[DontBeJelBeReem]

(Original post by vedderfan94)
How is it not? Finding someone's IP on the internet is easier than you think.

And to follow on from that.. an address isn't much harder either.

[Kiss]

(Original post by dgeorge)
No one said either was a kind place. But if he made threats that deserve criminal charges, it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter whether or not it happened over internet or not, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He wasn't just offensive, he was CRIMINALLY offensive, which is the issue here.



No, I am calling DEATH THREATS AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE criminal. I fail to see how that is, in any way, pathetic.


He WAS directly threatening people, which is the issue, and I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read the specific tweets being referred to.

You totally ignored what I said about threatening people over the internet.............

[Kiss]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
I'm sorry, but how do you legally quantify abuse? Isn't it up to the level of abuse felt by the recipient- which could be totally unrelated to the level of abuse intended? The "blasphemy law" thing of a while back is an example of this- rendering criticism of religions (one monotheism in particular) illegal as they caused distress to adherents of those religions.

This.

[Presenttime]

Sending threats warrants legal action. Sending insults doesn't imo.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Kiss)
You totally ignored what I said about threatening people over the internet.............

And you totally ignored what I said in the post you replied to

[g36c]

(Original post by Straight up G)
When the Danish Cartoonists insult Islam it's free speech but when Team GB's golden boy (or is that 4th-placed boy ) is insulted there is a massive fuss and widespread outrage

ones a joke

the others sick comments to make someone feel bad

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by g36c)
ones a joke

the others sick comments to make someone feel bad

The fact that I can't tell which you consider to be a joke or sick comments speaks volumes about the ambiguity of "offensiveness".

[idontthinkso]

Freedom of speech also includes freedom to be an idiot. If it didn't you'd need to restart shipping prisioners to Australia.

[MrJim]

It's all bizarre because irl, outside of celebrity culture, people basically do all of the above and not consider involving the authorities. All the government is basically doing is saying celebrities are so important that you can't even insult them publicly or you will be locked away.

God damn English middle class people are incapable of holding an absolute right to be inalienable. If you can't insult "important" people, then it's not too far from not being able to disagree with powerful people. New Labour started all of this **** will rampant political correctness and the coalition and just finishing off the final blows to the man on the street.

[Kiss]

(Original post by dgeorge)
And you totally ignored what I said in the post you replied to

No, I read over and noticed it was merely focused on threats via the internet which I addressed. You obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote, or rather you chose to ignore it.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Kiss)
No, I read over and noticed it was merely focused on threats via the internet which I addressed. You obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote, or rather you chose to ignore it.

You call something as petty and insignificant as someone calling someone something over the internet ´criminal´ - thats pretty pathetic.

Thing is, I NEVER said that someone calling someone else names over the internet was criminal....which is what I later pointed out but you never addressed

[Beast unleashed]

There has never been a completly free speach anywhere in the world. there is to a degree but people cant say things that upset/harm others.The issue is they dont mind helping famous people out when they get crab but when its normal people do they rarely give a damn.