Was kind of what I was thinking myself, Australia has officially become more dangerous.
come to austrailia.
if the spiders don't get you, feels laws will.
So how does this work? He could have said all of those things to her in person but once he goes online, it's no longer protected speech?
OK, I can see the difference there in the sense that in the latter case you have a potentially much larger audience but why should that be the critical factor?
The guy is obviously a dick and there are definitely some people I know IRL that I would love to call the cops on for being such douche bags, but if I actually could do that, I think I'd be more scared than gratified.
once it's posted online there is a record, proof of what was said, plus he continued and did not know when to stop. if they has stopped and removed the post when asked it would have been the end of it.
if said in person, it a he said/she said and unless there is a recording there is no proof
Will you please stop posting on the internet, forever?
I don't understand this mentality that one must stop doing what they are doing if it annoys someone else. If you annoy me, i'll avoid you, and *gasp* I won't have a problem.
Why didn't the girl just stop reading his posts if they were so bothersome?
This is like the old joke...
Wife: honey, I can't believe what the neighbors are doing right in public where we can see them, this is obscene! Make them stop, it's bothering me!
Husband: what are you talking about, I can't see anything?
Wife: here, use these binoculars...
Actually they passed a similar law here in Canada. They call it the anti bullying act or something. I can't recall if it only applies to FB and other social media or if it counts on forums too, but think you can get like 10 years or something. Pretty insane.
Why didn't the girl just stop reading his posts if they were so bothersome?
I don't understand how anyone could look at his behavior and think that it is harmless and should be simply ignored. That behavior is not simply a few poor decisions brought to public light - it's evidence of a deep-rooted case of "I'm a shitty person." In stereotypical misogynist fashion, here we have people victim-blaming and saying 'oh she should've just ignored it.' There is no defense for this shit.FYI, this viewpoint is part of the problem. For awhile this silenced women and then people ask the next question, why didn't you say something? Give all people, not just women, the same standard and then stick to it. Enough of these inconsistent contradictory mixed messages.
Something needed to be done, because clearly some people had taken comments to extremes. Both comments directed at them, but also comments directed at others. Whether words should drive someone to suicide or some psychological damage is an interesting issue. Regardless that has happened though and can't be ignored. Now that such Laws are in place it's more important to track how they are applied. Hopefully a few token convictions is all it takes to modify peoples behaviours enough so that the application of these Laws is only needed for extreme cases.
Do you really find them that disgusting though? He is clearly going completely over the top to get a laugh, successful or not, how disgusting can an attempted joke be?I find his comments and behavior beyond disgust, but not punishable with jail time. I find that more disgusting than anything.
LOL. You're right. I haven't forgotten though.Also LYNCH: Charmonium You know why!
I'm not saying it's harmless and I'll admit that I didn't take the time to read all of the comments. But my point is more general than the specifics of this case. Sure, this guy in this instance may have deserved to be sanctioned/punished in some way. The question is what rises to the level of an "offense" when you have a statute with such vague language that almost any impolite or rude remark could be considered a violation.I don't understand how anyone could look at his behavior and think that it is harmless and should be simply ignored. That behavior is not simply a few poor decisions brought to public light - it's evidence of a deep-rooted case of "I'm a shitty person." In stereotypical misogynist fashion, here we have people victim-blaming and saying 'oh she should've just ignored it.' There is no defense for this shit.
Threatening speech is something very different. I think most states have statutes against what NJ calls 'terroristic threats.' IOW threatening someone with bodily harm. But as I recall, these have to be either overt threats or thinly veiled ones.In my mind there's a tremendous difference between a lengthy and sustained effort of harassing someone via directed communication and making some one off comments about someone's public data on your Facebook page.
This man's comments were disgusting and ignorant, but jailing him over them is a grave injustice. I don't believe at all that he gave the woman good cause to feel threatened (if she even did, which I doubt) nor did he even make a nuisance of himself. Framing this as "sexual violence" is a total joke.
Do you really find them that disgusting though? He is clearly going completely over the top to get a laugh, successful or not, how disgusting can an attempted joke be?
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-labourer-zane-alchin-switches-to-guilty-plea-over-tinder-shaming-case-20160620-gpn2on.html said:Court documents show that, when Alchin was arrested in October, he told police of one explicit post that he wrote: "I got it off an anti-feminist website. To offend a group of feminists that were harassing me and my friends."
In my mind there's a tremendous difference between a lengthy and sustained effort of harassing someone via directed communication and making some one off comments about someone's public data on your Facebook page.
This man's comments were disgusting and ignorant, but jailing him over them is a grave injustice. I don't believe at all that he gave the woman good cause to feel threatened (if she even did, which I doubt) nor did he even make a nuisance of himself. Framing this as "sexual violence" is a total joke.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-labourer-zane-alchin-switches-to-guilty-plea-over-tinder-shaming-case-20160620-gpn2on.html said:When Ms Melville's friends defended her on a separate Facebook post, Alchin left 55 comments, many obscene, over a two-hour period, including a reference to the "best thing about raping feminists".
"I think you should have ya tubes tied baby," he posted at one point.
"What law am I breaking? I'm not the one out of the f---ing kitchen," was another.
Fairfax Media has chosen not to publish other, more explicit, messages.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-20/zane-alchin-pleads-guilty-to-facebook-abuse-of-olivia-melville/7525664 said:The case is expected to set a precedent for whether threats made on social media are punishable under existing federal law.
Ms Melville has only just spoken publicly about the abuse she suffered, for fear of provoking a further backlash.
She said she was concerned about losing her job in the performing arts and upsetting her parents, and has called on the Federal Government to fund a campaign to deter people from attacking women online.
If he said things that could be construed as threats, then yes, he should be punished. And maybe he came really close to that line but as long as he didn't step over it, there shouldn't be any prosecution.
You can't make all bad behavior a prosecutable offense. At some point, people have to hold themselves to a certain standard and if they don't then they can be ostracized but you can't prosecute them.
Beliefs like his contribute to incidents like this. Society accepting (and too often encouraging) that behavior allows it to be perpetuated. What do you feel would be an appropriate response? To continue to tell victims of harassment and threats that they don't really matter and they should just ignore them?
How do you know? Have you seen all 50+ comments?There's no way the things he said could be reasonably construed as credible threats. And besides that, he didn't direct rape comments towards Olivia Melville specifically.
Furthermore, I don't see how what he did could be considered directed towards Melville (the language the article took) or harassment. Unless I'm missing something all of this was posted on his Facebook page and not in a message to her. I don't actually know how she was alerted; maybe one of the people on his feed did it.
So what do you think, putting someone in jail for posting like this will curb incidents like Elliot Rogers? That's fucking absurd. You won't make men like him less resentful by jailing people. You might make them more careful about what they say in public.. until they still finally snap and shoot people down.
People get terrible shit posted about them online all the time. I remember reading people talking about how they think Republicans should be lined up and shot. Should we arrest those people? No of course not because no one thinks we have to protect Republicans from what are obviously not credible threats. When the bitter and potentially violent misogynists see legal punishment for offensive language applied largely only to feminist causes I guarantee they will become more bitter and dangerous.
You don't have to lock someone up to prove that what they said is not accepted by society.
How do you know? Have you seen all 50+ comments?
What do you feel would be an appropriate response? To continue to tell victims of harassment and threats that they don't really matter and they should just ignore them?
Have you? You'd think the article would illustrate the pertinent ones.
It's not harassment if it's not directed to you. It's not a threat if it's not remotely credible and clearly not intended to be one.
Should the post who says this guy should be castrated be considered a threat? If someone says they'd like to rape him as punishment? I have a very, very good feeling I can find things this harsh and worse said about this man, you want me to go look?
jlee said:Fairfax Media has chosen not to publish other, more explicit, messages.
Have you? You'd think the article would illustrate the pertinent ones.
It's not harassment if it's not directed to you. It's not a threat if it's not remotely credible and clearly not intended to be one.
Should the post who says this guy should be castrated be considered a threat? If someone says they'd like to rape him as punishment? I have a very, very good feeling I can find things this harsh and worse said about this man, you want me to go look?
New Jersey State Law said:HARASSMENT - 2C:33-4
New Jersey 2C Criminal Code
2C:33-4. Harassment.
Except as provided in subsection e., a person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to harass another, he:
a.Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;
b.Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or
c.Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.
NH State Law said:TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 644
BREACHES OF THE PEACE AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 644:4
644:4 Harassment.
I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to prosecution in the jurisdiction where the communication originated or was received, if such person:
(a) Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no legitimate communicative purpose or without disclosing his or her identity and with a purpose to annoy, abuse, threaten, or alarm another; or
(b) Makes repeated communications at extremely inconvenient hours or in offensively coarse language with a purpose to annoy or alarm another; or
(c) Insults, taunts, or challenges another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response; or
(d) Knowingly communicates any matter of a character tending to incite murder, assault, or arson; or
(e) With the purpose to annoy or alarm another, communicates any matter containing any threat to kidnap any person or to commit a violation of RSA 633:4; or a threat to the life or safety of another; or
(f) With the purpose to annoy or alarm another, having been previously notified that the recipient does not desire further communication, communicates with such person, when the communication is not for a lawful purpose or constitutionally protected.
II. As used in paragraph I, "communicates'' means to impart a message by any method of transmission, including but not limited to telephoning or personally delivering or sending or having delivered any information or material by written or printed note or letter, package, mail, courier service or electronic transmission, including electronic transmissions generated or communicated via a computer. For purposes of this section, "computer'' means a programmable, electronic device capable of accepting and processing data.
Okay well you go ahead and produce these worse messages and we can judge them by their content. I'm not going to do so by what you blindly assume they say.
I don't have to answer anything because I've been pretty fucking clear. People should not be jailed over this. There's all sorts of social consequences they can and probably will face. Including friends and family having a much lower opinion of them, prospective employers who will surely find this sort of thing not wanting to hire them, and so on. I'm not going to mandate that the government lock the man up to try to enforce this.
What should the woman do in response? That's her business. If someone said things like this about me (and people have said pretty nasty things about me behind my back online) I would ignore them. I wouldn't demand they take it down and I certainly wouldn't start online petitions to try to fight them.
But hey, that's just me. If she wants to draw more attention to him, and by extension, herself, that's her prerogative.
Basically you think people should have free reign to harass and threaten anyone as long as you personally don't find it threatening. Got it.
Posting something about another person is not making communication with them. How is this such a difficult concept? It's not enough to use offensive language about someone somewhere on the internet. And how can the purpose be to annoy or alarm someone when, again, it's not even directed to them? If someone else forwards your post to the person it's about and they demand you take it down that doesn't suddenly make it communication. That person is the one who is now engaging you, not the other way around.
If this were the standard of harassment all sorts of political discussion would be construed as harassment!
And you think a person should be jailed because someone says it's threatening them without any actual objective standard applied.
Gross.
Are you aware that the person who posted the original picture is not being charged with anything? It sure seems like you think otherwise.
I would point out that statutes have to be construed by case law and until you've reviewed the case law interpreting a particular statute, you can't tell much from the statute alone.Pick one.
The man being charged left comments on the original FB post by Chris Hall. Not on Melville's feed or anywhere else directed to Melville. Show me where anything is stated differently.
Angered and upset, unable to comment on the thread, Olivia contacted Chris and retaliated by sharing his post from her own page so that her friends could see it.
[Shout out] to boys posting your tinder profile on Facebook, I wasnt aware I had to put my CV in my Tinder Bio apparently Drake lyrics arent ok, she wrote.
Shame on you Chris Hall for your ignorance of Drake & good taste.
As Chris and Olivia messaged, Olivias friends started to react, infuriated their friend had been publicly shamed for using a line which, lets not forget, was brought into the world by a man who performed it to millions of people around the globe without being publicly shamed.
In their interactions, Chris Hall started out polite, almost friendly in tone, perhaps a little nervous he had kicked off something he hadnt meant to. He didnt apologise. Instead he told Olivia that if she didnt want to be judged she should change her Tinder bio or accept the criticism that it made her look like a slut.
Fights started to break out under Olivias post as friends of Chris joined in.
[...]
These ones came from one source in particular Zale Alchin but were specific and repeated, and they caused the next escalation.