Dead baby taunting troll feels wrath of law

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[mistermack]

That's the best you've got eh? Can't respond at all?

The problem is unless the answer is "duuuuuuuuh, black" or "duuuuuuuh white", you can't take it in.

Stuff like this :

Until you can show me someone who can clearly and accurately point out where the distinction exists then there is no way for the law to be enforced

Clearly shows you haven't got the foggiest about law.
But I'll have a go:
Someone composes the proposed law, with the aid of the country's top lawyers. Parliament debate the EXACT wording and intention of the law in great detail. A judge carefully directs a jury about the precise meaning of the law, drawing on previous judicial rulings, and a jury decides, having heard all of that.

The jury decide where the distinction lies in each case, BECAUSE it's not just black and white, and because there is no such thing as a BASE LINE, as you so simplistically put it.

You seem to be saying that if you can't draw a simplistic base-line, or "clearly and accurately point where the distinction exists", we should abandon any law on any such matter at all.
That's where you're wrong, but I don't expect you to get it.
I'm afraid that real life is too complicated for you.
.

[Trolldor]

The law is ambiguous?
Criminal law makes no clear distinctions? Such as between murder and manslaughter? Theft and robbery?
Oh, man. Here I was thinking they had strict legal criteria for each category and that the burden of proof rest on the prosecution to establish that the act committed met these criteria.

[mistermack]

The law is ambiguous?
Criminal law makes no clear distinctions? Such as between murder and manslaughter? Theft and robbery?
Oh, man. Here I was thinking they had strict legal criteria for each category and that the burden of proof rest on the prosecution to establish that the act committed met these criteria.

Why do these trials last weeks, and you get hung jurys, deciding on your "clear distinctions"?
They should just apply your "strict legal criteria for each category", and sort it out in half an hour.
.

[Trolldor]

lol again.
Either you meet the criteria or you don't. Burden of proof. Juries are not hiveminds, but individuals who make judgement values on the evidence provided - did the prosecution meet the criteria or didn't they?
And hung juries are actually rare, the exception to the case, but don't let fact get in the way of your misunderstandings.

[Robert_S]

There's black and white, old fashioned parochial binary thinking because either someone is convicted of a crime or they are not. There is not much of a gray area between incarcerated and being free. You don't have to explain to your future employers that you sorta kinda have a criminal record.

I'd be happy to see this stupid griefer get some IRL grief, but I'm willing to let him keep it up if we cannot come up with a well worded law that draws a line between what's legal and what's not. A definition that will not swing wildly depending on the personal sensitivity level of the plaintiff, judge and/or jury.

[mistermack]

There's black and white, old fashioned parochial binary thinking because either someone is convicted of a crime or they are not. There is not much of a gray area between incarcerated and being free. You don't have to explain to your future employers that you sorta kinda have a criminal record.

That's quite true, but that's why the defendant get's the benefit of all reasonable doubt in criminal trials.

I'd be happy to see this stupid griefer get some IRL grief, but I'm willing to let him keep it up if we cannot come up with a well worded law that draws a line between what's legal and what's not. A definition that will not swing wildly depending on the personal sensitivity level of the plaintiff, judge and/or jury.

This is the act, that the OP mentioned:

127Improper use of public electronic communications network E+W+S+N.I..(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—.
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or.
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent..
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—.
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,.
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or.
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network..
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both..
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42))..

[Robert_S]

"grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"
Fuck Allah!

[mistermack]

"grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"
Fuck Allah!

It would have to be grossly offensive to a jury. I don't think prosecutors would bother with the cost of a trial just for something that might offend some muslims.
It has to be grossly offensive, and well past the benefit of the doubt stage.
But, it should catch out this prick, which is nice.
.

[charlou]

"grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"
Fuck Allah!

'Blasphemy' is a victimless crime.


This guy is taunting real people and going to quite some lengths to do so. My understanding is that laws will determine whether he will be charged with a criminal offense (black and white) .. A jury will determine, by the evidence and by their interpretation (grey) of the law, whether he is guilty.


Even at rationalia we make judgements about what constitutes baiting, taunting, 'trolling' (not a word I personally like or use), harassment etc and we act on those according to our guidelines .. Of course it's not black and white, it's open to interpretation and there's often not 100% consensus about the issues that arise, among staff or members alike.

[Robert_S]

"grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"
Fuck Allah!

'Blasphemy' is a victimless crime.


This guy is taunting real people and going to quite some lengths to do so. My understanding is that laws will determine whether he will be charged with a criminal offense (black and white) .. A jury will determine, by the evidence and by their interpretation (grey) of the law, whether he is guilty.


Even at rationalia we make judgements about what constitutes baiting, taunting, 'trolling' (not a word I personally like or use), harassment etc and we act on those according to our guidelines .. Of course it's not black and white, it's open to interpretation and there's often not 100% consensus about the issues that arise, among staff or members alike.

I think this guy needs

"grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"
Fuck Allah!

'Blasphemy' is a victimless crime.


This guy is taunting real people and going to quite some lengths to do so. My understanding is that laws will determine whether he will be charged with a criminal offense (black and white) .. A jury will determine, by the evidence and by their interpretation (grey) of the law, whether he is guilty.


Even at rationalia we make judgements about what constitutes baiting, taunting, 'trolling' (not a word I personally like or use), harassment etc and we act on those according to our guidelines .. Of course it's not black and white, it's open to interpretation and there's often not 100% consensus about the issues that arise, among staff or members alike.

I think this guy needs... some kind corrective, but the choice of words strike me as unnecessarily vague and easily abused.