Printable View
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?
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Payasam
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Moniquee.
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.
You say 'virtually' - so what are you comfortable with being restricted in terms of speech?Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-