[buyviagraonlineusatoday]

A) Laws are written to be taken literally. B) Show me where in your authoritative e-how link it says sending offensive or menacing tweets is illegal.

a) Seriously, you're turning into a junior Gordo...http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Law/315/
b) The first line says Sending threatening emails or messages through the Internet using instant messages or other means is a federal crime in the U.S.

Which bit is confusing you? You don't know that a tweet goes through the internet? You don't know it's a message? You don't know that menacing and threatening are basically the same thing in this context? Where the **** are you having problems with that?
.

[betraaaus]

a) Seriously, you're turning into a junior Gordo...http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Law/315/
b) The first line says Sending threatening emails or messages through the Internet using instant messages or other means is a federal crime in the U.S.

Which bit is confusing you? You don't know that a tweet goes through the internet? You don't know it's a message? You don't know that menacing and threatening are basically the same thing in this context? Where the **** are you having problems with that?

"...menacing, offensive or indecent."

Your snark-laden posts can certainly be classified under one of those.

[Axxflcaj]

"...menacing, offensive or indecent."

Your snark-laden posts can certainly be classified under one of those.

And we've come full circle to the fact that the law is not to be literally interpreted. I'm guessing you've worked out you're wrong seeing as you're trying to turn this argument into an entirely different one. That's the usual approach for a sociopath.

[Draftcasino.com]

I can't believe that you called him a Gordo. That's just wrong.

[chodeasyday]

And we've come full circle to the fact that the law is not to be literally interpreted. I'm guessing you've worked out you're wrong seeing as you're trying to turn this argument into an entirely different one. That's the usual approach for a sociopath.

Laws can't be taken literally? What do you think they are? Symbolic poetry?

Go back to the first post I wrote. I didn't quote the part in the article where sending death threats is illegal, but the part where sending tweets that can be construed as offensive or indecent is prosecutable in Britain.

Keep digging yourself into a hole.

[BigMovies]

Laws can't be taken literally? What do you think they are? Symbolic poetry?

Go back to the first post I wrote. I didn't quote the part in the article where sending death threats is illegal, but the part where sending tweets that can be construed as offensive or indecent is prosecutable in Britain.

Keep digging yourself into a hole.

Are you on crack??

[Tzqowwyt]

Are you on crack??

Did it just don on you that you can't dig yourself out?

[Poreponko]

Did it just don on you that you can't dig yourself out?

No, it's just dawned on me that you're a borderline sociopath.

I have a very small understanding of the law, but it's blatantly obvious that you have absolutely no idea at all.

Stop trying to drag me down to your level.

EDIT: And who the **** is Don?

[VtLe67WR]

No, it's just dawned on me that you're a borderline sociopath.

So we've established you know as much about human psychology as you do law.

[NikolaAAA]

So we've established you know as much about human psychology as you do law.

I can only go by your online posts, but a very obvious sign of a sociopath is that they attack you once you show them some facts that dispute their claim.

[Bromikka]

Sparafucil - you're applying your own interpretation of these words and your own values as to what constitutes free speech, for the purpose of having a dig at Britain. It seems you're still upset about Waterloo.

All countries have some restrictions on free speech, including the USA. Defamation is illegal in the US, so are 'fighting words' - I am sure even you have heard of Chaplinsky - and in the UK this falls under the purview of menacing or offensive.

DM is right that the law doesn't interpret 'offensive' literally, or even menacing. If you're trying to draw a distinction between the level of freedom in the UK Vs the US, you'd be on a slippery slope and we'd quickly get into a discussion about extrinsic and intrinsic forms of suppression. That would certainly stretch eHow's usefulness.

[dhYTvlAv]

Not only is death threats an offense in Britain

"Are."

[Dweplyododo]

Laws can't be taken literally? What do you think they are? Symbolic poetry?

They're more like the bible... numerous and contradictory. If they were literal, we wouldn't need lawyers or judges.

[shinesw]

They're more like the bible... numerous and contradictory. If they were literal, we wouldn't need lawyers or judges.

Certain legal documents like the Constitution are open to interpretation, but most laws are written in dry, concrete language with endless provisos and definitions. Vague and imprecise language are usually avoided. That's not to say poorly written laws don't exist, but most lawmakers strive to craft air-tight legislation with little wiggle room.

[weightpillsnow]

Certain legal documents like the Constitution are open to interpretation, but most laws are written in dry, concrete language with endless provisos and definitions. Vague and imprecise language are usually avoided. That's not to say poorly written laws don't exist, but most lawmakers strive to craft air-tight legislation with little wiggle room.

You are literally clueless.

[altosburg]

No, it's just dawned on me that you're a borderline sociopath.

I have a very small understanding of the law, but it's blatantly obvious that you have absolutely no idea at all.

Stop trying to drag me down to your level.

EDIT: And who the **** is Don?

Fail..

[Z3s9vQZj]

Certain legal documents like the Constitution are open to interpretation, but most laws are written in dry, concrete language with endless provisos and definitions. Vague and imprecise language are usually avoided. That's not to say poorly written laws don't exist, but most lawmakers strive to craft air-tight legislation with little wiggle room.

Agreed, but the law in the UK doesn't say, 'Offensive tweets are illegal'.

This whole thing falls under Sections 4, 4A and 5 of the 'Public Order Act' which was passed in 1986. Quite a while before twitter. And THAT law replaced an even older one from the 1930's. It covers; fear or provocation of violence and intentional harassment, alarm or distress. It was primarily designed to prevent behavior leading to extortion and duress amongst other things, as well as bullying at school. The law states, specifically (to your point)

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting


So British citizens are protected from undue pain and suffering at the hands of one another. I think you'd find in most practical applications of this law, the US and virtually every other western country has an equivalent law.

** edit - and I think it's fairly obvious that it's not the LAW, per se, that's interpreted, it is whether or not an action breaks that law. Tweets would fall under 'other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting'.

[jaydicassdhy]

Fail..

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dawned



In fact, WTF would "it donned on me" even mean??

--- Post Update ---

No, it's just dawned on me that you're a borderline sociopath.

The fail is there, doofus.

[Abaronos]

Wow, I am impressed. From the website you linked: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/don

There was a discussion on here too: http://community.futuremark.com/foru...=1#post1702950

[uncoosesoge]

There was a discussion on here too: http://community.futuremark.com/foru...=1#post1702950

It doesn't work in that context. Both don and dawn are wrong there.

"Its just dawned on me that...." is quite a common saying in the UK, I guess not over there?