More bad press for aspies

Post Reply New Topic

Nonsense.

You know as well as I do that it is what that stone represents, more than it just being a stone.
Likewise with the Facebook page representing much more than just being a web page.

Allowing people to leave messages of condolence is what I'd expect on any sort of tribute or memorial and the family/relatives were correct to expect to be left in peace.
In just the same way that a family looking after a relative's gravestone would be correct in expecting to be left in peace and not find it vandalised.

They're both public and they both serve the same purpose.
It's called trolling only because it happened online - but it's still an act of vandalism in just the same way as defacing a gravestone would be.

If someone were to let any member of the public write on a relative's gravestone (which no one does, for the very reason demonstrated here), then someone would write bad things on it. I'd put £1,000 on it, I'm that confident. It's human nature that, no matter what the protocol is, if someone feels they have anonymity, they will abstain from moral norms and are more likely do things like this. There are various theories written up on it, in fact.

The point is, while the behaviour itself isn't something I support at all, I equally cannot support putting someone in jail for taking advantage of the fact that someone allowed the public to make anonymous comments about their dead family member online and expected everything they got on the page to be all sweet and rosy.

Asp-Z, you don't think this is a punishable offence, fine. That's your prerogative but it seems most people see it differently. Fact is through due legal process it was decided he would be detained at her Majesty's pleasure and I don't see many people shedding any tears about it. I think it is now safe to conclude his trolling days are over. Just maybe someone else will think twice about doing the same thing in future and spare other families the same pain.

Indeed, I'm only posting my personal opinion on the matter, nothing more.

There is already nothing stopping people from painting swastikas on gravestones, or from breaking them - and when those doing it are caught they're jailed.
It's quite disingenuous to minimise this simply because a gravestone doesn't have a handy spray can nearby or pen and notepad hanging from it. The exact method of vandalism used varies with what's being vandalised. Obviously.
The end result is still the same.

So basically they got what they deserved because (a) human nature is what it is and (b) they should have seen it coming?

My point is that, in this case, the family invited and provided tools for anyone who happens to have a Facebook account to write a message. This is the equivalent of leaving the necessary tools to vandalise something right there for people to pick up and use.



If you want to reduce it to harsh basic terms then yes, that is correct. You don't let random members of the public wander into a funeral and you shouldn't do the equivalent of that on the internet. Common sense still applies.

What the family should have done is set up a private memorial page which only other family members and friends of the family and the dead can access. That would alleviate the risk of the problem altogether.