Man's personal life revealed on facebook by eavesdropping stanger!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seachmall wrote: »

Absolutely, but the principle of moral intervention is what I'm getting at. Of course, but he has the discretion to decide on certain matters such as how long a sentence or even if a custodial sentence is fitting or not.

But he'll have a framework to decide upon.

The point of a legal system is to protect people and keep a semblance of order, I would say, rather then to impose moral guidelines onto people. Most people would argue that adultery is immoral, for example, but most people would not want to see it made illegal.

conorhal

Killer Wench wrote: »

Have y'all seen the website "People of Walmart". It's a website that features photos of people out shopping at Walmart. Usually, these images are of severely obese people, people with disabilities, people who dress funny, or whatever may be deemed appropriate for public ridicule. Photojournalists have always taken pictures of people out on the street and reported on the daily news. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while sitting on a public train and broadcasting your conversation loud enough for others to hear.

However, the woman does not know if what this man said was true or if he was embellishing simply because he was around friends. So, when she began spreading his image around the net with the words that he was a cheating husband, she began to publicly defame his character. The defense to libel is the truth, and now she has the burden of proving that he did in fact cheat on his wife.

Well I'm no legal expert or anything, but how can you libel sombody by quoting them verbatum?
If it's all balls then that eejit has only libeled himself surely?

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But he'll have a framework to decide upon.

The point of a legal system is to protect people and keep a semblance of order, I would say, rather then to impose moral guidelines onto people. Most people would argue that adultery is immoral, for example, but most people would not want to see it made illegal.

But our use of laws to protect people are representative of our morals, and many people vote for or against laws based on their morals (e.g. in the case of abortion people would vote to either protect the rights of the mother or to protect the rights of the unborn child depending on their own morals).

We are fortunate enough to live in a country that distinguishes between morals that need to be enforced and morals that don't (such as adultery) but the laws are still inspired by our beliefs of what is moral and what is not.

XxMCRxBabyxX

conorhal wrote: »

Well I'm no legal expert or anything, but how can you libel sombody by quoting them verbatum?
If it's all balls then that eejit has only libeled himself surely?

That's only if she's quoting what he actually said. She could have just made it up, in which case it would definitely be libel. It would be up to her to prove that he actually said what she says he did.

Grayson

Seachmall wrote: »

But our use of laws to protect people are representative of our morals, and many people vote for or against laws based on their morals (e.g. in the case of abortion people would vote to either protect the rights of the mother or to protect the rights of the unborn child depending on their own morals).

We are fortunate enough to live in a country that distinguishes between morals that need to be enforced and morals that don't (such as adultery) but the laws are still inspired by our beliefs of what is moral and what is not.

Laws are designed for safety and security (and sometimes to increase happiness/reduce unhappiness)), not morality. That is why it is illegal to kill, rob or drive drunk. But it is not illegal to commit adultery, or have gay sex.

anncoates

Guy is a total jerk but nobody in their right mind can condone what that woman did. She sounds like a vindicative nut.

What's highly ironic is that the social media that she so gladly harnessed to destroy this guy's life will probably now end up being turned on her.

Irish Guitarist

It's amazing what some people will say in public without thinking about being overheard. I was once in the park and there was a young woman about twenty feet away from me talking on her phone at the top of her voice. In the space of about thirty seconds I heard that she had had an abortion, learned her sons name, that he was being bullied in school by another boy and that she had had a fight with that boys mother.

I don't agree with posting someones photo and details on Facebook, but if you don't want people knowing your personal business don't shout about it in public.

Seachmall

Grayson wrote: »

Laws are designed for safety and security (and sometimes to increase happiness/reduce unhappiness)), not morality. That is why it is illegal to kill, rob or drive drunk.

It is illegal to murder someone because we all agree murdering people is wrong. That is a moral decision.

The same is true for endangering other peoples' lives (as in the case of drunk driving) or depriving them of property.


If we all agreed murdering people was acceptable behavior it would not be against the law (as this is a democracy).

But it is not illegal to [...] have gay sex.

Not until recently.

As a society our views on gay sex have changed. Before 1991 it was illegal because many saw it as immoral behaviour.

--Kaiser--

I don't really see much of a breach of privacy. A train is a public place

CruelCoin

Stinicker wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337983/The-husband-accused-cheater-183-000-people-Facebook-mother-claims-overheard-bragging-affairs-train.html

A guy having a private conversation on a train has his photo taken by some woman who then exposes him of being a cheater.

What a horrible horrible woman she is and I hope he sues her for a huge sum. She had no right to be eavesdropping or to publish the details of his private conversations. She really needs to be taught a lesson for this and I hope he sues for such libelous and scandalous comment to make about him.

Not sure it's libel if it's the truth....

Breach of privacy, sure, but little else.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seachmall wrote: »

But our use of laws to protect people are representative of our morals, and many people vote for or against laws based on their morals (e.g. in the case of abortion people would vote to either protect the rights of the mother or to protect the rights of the unborn child depending on their own morals).

And one would argue that morals being the deicding factor creating laws is a bad idea for the very example you metnion above.

One of the British Lords (or Ladies) in the upper house of Britian's government put it very well recently when talkign about gay marraige:

"Do I want to vote against it? Yes, I do. But should I vote against it? No."

We are fortunate enough to live in a country that distinguishes between morals that need to be enforced and morals that don't (such as adultery) but the laws are still inspired by our beliefs of what is moral and what is not.

Here, we disagree. As pointed out above, our laws are inspired by other factors than morality. I'd argue morality is further down teh scame of importance than protection and order. And if you were rigth, a lot more immoral things in our society would be illegal and something like gay marraige would be much further away that it is. Hell, gay everything might be much further away that it is.

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd argue morality is further down teh scame of importance than protection and order.

Protecting people is quite probably the single most important factor in the law, and it is derived from morals.

And if you were rigth, a lot more immoral things in our society would be illegal and something like gay marraige would be much further away that it is. Hell, gay everything might be much further away that it is.

I think it's quite obvious that the inevitable changes in law regarding gay rights are due to people realising that homosexuality is not a moral issue.



At the end of the day the law is about what is right and what is wrong. That can only be determined by morals.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

conorhal wrote: »

Well I'm no legal expert or anything, but how can you libel sombody by quoting them verbatum?
If it's all balls then that eejit has only libeled himself surely?

CruelCoin wrote: »

Not sure it's libel if it's the truth....

Breach of privacy, sure, but little else.

Depends on the truth of the original statement: say for example the guy never cheated on his wife and was only boasting. Or, if there were no witneses to the conversation, he could deny everything. Assuming he has eveidence she's the one who ratted him, and he denys the adultery, she'd be in trouble.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seachmall wrote: »

Protecting people is quite probably the single most important factor in the law, and it is derived from morals.

No, it;s derieved from common sense! At least, it should be. If you were right, euthanasia is another one that would not even be up for discussion.

I think it's quite obvious that the inevitable changes in law regarding gay rights are due to people realising that homosexuality is not a moral issue.

At the end of the day the law is about what is right and what is wrong. That can only be determined by morals.

No, it can't. Not only those factors.

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, it;s derieved from common sense!

That sounds like you intuitively know that protection is important, which would suggest a moral inclination towards protecting people.

At least, it should be. If you were right, euthanasia is another one that would not even be up for discussion.

No, euthanasia is up for discussion because I'm right.

If it weren't an issue of morals then there'd be an absolute, non-emotional answer as to whether or not euthanasia should be allowed.

No, it can't. Not only those factors.

How can you determine right and wrong without morals? Morals, by definition, are required to distinguish between right and wrong.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seachmall wrote: »

That sounds like you intuitively know that protection is important, which would suggest a moral inclination towards protecting people. No, euthanasia is up for discussion because I'm right.

If it weren't an issue of morals then there'd be an absolute, non-emotional answer as to whether or not euthanasia should be allowed.



How can you determine right and wrong without morals? Morals, by definition, are required to distinguish between right and wrong.

By how your actions effect other people.

You're still not asnwering the point about laws being create to protect people - or are morals more important than lives?

Killer Wench

A link called creepshots on tumblr was just shared on my Facebook. There is a conversation about the appropriateness of taking pictures of strangers in public. This creepshots site features images of women in short skirts, tight pants, low cut shirts, etc. in public. They are genuinely creepy shots.

These women have the choice to wear anything they want in public. Some may do it for the attention, others may do it because they are in a hot climate and they want to tan, and there are others who do so for various reasons. But, it seems so invasive to take the images of these women and then post them on a website so other creepy people can gawk at them.

Grayson

Seachmall wrote: »

That sounds like you intuitively know that protection is important, which would suggest a moral inclination towards protecting people. No, euthanasia is up for discussion because I'm right.

If it weren't an issue of morals then there'd be an absolute, non-emotional answer as to whether or not euthanasia should be allowed.



How can you determine right and wrong without morals? Morals, by definition, are required to distinguish between right and wrong.

I don't think you know what the word moral means. Moral means what I should do. Ethics refer to what we aught to do. I have a feeling that you see morals in a Judeo-Christian manner.

Our society is based on a normative system of ethics. It is a lose form of consequentialism. That is the consequences of the actions rather than the morality of the action themselves. For example, homosexuality was illegal when people believed the act was morally wrong. It's now legal because as long as it doesn't have a bad effect on the people who practice it, and it doesn't affect society in a negative manner, then why stop it?

We balance the consequentialism with rights. That is, we assume that people have rights. And we only impinge on those rights when we feel it is better for the safety of society as a whole. For example, we remove the rights of smokers to smoke in pubs because it is better for everyone.

But we try not to make laws based on how people feel. It only ever happens nowadays when a politician is trying to score some publicity.

Grayson

Killer Wench wrote: »

A link called creepshots on tumblr was just shared on my Facebook. There is a conversation about the appropriateness of taking pictures of strangers in public. This creepshots site features images of women in short skirts, tight pants, low cut shirts, etc. in public. They are genuinely creepy shots.

These women have the choice to wear anything they want in public. Some may do it for the attention, others may do it because they are in a hot climate and they want to tan, and there are others who do so for various reasons. But, it seems so invasive to take the images of these women and then post them on a website so other creepy people can gawk at them.

wasn't that stopped a while back. There was a big uproar about it. It's actually relevant because one of the creepshot mods on reddit was "outed" by someone and lost his job. Thing is that technically what he was doing was legal. So it's a similar situation to this guy getting outed. But were doing something that is socially frowned upon and both were subjected to public shaming.

Smidge

Killer Wench wrote: »

A link called creepshots on tumblr was just shared on my Facebook. There is a conversation about the appropriateness of taking pictures of strangers in public. This creepshots site features images of women in short skirts, tight pants, low cut shirts, etc. in public. They are genuinely creepy shots.

These women have the choice to wear anything they want in public. Some may do it for the attention, others may do it because they are in a hot climate and they want to tan, and there are others who do so for various reasons. But, it seems so invasive to take the images of these women and then post them on a website so other creepy people can gawk at them.

+1

Freddy Smelly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the so called privacy violation here, if you're blabbering loudly on a train what the hell do you expect, but the fact that someone can make such an accusation and have almost 200,000 people believe it without a shred of evidence other than her word against his, is a little disturbing to say the least.

If I take a photo on a train tomorrow of someone looking at a smartphone and attach a caption saying "Paedo looking at infant porn", how many people are going to join the witch hunt and share the pic before someone points out "Wait, we can't see the screen, how do we know hatrickpatrick isn't just being a douche and lying to get this guy in sh!t"?

lol the cia will be reading this - operation prism n all :eek: