I very much agree with the heart of that, the government should by and large get out of our lives. However the question that arises in the Internet age is, if you broadcast what's going on in your home to the world, at what point are you exiting your home and entering other peoples. At that point you invite at the very least, opinion. Still, I'm 100% against the court case waste of time side of this, so am completely with you on that.

I don't personally care if my neighbours are going for some kind of world's biggest gang bang Guinness World Record behind closed doors, but if they then upload footage of it to popular social channels where it can be viewed by every man, woman and child in the country it perhaps then becomes something that we all get to comment on. They should've considered this as they were giddily laughing their heads off at their Blue Peter depiction of people burning to death.

Edited by dollardays (29 Aug 2019 6.19pm)

400 years tends to add an element of detachment from the present . It is perhaps a somewhat difference scenario if someone is mocking a person's family members burning to death months after it happens and they chance upon it on YouTube or the nightly news.

If someone made a mock up of the twin towers with people burning inside, I wouldn't say who cares or search the archives for something hundreds of years back where there is little direct attachment now. I'd just see it as something that's sick rather than funny and call it as such.

Edited by dollardays (29 Aug 2019 5.30pm)

I have no interest in who is offended and by what.

The only time it matters is when a level of etiquette is required in order to maintain civilized relationships. In normal life, most employ a degree of interpersonal diplomacy and manners. Outside of that, why is any of this of any real importance?

I am constantly offended by things I see and hear and who cares about that?
These kinds of stories are 90% about politics and 10% about virtue signaling.

Some People are horrible and hateful. Tell me something I don't know.

Fair point.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

You certainly make a good point there hrolf. Especially in these polarised times, we do find that where common ground drifts away, people find comfort in belief systems that both conjure up and cater to caricatures. So an unfortunate level of detachment from others develops.

In this scenario I'm primarily commenting on the ill advised behaviour, and positing that a social response and rejection of something can often be a more understandable and effective response than a legal one. Point being that some kind of response is inevitable and even advisable. But yes I considered the legal angle here to be a farce from the off and it was rightly thrown out. I thoroughly reject peoples ideas or repulsive strains of humour being policed. When that happens it's a slippery slope to a place where the state declares we are all born criminals.

Edited by dollardays (29 Aug 2019 10.30pm)

We currently have a system where the state can intervene and punish people for offence.

The virtue signalling hoard are responsible for that.....Just a different form of pearl clutchers....the people who want you to accept that words are actually sticks and stones.

In the past this came from religious enforcement but now it's the atheistic and nihilistic versions we have to be wary of. At the end of the day, as much as they like to believe they are different, it's 'meet the new boss, it's the same as the old boss'.

Sure, tell people what you think......what happened here was highly offensive. Perhaps there are things that could be done.

However no state intervention for offence......it's a procurser to ever more state control.....and we already need to roll back what has been passed.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Aug 2019 1.05pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)