Sick troll gets his comeuppance on Facebook!

TheStook

lee3155 wrote: »

Considering what this "vile human being" said I agree with all the comments.

How dare someone joke about babys that may have passed away. Some of the things the creator has said has made me sick.

Okay, fair enough he may not be harming the children but he is harming those who unfortunately lost a child.

The page should be shut down, it should not be allowed on such a public site. if they want to joke about these kind of things, take it over to Sickpedia or such, but please god keep it off my newsfeed.

I'm overall glad the fella was exposed, unfortunately we can't hide behind our screens and have a laugh. He deserves all the hate he is getting and it might make him think twice next time.

And what about the thousands upon thousands of people who liked the page and submitted jokes? More jokes were submitted than he posted

minidazzler

lee3155 wrote: »

Considering what this "vile human being" said I agree with all the comments.

How dare someone joke about babys that may have passed away. Some of the things the creator has said has made me sick.

Okay, fair enough he may not be harming the children but he is harming those who unfortunately lost a child.

The page should be shut down, it should not be allowed on such a public site. if they want to joke about these kind of things, take it over to Sickpedia or such, but please god keep it off my newsfeed.

I'm overall glad the fella was exposed, unfortunately we can't hide behind our screens and have a laugh. He deserves all the hate he is getting and it might make him think twice next time.

But why shouldn't it be allowed? Because it might offend people? That's a ****ty reason.

People putting their children into Catholic schools offends me should I be able to stop this?

Greenduck

Yer man is obviously a complete idiot. If he's posting comments or jokes about the abuse of children on the biggest social media platform in the world well then he's looking for trouble. I dont feel sorry for him remotely, he made his bed and now he can lie in it. Apart from the horribleness of the dead baby part, he seemingly thought it would be funny to joke about raping a child. Seriously? Can someone point out the humor in this?

IMO theres nothing funny about jokes which are aimed at children or people with learning disabilties or anyone else who cant defend themselves.

Sierra 117

lee3155 wrote: »

Okay, fair enough he may not be harming the children but he is harming those who unfortunately lost a child.

No, he's not harming them.

minidazzler

Greenduck wrote: »

IMO theres nothing funny about jokes which are aimed at children or people with learning disabilties or anyone else who cant defend themselves.

In YOUR Opinion. That doesn't mean that those of us who find it funny shouldn't be allowed to joke about it. (though now that I know the guy went on to the Ban jokes page I think he is a twat) But still we should be allowed joke about whatever we want.

TheStook

Greenduck wrote: »

IMO theres nothing funny about jokes which are aimed at children or people with learning disabilties or anyone else who cant defend themselves.

Well I'm sorry man but the harsh truth is that a lot of people do find this humour funny, including me. You get a different kind of laugh that you can't get with other jokes. Of course I feel terrible afterwards but it's funny sometimes, what can I do about it. I don't tell them or make them I just laugh and nobody can prevent me from doing so.

SweetCaliber

minidazzler wrote: »

But why shouldn't it be allowed? Because it might offend people? That's a ****ty reason.

People putting their children into Catholic schools offends me should I be able to stop this?

There is such a limit to what we can cope with.

Fair enough, I get your point but still what has been said by him and most others doesn't belong on facebook. They can start their own community or head to sickipedia but having it on a site like facebook just takes it a little to far don't you think?

It's a debatable topic to answer but hey we all have our differences.

minidazzler

lee3155 wrote: »

There is such a limit to what we can cope with.

Fair enough, I get your point but still what has been said by him and most others doesn't belong on facebook. They can start their own community or head to sickipedia but having it on a site like facebook just takes it a little to far don't you think?

It's a debatable topic to answer but hey we all have our differences.

Why doesn't it belong on Facebook? They were there own community on facebook until this controversy started.

Does it belong on Boards?

Greenduck

In YOUR Opinion. That doesn't mean that those of us who find it funny shouldn't be allowed to joke about it. (though now that I know the guy went on to the Ban jokes page I think he is a twat) But still we should be allowed joke about whatever we want.

Absolutely. I never said everyone should feel the same as me, but its clear from the amount of complaints against the original page that its extemely offensive to a lot of people.

If you find the 'jokes' funny..fine. I really dont see the need to make facebook pages about it. Also joking about rape is really taking it way too far.

The original post asked, was the troll unfairly treated? I reckon no.

hatrickpatrick

Something I'd like to point out which may in fact seem obvious but a lot of people are asking for a motive, "why do people post this stuff, why is it funny etc"

You may not realize that a lot of these people post it, and find it funny, BECAUSE it annoys people. That's the essence of trolling. As Encyclopedia Dramatica would put it, a lot of people from the 4chan subcultures find the idea of words written on paper/web pages actually pissing people off, hilarious. And they find it hilarious when they can provoke that kind of reaction.

Not saying I agree that it's funny, but by kicking up such a huge story about this and angrily replying to them, you are in effect "feeding the trolls". They love it, it proves the point they were trying to make in the first place and validates the urge to try it again.

It's an old cliche, but it's insanely true. They do this because they find it funny when something which (to them) is harmless and insignificant, succeeds in drawing rage from someone else. And so the circle of trolling will continue.

Einhard

mimsy wrote: »

But he isn't being stifled..... he can post whatever he wants when he wants! He is free to go ahead and continue to post this type of crap if he wants.

He's been threatened with violent retribution by the outraged masses posting on the page. I think that amounts to stifle someone.

His nasty and sick points of view are only being notified to a more general
audience than otherwise might have happened. They might be interested to know
the type of person they are employing/sitting beside/living with.

But it's not a pint of view. How do people not get that? When a comedian makes a joke about the Holocaust, is he being ant-semitic. I've made many, many offensive jokes in my life, including ones about dead babies, but they don't at all equate to a point of view on the subject matter.

Will see now if he is willing to stand by his jokes..

How do you stand by a joke? They're attempts at humour, not ideological statements.

lee3155 wrote: »

Considering what this "vile human being" said I agree with all the comments.

You've never made a racist/sexist or otherwise crass or insenstive joke? Ever? In your whole life?

How dare someone joke about babys that may have passed away. Some of the
things the creator has said has made me sick.

The jokes aren't about actual, specific babies that have died. They are figurative. The don't target any baby, in the same way that Jewish jokes or Irish jokes don't target Lenny Lebowitz or Paddy O' Brien.

Sometimes, the most distasteful jokes are the funniest. It's called black humour, and it's been part of the human condition millenia. Perhaps it helps us cope with tragedy, I don't know, but I do know that I have told such jokes and luahged at such jokes, and am willing to bet that anyone commenting in outrage at all of this has done similar.

Okay, fair enough he may not be harming the children but he is harming those who
unfortunately lost a child.

How? In order to find the page, one has to search for the page. If peopl were tracking down bereaved parents and telling such jokes directly to them, I might agree, but
otherwise your point isn't valid.

Also: I find it a bit odd that someone who has suffered the pain and heartbreak of losing a child would really be all that ore upset that some stranger was telling jokes about dead babies.

The page should be shut down, it should not be allowed on such a public site. if
they want to joke about these kind of things, take it over to Sickpedia or such,
but please god keep it off my newsfeed.

Ah yes, stop people from saying what they want to say. Your type of censorship and attack on free speech is a far ore dangerous thing than any amount of dead baby jokes. It's disturbing that you are so cavalier in your attitude to freedoms which ordinary people have won over hundreds of years. But anything to stop you being offended, yeah?

I'm overall glad the fella was exposed, unfortunately we can't hide behind our
screens and have a laugh.

Why can't we?

Greenduck wrote: »

Apart from the horribleness of the dead baby part, he seemingly thought it would be funny to joke about raping a child. Seriously? Can someone point out the humor in this?

I don't see the humour because I didn't see the joke, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be humour in it. Jokes are often edgy, dark, and disturbing. Laughing at such subject material does not at all mean that one is condoning it. Indeed, as I mentioned above, I think there's probably something cathartic about the act- it's a coping mechanism of a sort.

IMO theres nothing funny about jokes which are aimed at children or people with
learning disabilties or anyone else who cant defend themselves.

Well then there's nothing funny about your sense of humour.

minidazzler

Greenduck wrote: »

Absolutely. I never said everyone should feel the same as me, but its clear from the amount of complaints against the original page that its extemely offensive to a lot of people.

If you find the 'jokes' funny..fine. I really dont see the need to make facebook pages about it. Also joking about rape is really taking it way too far.

The original post asked, was the troll unfairly treated? I reckon no.

But it's clear from the amount of people telling the jokes that A LOT of people Like it so it should stay.

I still think he shouldn't have gotten calls to his University and such, but I do think he was in the wrong because of where he was posting it. Still he should be allowed to post it.

Tombo2001

Dr.Broccoli wrote: »

You wouldn't be comfortable telling other people some things about yourself.

Nope I wouldnt, and thats why I wouldnt publish those details on a public forum.

NegativeCreep

Is the page gone? It's not showing up when I search for it now.

Gran Hermano

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Is the page gone? It's not showing up when I search for it now.

Bit of a premature death if true.

laoch na mona

i remember being told some terrible abusive/racist/sick jokes in shool
there jokes relax

Greenduck

minidazzler wrote: »

But it's clear from the amount of people telling the jokes that A LOT of people Like it so it should stay.

I still think he shouldn't have gotten calls to his University and such, but I do think he was in the wrong because of where he was posting it. Still he should be allowed to post it.

Yeah he should be allowed post it, but if he was stupid enough to post it so publicly then he should take on board the repercussions.

Well then there's nothing funny about your sense of humour.

I'm really upset you think that.

Casillas

mimsy wrote: »

But he isn't being stifled..... he can post whatever he wants when he wants! He is free to go ahead and continue to post this type of crap if he wants.

His nasty and sick points of view are only being notified to a more general audience than otherwise might have happened. They might be interested to know the type of person they are employing/sitting beside/living with.

Will see now if he is willing to stand by his jokes..

Look to be clear I think this guy and his jokes are stupid, but contacting the local police/university because of it in order to make him a pariah, is a direct attempt to suppress his speech no matter how stupid.

There's nothing positive about this and attempting to force a view of what's right or wrong, funny or not upon people as a whole is completely against the type of societal freedoms we say we believe we should have.

Right or wrong, any idiot can make dead baby jokes, be it in a pub, at a bus stop or on a website.

Einhard

Greenduck wrote: »

Yeah he should be allowed post it, but if he was stupid enough to post it so publicly then he should take on board the repercussions.

So people who say thngs that other people don't like should be targeted and threatened and abused? Wow, that's some conception of free speech you have there. Offend me and you deserve everything that's soming to ye!

I'm really upset you think that.

Perhaps then, some censorship is in order. I mean, people have a right not to be upset or offended, right? And screw freedom of expression.

Irish Guitarist

Ben should be charged with wasting police time.

minidazzler

I had a lovely gentleman from Derry ask for my presence in his immediate vicinity after posting in the Dead Babys page.

A very angry sort those anti-joke people

ahnowbrowncow

"He's sticken up for the vonreable"

That made me lol, vonreable

Caliden

MaxSteele wrote: »

It's hard to even read half of the comments posted by offended facebookers.

Half of them are either illiterate, braindead youngones or jumped up, pretentious gunts fishing for likes.

It's the Kony brigade.
The same crowd who think that posting on facebook makes a difference.

It's like the old joke (which I'm sure will offend some people): "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded"

rubberdiddies

frozenfrozen wrote: »

as long as they're not actually killing babies what is the problem? Why don't westboro baptist church get in the trouble this person will get in?

The jokes are just proving that people get offended far too easily. It's a joke, fcuk off and hide their post on facebook if you wish

Applying that same logic to child porn, what you're saying is that so long as someone isn't actually abusing a child it's ok to look at child porn images??

MagicSean

Sure it happens here too. There's been a few times I've seen people get personal and threaten to report people to the Gardaí/media/employer/family. In fairness the mods are often quick to warn them off but in my opinion they have no place on public forums if they can't handle different views and opinions.

Einhard

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Applying that same logic to child porn, what you're saying is that so long as someone isn't actually abusing a child it's ok to look at child porn images??

There's nothing at all logical about your post.

token101

It's slightly depressing looking at the number of morons going on to Facebook, openly threatening someone with death/injury and then threatening to pass the other person's information to the police. The level of stupidity is frightening. The most offensive thing about that page is some of the grammar. I'm far from an expert, but learning the difference between 'they're', 'their' and 'there' should be more of a priority than trying to get some Facebook page banned. If they had as many brain cells as spelling and grammatical errors the world might be safer. This article just sums up the category of f*ckwit that's complaining.

Caliden

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Applying that same logic to child porn, what you're saying is that so long as someone isn't actually abusing a child it's ok to look at child porn images??

What are you on about?

That's not even a direct comparison at all

It's like he said 2+2=4 and you somehow got 147.


Also if there's anything to come from this it's the death threats being made by those offended. That's the real crime here.
Posting something that clearly labelled as a 'joke' isn't a crime.

Frankie Boyle has got himself in hot water and upset people because of his jokes. Is he in prison for it?

LoYL

Casillas wrote: »

mimsy wrote: »

But he isn't being stifled..... he can post whatever he wants when he wants! He is free to go ahead and continue to post this type of crap if he wants.

His nasty and sick points of view are only being notified to a more general audience than otherwise might have happened. They might be interested to know the type of person they are employing/sitting beside/living with.

Will see now if he is willing to stand by his jokes..

Look to be clear I think this guy and his jokes are stupid, but contacting the local police/university because of it in order to make him a pariah, is a direct attempt to suppress his speech no matter how stupid.

There's nothing positive about this and attempting to force a view of what's right or wrong, funny or not upon people as a whole is completely against the type of societal freedoms we say we believe we should have.

Right or wrong, any idiot can make dead baby jokes, be it in a pub, at a bus stop or on a website.

And right or wrong any idiot or any person has the very self same freedom of expression to object to those jokes and to point out why they find them offensive.

It is essential that society force a view of what is right or wrong on people which it does through laws and the enforcement of them.

It is great to see a challenge to the thing: it is up to FB to adjudicate on it there and it is up to others to determine if they have basis or need to act against the poster on FB. Keeping in mind they can only do so within the law.

ScumLord

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Applying that same logic to child porn, what you're saying is that so long as someone isn't actually abusing a child it's ok to look at child porn images??

How do you make child porn without abusing children?

Caliden

LoYL wrote: »

And right or wrong any idiot or any person has the very self same freedom of expression to object to those jokes and to point out why they find them offensive.

It is essential that society force a view of what is right or wrong on people which it does through laws and the enforcement of them.

It is great to see a challenge to the thing: it is up to FB to adjudicate on it there and it is up to others to determine if they have basis or need to act against the poster on FB. Keeping in mind they can only do so within the law.

You have the right to your opinion of it but it doesn't mean that everyone has to respect it.

The page in question has a clear disclaimer about it's content and to actually SEE the content, you have to JOIN the group.

Now if you join a group called 'dead baby jokes', what exactly are you expecting to find? :rolleyes:


Also, you will need to round up a lot of comedians then if you think that's the way to go about this non-issue.
In comedy, there is nothing that is off limits and nobody should have the right to control comedy.

Grayson

lee3155 wrote: »

Considering what this "vile human being" said I agree with all the comments.

How dare someone joke about babys that may have passed away. Some of the things the creator has said has made me sick.

Okay, fair enough he may not be harming the children but he is harming those who unfortunately lost a child.

The page should be shut down, it should not be allowed on such a public site. if they want to joke about these kind of things, take it over to Sickpedia or such, but please god keep it off my newsfeed.

I'm overall glad the fella was exposed, unfortunately we can't hide behind our screens and have a laugh. He deserves all the hate he is getting and it might make him think twice next time.

You left out that "if he doesn't like it in this country he should just move home"

SusieBlue

Your average dead baby joke doesn't bother me. Yes, I think they're in poor taste, and that they aren't funny, but they don't bother me much.

The jokes on that page were awful. There were graphic descriptions of raping and sexually abusing babies, it was stomach turning. Absolutely vile.

It wouldn't be tolerated if the page were about raping or abusing adult women, so why should it be okay cause its about babies?

Maybe contacting his university and workplace was a step too far, but in fairness, Emmett did post the jokes on an anti dead baby jokes page. What did he expect? For people to think its funny?

Why would anyone get kicks out of laughing about dead children?

I'm probably more sensitive than the average person because I lost a child myself, so I feel no sympathy for him. He knew what he was getting himself into, he knew he'd cause a reaction, so he should have to face the consequences.

If he didn't want his work place or university to know what he said, then maybe he shouldn't have posted his vile thoughts so publicly on the internet.

VEN

i remember getting a link to the MS Paint dating site troll, they were funny

Casillas

LoYL wrote: »

And right or wrong any idiot or any person has the very self same freedom of expression to object to those jokes and to point out why they find them offensive.

It is essential that society force a view of what is right or wrong on people which it does through laws and the enforcement of them.

It is great to see a challenge to the thing: it is up to FB to adjudicate on it there and it is up to others to determine if they have basis or need to act against the poster on FB. Keeping in mind they can only do so within the law.

So bad jokes about dead babies are to the detriment of society? Nonsense. It's not essential that humour is regulated, those attempts failed when Lenny Bruce/George Carlin took up the challenge.

Dboy85

What the guy reporting him is doing is actually ruining the guys life over his "bad" sense of humour. As long a children weren't hurt in the process I don't see what the problem is but I see a major problem in pushing censorship down peoples throats.

Ye're all fookin too sensitive, go back to yer 50 shades of grey and pretend your life is fine.

zagmund

Those who think "the guy who ratted him out is a criminal, and sure yer man was only telling jokes" need to think it all through.

There was no "ratting out". The guy posted in public (he's allowed do this). Someone didn't like it (they are allowed do this). They passed on information about the original poster to other people (they're allowed do this). Other people either thought he was "a great lad altogether" or "a sick person" (they are allowed to this).

It seems that some people think freedom of speech only goes one way. It doesn't, it goes both ways. Live by the sword of free speech, die by the sword of free speech

And as for those who said "sure Facebook said it was OK, so it must be OK" . . . last I checked Facebook was a private company who were interested in their revenue streams and not actually a sovereign state or some sort of moral guardian. I wouldn't be so quick to rely on them for guidance.

z

LoYL

Caliden wrote: »

You have the right to your opinion of it but it doesn't mean that everyone has to respect it.

The page in question has a clear disclaimer about it's content and to actually SEE the content, you have to JOIN the group.

Now if you join a group called 'dead baby jokes', what exactly are you expecting to find? :rolleyes:


Also, you will need to round up a lot of comedians then if you think that's the way to go about this non-issue.
In comedy, there is nothing that is off limits and nobody should have the right to control comedy.

Of course it doesn't mean people have to respect it. Which is exactly what is happening to this FB poster. If people join a group called that perhaps they are joining in order to see material to which they wish to object. The fact of joining does not mean approval if the only method of joining is to "like" something.
Your last point about comedy is the heart of the matter: comedy is not above the law or society. The elevation of comedy to this "god-like" status is the silliest part of the row. The LAWL generation might have to realise that there is more to be said than that.

RDM_83 again

ScumLord wrote: »

How do you make child porn without abusing children?

I could be wrong about this but I think that works of fiction and animation can be classed as child porn, so yes in the eyes of the law you can without abusing children

TBH when I read the first few pages of the thread i thought it was a severely bastardish move on your man to do that, however since he posted them on the anti-joke page, not the joke page itself it changes the situation completely, there's a difference between liking dark humour and being a trolling prick.

LoYL

Casillas wrote: »

So bad jokes about dead babies are to the detriment of society? Nonsense. It's not essential that humour is regulated, those attempts failed when Lenny Bruce/George Carlin took up the challenge.

Those jokes may well be to the detriment of society if society so decides. Humour is already regulated: look at libel laws and slander laws and anti racism laws.

LoYL

Dboy85 wrote: »

What the guy reporting him is doing is actually ruining the guys life over his "bad" sense of humour. As long a children weren't hurt in the process I don't see what the problem is but I see a major problem in pushing censorship down peoples throats.

Ye're all fookin too sensitive, go back to yer 50 shades of grey and pretend your life is fine.

The guy is "ruining" his own life by publicizing views which many find deeply offensive. You're being too sensitive for him.

Caliden

LoYL wrote: »

Of course it doesn't mean people have to respect it. Which is exactly what is happening to this FB poster. If people join a group called that perhaps they are joining in order to see material to which they wish to object. The fact of joining does not mean approval if the only method of joining is to "like" something.
Your last point about comedy is the heart of the matter: comedy is not above the law or society. The elevation of comedy to this "god-like" status is the silliest part of the row. The LAWL generation might have to realise that there is more to be said than that.

From the page in question:
"Dead Baby Jokes contains highly-offensive humour and should not be viewed by individuals who are easily offended by tasteless humour. We here at Dead Baby Jokes take the safety of your children to heart, and do not, in any way, condone the killing of babies, or any other manner in which harm could come to a child.”


Pretty clear cut if you ask me. Joining to 'voice' your opinion isn't really a valid argument and isn't even done in reality.

If you imagine the group as a real life collective of people who have their own opinions with regards a specific issue and meet occasionally to discuss it, you don't join the group to say you don't agree with them. (You wouldn't join a Muslim church to say you think they're beliefs aren't the same as yours)

So why do it on Facebook with something as clearcut as the description above?

Personally, they're **** jokes but whatever floats your boat.
Don't tell me you've never laughed at an 'offensive' joke...


Essentially what you're saying is that you have freedom of speech.....but not really.

Dboy85

LoYL wrote: »

The guy is "ruining" his own life by publicizing views which many find deeply offensive. You're being too sensitive for him.

I allow people to be people as long as nobody suffers. Dunno where people get off telling other people they can't speak a certain way.

Caliden

Dboy85 wrote: »

I allow people to be people as long as nobody suffers. Dunno where people get off telling other people they can't speak a certain way.

I don't like your tone. Please change it to conform to my opinion.

Einhard

zagmund wrote: »

Those who think "the guy who ratted him out is a criminal, and sure yer man was only telling jokes" need to think it all through.

There was no "ratting out". The guy posted in public (he's allowed do this). Someone didn't like it (they are allowed do this). They passed on information about the original poster to other people (they're allowed do this). Other people either thought he was "a great lad altogether" or "a sick person" (they are allowed to this).

It seems that some people think freedom of speech only goes one way. It doesn't, it goes both ways. Live by the sword of free speech, die by the sword of free speech

And as for those who said "sure Facebook said it was OK, so it must be OK" . . . last I checked Facebook was a private company who were interested in their revenue streams and not actually a sovereign state or some sort of moral guardian. I wouldn't be so quick to rely on them for guidance.

z

I don't think anyone here believes freedom of speech is a one-way street as you imply. We're condemning the response of the guy who forwarded the details to local police and the university, but we're not demanding that he should be prevented from doing so, and we're not wishing physical harm on him for doing so. Not sure how that equates to wanting to have our cake and eat it in terms of free speech.

I'd also point out that, as far as I am aware, threatening physical harm is an offence, so ironically the Internet Rent A Crowd are most likely to be crossing the line into outright illegality.

LoYL

Caliden wrote: »

From the page in question:
Joining to 'voice' your opinion isn't really a valid argument and isn't even done in reality.

(You wouldn't join a Muslim church to say you think they're beliefs aren't the same as yours)

So why do it on Facebook with something as clearcut as the description above?

Personally, they're **** jokes but whatever floats your boat.
Don't tell me you've never laughed at an 'offensive' joke...


Essentially what you're saying is that you have freedom of speech.....but not really.

Freedom of speech has limits. Fact.
Joining a group to find out what they are saying and then objecting does happen in reality clearly: how do you think this issue happened? You are arguing that there's a sign on the virtual door and that disallows all subsequent objection is simply false. That doesn't even work in the real world.
Finally, to understand beliefs you can access their sacred texts and creeds without joining the denomination. You can object to their beliefs but, strangely enough, in Ireland you need to be careful about our FF blasphemy law and what you say about them.
This episode is wonderful in that the real world has jumped and bitten the net generation in the a$$e.

ScumLord

LoYL wrote: »

Those jokes may well be to the detriment of society if society so decides. Humour is already regulated: look at libel laws and slander laws and anti racism laws.

Comedians can still make jokes that could be considered Libel and slanderous, only for the fact they're jokes.

Grayson

zagmund wrote: »

Those who think "the guy who ratted him out is a criminal, and sure yer man was only telling jokes" need to think it all through.

There was no "ratting out". The guy posted in public (he's allowed do this). Someone didn't like it (they are allowed do this). They passed on information about the original poster to other people (they're allowed do this). Other people either thought he was "a great lad altogether" or "a sick person" (they are allowed to this).

It seems that some people think freedom of speech only goes one way. It doesn't, it goes both ways. Live by the sword of free speech, die by the sword of free speech

And as for those who said "sure Facebook said it was OK, so it must be OK" . . . last I checked Facebook was a private company who were interested in their revenue streams and not actually a sovereign state or some sort of moral guardian. I wouldn't be so quick to rely on them for guidance.

z

It could be classed as harassment under UK law.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment_in_the_United_Kingdom#Legislation

Administration of Justice Act 1970
Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 creates the offence of harassing a contract debtor.
[edit]Public Order Act 1986

Section 4A, inserted by the next mentioned Act, creates the offence of intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

Section 5 creates the offence of harassment, alarm or distress.

[edit]Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 only applies in England and Wales.
This Act provides means whereby intentional harassment, alarm or distress is a criminal offence. This makes all forms of harassment illegal,[citation needed] punishable on conviction by a six month jail term or a £5,000 fine. It is necessary to prove that the harasser's actions were intentional, and that someone was actually harmed by their actions.

[edit]Protection from Harassment Act 1997

This Act was primarily created to provide protection against stalkers, but it has been used in other ways.
Under this Act, it is now an offence for a person to pursue a course of action which amounts to harassment of another individual, and that they know or ought to know amounts to harassment. Under this act the definition of harassment is behaviour which causes alarm or distress. This Act provides for a jail sentence of up to six months or a fine. There are also a variety of civil remedies that can be used including awarding of damages, and restraining orders backed by the power of arrest.
Employers have vicarious liability for harassment by their employees under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, (see Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas’s NHS Trust). For employees this may provide an easier route to compensation than claims based on discrimination legislation or personal injury claims for stress at work, as the elements of harassment are likely to be easier to prove, the statutory defence is not available to the employer, and it may be easier to establish a claim for compensation. Also as the claim can be made in the County Court costs are recoverable and legal aid is available.

LoYL

Dboy85 wrote: »

I allow people to be people as long as nobody suffers. Dunno where people get off telling other people they can't speak a certain way.

They "get off" because society realised long long ago that free speech is essential but within limits.

Einhard

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Your average dead baby joke doesn't bother me. Yes, I think they're in poor taste, and that they aren't funny, but they don't bother me much.

The thing is though, many of the people who posted in condemnation of the "joker" would similarly condemn you for not having a problem with such jokes. You undermine your own freedoms when you undermine his.

The jokes on that page were awful. There were graphic descriptions of raping and
sexually abusing babies, it was stomach turning. Absolutely vile.

Which page was this? The original Dead Baby Jokes page, or the one set up to oppose it?

It wouldn't be tolerated if the page were about raping or abusing adult women,
so why should it be okay cause its about babies?

It would be tolerated. It is tolerated. Unless making rape jokes is now against the law and nobidy has told me.

Why would anyone get kicks out of laughing about dead children?

Why would people find any form of humour funny? I've laughed at dead baby jokes before, at Holocaust jokes, about famine jokes...and so have most people here of they're honest about it.

I'm probably more sensitive than the average person because I lost a child
myself, so I feel no sympathy for him. He knew what he was getting himself into,
he knew he'd cause a reaction, so he should have to face the consequences.

I'm sorry for your loss, but when people laugh at a dead baby joke, they're not laughing at babies who have died. The humour is abstract and figurative.

If he didn't want his work place or university to know what he said, then maybe
he shouldn't have posted his vile thoughts so publicly on the internet.

Maybe he shouldn't.