 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
OK, I can understand that.
I'm happy to leave it there or if you prefer me to delete the post, I'm comfortable with that too.
I'd certainly we'd be hoping not to have the raging debate about Joffa that's been had of other high profile cases, he's copping enough vitriol on his social media pages
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
WhyPhilWhy?
WhyPhilWhy?
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Location: Location: Location:
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Leave it there, it shows we have all considered the matter. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Unfortunately though, the same phenomena of assuming guilt on being charged is occurring here to. I had a look on Joffa's Facebook page earlier, his last post was a couple of weeks ago, he was in Melbourne, it was the day he was charged. Already there are people piling into the comments on that last post with insults and assumptions of guilt |
Without discussing this case in particular (as per the wishes expressed above), I will say this: it may be the case this time or it may not, but one of these days someone or other is inevitably going to be found to have been the victim of a false accusation, and a lot of the social media mob who post stuff like this will (hopefully) take the opportunity to look in the mirror and realise the harm they've visited upon someone. And until there's any prospect of social media users facing consequences (say, through group defamation cases), authorities and media organisations have to start thinking about whether it might be necessary to withhold the names of accused people prior to sentencing – because it seems pretty clear that the general public can't be trusted to wait until then before casting judgement, even when they have no information whatsoever about the case at hand.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'd agree that there needs to be some form of potential consequence, at present people clearly feel free to say whatever they want with no fear of repercussions.
Suppression orders don't work, as evidenced in the Pell case, all it does is stir up curiosity.
We've seen instances where non celebrities are changed with high profile charges, like rape and murder, and people hunt down the accused's social media sites just to heap vitriol on them.
The other potential consequence don't forget is to the person if they are falsely accused. The amount of hate and vitriol could push people over the edge.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Unfortunately though, the same phenomena of assuming guilt on being charged is occurring here to. I had a look on Joffa's Facebook page earlier, his last post was a couple of weeks ago, he was in Melbourne, it was the day he was charged. Already there are people piling into the comments on that last post with insults and assumptions of guilt |
Without discussing this case in particular (as per the wishes expressed above), I will say this: it may be the case this time or it may not, but one of these days someone or other is inevitably going to be found to have been the victim of a false accusation, and a lot of the social media mob who post stuff like this will (hopefully) take the opportunity to look in the mirror and realise the harm they've visited upon someone. And until there's any prospect of social media users facing consequences (say, through group defamation cases), authorities and media organisations have to start thinking about whether it might be necessary to withhold the names of accused people prior to sentencing – because it seems pretty clear that the general public can't be trusted to wait until then before casting judgement, even when they have no information whatsoever about the case at hand. |
craig-13 not guiltys- says hi
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | The other potential consequence don't forget is to the person if they are falsely accused. The amount of hate and vitriol could push people over the edge. |
And even if they're guilty, I think you have to ask what good all this vitriol is doing. It's certainly not going to help the person reform or come to terms with what they've done, and it doesn't really help the victim in any way – indeed, I strongly suspect most of these people don't really care about the victim at all. They're just delighting in seeing somebody they probably already didn't like brought down. They get to be bullies and to feel like they're morally justified in doing so.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
I'd agree with that completely
it's like these dickheads who abuse footballers or other sports people online for ruining their bet. get a fkn grip.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | one of these days someone or other is inevitably going to be found to have been the victim of a false accusation, and a lot of the social media mob who post stuff like this will (hopefully) take the opportunity to look in the mirror and realise the harm they've visited upon someone. |
Ha, you really are an optimist, aren't you?
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, not really sure I even believed that when I was writing it tbh
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
People convince themselves of a person's guilt or innocence and the court findings are largely irrelevant.
If the court outcome agrees with their opinion they're vindicated, if it doesn't then it's clearly wrong.
I'd bet practically none of the people who were convinced that George Pell was guilty have changed their mind since he was found not guilty on appeal.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Can agree with that, for sure.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | People convince themselves of a person's guilt or innocence and the court findings are largely irrelevant.
If the court outcome agrees with their opinion they're vindicated, if it doesn't then it's clearly wrong.
I'd bet practically none of the people who were convinced that George Pell was guilty have changed their mind since he was found not guilty on appeal. |
same goes for Craig M, and his life is ruined, and he wasn’t found guilty of anything. Same as De Goey, no one knows what’s going on but because his name is out there people are speculating
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I saw that the New South Wales government is considering bringing in "affirmative consent" laws. While I would also like affirmative consent – that is, free and enthusiastic participation in sex – to be the socially expected norm, I do think shifting the goalposts of legal definitions of sexual assault to encompass a lot of grey areas is a dangerous direction to go in. This guy agrees:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/tread-carefully-on-sexual-consent-some-of-these-reforms-are-dangerous-20210528-p57w3i.html
| Quote: | One proposed change that is troubling is that “free and voluntary agreement to a sexual activity must exist at the time of the sexual activity”. The commission has acknowledged this means a person cannot give advance consent. So even if a person told their sexual partner that he or she wanted to be woken from sleep by some form of sexual touching, this could not be regarded as consent to that sexual activity. Does the NSW government really support that principle?
Another concerning proposal is that a person “does not” consent to a sexual activity if there are behaviours including, for example, “verbal aggression, begging and nagging, physical persistence, social pressuring, and emotional manipulation”. How many people would be at risk of prosecution after a bitter break-up on the basis that they had “begged” or “nagged” for sex? Whatever moral judgment might be made about such behaviour, does the government really support a change to the criminal law that would require it to be held that there was necessarily no consent in such circumstances?
The commission also proposes that a person “does not” consent to a sexual activity if “participation is dishonestly procured by a false representation or upon a false pretence, known by the maker to be false when it was made”. Assume that a person says to another, falsely, “I am not married” or “I will leave my current partner” and that induces the other person to participate in sexual activity.
Such dishonesty may be morally wrong. However, it is not usually a crime to tell fibs or even blatant lies. Does the government really support the principle that any lie told to procure sexual activity will constitute a serious criminal offence?
Yet another of the proposals is that “a person does not consent to a sexual activity if the person does not say or do anything to communicate consent”. This would mean, even if a jury is satisfied there was free and voluntary agreement to sexual activity in the mind of the complainant, it would be required to find there was no consent because it was not actually “communicated”. Does the government really support that principle? Should an accused be convicted even if the complainant admits that he or she consented? |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
well thats romantic!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I always thought begging was just foreplay.  
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
