The Dark Destroyer wrote:dondada wrote:The Dark Destroyer wrote:
What consequences are those? A stern telling off?
The realisation itself seems to have been enough, on this occasion. With rights (in this case, 'free speech' - which doesn't exist) come responsibilities.
Yes they do, and I'm aware of the ridiculous idea of freedom of expression and the actual realities of it, but as long as the dick head doesn't break laws in his tweets why should he be on the receiving end of intimidation, which it was even if there was no actual threat of violence? From a
professional boxer no less.
It's an interesting one. I'd be keen to know if his tweets were actually breaking the law by being deliberately inflammatory. There is a move to try and get people to not do online what they wouldn't do in person...if this lad had said these things in the street to Curtis, would he be acting unlawfully? I'd say yes.
He was trying to be provocative (and, perhaps, intimidatory) so, in terms of natural justice at least, this is why he should have been on the end of intimidation. It will hopefully do him good in the long run. He's learned a valuable lesson. It usually takes people a couple of kickings to modify their obnoxious behaviour.
As my old man would say, 'A closed mouth gathers no knuckle'. (By the way, this saying does not apply to legitimate 'free speech' concerns but solely about 'working your ticket').