> sending a photo of a steak to a vegan would get you 5 years in prison?
Two issues. The question is what was your intent. Proving that it was sent with the intent of causing distress or anxiety is much harder in that case. For example I don’t know a single vegan who would react with distress or anxiety to the image of a steak. That is just nonsense. They would just say “yuck”.
But if from the circumstances it is clear that that is the intent, perhaps because the vegan in question repeatedly expresses distress and the accused in question still keeps sending them then why would we not punish that? As in do you want that kind of behaviour in your society?
That was issue one. Issue two is about the 5 years. You say that as if that is the standard length of punishment a first time vegan abuser should expect. In reality this person has previously been convicted of a sexual crime and then commited infractions against multiple people. Surely these factors played a role in the lenght of prison sentence he received?
Offending someone and intentionaly causing anxiety and distress is not the same thing. I don’t know why you are mixing the two together. I hope it is not because you are not arguing from good faith.
Telling a chess player that chess is a silly game with a hodge-podge of rules crudely kludged together can be described as offending. It is a bit crass but to each their own.
The kind of communication I want people to be arrested for is way beyond that level which I would describe as “offending”.
But assuming you are asking in good faith: Why do I want people arrested for intentionally sending distressing pictures? Same reason I want anyone arrested for punching someone in the face. Because I think that behaviour should not be tolerated in civilised society and I want it to happen less often.
Thank you for bothering to get into that with them so I didn't have to respond to that absurdity ... ironically I think they are just trying to be offended for the sake of it, I'm surprised they didn't have a pop at the UK knife laws whilst they were posting
Is showing pictures of civilian casualties who have died gruesome deaths (think: genocide), with intent to distress citizens into changing their political support, arrest worthy, or is it speech that should be protected?
Two issues. The question is what was your intent. Proving that it was sent with the intent of causing distress or anxiety is much harder in that case. For example I don’t know a single vegan who would react with distress or anxiety to the image of a steak. That is just nonsense. They would just say “yuck”.
But if from the circumstances it is clear that that is the intent, perhaps because the vegan in question repeatedly expresses distress and the accused in question still keeps sending them then why would we not punish that? As in do you want that kind of behaviour in your society?
That was issue one. Issue two is about the 5 years. You say that as if that is the standard length of punishment a first time vegan abuser should expect. In reality this person has previously been convicted of a sexual crime and then commited infractions against multiple people. Surely these factors played a role in the lenght of prison sentence he received?