Freedom of speech really has become a bit of a burden to modern society though. By incrementally reclassifying what is considered free speech and outlawing the rest we can one day live in a world where no one ever has to have their feelings hurt again.
Won't that be wonderful? Our politicians certainly seem to think it's a good idea.
Have you ever lived in fear? It's fucking horrible. It affects everything you do, everything you think. Even if you know, you KNOW it's irrational, the fear doesn't go away. Spending every day hiding inside, flinching at every knock on the door, your mind being eaten away by a constant, ever-present fear.
Feelings hurt? This isn't about calling someone a dickhead. This is about the kind of thing that destroys people, and we should sit back and let people do this for their own entertainment?
So an appropriate response would be 2 years of imprisonment?
I'm not saying the nasty end of the troll spectrum isn't a problem and we should all just take some concrete pills. When you face the wrath of the internet it most definitely will put you in a shitty frame of mind.
In the extreme cases I would argue that it's not the individual 'I hate you jump off a bridge you POS' that will make someone crack but the torrent of thousands of people at all different levels of hatred.
> So an appropriate response would be 2 years of imprisonment?
I think prison should be reserved for people who are repeatedly violent, so my answer is no. But still, making many credible threats of extreme violence - often causing the victim to leave their homes and disrupting their work - should carry some penalty.
Someone threatening to kill you/rape you/etc. is a bit more than getting your feelings hurt. If they walked up to you in the street and did it they would be arrested. Online it's difficult to tell if the threat is real or not and it can do a lot more to a persons mental state than hurt their feelings.
Someone threatening to kill you/rape you/etc. is a bit more than getting your feelings hurt.
But the law makes it illegal to send messages “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another” - that pretty much includes simply hurting others' feelings.
Using the worst case scenario to justify overreaching laws is par for the course, and I'm disappointed by the number of useful idiots defending it on this thread.
Wait, was that last sentence needlessly annoying? Maybe I should get arrested!
Similar wording is in existing UK laws - you haven't been able to make telephone calls or send material through the post “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another” for very many years.
Is it more than feelings? Worst thing that happens when one receives a death threat is them getting seriously worried about it.
Luckily, I haven't received such treats in face (i.e. non-online), and all threats I've got online were so childishly retarded I think no sane person would ever consider them serious, but... I strongly suspect I'd be worried not about the statements, but about the actually happening offender's actions and physical situation I'm in. But it's only psychological, not physical harm.
Another possibility is if threat's here and it's subjectively serious enough to disregard, but offender seemingly does nothing (or cannot be observed), leaving me worried about the situation I'm in. But, again, it's only my feelings being hurt, no physical harm whatsoever.
I'm not trying to say such threats are nothing serious (they surely are), but I think I disagree about the "more than feelings" part.
And I think it would be much worse if I'll get suddenly attacked without any prior threats. So, silencing the threats may have negative effects.
Saying you're going to kill someone on the interwebs is a flippant gesture weighted by anonymity. It means nothing and the barriers to carry out that threat are high(distance, tracking them down etc).
If you're face to face with someone and are making threats, unless you're some loon, they probably carry a bit of weight and emotion.
The two are very different and so should be treated differently. Locking up a bunch of keyboard warriors because they spammed you some feeble minded insults on twitter isn't going to do anyone any favors.
>> "Saying you're going to kill someone on the interwebs is a flippant gesture weighted by anonymity. It means nothing and the barriers to carry out that threat are high(distance, tracking them down etc)."
I'm sure people who have received these threats would disagree that they mean nothing. Regarding barriers there is no way to tell what the barriers are - which is probably what scares people. The person making the threat could be 3,000 miles away or they could live in your street. If the threats are anonymous you have no way to know.
That's not strictly speaking politicians, though, that's directly due to pressure (often exerted transparently) from interest groups, and much of it is completely reasonable (for example, calling someone a nigger in the street will get a person arrested). I understand your perception, I just think that much of the time, that attitude is a reification of media stories.
By incrementally reclassifying what is considered free speech and outlawing the rest we can one day live in a world where no one ever has to have their feelings hurt again.
Nor will anyone ever be able to form their own opinions again, or even have freedom of thought. That sounds more like the dystopian society of 1984 than anything else...
Won't that be wonderful? Our politicians certainly seem to think it's a good idea.