Cyber bullies to be put into prison

[-Moniquee.]

Yesterday I was driving home and on the radio news there was a read out that the New Zealand government are thinking about punishing cyber bullies by putting them into prison.

Personally, I think this is too far. Yes, they should be punished but prisons should be for the more severe cases of crime (murder, robbery, etc).

What are your thoughts on this?

[Kardan]

If the laws they break are severe enough and there's space in prisons - they should be jailed. Just because they are doing it online doesn't make it any less of an issue.

For example, look at the person who tweeted that he was going to bomb an airport, he got dealt with in the same way as if someone said that offline.

[peteyt]

As Kardan said it depends on the circumstances.

There are some people under the impression that you can say anything online without any circumstances as opposed to real life and I think that is wrong. For example there's lots of people I know who act very different online to in real life and would say and do a lot of stuff online that they wouldn't do in real life. I myself kind of think, if you wouldn't do it in real life then why online?

For things like cyber bulling, while to some this might seem very mild, it can be very dangerous and as seen lead to suicide as can real life bullying. For this reason I think that those caught should be punished in some way. Maybe not a jail sentence but some kind of programme that could teach them what they've done is wrong and also importantly that if they continue they'll be punished more servilely. Hopefully this would deter a large majority.

[AgnesIO]

Do they literally just mean bullies?

I mean, do they put school kids into prisons for bullying too?

[Kardan]

Do they literally just mean bullies?

I mean, do they put school kids into prisons for bullying too?

It depends on the 'bullying' I guess, but I assume you mean the normal casual bullying, so the answer would be no :P But cyber bullying these days could easy extend to trolling, and you can get some real aggressive trolls on the internet these days, giving death threats etc. So I can imagine in extreme cases, prison would be an option.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJFclHx2dDg&feature=c4-overview&list=UUzIjg5vIfBGcdyLWu6lhXxw

There should be virtually no limits on speech because if there are then it ceases to be free speech. The term 'bullying' in itself is very vague just as terrorism is vague and has been used by various governments as an excuse to suppress certain opinions and viewpoints. As Julie says: the society of victimisation. A clear violation of free speech.

Just because a law sounds nice doesn't mean it is.

Edited by Nick (Forum Super Moderator): Please remember to use badspoiler tags around videos that contain filtered words.

[iGenius]

Yesterday I was driving home and on the radio news there was a read out that the New Zealand government are thinking about punishing cyber bullies by putting them into prison.

Personally, I think this is too far. Yes, they should be punished but prisons should be for the more severe cases of crime (murder, robbery, etc).

What are your thoughts on this?

Yeah I've got to disagree with you I'm afraid darling.. It isn't far enough. Looking at the worst cases of cyber bullying an article written by Jason Buckland only a few months ago (Buckland, 2013: http://tech.ca.msn.com/the-worst-cases-of-cyberbullying) he describes several cases of cyberbullying and the eventual outcomes.

People have commited suicide because of being bullied/cyber bullied. The bully or cyber bullier may believe they're "having a life" but ultimately they're screwing with peoples lives and if the victim resorts to suicide, are responsible for their death.

So yes damn right. Stick them in a cell and let them stay there. Why should we give a damn about the scum that walk this earth.

------------------
I was bullied during my secondary education for all five years. ( as was a lot of people) I never once thought about comiting sucide. Instead I thought "well if they're picking on me, they're leaving someone else alone". It never bothered me that I was singled out, and not in a collection of friends.

In my eleventh year (age 15/16 for those that dont know the UK Years) I fought back and a teacher caught me swinging a fellow pupils head of a desk. Ironically I got a warning and nothing further. But they left me alone after that.

The purpose of that story is that victims are chosen because sometimes, they make it easy for the bully. I.e: "My grandad died last night, Im devastated.. " Instantly they've shown they have something to be upset about and provided an invaluable entrance for the bully.

I'm not suggesting that all victims of bullying have openly given the bullies an entrance, but its a common way for bullies to get into their lives and then continue to make them a misery.

Ultimatly, no i disagree completely Mon, I think that they should be locked away - Especially if the victim has ended up commiting suicide. This to me is on the way to a manslaughter/murder charge, as they have caused the victims death.

[Kardan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJFclHx2dDg&feature=c4-overview&list=UUzIjg5vIfBGcdyLWu6lhXxw

There should be virtually no limits on speech because if there are then it ceases to be free speech. The term 'bullying' in itself is very vague just as terrorism is vague and has been used by various governments as an excuse to suppress certain opinions and viewpoints. As Julie says: the society of victimisation. A clear violation of free speech.

Just because a law sounds nice doesn't mean it is.

Edited by Nick (Forum Super Moderator): Please remember to use badspoiler tags around videos that contain filtered words.
You say 'virtually' - so what are you comfortable with being restricted in terms of speech?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You say 'virtually' - so what are you comfortable with being restricted in terms of speech?

Nothing really, I mean I can sort of understand the threatening somebody with murder etc - but only at the very extreme end. Indeed, i'm uncomfortable with even banning that sort of speech.

So yeah on reflection, i'm for all speech being allowed.

[Kardan]

Nothing really, I mean I can sort of understand the threatening somebody with murder etc - but only at the very extreme end. Indeed, i'm uncomfortable with even banning that sort of speech.

So yeah on reflection, i'm for all speech being allowed.

So it's okay for someone at an airport to say they've got a bomb?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So it's okay for someone at an airport to say they've got a bomb?

Pretty much.

The first minute of this video tackles that common jibe against free speech, although all of it is superb.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

If somebody shouts 'bomb' in an airport then by all means have security look over them as they would anyway. By all means, if an airport (private) wants to ban certain phrases on it's private property then that fits in with free speech under property rights - but under no circumstances should somebody be arrested for shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded theatre.

[Kardan]

Pretty much.

The first minute of this video tackles that common jibe against free speech, although all of it is superb.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

If somebody shouts 'bomb' in an airport then by all means have security look over them as they would anyway. By all means, if an airport (private) wants to ban certain phrases on it's private property then that fits in with free speech under property rights - but under no circumstances should somebody be arrested for shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded theatre.

And I suppose you think that nobody should be arrested if they said they were going to kidnap, torture, rape and kill your 2 year old daughter? I would go and find some examples of extreme hate mail, but I'm on my phone.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And I suppose you think that nobody should be arrested if they said they were going to kidnap, torture, rape and kill your 2 year old daughter? I would go and find some examples of extreme hate mail, but I'm on my phone.

But where is the line drawn.

You could easily extend this kind of thought to people such as the Westboro Baptist Church and say that by them saying God Hates ****, Homosexuals are going to Hell etc that they are encouraging violent attacks on gay people and therefore what they say must be banned in order to protect gay people. You could then extend it to a scenario in an airport where a child is misbehaving and the mother shouts "i'm going to kill you" - should she then be arrested?

It's a slippy slope as Christopher Hitchens pointed out.

[Kardan]

But where is the line drawn.

You could easily extend this kind of thought to people such as the Westboro Baptist Church and say that by them saying God Hates ****, Homosexuals are going to Hell etc that they are encouraging violent attacks on gay people and therefore what they say must be banned in order to protect gay people. You could then extend it to a scenario in an airport where a child is misbehaving and the mother shouts "i'm going to kill you" - should she then be arrested?

It's a slippy slope as Christopher Hitchens pointed out.

You could say 'Where is the line drawn' over most things. Immigration, gun policy etc. Just because it may be difficult doesn't mean it is worth doing. I would consider the.church example grossly offensive (but then it gets complicated for me because of religious rights). As for the mother/child example, I would report it to a nearby police officer. There is no guarantee the woman is the child's mother, and as we've seen recently there have been a few cases of abuse by mothers.

[Special]

how would they enforce this though? if i was cyber bullying someone & they arrested me i'd just claim my PC was hacked and it wasn't me, there's no way they can prove that you typed whatever has been claimed

[Liva]

I don't understand how they would deal out sentences. People react to things in different ways, some people have mental issues, some people have hard skin and find bullies amusing. I don't think it can be judged honestly.
Education should be enforced to try and tackle it.

[GommeInc]

Depends on what shape and form the bullying comes in, but in most cases no they should not be put in prison. The only time it's ever justifiable is when the cyber part enters the physical world where already current laws are in place e.g. assault. Sending actual hate mail, being known to the person and things are being drawn on your house or being put through your door, or someone is being paid to torment you in person. Anything like that seems justifiable, but when it's for being called fat or stupid on Facebook, there IS a perfectly good ignore button for a reason.

If I recall correctly, you would still get some blame for letting your computer be hacked as you should have adequate security. Also, the unlikeliness of someone using your computer through "hacking" seems a bit weird, when they could just make sure they're not caught from their own computer :P


And I suppose you think that nobody should be arrested if they said they were going to kidnap, torture, rape and kill your 2 year old daughter? I would go and find some examples of extreme hate mail, but I'm on my phone.
Really depends if the hater is known to the hated - if it's just someone on reddit or some online forum, for example, then you could just ignore them rather than rely on the courts to hold your hand. The word "mindless, baseless puff" comes to mind (courts love the word puff it seems :P) However, if you're being bullied in person as well as online by the same individuals or individuals, current laws on assault apply as you are feeling "immediate, unlawful, personal violence." Many cases involve an individual being threatened through these methods and the results tend to work out because the violence is being made through a physical body rather than some cowardly sack of flesh behind a computer.

Cyber bullying must be literally online. If it enters the real world then it becomes actual bullying using cyberspace as a proxy.

[Charz777]

I don't think cyber bullying is taken seriously enough.

A teenager commits suicide due to cyber bullying and people respond with, 'they must have been mentally ill, it was only a few names.' Even so, if you repeatedly pick on someone for their size, sex, race, religion, intelligence or anything, if you make their life such hell that they kill themselves you have pretty much caused their death. I don't see how that is not and issue or a crime.

What right does a person have to cause another person any form of grief? From a one-off bullying to a repeated situation where a person can't face their own existence anymore.

I saw a case online where someone publicly posted the messages found in a person's inbox after they'd taken their own life. My one thought was 'how dare someone think they are allowed to do that to another human being?!' In my eyes, that bully was a murderer.

Cyber bullying or any bullying is disgusting and needs to be taken more seriously.

[lRhyss]

Can I just say that someone Tweeting that they're going to bomb an airport is not cyber bulling at all haha.

If you're only being bullied on a certain thing, e.g. Habbo, make a new account or block/ignore the people, simple! If someone is bullying you on a place like Habbo and you don't block/ignore/report them, then you only have yourself to blame if they cause any further distress towards you.

However, if the bullying is taking place over Facebook via indecent images etc, then it should be taken further, but that's the only reason it should be imo.

This is MY OPINION, don't get all ragey with me.

[Charz777]

^^ I agree the person being bullied must do everything in their power to stop it such as blocking accounts. But I think sometimes it gets out of their control.

[Landon]

For example, look at the person who tweeted that he was going to bomb an airport, he got dealt with in the same way as if someone said that offline.

This is very true.

Certain levels of things such as this should be jailable.