Damn, I wish to take a part in your discussion but I am too stupid for it, mostly because my English skills sucks and are not enough for this thread needs, even with understanding of this I have some problems. I am glad to see a normal conversation, respect mad and fps

wrote:

Ah come on man, you know the difference from being a dick, and from being a hateful psychopath

In this case, he would be sentenced to force treatment in a psychiatric hospital.
But here everything is quite easy, hes just a dick and deserved punishment under the laws of his country.

wrote:

P.s. fps that picture is , if this forum had a reputation function, I would totally [+] it

Mad, looking on this example you can feel the difference. I had no intent to try to humiliate or insult him. And hes also well understood that this is just a joke.
But Troll's case is a quite different from this one.

p.s Yo yo, Shady, but where have you been so long time?)) Did you recieved amnesty from a Queen?)) joke u know, nice to see you)

wrote:

Of course, the conditions of application of the law and the year of its adoption can be criticized.
But, nevertheless, the law clearly states - "letter, electronic communication or article of any destsription"
So, in this case from the standpoint of the law everything is legitimate. The latest amendments were adopted in 2001, and we can do a output that the legislator was satisfied all law conditions.

True. I still think internet communications should have a separate legislation and be a part of their own sub-tree of paragraphs.

wrote:

And yes,we can complain about the carelessness administrator, but at all decent sites before the field of registration you can see the rejection of LIABILITY, which is expressed as "we are not responsible for any content posted by users, we can not and do not have time to moderate all posts, if you think that a post violates your rights, reply to us and we will delete it" ( not exactly like it usually looks, but I think you got the ponit )

From what i understand, those are privately leased sites (not owned as such) and i do believe it is within their rights to demands removal of abusive posts and users. Easy as one, two, three. Much easier than pursing legal action against a solitary, anonymous troll, i would imagine. Just seems weird to me, is all.

wrote:

From one side - its stupidness.
But another side - its a example that the law is the law and if it has the power then it must be respected. In this case, the courts will always be objective, which personally I do like.

I don't know. The internet is one huge grey area when it comes to observing and enforcing criminal laws, from "bullying" to copyright infringement, it's not clearly defined and so far enforced within the bounds of each separate physical entity attributed to the location of the offender(. Personally, i think cases like that only go towards globalised, uniform regulations crafted to construe the last truly free medium of expression on this planet. Our governments are still clinging to the outdated perception that the internet is just like any other medium of information exchange, without recognizing that it grew beyond their expectations and needs to be treated accordingly, not strangled into submission.

wrote:

This preventive measure formed by
certain state politic. Perhaps the British wanted to show that even in
the Internet everyone must respect and observe the rights of others
people. And in our 21 century, even more accurate to say not "even in
the Internet" but "especially in the Internet."

But we're not in
England and we dont give a shit now, we can troll and spam anyone until
we recieve penalties from administration team.

I'm well aware of that, and you make a good point. But we need to look beyond that and go back to where i said how easy it is to make anyone that is abusing you suddenly not exist anymore with but a few clicks of your mouse. Abuse of human rights is a non-issue when it's so extremely easy to just make anyone trampling over your dignity just go away with no effort. So again, the separation between physical and virtual abuse and the damage it can make is not only warranted in my opinion, but necessary to decree the punishment it would entail, and i don't think that was the case here.

wrote:

A valid
concern, however you are over-simplifying the correlation between
excercising one's rights to freedom of speech by being a dick on the
internet and downright spreading hatemail with malicious intent.

An
example of the former could be found in the "amy winehouse is dead"
thread, where arax spanned a 100+ post discussion on social standards
and respect/condolences. Yes, Amy winehouse was referred to as a "stupid
crackhead whore" by plenty of people, yet it was an exchange of
opinions on a neuteral source and should be treated as such in the eyes
of the beholder.

Now, actually spreading whatever content that
guy was spreading on dedicated websites and Facebook groups frequented
by friends and family of the deceased shows clear sociopathic tendencies
and prove clear malicious intent, and should be punished as such.

My point was more general than that, though. It's pretty clear cut what the intent and tone of this guy's messages were, but what i want to know is what would happen if it was a bit more ambigous than that - like if the messages WERE posted on a neutral source and someone brought it to the attention of the family members, and they would still want to pursue legal action? What if the abuse was provoked by factual events or a prior discussion? Why pursue legal action in the first place if you can make the guy non-existant with zero effort? Is it any more sociopathic to tell someone their dead daughter was a slut than to tell a random stranger on a chat that you fucked their mom? Could Skull, theoretically, go to court against Killer for all the abuse and necrophiliac pics he posted here? Could i go to court against you for calling me a dirty pole and constantly reminding me that the Pope and President are dead?

This sort of ambiguity makes me think than the path this case sets leads towards strict regulation of what you can and what you can't say over the net and eventually, end with widespread censorship as this medium doesn't inherently convey intent and emotion put behind what you wrote and posted.

wrote:

Your argument about the law being out of date due to technological
progress is moot. Try to imagine if the guy came up to the grieving
family at a funeral or kept calling them on a telephone. It would be
possible to ignore the guy shouting obscenities from 50 yards away, and
any modern phone has a call tracer so after you know who that is
standing over there/ whose number is on the answer dial, you can just
drop the call (and any competent phone moderator would c: ), however a
physical/verbal confrontation followed by an investigation and legal
proceedings would ensue. If anything, it is you who are not classifying
the internet for the method of the communication it really is.

Yeah but what if he'd call from payphones, shout while being masked and concealed, sent letters with no return address etc etc. It's much easier to avoid identification and continually harass people in real life. You can even do it while they're not there. Also, since this is a "real life" scenario, the punishment would actually be fitting as such abuse would bear empirical effort from a physical person, it's much different than a few lines of text and a pic posted on fb by a random string of abstract numbers. I'm fairly secure in my classifications and i believe the point i made still stands.

wrote:

And say what you say about the The_BIGBROTHERE))) , at least round hurr
three monocled gentlemen can walk through croydon high street at 4am
with pool cues (one uncovered in the open) in a highly intoxicated state
and not get searched/I.D.'d/ be given the Spanish inquisition even
AFTER being stopped by the police so 1-1 with central Warsaw.

DUPA

wrote:

I don't argue with fools. cool story bro C:

I'm sorry you can't formulate a coherent string of presentable thoughts. Now skip along and let adults talk. Bye.

I have to agree with mad here, I feel this guy was wrongly punished for his psychotic outbursts.
If anything this guy should be receiving professional medical help.
Sure this particular individual went over the top, but should he really receive a draconian prison sentence? I remember when the London riots took place, a few individuals using social networking sites also received exaggerated prison sentences for inciting violence. Most of these guys got 4yrs, Now what does this tell you? That the government devalues our response to more serious crimes.