There is no freedom of speech is Australia

[FreakyLocz14]

...I share that feeling, but it's important to realize that this point of view is a minority. Most people will in-fact feel better if the person that wronged them is punished more severely. They feel better for the same reasons someone feels worse if someone gets away with a crime. Money cannot undo the damage that was done. Too much of a good thing can be bad, right? That applies to freedom of speech. There has to be a limit. Quite honestly even letting the WBC get away with what they do may be pushing necessary limits. How long is it until someone says "Money? Screw money. I want this guy's head!" and we have a murder on our hands? This is all those checks and balances we like so much.

I see what you mean. The general test to see what limits a freedom has in America used by American courts is "you are free to say/do whatever you want until another entity's rights are infringed upon". I know there are numerous contradictions to that (i.e. marijuana, same-sex marriage) but if this women were convicted in America, on appeal that is the test the courts would use to test the constitutionality of the law she was convicted under. Again, I'm not saying what this woman did was right, I think we both agree that she's either mentally unstable or just sick and sadistic but I am a strong believer in allowing people as much freedom as possible without infringing on the rights of others. Again, I don't know exactly what this woman said or wrote so for all we know she could have made criminal threats that even I would agree should punished.

 

[Dawn]

I think we both agree that she's either mentally unstable or just sick and sadistic but I am a strong believer in allowing people as much freedom as possible without infringing on the rights of others. Again, I don't know exactly what this woman said or wrote so for all we know she could have made criminal threats that even I would agree should punished.

Well, here's this article that I believe covers the story better and a bit more in depth than the one already posted. Be warned that her trolling was in no way child friendly, though it fails to give any examples of what exactly she said. If the graphic pictures (They are described, but not shown.) are any indication of how vulgar she was being, though...

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/facebook-troll-jessica-cook-pleads-guilty-to-defacing-a-tribute-page-to-justine-jones/story-e6frg15u-1225900174784

 

[Richard Lynch]

Well, uh, quite honestly you don't know what defamatory speech is. I mean your definition is literally wrong. Sorry >.> Mockery = Defamatory speech, I'm afraid. Mockery will not necessarily get you in trouble, but it is in fact defamatory.

Not quite. Defamation is the act of "ruining one's good name", under any circumstances. While it can be mocking, it usually isn't. Defamatory speech is more in line with slander, not mockery. There is a difference.

Anywho, I have mixed feelings about this woman. On one hand, I don't feel what she did was worthy of a prison sentence. On the other, what she did was most certainly inexcusable. However, I feel this is an empirical situation of "you just don't do that". There are plenty of offensive things on the internet (some possibly more offensive than what she did). You can't really enforce "niceness", since sometimes it is a matter of mental state. What you can do is enforce a barrier of communication to be built; but how often does that work?

In a world that often glorifies war, I can't imagine that what this woman did was quite as "on-par" with some of the heavier things. I think she deserves a swift kick in the ass (preferably by the family of the victim), but a jail sentence? I don't think so. It'll accomplish nothing; it won't erase what she said or posted, and it probably won't change her "view". A person like this deserves to be ignored (after all, she did get what she wanted; in a way, she won). Society is too good to be polluted by even the acknowledgment of her comments.

That's where I stand on this issue, anyway.

 

[Dawn]

Not quite. Defamation is the act of "ruining one's good name", under any circumstances. While it can be mocking, it usually isn't. Defamatory speech is more in line with slander, not mockery. There is a difference.

Aaaah, I missed your presence here, Richard.

words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" "The article in the paper sullied my reputation"
aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name

This looks more in line with the kind of defamatory that will get you sued, succesfully.

calumniatory: (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign

But this conflicts with the above by making it not necessarily untrue. If you say something awful about someone, and you can prove it's true, that's a very legit defense in court.

treat with contempt; "The new constitution mocks all democratic principles"
imitate with mockery and derision; "The children mocked their handicapped classmate"
the act of mocking or ridiculing; "they made a mock of him"
constituting a copy or imitation of something; "boys in mock battle"

In the current context, it would seem that Mocking someone is in fact automatically defamatory, but is not automatically slander, which is what I was saying before. Whether mocking someone is a common thing to get sued successfully over is beyond what I've researched.