Cyberbullying VS Light-Hearted Prank (1 Viewer)

[RainLover]

Dick7Access

Thanks for explaing.

 

[dan-cat]

I will have to claim ignorance. What is the "eggshell skull" rule?

All you had to do was read my posts.

http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1215019&postcount=14

 

[dan-cat]

your right there, and I have paid and learnt from mine, but it seems some people never learn.

Right because they never receive the impact of the consequences of their actions. This is why law attempts to prevent the shifting of blame to the vulnerable or the victim as it were.

Otherwise the transgressor is never corrected and the victim shoulders the burden for something they did not cause.

 

[RainLover]

dan-cat

The eggshell laws may not apply in all countries. They would at least be very different from Country to Country.

However a Civil action would not be beyond the realms of possibilities. This maybe why 2Day FM has not apologised nor have they disclosed their procedures prior to transmission of the prank. For fear of being sued.

If you go back to Galaxiom's latest posts he has pointed out some things about Phones and Australian Law.

To my knowledge it is against the law to record a Telephone conversation of any type without the PRIOR consent of the other party.

There are Federal Laws and State Laws to be considered.

Also I do not feel competent enough to debate the Laws you refereed to. but from what I read they appear to be sensible.

 

[dan-cat]

However a Civil action would not be beyond the realms of possibilities. This maybe why 2Day FM has not apologised nor have they disclosed their procedures prior to transmission of the prank. For fear of being sued.

Completely agree with you. This is why

"We couldn't believe that it had worked, absolutely. You didn't expect it to. We thought 100 people before us would've tried the same thing. We just did not see that actually working."

would have had their lawyers crying in their cheerios. It's an accidental admission that they had prior knowledge that their actions could be deemed as harrassment despite their protestations to the contrary.

If you go back to Galaxiom's latest posts he has pointed out some things about Phones and Australian Law.

To my knowledge it is against the law to record a Telephone conversation of any type without the PRIOR consent of the other party.

I hope this is true. It would explain why the radio station was so keen to explain that they "tried" to gain permission from the nurses to broadcast which is of course complete bunkum because any sane person would have flat out denied permission.

Also I do not feel competent enough to debate the Laws you refereed to. but from what I read they appear to be sensible.

I don't think any advanced competency is required, just as you say, some plain old sensibilities.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Depression is a terrible disease which is made much harder for the suffers by people like yourself who don't understand the full extent of the disease.

Rain,

I have people both in my family and close friends that suffer from depression, generalized anxiety disorders, and social anxiety disorders.

I have empathy for them, but they are still responsible for their own actions.

Yes absolutely. If the nurse had to undergo prolonged psychiatric treatment for a stress-related illness then who would have known? But the death has forced us all to consider the actual reality that there is usually always a penalty to such uncivil behavior regardless of whether it's newsworthy.

As an individual, you are responsible for yourself. It is tragic that the nurse decided to take her own life, and we don't yet have all of the information, but regardless of her mental well-being, how is it another person's responsibility that she chose to take her own life?

If you make a mistake a work, and your boss reprimands you, and then you go and commit suicide, is that your responsibility, or your boss's responsibility?

If there is a woman who is head-over-heels in love with a guy, and that guy rejects her, and she commits suicide, is that her responsibility, or the guy's responsibility?

Again, it is definitely a sad event. It would be better if it had been avoided. But this is not a case where an individual was repeatedly tormented, bullied, abused, etc. From the information at hand, there was no malice in the DJ's actions.

This is not a case of a child or teenager that is vulnerable. This is an adult who chose to commit suicide.

 

[Brianwarnock]

So a person over the age of 19 cannot be vulnerable, I never knew that.

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

So a person over the age of 19 cannot be vulnerable, I never knew that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

#5.

Next?

 

[Brianwarnock]

Ok I will be blunt, I think that your last sentence was not only stupid but says a lot about you, you say that you have empathy for your relatives but I doubt that you really know what that means.
I'm surprised that Dan continues to discuss this with you.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

If you make a mistake a work, and your boss reprimands you, and then you go and commit suicide, is that your responsibility, or your boss's responsibility?

If there is a woman who is head-over-heels in love with a guy, and that guy rejects her, and she commits suicide, is that her responsibility, or the guy's responsibility?

You're missing the point with these examples. It's about negligence. If you neglect to behave in a civil manner and that causes harm you become liable for that harm.

If you reprimand someone in a professional manner, if you are not negligent in your actions then you are not liable. But if you do not take due care and attention to how you behave and harm arises from this negligence then you are liable. It is to prevent transferring the responsibility for uncivil behavior, which you are doing, to the victim of the results of that uncivil behavior.

Again, it is definitely a sad event. It would be better if it had been avoided. But this is not a case where an individual was repeatedly tormented, bullied, abused, etc. From the information at hand, there was no malice in the DJ's actions.

This is not a case of a child or teenager that is vulnerable. This is an adult who chose to commit suicide.

No-one is arguing about intent here nor that they should be tried for murder merely the acknowledgement of the role they played in that nurse's demise. If we don't, we accept that stress-inducing uncivil behavior is acceptable and it is the responsibility of the victims of these hoaxes to carry the burdens that ensue from them. This is clearly unfair and the law, at least in this land, thankfully, sees it that way.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Ok I will be blunt, I think that your last sentence was not only stupid but says a lot about you, you say that you have empathy for your relatives but I doubt that you really know what that means.

Brian, I don't have the time to continually debate with individuals who are not making an honest attempt at it. Your previous post holds no merit, and I was simply pointing that out.

 

[Vassago]

You're missing the point with these examples. It's about negligence. If you neglect to behave in a civil manner and that causes harm you become liable for that harm.

If you reprimand someone in a professional manner, if you are not negligent in your actions then you are not liable. But if you do not take due care and attention to how you behave and harm arises from this negligence then you are liable. It is to prevent transferring the responsibility for uncivil behavior, which you are doing, to the victim of the results of that uncivil behavior.



No-one is arguing about intent here nor that they should be tried for murder merely the acknowledgement of the role they played in that nurse's demise. If we don't, we accept that stress-inducing uncivil behavior is acceptable and it is the responsibility of the victims of these hoaxes to carry the burdens that ensue from them. This is clearly unfair and the law, at least in this land, thankfully, sees it that way.

Then who gets charged? What about the tabloids that made a larger deal of it than anyone else involved? If anyone caused her stress, if was the media. Should they be held accountable?

 

[Dick7Access]

Yes absolutely. If the nurse had to undergo prolonged psychiatric treatment for a stress-related illness then who would have known? But the death has forced us all to consider the actual reality that there is usually always a penalty to such uncivil behavior regardless of whether it's newsworthy.

It's up to you whether you wish to learn this fact from this event but most, it seems, prefer to insulate themselves from that discomfort.

You are so right, but some lean some don’t learn. When some are caught they own up to it, some try and squirm out of it. Such is human nature. Ashamedly I have done both.

 

[dan-cat]

Ok I will be blunt, I think that your last sentence was not only stupid but says a lot about you, you say that you have empathy for your relatives but I doubt that you really know what that means.

I'm beginning to form a theory as to why this lack of empathy is becoming increasingly widespread. Perhaps I'll start a thread on it.

I'm surprised that Dan continues to discuss this with you.

Brian

A breeze compared to the Rich and Col experience

 

[Adam Caramon]

You're missing the point with these examples. It's about negligence. If you neglect to behave in a civil manner and that causes harm you become liable for that harm.

I understand that, but I don't think that these DJs' actions were uncivil.

But if you do not take due care and attention to how you behave and harm arises from this negligence then you are liable.

Liable for what? If the DJs' (and the radio station) broke the law, then they should be charged. I don't see how the DJs' can be held responsible for the nurse's suicide in any legal capacity.

No-one is arguing about intent here nor that they should be tried for murder merely the acknowledgement of the role they played in that nurse's demise.

From what I have read, the DJs' understand their role in the nurse's suicide.

If we don't, we accept that stress-inducing uncivil behavior is acceptable and it is the responsibility of the victims of these hoaxes to carry the burdens that ensue from them.

The amount of stress that is induced by a prank is relative to the person that is the target of the prank. I think it is safe to say that 99% of people in the UK would not have committed suicide were they in this nurse's shoes.

Had this nurse not committed suicide, I am sure the hospital would still be reviewing its policies, looking into additional training for their staff, etc. Because the nurse chose to commit suicide, the situation is being looked at in a completely different light.

This is clearly unfair and the law, at least in this land, thankfully, sees it that way.

If they broke the law, they should be held accountable. If that's being charged for recording a conversation without the other person's consent, replaying that conversation, etc. then that makes absolute sense.

 

[dan-cat]

Then who gets charged? What about the tabloids that made a larger deal of it than anyone else involved? If anyone caused her stress, if was the media. Should they be held accountable?

I've addressed this point before. For me, this increases their negligence because they darn well knew the media storm that they were trying to provoke. They knew they were one of a hundred prank callers all vying for a juicy response.

This approach actually lessens my sympathy for them because it attempts to shirk responsibility by doing a playground point of "he did it too" proportions.

 

[Adam Caramon]

A breeze compared to the Rich and Col experience

I try to always debate/discuss in good faith. In my experience, you do the same. We rarely see eye to eye, but it has always been cordial. You are capable of articulating your points well and understanding mine.

For others, it may be that they don't have the true desire to debate a point, but just want to have their say. That's fine as well, but it is hard to take that seriously.

 

[dan-cat]

I understand that, but I don't think that these DJs' actions were uncivil.

It's difficult to continue the discussion without getting too personal about this comment. We are simply looking at the world from two very different viewpoints. I think we should leave it at that.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Brian, I don't have the time to continually debate with individuals who are not making an honest attempt at it. Your previous post holds no merit, and I was simply pointing that out.

Your argument seems to be based on the fact that the women is an adult and therefore cannot be vulnerable and is thus fully responsible for her actions no matter what others have done.

I attempted to show how silly this is with sarcasm but failed pathetically so told it bluntly.
These people knew nothing of the people they were dealing with and therefore acted irresponsibly and are therefore culpable for any and every thing that may ensue.

Sorry if I can't debate to your standards.

Brian

 

[nanscombe]

... From what I have read, the DJs' understand their role in the nurse's suicide.

If I was the male DJ, since I (he) never even spoke to the woman, I wouldn't see her over-reaction as my fault.