Contrarian

@Spoonman671 said:

If people can be arrested for being assholes, then the Giant Bomb community is going to end up a lot smaller.

Nah, it would be missing just a handful of serial arsehloes!

@Canteu said:

@Contrarian: I didn't mean that in a snarky way or anything. I literally did not know that you could get jail time for being offensive :p

It is highly unusual. You really have to go way too far to have this kind of outcome occur. I think you will find that school kids using Facebook to be offensive about other students can get themselves in serious trouble. I vaguely remember a girl this year terrorising another student online and barely avoided a serious crime. I don't think calling someone "a dick" will get you in trouble. I guess it is about the level, intesity and duration that will get you over the line. I am no law expert though.

@Demoskinos said:

@Contrarian said:

@biospank said:

I think I would get a criminal record not jail time if I would do that for a so-called bullying effect on those women. But if I would talk like David Icke like a huge conspiracy theory then it would be free-speech. So I am all for getting bully's out because of the psychological effect on that person but I would also think it would be in the so-called free-speech department. But free-speech is just a slippery slope in western European countries because of the bullying effect it can have on the different religions, ect.

So I try to only say stuff on the Internet if I have something to say but I normally don't because it can cause a criminal record if I am not too careful.

I am all for free speech, but not USA style. I believe it has limits and you have responsibilities. However, it must be clear that it is intended to cause harm, not just a qualified opinion.

Well then its not really "free" then is it?

It never is. It is just a word, even in America. Freedom of speech in the United StatesUnited States free speech exceptions

The 1st Ammendment isn't absolute as it has been interpreted differently over the years and over-riding acts have gone above it, just ask the Communists in the 1940s and 50s. It never should be completely free, but as a beacon of freedom, America has shown that it isn't actually worth all that much at differing times in history.

@Stonyman65 said:

Oh, Australia.

One of the world's leading democracies, largely free of corruption and government interference in the judiciary? Oh, Australia. Free speech is limited all over the world, imcluding America. This can easily be seen as a form of stalking. People have the right to be free of this kind of harassment.

@Castermhief117 said:

I never knew it was illegal to make fun of or criticize something. I really don''t get this - someone help me out here.

There is a limit and when you 'damage' someone you crossed that line. It helps to protect people from this kind of behaviour.

@Canteu said:

Why does that publication use the old/Australian Gaol, then switch to Jail later?

Journalistic consistency people!

Also, I had no idea you could go to prison for offending people.

That was my editing ..... I missed the other one!

Depends on the offending nature of what is said. They pleaded guilty, so clearly their lawyers knew they broke the law. It was clearly intended to harm the reputation of people and no-one should defend that. What if one of the ladies was so mortified about what was said that she committed suicide? Bullying can and often leads to that. I remember a case in the USA, vaguely, of a mother who drove a girl to suicide and she was prosecuted. It just isn't a simple case of saying what you feel like.

@believer258 said:

@Contrarian said:

@biospank said:

I think I would get a criminal record not jail time if I would do that for a so-called bullying effect on those women. But if I would talk like David Icke like a huge conspiracy theory then it would be free-speech. So I am all for getting bully's out because of the psychological effect on that person but I would also think it would be in the so-called free-speech department. But free-speech is just a slippery slope in western European countries because of the bullying effect it can have on the different religions, ect.

So I try to only say stuff on the Internet if I have something to say but I normally don't because it can cause a criminal record if I am not too careful.

I am all for free speech, but not USA style. I believe it has limits and you have responsibilities. However, it must be clear that it is intended to cause harm, not just a qualified opinion.

I understand where you're coming from here, but the interpretation of "intended to cause harm" could be quite vague and easily abused - defining this so that it can't be abused would be, I imagine, quite difficult. On that note, limited free speech isn't free speech at all, and I'll take all the insults and demeaning comments in the world if it means I can publicly say whatever I want, whenever I want. Past societies have been made hell for the masses because they couldn't speak up for fear of severe punishment. Still, the internet is changing the world as we know it and law must, at some point, catch up, so something must be done to differentiate free speech and worthless, demeaning stunts such as this one. I guess what I'm trying to say here is "I agree to a certain extent, but think about how it should be done first".

On topic, I've never heard of this "Gaol" place but this sounds like an offense that should be published by six months or so of community service and not four months of prison. Ah, well, I hope he's got a good hold on the soap.

To be confidant a law is going to work properly, I suppose you have a proper demcratic country and a judiciary fully independent of the government to be confidant it it will work. I believe Australia has that. Not so sure about other countries other than I believe the UK, New Zealand and Canada would also be pretty good on this front. However, it doesn't take much for governments to start interfering with concoted reasons why they have to make "changes" when it is convenient. I am watching The Tudors at the moment and enjoy the idea of how free speech started, but then became inconvenient for the King and clergy. It can be a slippery slope.

As I said in the beginning, I am not a fan of sending non-violent people to prison, it doesn't help society at all. Dock them some of their wages for a big fine, maybe some home detention outside work hours and community service, as you said. Gaol quite possibly will make them angry and twisted, therefore worse on release. I would assume they will be in a low security prison though, we have prison farms with no fences at all. If so, that isn't quite so bad,

@zyn said:

@Brodehouse said:

Unlimited Saga.

THIS!!!

I got myself a copy of this a couple of years back, thing Square-Enix and JRPG, I will enjoy this. I never read up on it, so I was fresh to it. After a couple of hours I was dumbstruck at just how bad it was - completely nonsensical. It does deserve some hate - still not selling it though (I care about other people).

As for me, I am going to go with

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter

It was brand new and $5, so I figured, what have I got to lose? $5 apparently. I persisted for 2 hours, 2 of the most boring hours in my entire life. I cannot understate how bad it was for me.

@Orbitz89 said:

Good, fuck that bastard.. I can't stand bullies.

Neither can I and the law does need to deter others from illegal behaviour. Maybe this will make some people think a lottle more.

@EVO said:

People still use gaol?

In Australia, Britain and New Zealand, but not everyone.

@scalpel said:

I guess Australia has as little freedom of speech as Britain, then?

You do need to be careful as to what you say, but to be honest, you would have to be a real arse to have the law come down on you. Mind you, we did have a case of a Chrisian minister, in church, quoting the Quran and being prosecuted for hate speech, even though what he quoted was directly from the Quran - that is going a bit far for me.

@Sweep said:

I hate when people are punished in the real world for things that are said online. It's so hopelessly inconsistent. There are twitter accounts here in the UK that have been made for the sole purpose of shaming people who are "slags" and, lest we forget, the majority of 4chan and reddit is posting racist, hateful nonsense on a daily basis. There was a thread on Reddit the other week about a guy describing the time he raped someone. But no, let's devote our resources to finding and punishing that other guy who tweeted something mean to an Olympic Athlete. Way to go, society.

Any "criminal behaviour" that is pursued inevitably pales in comparison and ultimately makes the whole thing seem fucking pathetic.

If a complaint is made to the police, they are obliged to investigate it. I assume the same applies to the UK. A case can only go ahead if a law is broken. What makes many of the sites hard to do anything about is anonymity - who are you complaining about, which country is it from et cetera. In the case of Facebook, they used their real names in a real town which makes them complete idiots.

However, in general, I do agree with you - to a point, that being, did they do real damage or harm?. The application of the law is rarely consistent.

@rebgav said:

I'm not exactly sure what the crime that he committed actually was. Using a carriage service to offend a person? What?

Was there some proof that what he wrote was untrue, or was it illegal to publicly say that Ms. X is a terrible lay?

Use of a carriage is the same as using a phone to harass someone. They have taken an old law and applied it to new technology.

@BraveToaster said:

The internet police are real.

.... and just waiting for someone you insult to tell the internet police. Watch who you piss off in this brave new technolgical world!

@biospank said:

I think I would get a criminal record not jail time if I would do that for a so-called bullying effect on those women. But if I would talk like David Icke like a huge conspiracy theory then it would be free-speech. So I am all for getting bully's out because of the psychological effect on that person but I would also think it would be in the so-called free-speech department. But free-speech is just a slippery slope in western European countries because of the bullying effect it can have on the different religions, ect.

So I try to only say stuff on the Internet if I have something to say but I normally don't because it can cause a criminal record if I am not too careful.

I am all for free speech, but not USA style. I believe it has limits and you have responsibilities. However, it must be clear that it is intended to cause harm, not just a qualified opinion.

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

Hahaha suck shit to that knobhead, I'm glad the Victorians smacked him down, though I agree gaol is a bit much

I had a friend pose the question - "How will he rate the sex over the next 4 months?"

I am guessing 2 thumbs up at the very minimum!

Man jailed for Facebook sex ratings comments

A central Victorian man who posted offensive personal comments about women on Facebook has been sentenced to four months in gaol.

David McRory, 22, of Bendigo pleaded guilty to using a carriage service to offend and publishing objectionable material online on Facebook.

He and friend Joshua Turner, 22, created a Facebook page rating the sexual performance of women in central Victoria.

His lawyer told the Bendigo Magistrates Court his conduct was reckless rather than intentional.

But the prosecution argued that degrading comments could have a long-lasting effect on the victims.

The prosecution told the court McRory set up the page with a friend after seeing similar ones online, for other towns.

The court heard there was public outcry about the page, prompting police to remove it from Facebook and lay charges.

The court also heard McRory had a criminal history involving driving offences and financial deception.

The magistrate took note of McRory's guilty plea but said he must send a message to the public about his behaviour.

He was sentenced to four months gaol but has been bailed pending an appeal in the County Court.

In July, Turner was banned from using Facebook for two years and given a wholly suspended six-month prison sentence.

But he has since launched an appeal against the sentence.

I am interested to know if you think such a charge can happen in the country you live in.

I say this is a great outcome, although I do think gaol is slightly over the top as I am a believer of prisons being for violent criminals. There are far worse punishments that could have been dished out, especially financial ones. I hope the ladies involved sue them for all they have. This isn't confined to men either, as I am sure there have been women who have done the same thing. This is really just bulling and harassment and should never be acceptable.

So, be warned. If you think you are funny and do unpleasant things online, you may end up with your arse in gaol!