Some of you were of the impression that I <b>support</b> this injustice? I don't. The "thought crimes" part should have given that away...
Except you dont know precisely what he wrote, nor what component of the sentence was specifically for the trolling. But, consider for a moment, that he did still perform physical actions, consistent with the intentions or motivation of most stalking- which is illegal-and evidently had the same effect-at what point does thought crime become actual crime? Mind you, if incitement/hate crime laws did any thing at all, the guy wouldnt have been murdered , now, would he?
This is weird. The left and the right are all on their respective "wrong" sides in this thread. The phrase "thought crime" in the 1st post should have been a dead give away. The left should be screaming "fascism" while the right should be shouting "national security!" I guess when the word "racism" is used that just twists everyone's mind.
Well, im just looking at the respective values here-its not a thought crime, if it overwhelmingly effects people, certainly exceeding most tort or common law principles. They no longer exist, so it falls to criminal law, to make a right mess of a situation. The article suggests overwhelmingly, the man is likely quite mentally ill-and you know, half the guys here would be the first leaping up and down calling for the death penalty had he for example, done anything physically destructive in the vein of his trolling. What gives there? Injustice?
Obviously, whats your point? I would bet odds on, whatever he posted would make most of the posters in this thread, spend some months extracting their foot from there mouths.
that it be a "thought crime" is just yr opinion... posting trash on s.o. else's condolences web page is not the same as posting trash on one's own website... say i go and tag / trash yr relatives' tombstones with whatever offensive thoughts, wld u still think of that as just a "thought crime"?