# Sickipedia facing possible legal action



## thedonutman (Feb 7, 2009)

Sledge death jokes anger - Sheffield Telegraph

This girl died a few days ago in a sledging accident, and her family/friends are getting angry that there are jokes about it on sickipedia.

She supposedly went down a hill on a broken off car roof or something and then went through a barbed wire fence.

Sickipedia is full of some really horribly twisted jokes, like the ones about Madeline McCann.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 7, 2009)

Whatever. Might be in poor taste, but it's freedom of speech. Being tasteless and insensitive isn't against the law, nor should it be. Think the jokes are insensitive, tasteless, and reprehensible? Don't fucking read them. 


*last comment not directed at you, just the people who think they can sue Sickipedia*


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 7, 2009)

I find some jokes on there funny, and some questionable. Its kind of weird in that I'm for freedom of speech, but some people abuse that right. Its easy to say 'if don't like the jokes, don't read them', but if you knew a website was posting jokes about your deceased daughter, I doubt you'd feel the same. Basically, I think sikipedia needs to be responsible when names are mentioned. General jokes are alright, they aren't aimed at anyone specific.


----------



## thedonutman (Feb 7, 2009)

vampiregenocide said:


> I find some jokes on there funny, and some questionable. Its kind of weird in that I'm for freedom of speech, but some people abuse that right.



I agree with you 100% on this one, I don't have too much of a problem with people making fun of other people over the internet. I just think it's bad form to make fun of a person who has died recently.


----------



## WhiteShadow (Feb 7, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Whatever. Might be in poor taste, but it's freedom of speech. Being tasteless and insensitive isn't against the law, nor should it be. Think the jokes are insensitive, tasteless, and reprehensible? Don't fucking read them.



Well said. Couldnt agree more.


----------



## TimSE (Feb 7, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Whatever. Might be in poor taste, but it's freedom of speech. Being tasteless and insensitive isn't against the law, nor should it be. Think the jokes are insensitive, tasteless, and reprehensible? Don't fucking read them.
> 
> 
> *last comment not directed at you, just the people who think they can sue Sickipedia*


----------



## Mattayus (Feb 7, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Whatever. Might be in poor taste, but it's freedom of speech. Being tasteless and insensitive isn't against the law, nor should it be. Think the jokes are insensitive, tasteless, and reprehensible? Don't fucking read them.
> 
> 
> *last comment not directed at you, just the people who think they can sue Sickipedia*



While I agree for the most part on a political and philosophical basis, I think it's a pathetic act of immaturity with a vulgar display of disrespect to the friends and families involved. So, ok, they don't have to read them, but news of the jokes still clearly got to those in mourning one way or another.

Those sorts of things are hard to ignore when the entire world is ridiculing the loss of your loved ones. It's not a case of freedom of speech with things like this, it's common fucking sense and the cunts need to be strung up. I'm sorry, I just can't look at cases like this with the same level of nonchalant diplomacy.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 7, 2009)

They should go take a look at Rotten and think, at least they aren't posting pictures of my dead daughter and then laughing at them.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 7, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> While I agree for the most part on a political and philosophical basis, I think it's a pathetic act of immaturity with a vulgar display of disrespect to the friends and families involved. So, ok, they don't have to read them, but news of the jokes still clearly got to those in mourning one way or another.
> 
> Those sorts of things are hard to ignore when the entire world is ridiculing the loss of your loved ones. It's not a case of freedom of speech with things like this, it's common fucking sense and the cunts need to be strung up. I'm sorry, I just can't look at cases like this with the same level of nonchalant diplomacy.



Yeah, it is immature and vulgar, but luckily those things aren't illegal yet or I'd be doing like 5 consecutive life sentences 

I just fail to see how a tasteless joke could in any conceivable way be considered illegal, by anyone. I don't think there's any rational way to justify arresting someone for it.

The only way I can think of for shit being said online to be considered illegal is if you're baiting someone to kill themselves, or if you're threatening someone. Also, think of all the jokes made about Catholic priests touching little boys. I'm pretty sure everyone here has laughed at a joke like that. Now, think about the emotional scarring that shit tons of kids have been through, and how hearing a joke like that must feel to them. Should we arrest anyone who tells a joke like that? Where do you draw the line? We might as well filter the internet and become Australian if it comes down to that.


----------



## Mattayus (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm not saying arrest them, because that's ridiculous. But I think some sanctions need to be put in order when the jokes are that specific and personal. Getting away with it isn't acceptable IMO


----------



## PlagueX1 (Feb 7, 2009)

Unacceptable in my opinion. That's abusing freedom of speech. People need to learn to respect other people.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 8, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> I'm not saying arrest them, because that's ridiculous. But I think some sanctions need to be put in order when the jokes are that specific and personal. Getting away with it isn't acceptable IMO




Well if you're going to attempt to censor them, either by fining or letting them be sued, you might as well arrest them.


----------



## Mattayus (Feb 8, 2009)

I think we're missing the point here - I'm not so prudish as to recoil in horror at jokes like this, but it's the fact that it's in PUBLIC. That is the thing that I find unacceptable.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean some jumped up racist prick can paint "I HATE NIGGERS!!" across the inside of the predominantly black gospel church down town. They can say it to their friends however, all day long, because that's not offending anyone. But putting it in public view is clearly for the purposes of sharing it with the masses, clearly not caring whether a black person sees it or not.

This is no different. In fact it's worse, because people CAN and DO actually get arrested for racist comments, for no other reason other than it causes offence, and IMO joking about the death of a loved on is much more offensive. In the public domain they are unacceptable. Particularly so soon after the event.



PlagueX1 said:


> That's abusing freedom of speech.



Basically, this ^


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 8, 2009)

thedonutman said:


> She supposedly went down a hill on a broken off car roof or something and then went through a barbed wire fence.



I don't mean to sound insensitive, but where the hell where these angry friends & family when this was happening? Letting somebody either be so stupid or do something stupid is the real transgression against this girl and society in general. Suing people on the internet because they're mean- come on!

If I had a kid, I'd try my damnedest to make sure that they'd know better- that is, if a certain recreational activity sounds like the lead-up to a Darwin Awards entry- don't do it!


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 8, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> IFreedom of speech doesn't mean some jumped up racist prick can paint "I HATE NIGGERS!!" across the inside of the predominantly black gospel church down town.



No, because that would be destruction of private property which is a crime. He can however run down the street screaming it if he should so choose in that neighborhood. What happens to him if he should choose to do that is his own business  There is no such thing as the right to not be offended. 

Actually, the running down the street screaming might not be the best example, that could be considered public disturbance or inciting a riot. A better example would be publishing a book, or a newspaper called "I hate niggers!". Anyone is free to buy it if they should choose to do so, but you don't have to. Of course I doubt a lot of book stores would choose to stock it


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 8, 2009)

Demiurge said:


> I don't mean to sound insensitive, but where the hell where these angry friends & family when this was happening? Letting somebody either be so stupid or do something stupid is the real transgression against this girl and society in general. Suing people on the internet because they're mean- come on!
> 
> If I had a kid, I'd try my damnedest to make sure that they'd know better- that is, if a certain recreational activity sounds like the lead-up to a Darwin Awards entry- don't do it!





Don't people laugh at other Darwin Awards? What makes this so different?


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Feb 8, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Don't people laugh at other Darwin Awards? What makes this so different?



When I read that story I thought "Darwin Award" immediately...  I mean sledging down a steep hill on an upside down Land Rover roof with a barbed wire fence at the bottom of the hill? Doesn't strike me as terribly bright myself...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 8, 2009)

Exactly, so if this site can be held responsible for hosting a bunch of jokes (because after all, they are user submitted) then why not go after the Darwin Award site? Those people had families too, and that site makes light of their death. 

If a website started posting jokes about me, as much as it would suck, there's not much you can do about it. Remember Star Wards Kid? That dude needs therapy and shit now, he had to leave school. Doesn't mean I didn't laugh my ass off when I saw the videos.


----------



## thedonutman (Feb 8, 2009)

I didn't think this would raise so much disagreement when I posted it.

*I don't dislike sickipedia, has lots of funny jokes on, except I seem to care about this particular story slightly more because it was a very local thing, (plus I happened to be going down steep hills on various objects that same day)


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Feb 8, 2009)

thedonutman said:


> I didn't think this would raise so much disagreement when I posted it.
> 
> *I don't dislike sickipedia, has lots of funny jokes on, except I seem to care about this particular story slightly more because it was a very local thing, (plus I happened to be going down steep hills on various objects that same day)



Yeah, but the difference is, I imagine, that your hill probably didn't have a great big barbed-wire fence right at the bottom of it...


----------



## mustang-monk (Feb 8, 2009)

although it must be pretty horrible for the family of the girl, from a wider legal perspective i think taking lega action against sickipedia is wrong, if the courts decide on this occasion that sickipedia has broken the law it sets a precendent opens the door for other people to sue in other situations. A small part of freedom of speech may be erroded.


----------



## CatPancakes (Feb 8, 2009)

yay freedom of speech!

but really, she crashed a car-roof sled into a barbwire fence and its a tragedy?
natural selection to me.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Feb 8, 2009)

I gotta ask, how retarded is this girl? seriously? on a car roof? The jokes are bad taste yeah, but man that's just asking for it doing that kind of thing.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 8, 2009)

Anyone who has *ever* said anything along the lines of "abusing free speech" in an attempt to preserve the impression of respecting free speech while calling for censorship:

If you do not stand by beliefs when they are challenged, they are not beliefs - at best, they're fucking bumper sticker quips. If you think that the possibility of someone taking offense invalidates freedom of speech, then there is no fucking freedom of speech - there's the occasional ability to have a tea party provided the only discussion topics are the weather and cute mammals.

If you do seriously believe that being the possibility of offending someone should be grounds for preventing speech, anti-freedom-of-speech offends me on a deep level and should be banned - so take that sissy, internally contradictory bullshit somewhere else.

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Anyone who has *ever* said anything along the lines of "abusing free speech" in an attempt to preserve the impression of respecting free speech while calling for censorship:
> 
> If you do not stand by beliefs when they are challenged, they are not beliefs - at best, they're fucking bumper sticker quips. If you think that the possibility of someone taking offense invalidates freedom of speech, then there is no fucking freedom of speech - there's the occasional ability to have a tea party provided the only discussion topics are the weather and cute mammals.
> 
> ...





/thread

That pretty much just ends any argument right there.

While definitely in bad taste and being pretty mean, nobody at Sickipedia has violated the law. It is not illegal to say things in bad taste. What "abusing free speech" means is completely subjective and will differ greatly depending on the person. If this is illegal, what are they going to do next?


----------



## Dusty201087 (Feb 8, 2009)

I just read the article. Really? Wow. There are some really stupid people out there. 

Are the jokes tasteless? Yes. By all means.

But just because something is "tasteless" doesn't mean it's against the law.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Feb 8, 2009)

I feel bad for the parents, but what sickipedia did isn't illegal, so they shouldn't be getting any crap for it.

As long as it's legal, that's as far as this arguement should go.


----------



## DavyH (Feb 9, 2009)

What precisely is the difference between sick jokes and otherwise? After all, don't _all _jokes make light of the misfortune of others in one way or another?

Grim humour is a natural way of facing up to the horrors of life.

And, sicko that I am, I find it very amusing.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 9, 2009)

I do know that analyzing comedy is one of the quickest ways to not be comedic. 

I find that hilarious.

Jeff


----------



## Mattayus (Feb 9, 2009)

I never for a second said it shouldn't be said, just not in public view. That's not censorship, as they're still aloud to say it. I take it back to my racism analogy - why is racism absolutely unacceptable? The graffiti example was a bad one, because the law there is vandalism, but what if someone WERE to run down the street screaming racist garbage? That's right, they get arrested. At least in this country. So what's the difference? Where do you draw the line between what's acceptable and what's considered an infringement on people's human rights.

If it's a human right to remain emotionally unharmed by white supremacists then I find it an equal, if not more important, human right to mourn death unscathed.

Again, I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this point - It's the fact that it's in public view that gets me, not the fact that it's said in the first place. I'm for freedom of speech as much as the next guy, hell I've laughed at jokes like this for as long as I can remember, and I do think suing the website is taking it too far, but I'm still maintaining that this isn't a matter of freedom of speech or any of that crap. It's just irresponsible to host jokes about such fresh events.

Ok, so you can argue it's irresponsible to fly down a hill on a car roof, but horses for courses. You don't take the family's right to mourn over it just because you feel it was a stupid thing to do.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Also, think of all the jokes made about Catholic priests touching little boys. I'm pretty sure everyone here has laughed at a joke like that. Now, think about the emotional scarring that shit tons of kids have been through, and how hearing a joke like that must feel to them.



I think, at least for the most part, the majority of those jokes are aimed at the Priest, not the kid.


----------



## Naren (Feb 9, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> I never for a second said it shouldn't be said, just not in public view. That's not censorship, as they're still aloud to say it. I take it back to my racism analogy - why is racism absolutely unacceptable? The graffiti example was a bad one, because the law there is vandalism, but what if someone WERE to run down the street screaming racist garbage? That's right, they get arrested. At least in this country. So what's the difference? Where do you draw the line between what's acceptable and what's considered an infringement on people's human rights.



Racism is not illegal. In your example, you are NOT getting arrested because you are being racist. You are being arrested for disturbing the peace. You would get arrested by doing the exact same thing, but yelling "I FUCKING LOVE EVERYONE IN THE WORLD! EVERY FUCKING ONE OF YOU GUYS IS AWESOME! I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW AWESOME IT IS TO BE A MUTHERFUCKING HUMAN BEING!!" 

What is your problem with this website from a legal standpoint? On the street, you can't block out the guy who's screaming, regardling of whether he's screaming racist garbage, hippy nonsense, valid stock advice, or advertisements for fast food. There is nothing you can do. You have to hear it. With the website, you have to go searching for the website to read that stuff. I hate racists, but I don't think anyone should be arrested for believing that whites are inferior to some other race or that some other race is inferior to whites. It is committing crimes based on those beliefs that people should be arrested for (murder, rape, etc.).

That's the difference.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 9, 2009)

So you can say what you want, but not in public view... can we also have books as long as we don't read them?

Mattayus, there's a line between speaking in public and disturbing the peace, and it's much farther away than you seem to think it is.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 9, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> I never for a second said it shouldn't be said, just not in public view. That's not censorship, as they're still aloud to say it. I take it back to my racism analogy - why is racism absolutely unacceptable? The graffiti example was a bad one, because the law there is vandalism, but what if someone WERE to run down the street screaming racist garbage? That's right, they get arrested. At least in this country. So what's the difference? Where do you draw the line between what's acceptable and what's considered an infringement on people's human rights.
> 
> If it's a human right to remain emotionally unharmed by white supremacists then I find it an equal, if not more important, human right to mourn death unscathed.
> 
> ...



I agree with what Naren said, you can't block out the guy on the street, however you don't HAVE to read those jokes if they're about your family. Also, that's one of the things about the Westboro (sp?) Baptist Church picketing funerals of soldiers. I'd defend their right to post "God hates fags" on the internet and spew their bullshit there, but the picketing SHOULD be illegal because THEY aren't letting people mourn in peace. That's where I would draw the line for a "right to mourn in peace", which I don't actually think exists. But again, I'd say they're causing a public disturbance.

Also, about the priest jokes, it doesn't matter who they're aimed at, I'm sure it still brings up bad memories in people who had been molested.


----------



## Mattayus (Feb 9, 2009)

From a legal standpoint I have no problem as I don't think it's a viable crime. AS I'VE SAID ABOUT 12 TIMES 

From a moral standpoint however, I think something needs to be done, maybe not in the realm of law, but just have them take the jokes down out of respect. I think everyone here is taking diplomacy to the Nth degree to be captain of the internet. If I was the little cunt making jokes about your dead daughter you'd want my head a pike, so everyone please leave the "freedom of speech" bullshit for when it actually applies.

Also, you clearly don't live in the UK. If someone reports an unearthly amount of offence from someone's street shoutings, there were enough witnesses, and the police see it appropriate, yes you fucking can be arrested. And before you ask, no, I don't know this from experience 

It's seen as a personal attack, despite the fact that it's verbal. So again, I'm having to reiterate my point - where do we draw the line? People get arrested for verbal harassment don't they? I'm just saying, if THAT sort of shit isn't tolerated in the eyes of the law, then the least that can happen with sickapedia is that they can politely take the jokes down while the family grieves. I'm not asking anyone to curb their freedom, do anything out of line, or give up their day job and cry in the corner. It's not much to ask, I don't get the big deal.

EDIT: I think some of you are taking my examples too literally. It's not the act in which the message is portrayed that I'm using as the example here, it's the message itself.


----------



## FortePenance (Feb 9, 2009)

Karma police, arrest this man.

Sickipedia is a fantastic website because the jokes are so tasteless.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 9, 2009)

Actually, if you make jokes about *anything* I won't - and shouldn't - hold it against you. In fact, I won't do anything about them - I won't even look them up on the Internet, for that matter. Problem solved.

People don't get arrested for verbal harassment because of what's being said, they get arrested for impeding someone's daily life unnecessarily or creating a troubling work or school atmosphere. Follow some old lady around screaming BANANABANANABANANANANANA and you'll get taken away - not because bananas are against every old woman's religion, but because you're being a bloody pain in the ass. This, then, has nothing to do with verbal harassment - again, it can be *avoided*. Those who find it disturbing should avoid it. They have the right and the ability to do so.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 9, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> From a legal standpoint I have no problem as I don't think it's a viable crime. AS I'VE SAID ABOUT 12 TIMES
> 
> From a moral standpoint however, I think something needs to be done, maybe not in the realm of law, but just have them take the jokes down out of respect. I think everyone here is taking diplomacy to the Nth degree to be captain of the internet. If I was the little cunt making jokes about your dead daughter you'd want my head a pike, so everyone please leave the "freedom of speech" bullshit for when it actually applies.
> 
> ...



But if they don't want to, what's to make them? They obviously don't care or they wouldn't be hosting a website for users to upload sick jokes in the first place, so they don't feel this moral obligation to do anything. You can't police morality.

Sure, if someone made jokes about my dead family member, I'd want to punch their lights out. The difference is is that the cops and government are supposed to be above that. I would of course expect to get arrested for assault once I punched said person though. The fact they made a joke about my family doesn't give me the right to assault someone.


----------



## hairychris (Feb 9, 2009)

Hm.

If Sickipedia is UK hosted then, well, we don't have the same freedom of speech _laws_ as the US does. On the other hand I don't know what laws can be used against them in this case.

Anyway, has anyone actually read the B3ta book of sick jokes that was culled from this site? I'm surprised that they didn't get sued for that!


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Feb 9, 2009)

If you decide hurtling down a hill on a car roof is a good idea, and then die, sorry, but you may be "a bright student with a brilliant future" to some, to others you're a retard that just removed themselves from the gene pool. 

People die, every single day, in circumstances they can do nothing about, purely because they live in a conflict, are the wrong ethnicity, so, when someone dies through doing something that really is fairly stupid, then tough.

I don't think a website should be closed down for mirroring the sentiment that a lot of people think she was dumb for doing that. And yes. hurtling across a slippery surface with little friction to slow them down (if she was so bright then she should have known her physics) towards a barbed wire fence (yep, sharp things, they hurt) and a fence (inertia) floowed by a river (drowning). Chalk it up to natural selection.

Shit man, free speech, fuck that censoring something just because it hurts someone's feelings. Don't like it, then don't read it

In fact, if you think that closing a site like this down is a good idea, then you should agree with heavy metal being the spawn of satan movement from the 80's. If you can't offend, then the next step is not being able to complain, welcome to Orwell's 1984 gentlement.



sickipedia said:


> Francesca Anobile had 15 GCSEs graded A or A*.
> 
> Physics must not have been one of them.


----------



## mustang-monk (Feb 9, 2009)

isuppose its a balance of rights, sickipedias freedom of speech and the familys right to freedom from harrasment. If the people posting the jokes actually went up to the family and said jokes about their dead daughter then obviously their use of freedom of speech is imposing on the familys freedom from harrasment.

But if the website is doing something illegal then is there a difference if you were joking about it with you friend on the street.


----------



## Naren (Feb 9, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> It's seen as a personal attack, despite the fact that it's verbal. So again, I'm having to reiterate my point - where do we draw the line? People get arrested for verbal harassment don't they? I'm just saying, if THAT sort of shit isn't tolerated in the eyes of the law, then the least that can happen with sickapedia is that they can politely take the jokes down while the family grieves. I'm not asking anyone to curb their freedom, do anything out of line, or give up their day job and cry in the corner. It's not much to ask, I don't get the big deal.
> 
> EDIT: I think some of you are taking my examples too literally. It's not the act in which the message is portrayed that I'm using as the example here, it's the message itself.



Actually, it's not the message itself. If you were in a restaurant talking at a normal volume to a friend of yours about how "this stupid-ass bitch killed herself" doing blah-blah-blah, you aren't gonna get arrested for that. If you talk about it loud enough (verging on "disturbing the peace"), you'll get a warning to quiet down. And, then if you stand up and start yelling about it in the restaurant, you'll get _arrested_ for disturbing the peace. Your message is irrelevant. Like JBroll said, you could just stand up and yell "BANANA BANANA BANANA BANANA BANANA BANANA BANANA!!" and get arrested. 

In this case, it is not verbal abuse or textual abuse. It WOULD BE if they constantly e-mailed these jokes to the family members or phone called them up and said the jokes to them or stopped them on the street to told them the jokes. You cannot abuse someone when you haven't even aimed your jokes at someone. The only way the family could see these jokes is by looking for them and then reading them.

They have done nothing illegal in the US or UK. The examples you've given would get you arrested regardless of what your message was.

And they can politely take their jokes down? It's a website for nothing but jokes in bad taste. They'd have to take down the entire website...


----------



## mustang-monk (Feb 9, 2009)

People make fun of all sorts of tragedy far worse than this case. Theres jokes on their about the bush fires in australia and theres like nearly 100 people dead. Sledge girl is Practically a you've been framed moment compared to some of the subjects of peoples humour. I think they should focus on burying their daughter rather than pursuing a pointless law suit.


----------



## liquidcow (Feb 10, 2009)

For all this legal talk a lot of people seem to have not read the article, which says:



> According to Section Four of the Public Order Act: "A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."



Of course, like many laws that's a bit vague and so if there were a court case there'd be a lot of to and fro about whether there was actually any _intent_ to cause harassment.

The legal stuff aside, they may not have broken the law, and I believe in freedom of speech, which often means sticking up for people's rights to say things you find despicable. However, the whole 'if you don't like it don't read it' thing doesn't really wash with me. It basically just means 'I don't want to have to take responsibility or be made accountable for what I've said or done'. Yes, people should be allowed to say what they want (beyond the obvious 'yelling fire in a theatre' or incitement to violence etc), but they should also think about the things they say and the consequences of it. It's a bit rich to laugh at someone's personal tragedy, and then get wound up when that person calls you a dick.


----------



## mustang-monk (Feb 10, 2009)

Theres no mens rea.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 10, 2009)

liquidcow said:


> For all this legal talk a lot of people seem to have not read the article, which says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They aren't getting wound up. We're just debating here whether or not their freedom of speech should be limited because the jokes are tasteless. They're probably laughing about the fact they're even going to try.

I'm free to shout ethnic slurs, but I should expect anyone of that ethnicity that hears me to punch me in the face. It's called common sense. Of course they don't expect to be on that family's good side after hosting those jokes, and my hunch is is that they really don't care whether they get a Christmas card from them or not.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 10, 2009)

liquidcow said:


> However, the whole 'if you don't like it don't read it' thing doesn't really wash with me. It basically just means 'I don't want to have to take responsibility or be made accountable for what I've said or done'. Yes, people should be allowed to say what they want (beyond the obvious 'yelling fire in a theatre' or incitement to violence etc), but they should also think about the things they say and the consequences of it. It's a bit rich to laugh at someone's personal tragedy, and then get wound up when that person calls you a dick.



People should think before they speak, but unfortunately stupidity isn't inherently painful enough to make that too common. Fortunately, if you don't like what someone says you can argue it, discredit the speaker, and otherwise use your own freedom of speech in turn. In any event, there have been far too many words written for everything to be read, so if you're reading selectively anyway you might as well select things that don't such instead of pretending that arguing against freedom of speech isn't completely inconsistent and boneheaded.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Feb 11, 2009)

Naren said:


> /thread
> 
> That pretty much just ends any argument right there.



That's what you thought.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 11, 2009)

It ends the possibility of a *useful* counterargument.

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 11, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> That's what you thought.



Actually the argument did end there, but people just kept on at it, oblivious to the illogicality of their statements. It's like a judge ruling someone guilty, but the person continuing to argue with him even after the verdict.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Feb 12, 2009)

JBroll said:


> It ends the possibility of a *useful* counterargument.
> 
> Jeff



I said nothing of whatsoever about it being a *useful* argument. 



Naren said:


> Actually the argument did end there, but people just kept on at it, oblivious to the illogicality of their statements. It's like a judge ruling someone guilty, but the person continuing to argue with him even after the verdict.



And this is exactly why I was laughing very hard by the time I reached the second page.


----------



## mustang-monk (Feb 12, 2009)

Naren said:


> Actually the argument did end there, but people just kept on at it, oblivious to the illogicality of their statements. It's like a judge ruling someone guilty, but the person continuing to argue with him even after the verdict.



like an appeal? but yeah you cant have free speech if things are restricted, other wise you have the right to say what your allowed to say.


----------



## Naren (Feb 12, 2009)

mustang-monk said:


> like an appeal? but yeah you cant have free speech if things are restricted, other wise you have the right to say what your allowed to say.



No, more like:

"The defendant is... GUILTY!"
"What the fuck do mean I'm guilty?! If you'll take a look over at exhibit A, you can clearly see that-"
"Sir, we already covered that."
"Shouldn't a man have the right to kill someone who is verbally abusing him?"
"Sir, that's a felony by US law as we just covered."
"I am not guilty. I have witnesses who-"
"Security, please take Mr. Jones away."


----------



## mustang-monk (Feb 12, 2009)

Naren said:


> "*Shouldn't a man have the right to kill someone who is verbally abusing him?"*



Being a bit pedantic here. In the UK (about 85&#37; sure thats its the same in the US), provocation is a defence to murder so i guess the guy maybe arguing against his murder conviction believeing it should be voluntary manslaughter. Bt its not a right to kill someone so i guess youre right.

I guess im just being a dick.






I pretty much agree with you on the free speech thing.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 12, 2009)

mustang-monk said:


> Being a bit pedantic here. In the UK (about 85% sure thats its the same in the US), provocation is a defence to murder so i guess the guy maybe arguing against his murder conviction believeing it should be voluntary manslaughter. Bt its not a right to kill someone so i guess youre right.
> 
> I guess im just being a dick.
> 
> ...





Are you kidding me? That's a valid defense in the UK?  The only provocation that would be a murder defense here would be if they were threatening you.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Feb 12, 2009)

I don't know...I'm pretty sure the definition of 'provocation' in this case means actually threatening you, not just name-calling. There was a guy recently who killed someone for telling him he looked like Wayne Rooney on a drunken night out, and the full weight of the law crashed down on him...


----------



## mustang-monk (Feb 12, 2009)

its a defence but your not gonna be let off you just get voluntary manslaughter, the only difference really is murder carries a mandatory life sentence whereas the judge has discretion in his sentencing with voluntary manslaughter. oh and its a defence in canada too.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Feb 12, 2009)

I mean if someone calls my mom a dirty whore, and I shoot him, that's still murder. If I punch him or something, and he falls down and bashes his head on something and dies, that's manslaughter, and the provocation doesn't matter since the outcome is the same. At least that's my take on it, I'm no lawyer.


----------



## mustang-monk (Feb 12, 2009)

really it depends on the degree of the provocation and its up to the judge at the end of the day. They base it on a number of things to much to go in to, it depends on how it relates to the defendant, also the judge can still give you a massive sentence anyway. its not a full defence.


----------

