So... an airport that may or may not have needed to close due to snow, so frustrated a guy (who perhaps didn't have his RL friends around to vent to, or perhaps he has no friends... I'm just sayin'...) that he had a verbal tantrum akin to roadrage. Expressed in a 140 character tweet in which he mentioned blowing up said airport.
Seems an airport person, probably also frustrated about something (having no friends perhaps?), saw it (were they doing a search about their workplace?? see previous brackets) and reported it to the police. Original frustrated person was arrested, sent to court and fined for being menacing.
This brings to mind at least two different uses of the concept of "joke".
1. The tweeter says it was "only a joke" (and don't get me started on the way people flippantly deny responsibility by cracking out this line coz that is a subject for an, as yet, undrafted blog post).
2. The public money and time spent on this - it's got to be a joke! #twitterjoketrail
Anyway... so, of course lots of people are venting about it in their different ways.
Lots of tweeters (including a number of celebs) are showing support by tweeting their own version of the offending tweet with the hash tag #iamspartacus and changing their avatars to include a "may be a joke" disclaimer.
Stephen Fry (we love him!) has declared he will pay whatever this fellow is fined. I assume on the principal of free speech - and not the principal of badly managing one's feelings ...
People are writing blogs (err, not just me!) and columns about it. Including this one which refers to someone inferring they would like another person stoned to death (another joke, of course?!?) They got in trouble too and their defense? "I did not 'call' for the stoning of anybody. I made an ill-conceived attempt at humour." <-- read: "Just joking"!
The whole airport bombing tweet arrest and fine thing just reeks to me of old fuddyduddies grasping at straws trying to work out how to deal with this new problem of abuse. And, even though they are fuddyduddies, and out of touch with the youth and their new fangled communication technologies, their intentions are good.
But to me it's not a new problem. It's the same problem. I don't know when it started but it's been around for a long time.
Maybe millenia, maybe the cave people abused each other by being mean, angry and spiteful - or maybe it has evolved more recently since tribal warfare largely became out dated and more people began sitting around inside at their desks and doing less physical exercise.
I don't know.
I do know that it makes me think of a larger context of text bullying and facebook bullying and the destruction of a teenager's last refuge. Of vulnerable people lying on their beds, in their only sanctuary, with abuse spewing out of their phones.
I don't know if the broadening of the potential percieved audience or the escalation of the spread of a teenagers humilation exponentially increases their crushing feeling of despair and hopelessness, or their likelyhood of suicide. But I know about lying on your bed in the dark and stewing about the awfulness of being, and I can only begin to imagine how much this is compounded by a string of texts reinforcing it.
A bullying victim with a cell phone or a computer has no safe refuge.
I have to applaud people who want to do something about that.
Or do I?
Just as there are better things to have a tantrum about than an airport closing due to weather that no one can control, there are better things to spend our money and time on than the process of fining someone for saying something stupid on the internet.
If only we could take that time and money and put it into some sort of personal development programme that helps people deal with their anger better, build self esteem and be more compassionate.
So... where does freedom of speech come into it? Sounds like a good thing to be in support of, don't you think?
I am tempted to be wary of Stephen Fry throwing down his money in a way that can be percieved as supporting an idiot (that's a joke... I have no idea if this guy is an idiot, unless you go by his texty actions of course). I imagine he is actually throwing down his money in the wider principal of freedom of speech and such.
The freedom to make a joke?
I don't know if there is a definition of joke that everyone could agree with. Just as there is no universal joke that everyone laughs at. It's one of those "in the eye of the beholder" things.
The whole thing just brings up lots of "I don't know"s and "I do know"s for me.
How should it work?
People have the right to say what they want? People have the right to say what they want as long as it is not offensive to someone else? People have the right to say whatever they want as long as they don't do it directly to an individual?
Did people take a break from saying horrible things for a few decades and now that they can do it from behind a screen where no one can see them they feel free to express the anger they hold inside? And now that they aren't seen they say it.
I don't know.
I do know it all boils down to self hatred anyway.
I do know it's not new, it's just that there is a faster and broader audience for people's wretchedness.
I do know I understand the frustration of lawmakers with good intentions, law enforcers and people that can only cope with an impending airport closure by having an abusive tantrum.
So what do we do about it?
I don't know... but I'm thinking about it.
Now I shall go and research the concept of freedom of speech... and perhaps common sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hmmm
ReplyDelete