Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Offensive electronic communications


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,291 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:31 PM

Is anyone else a little uneasy about the new trend to arrest and criminalize people who tweet/mail/facebook "offensive" messages?

I am in no way condoning or supporting any of the aforementioned messages (e.g. Tom Daley case, soldier case, April case etc.) and I'm not really a libertarian but there's something about this that smacks of censorship, and whilst we may all agree that these cases were indeed unpleasant and the individuals either also unpleasant or maybe stupid or both, I just worry that the definition of what is deemed offensive can be very different between individuals and that unscrupulous people in power could use/extend this to silence criticism or to set their own moral agenda.

Feel free to shout me down but I think this should be debated in the cold light of day and not in immediate anger at what some idiot retweets from Sickipedia.
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2014 - the hard work starts now

#2 Hornetto

Hornetto
  • Coach
  • 3,128 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:35 PM

Is anyone else a little uneasy about the new trend to arrest and criminalize people who tweet/mail/facebook "offensive" messages?

I am in no way condoning or supporting any of the aforementioned messages (e.g. Tom Daley case, soldier case, April case etc.) and I'm not really a libertarian but there's something about this that smacks of censorship, and whilst we may all agree that these cases were indeed unpleasant and the individuals either also unpleasant or maybe stupid or both, I just worry that the definition of what is deemed offensive can be very different between individuals and that unscrupulous people in power could use/extend this to silence criticism or to set their own moral agenda.

Feel free to shout me down but I think this should be debated in the cold light of day and not in immediate anger at what some idiot retweets from Sickipedia.


Agreed, there is a very broad line between tasteless behaviour and criminal behaviour. And, yes, 'offensive' is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted Image
These Lads Can Run for 80 Minutes - the infamous Hornets fanzine is back from the dead: and just as biased as ever!
Match reports, previews and other stuff that comes into our heads at
http://theseladscanr...ns.blogspot.com


#3 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,717 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 03:51 PM

I'm pretty sure freedom of speech does not include taking the pee out of 5 year old murdered girls.
I understand your point but essentially cretins like this forfeit their right to be seen as reasonable adults. So #### 'em.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#4 Bleep1673

Bleep1673
  • Coach
  • 3,430 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:41 PM

If somebody put a borderline joke on the "Joke Thread", would that person be deemed as a danger to society, and as such punished, or would the "Mods", invertebrates though they are, just delete the post & warn the poster of their distaste?
Swinton RLFC est 1866 - Supplying England with players when most of your clubs were in nappies

#5 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 7,988 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:50 PM

If somebody put a borderline joke on the "Joke Thread", would that person be deemed as a danger to society, and as such punished, or would the "Mods", invertebrates though they are, just delete the post & warn the poster of their distaste?


I thought you were supposed to be getting help with your drinking.
God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#6 Bleep1673

Bleep1673
  • Coach
  • 3,430 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:52 PM

I thought you were supposed to be getting help with your drinking.

sober, not had a drink for 3 days, off to AA tonight @ 8pm

Edited by Bleep1673, 09 October 2012 - 04:53 PM.

Swinton RLFC est 1866 - Supplying England with players when most of your clubs were in nappies

#7 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 7,988 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:58 PM

sober, not had a drink for 3 days, off to AA tonight @ 8pm


So no excuse for typing garbage like that then?
God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#8 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:12 PM

Is anyone else a little uneasy about the new trend to arrest and criminalize people who tweet/mail/facebook "offensive" messages?

I am in no way condoning or supporting any of the aforementioned messages (e.g. Tom Daley case, soldier case, April case etc.) and I'm not really a libertarian but there's something about this that smacks of censorship, and whilst we may all agree that these cases were indeed unpleasant and the individuals either also unpleasant or maybe stupid or both, I just worry that the definition of what is deemed offensive can be very different between individuals and that unscrupulous people in power could use/extend this to silence criticism or to set their own moral agenda.

Feel free to shout me down but I think this should be debated in the cold light of day and not in immediate anger at what some idiot retweets from Sickipedia.


Totally agree. They'll be some overworked magistrates around when Mrs T goes if this is the bar that's being set.

#9 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,717 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:20 PM

Totally agree. They'll be some overworked magistrates around when Mrs T goes if this is the bar that's being set.


I don't think people who make such comments should be able to hide behind free speech. It is disgusting and the actions of a scumbag.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#10 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:28 PM

I don't think people who make such comments should be able to hide behind free speech. It is disgusting and the actions of a scumbag.


But it'll happen John. I Guarantee it'll happen on here as well.

#11 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:32 PM

I'm pretty sure freedom of speech does not include taking the pee out of 5 year old murdered girls.
I understand your point but essentially cretins like this forfeit their right to be seen as reasonable adults. So #### 'em.

I agree that they forfeit the right to be seen as reasonable adults but I don't think it should bring criminal charges. I like the fact that with sites such as Twitter and Facebook is it is easy to bring these idiotic comments to the attention of others so these sad little cretins can be publicly named and shamed.
Fides invicta triumphat

#12 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,291 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:34 PM

How is it different to Frankie Boyle's Maddie McCann jokes that he tells in front of thousands of paying punters?
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2014 - the hard work starts now

#13 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:39 PM

How is it different to Frankie Boyle's Maddie McCann jokes that he tells in front of thousands of paying punters?


From a purely legal perspective I guess it's due to the fact that people who directly hear Frankie Boyle/see a tweet are the ones who can legally be offended and as you've bought a ticket you've forgone your rights to be offended. Just a guess, could well be rubbish.

#14 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:41 PM

From a purely legal perspective I guess it's due to the fact that people who directly hear Frankie Boyle/see a tweet are the ones who can legally be offended and as you've bought a ticket you've forgone your rights to be offended. Just a guess, could well be rubbish.

Doesn't really wash with Facebook/Twitter posts. You have to actively seek to follow/friend a person so in that respect you have chosen to read what they have to say.
Fides invicta triumphat

#15 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:50 PM

Doesn't really wash with Facebook/Twitter posts. You have to actively seek to follow/friend a person so in that respect you have chosen to read what they have to say.


Mostly true with facebook, but with Twitter you have to actively do something to stop all and sundry seeing what you write.

#16 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 06:12 PM

Mostly true with facebook, but with Twitter you have to actively do something to stop all and sundry seeing what you write.

But you still have to follow a person on Twitter to see what they write. The only way you can read something that might offend you on Twitter is if you have followed the person who wrote it, someone you followed has retweeted it or you have searched for the tweet.
Fides invicta triumphat

#17 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 06:13 PM

But you still have to follow a person on Twitter to see what they write. The only way you can read something that might offend you on Twitter is if you have followed the person who wrote it, someone you followed has retweeted it or you have searched for the tweet.


So if you search April Jones, in the hope for some news you lose your right to be offended?

#18 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 06:18 PM

So if you search April Jones, in the hope for some news you lose your right to be offended?

Of course you may read something that offends you. You said that if you buy a ticket to Frankie Boyle you forgo your 'rights to be offended'*. How is that different from going onto a website, or buying a paper?

* When you say right to be offended I'm assuming you mean the right to be not offended. No one has this right, offence is taken, not given. I don't like what the guy wrote about soldiers on Facebook, it offends me. But my rights aren't being infringed here.
Fides invicta triumphat

#19 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 06:37 PM

Of course you may read something that offends you. You said that if you buy a ticket to Frankie Boyle you forgo your 'rights to be offended'*. How is that different from going onto a website, or buying a paper?


It's based on likelyhood. If The Telegraph put hardcore pornography on page 9 they couldn't say , "Well you bought the paper" because it wouldn't be reasonable to expect it.


* When you say right to be offended I'm assuming you mean the right to be not offended. No one has this right, offence is taken, not given. I don't like what the guy wrote about soldiers on Facebook, it offends me. But my rights aren't being infringed here.


I mean the right to take offence, he has been found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message, so someone has to have taken offence.

#20 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,904 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:14 PM

Connected to this is the incident during the riots last year where a lad wrote on facebook 'Warrington tonight 8pm' or some such nonsense. Not one single person turned up, including the guy who wrote it, and yet the police saw fit to arrest the guy. The CPS then saw fit to charge him. And a judge (describing it as "an evil act" (really?) saw fit to find send him down for four years. Four years? For that?
"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users