such a statement is clearly the wrong side of that line.

I still wonder, however, if the law would have got involved if a professional comedian had said the same thing during their act.

[.havoc]

Let's face it, nobody was ever harmed by words. If someone acts on what someone else said, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Someone else's words can easily become somebody else's incentive. What if someone actually took it upon themselves to carry out such as attack? Who does the hammer land on then? The one who did it or the one who incited it?

At the end of the day, someone in his position using a service like twitter should have the bleeding common sense to realise posting such a stupidly agressive message is of course going to bite him on the arse. There's no real justification in his actions, and the argument that the Journo should have come back with a witty retort is only going to add more fuel to the fire.

Infringing on free speech isnt the issue. Its someone being a tool!

[.havoc]

I still wonder, however, if the law would have got involved if a professional comedian had said the same thing during their act.

During an act - probably not. You are in seeing it within a context.

This isn't quite the same - if it was a comedians twitter would be a better question. To which I would probably have to say that nobody is immune from backlash - remember that Stephen Fry episode a little why ago?

[peterb]

Let's face it, nobody was ever harmed by words. If someone acts on what someone else said, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Yes, but that's a bit like the NRA argument "Gun's don't hurt people, it is the people pulling the trigger"

Words in the hands of a skilled orator are a powerful a weapon (Abu Hamza al-Masri for example). And those 'weapons' can backfire spectacularly (Gordon Brown)

And if he(Abu Hamza) tweeted "stone the infidels" there would be an outcry, so why should any other public figure be exempt.

But it is a sad reflection on our age - and again just demonstrates how careful you have to be in any on line scenario.

[aidanjt]

People are emotionally/mentally harmed by words every day, quite often.

That may sound good and ring true at times for some people, but it simply isn't true bro, no offense to your opinion or anything.

It wasn't the words which caused emotional/mental harm, it's the person who decided to take offence to them. Anyone who thinks words can harm you needs to have their heads examined. You are responsible for your own emotional state, just as you're responsible for your own actions.

Let's put this into a thought experiment.

Let's say I say Christianity is a lie. Should Christians get whipped up into a moral panic? Are Christians entitled to be outraged? Are they entitled to use violence in response?

No, no, and no, are the answers to those questions. It isn't the words which has harmed them, words can't slap them around, it's _their_ response to those words which has caused them harm. They have made the concious and voluntary decision to listen to, and *take* offence to words.

That's it literally. Lets further look at it practically. Lets say I call you poopiehead (silly childish example, just to point out how absurd this situation is), and you take offence and run crying to mummy (state, parent, whatever), you're granting me the power to offend you. If you do that, I'm liable to make use of that power again in the future.

We could go on, but needless to say, words don't hurt people, only people can hurt people, whether themselves, or physical acts by others.

Nobody has a right to not be offended, because it's a concious and voluntary decision by the individual to be offended. I have a right to free speech, because not having so is not a concious and voluntary decision by me, but by the state.

Please take note, I'm not a libertarian, however these principles were codified in law, centuries ago by such people who valued individual liberty after ages of oppression by monarchs. They are sound, and we should consider them strongly before letting ourselves get whipped up into a fervour just because someone said something outlandish on tv/the internet/news paper/magazine/etc.

We have much more important issues to be dealing with right now.

[aidanjt]

Someone else's words can easily become somebody else's incentive. What if someone actually took it upon themselves to carry out such as attack? Who does the hammer land on then? The one who did it or the one who incited it?

At the end of the day, someone in his position using a service like twitter should have the bleeding common sense to realise posting such a stupidly agressive message is of course going to bite him on the arse. There's no real justification in his actions, and the argument that the Journo should have come back with a witty retort is only going to add more fuel to the fire.

Infringing on free speech isnt the issue. Its someone being a tool!

If I told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Really? If you do, then you *deserve* to die, and let natural selection do its work.

[Allen]

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

[aidanjt]

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

It was crushed under the weight of placating to stupidity and media fervour.

[Scott B]

The twitosphere - or whatever - has responded by retweeting Chambers' comment, or some other such statement, with the hashtag: #IAmSpartacus. Seems to be a big trending thing.

[Tunnah]

freedom of speech can't work with a people so easily influienced by the words of someone they percieve to be their better

[.havoc]

If I told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Really? If you do, then you *deserve* to die, and let natural selection do its work.

First - just would like to say your tone is something to be desired. It's not appreciated thanks. Im merely arguing the point. Your post there verges on the same level of stupidity as the Twitter tool. What gives you the right to determine who *deserves* to die exactly? Just because some are easily led, doesn't make them less deserving of life than you.

Now your point doesn't really suit the situation - avoiding harm to yourself is something we all strive to avoid. Im no particular fan of pain as Im sure most are. However causing harm to someone else, especially when its in somebody else's name (not startin a religious debate here), is something we see all too often. You may live in a world where you sleep soundly at night by reassuring yourself that if someone is offended or hurt by your actions then its their fault, but in reality to everyone else, you are the one to blame. You are still the cause, no matter which way you paint it.

In fact it frankly worries me you are so ready to wash your hands of any responsibility because you can pray on the naivety of others.

Should Christians get whipped up into a moral panic? Are Christians entitled to be outraged? Are they entitled to use violence in response?

I think here you may be missing the point (and your example here isn't actually comparable). Your directly attacking an entire religion, with millions of people who COULD get offended, then questioning whether they have the right to retaliate at YOU, the person who made the comment (which, no - is wrong - regardless). What we are discussing is a personal attack against an individual who is on the receiving end of his outburst, with the call for a third party to take violent action against her, not against the person who made the initial call for violence. So your inciting action against an innocent party.

And just to highlight a point - Hypothetically - IF someone were to act on his tweet, he could be held accountable by a charge for inciting violence. Would I be wrong in assuming he may also be charged for murder in the fourth degree? (If in this situation it went that far)

[aidanjt]

First - just would like to say your tone is something to be desired. It's not appreciated thanks.

My tone is suitably neutral.

Im merely arguing the point.

So am I. You can't blame the first lemming for the rest of the lemmings barrelling over the cliff-face.

Your post there verges on the same level of stupidity as the Twitter tool.

Tut, tut. Two personal attacks in one sentence. That's good going. Fortunately I don't really care what you think of me. It doesn't alter the facts.

What gives you the right to determine who *deserves* to die exactly?

That's exactly the point. *I* am *NOT* determining *anything*. Natural selection is a *natural* process.

Just because some are easily led, doesn't make them less deserving of life than you.

Sure it does. I don't go listening to what some idiot says and doing what they're telling me to do, that means I don't jump off cliffs, or assault/murder people, on the slightest suggestion of others. That means by all laws of science, mathematics, and even monotheistic morality, I'm going to live longer than they are.

Now your point doesn't really suit the situation - avoiding harm to yourself is something we all strive to avoid. Im no particular fan of pain as Im sure most are.

Sure, but the point was to knock it home. Which the lemming example does.

However causing harm to someone else, especially when its in somebody else's name (not startin a religious debate here), is something we see all too often.

Sure. Wars and whatnot. Usually happen as a result of group A questioning the size of group B's penis (or their deities penis), or some such, and group B taking offence. Again, if B shrugged, it'd be avoided. Instead they wave their ICBMs around to compensate and retaliate.

You may live in a world where you sleep soundly at night by reassuring yourself that if someone is offended or hurt by your actions then its their fault

Speech is an expression, not an action. I didn't grab their ear and jam a pencil down it to mimic the sound-waves of speech, or lase words into their eyeballs. They intently listened to (or read) what I had to say, and instead of coming up with a rational argument to counter what I'm saying, they use threat of violence and force.

but in reality to everyone else, you are the one to blame. You are still the cause, no matter which way you paint it.

Faulty reasoning. You can't go blaming root causal influences for the actions of individuals, otherwise you'd have to blame the big bang and the existence of the universe for everything.

In fact it frankly worries me you are so ready to wash your hands of any responsibility because you can pray on the naivety of others.

Quite frankly, it worries me that you're so ready to blame everyone else for your own actions and wash your hands of any and all responsibility for what you do, because 'someone else told you'? That's just all manner of irrational nonsense. Not wanting to go all Godwin on this thread, but that excuse doesn't fly at The Hague, nor did it at the Nuremberg Trials. Nor should it. One should be responsible, and accountable, for their own actions. If I tell you to jump off a cliff, why should I be done for 'incitement to commit suicide' if you jumped off the cliff by your own volition?

I think here you may be missing the point (and your example here isn't actually comparable). Your directly attacking an entire religion, with millions of people who COULD get offended, then questioning whether they have the right to retaliate at YOU, the person who made the comment (which, no - is wrong - regardless). What we are discussing is a personal attack against an individual who is on the receiving end of his outburst, with the call for a third party to take violent action against her, not against the person who made the initial call for violence. So your inciting action against an innocent party.

'incitement' is a politically correct term for 'not responsible for my own actions'. The analogy stands, regardless of which way the grievous bodily harm flows.

And just to highlight a point - Hypothetically - IF someone were to act on his tweet, he could be held accountable by a charge for inciting violence. Would I be wrong in assuming he may also be charged for murder in the fourth degree? (If in this situation it went that far)

Legally? There might be a case for that. But such a charge would be unjust.

[peterb]

It wasn't the words which caused emotional/mental harm, it's the person who decided to take offence to them. Anyone who thinks words can harm you needs to have their heads examined. You are responsible for your own emotional state, just as you're responsible for your own actions.

Which is why millions are spent on advertising, persuading people to buy brand x rather than bnrand y; why politicians spend hours making speeches and debating in parliament; why playwrights write satire; why barristers speak in court to influence a jury where the facts of a case are not clear cut.

Have you not heard speeches by Gerry Adams or Ian Paisley when they were seeking power in Northern Ireland?

Of course words influence people, and a reaction in people. (And if you think they don't, why do you spend so much time writing on this forum? Many of your posts appear designed to provoke a reaction! (As mine are now - because you will surely react to theme!)

[aidanjt]

Which is why millions are spent on advertising, persuading people to buy brand x rather than bnrand y; why politicians spend hours making speeches and debating in parliament; why playwrights write satire; why barristers speak in court to influence a jury where the facts of a case are not clear cut.

Have you not heard speeches by Gerry Adams or Ian Paisley when they were seeking power in Northern Ireland?

Of course words influence people, and a reaction in people.

I'm not saying words don't _influence_ people. But they don't *control* them, either. Ultimately the responsibility for the consequences of how they act on speech is theirs, and theirs alone. Like I said, you can't go blaming root causal influences for the actions of others, because the true root causal influence for everything is the creation of the universe. It makes no more sense to blame the universe because it set in motion a series of events which made some guy say something which some crackpot took literally and killed this some woman the guy was talking about. If a crackpot murders a woman, he murdered her, not some dude on twitter.

(And if you think they don't, why do you spend so much time writing on this forum? Many of your posts appear designed to provoke a reaction! (As mine are now - because you will surely react to theme!)

I spend time writing on this forum to discuss and exchange ideas, hopefully I'll manage to convince some people that some of my ideas have merit. I don't mind if someone doesn't agree with me. I'm not going to go into a blind rage and beat up some random person because someone on the internet disagrees with me (or told me to).

[.havoc]

Tut, tut. Two personal attacks in one sentence.

Not actually a personal attack - in fact its my opinion in the way in which you approached the subject. Nothing more malicious than that an nothing meant by it.

That's exactly the point. *I* am *NOT* determining *anything*

I would like to counter that with:

then you *deserve* to die

In fact you are.

Sure it does. I don't go listening to what some idiot says and doing what they're telling me to do, that means I don't jump off cliffs, or assault/murder people, on the slightest suggestion of others

Your instantly assuming that those who are easily led are murderers/killers/suicides all bowing to the crazy voice inside their head or some crap being spewed out by some nutty radical. There are many a people out there who may not have the means to lead or just may not want to, and prefer to have a little direction in life (see religion). How this prolongs your life and shortens theirs I don't know. And just to make my stance clear on this - I'm not even remotely religious and in fact have quite a dislike for it. But each to their own.

Sure, but the point was to knock it home. Which the lemming example does.

The lemming example doesn't work for me. It only takes one person to act upon another's influence.

Sure. Wars and whatnot. Usually happen as a result of group A questioning the size of group B's penis (or their deities penis)

Brilliant! Actually made me laugh!

They intently listened to (or read) what I had to say, and instead of coming up with a rational argument to counter what I'm saying, they use threat of violence and force.

Sort of verging on my point. They listen and act. Your the source of their actions/consequences. Your not the one doing it granted, but thats why it ties back into the whole listening/being led aspect.

One should be responsible, and accountable, for their own actions.

Yes I completely agree - but that also means acknowledging your impact on a situation. If someone was suicidal and you pushed that someone over the edge - you are still in part to blame for that - I do believe there was actually quite a big thing a year or so again about cyber bullying, resulting in a teenager taking her own life because of another's actions. Who is to blame for that? By your rationale - the guilty party isn't guilty at all. And the same applies here - if he incites violence he has to realise that his actions are responsible for triggering actions of others.


Just a thought - Say me, you and some stranger was in the room. I told the stranger I think it would be a great idea to punch you in the face. He does. Who do you blame? (honestly)

[aidanjt]

I would like to counter that with:

. In fact you are.

That's an observation, not a determination. Someone who blindly jumps off a cliff at the mere whisper of someone else, *wants* to die, and no natural force is going to step in and stop them. You're not going to hold the planet under arrest for creating the gravitational field which pulled them to their death at the bottom of the cliff. It was their own action which sent them hurtling to their death. They deserve to die by that reason.

Yes I completely agree - but that also means acknowledging your impact on a situation. If someone was suicidal and you pushed that someone over the edge - you are still in part to blame for that - I do believe there was actually quite a big thing a year or so again about cyber bullying, resulting in a teenager taking her own life because of another's actions. Who is to blame for that? By your rationale - the guilty party isn't guilty at all. And the same applies here - if he incites violence he has to realise that his actions are responsible for triggering actions of others.

I agree that cyber-bullying (and bullying in general) is a serious problem. But just blaming the bully and what they said isn't the answer. The problem is much greater issue with society. Why is the child even allowing their-self to be bullied? Why isn't the child talking to their parents about the problems they have? Why are teachers always so oblivious to the perfectly obvious staring at them in the face? Why is the bully bullying? What are the bully's parents doing? Or not doing?

You can't just blame the bully, brush your hands, and be done with it. The bully is a symptom of societies dysfunction, not the cause of it. And as bad as it is, it's ultimately the teenagers own decision to take the bullying (I mean, online, really? ever heard of block & report?) and ending their life.

As tempting as it is to blame everything, and everyone, for everything that's wrong with the world. Half of the problems are a direct result of people not taking responsibility for the way they behave. It's like a planet filled with 4 year olds, all pointing at each other.

Just a thought - Say me, you and some stranger was in the room. I told the stranger I think it would be a great idea to punch you in the face. He does. Who do you blame? (honestly)

Him, honestly.