April Jones: Facebook troll jailed for 'despicable' comments
A man who posted ''despicable'' comments on his Facebook page about missing April Jones has been jailed for 12 weeks.
Matthew Woods, 19, from Chorley, Lancashire, made a number of derogatory posts about April and missing Madeline McCann after getting the idea from Sickipedia - a website that ''trades in sick jokes''.
Among his comments was: ''I woke up this morning in the back of a transit van with two beautiful little girls, I found April in a hopeless place.''
Another read: ''Who in their right mind would abduct a ginger kid?''
Others stated ''I love April Jones'' and ''Could have just started the greatest Facebook argument ever. April Fools, Who Wants Maddie?''
He also wrote comments of a sexually explicit nature about the five-year-old who went missing last week from near her home in Machynlleth, mid Wales.
Unemployed Woods was arrested for his own safety on Saturday night and was remanded in custody ahead of his appearance at Chorley Magistrates' Court today where he pleaded guilty to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive.
Chairman of the bench, Bill Hudson, said Woods's comments were so serious and ''abhorrent'' that it deserved the longest sentence they could pass, less a third to give credit for his early guilty plea.
Earlier in the day the same bench fined a man £100 for shouting racial abuse to a woman who had pulled up in her car beside him at a junction.
He was also ordered to pay his victim compensation of £100 for saying to her: ''You f****** black c***.''
Mr Hudson said: "We have listened to the evidence in what can only be described as a disgusting and despicable crime and the bench finds was completely abhorrent.
"The words and references used to the current case in Wales and that of the missing girl in Portugal are nothing less than shocking, so much so that no right thinking person in society should have communicated to them such fear and distress."
He added that families involved in cases such as these should not have to be subjected to any use of social media like this and should not be used to mistreat people in this way.
He said only a custodial term in a young offender institute was appropriate, which was greeted by applause from around 30 people sitting in the public gallery.
Mr Hudson concluded: "The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive."
Woods smirked as members of the public clapped before he was led from the dock.
I'm sorry, but what the feth is going on with the UK courts?
Someone shouts racist abuse at a stranger in public. £100 fine.
Someone posts some very tasteless comments, on there facebook page. 12 weeks in prison, and a criminal record that is going to make it even more difficult for him to ever get a job.
FFS. Yes the comments were inappropriate and offensive, but how dose being offensive justify the life destroying effects of 12 weeks in prison?
Kovnik Obama wrote: Yes, please, where is society going if we cannot have our right to make obscene comments about a kidnapped child on a popular social media respected?
If he had made the exact same comments in a pub for example he would have had no legal issues at all.
Also, however people behave in pubs, is not the standard of conduct you should aim to emulate.
No but the standards should be the same. Do you want people arrested for what they say in a social setting?
If what they say is so horribly offensive, and might actually impede an ongoing investigation, yes, I have no problems with that. 12 weeks is a lot, but there's such a thing as exemplary punishment.
rubiksnoob wrote: With laws like these, how on earth has Matty evaded the authorities this long?
But seriously, you guys across the pond must have some pretty thin skin if you need laws against calling people names. Must be the lack of sun.
Its true man, the gak I type on my facebook page about Islam.. I'm stunned I'm still a free man!
This gak has been on the up for about the last 2 years. I think the straw that broke the camels back was the kids getting jailed for organising a riot via facebook. Its a tough subkect to be sure, but in my mind there can be no law against being a horrible bastard. I fully agreed with Islam4UKs right to march through Wooton Bassett, I want to be able to say what's on my mind about what I believe is a dark age cult that worships a man who history shows was into rape, slavery, paedophilia, the whole shebang. It would be hypocritical of me not to allow them to air their views.
YMMV of course, and I can see both sides of the argument so I don't get turbo rage about it. I mean, I found it funny when those little chavs got jailed for oganising a riot via facebook, and obviously not everyone has as thick skin as me, and some people would react far more badly to this kind of thing than I would.
I mean, I presume this kind of stuff would really affect the mother of the girl in question for example. So, I don't feel hugely about it one way or the other, and at least when it goes to court its on a case by case basis.. but I think If I HAD to pick one way or the other, then no, I don't agree with jailing people for trolling.
The problem is thought that he wasn't trolling. He was pasting on his own facebook page. If he had started a public group, or had hunted down one of her relatives and sent offensive messages I might be able to understand, but the guy wrote stuff on his own facebook page. Effectivly, to me, as public as a pub if not locked down.
At least the kids trying to organise a riot had an intention to harm someone.
What I was most shocked about was the guy who did harm someone, shouting racist abuse at them, although mild as racist abuse gose, got a small fine. Little more than a speeding ticket and this kid got prison.
Electroo wrote: The problem is thought that he wasn't trolling. He was pasting on his own facebook page. If he had started a public group, or had hunted down one of her relatives and sent offensive messages I might be able to understand, but the guy wrote stuff on his own facebook page. Effectivly, to me, as public as a pub if not locked down.
At least the kids trying to organise a riot had an intention to harm someone.
What I was most shocked about was the guy who did harm someone, shouting racist abuse at them, although mild as racist abuse gose, got a small fine. Little more than a speeding ticket.
Are you sure he just posted on his own page?
That doesn't sound right, because only your actual friends can see the stuff right? I mean, I write some pretty offensive gak on mine.
If that is the case, then yes its flat out ridiculous. Totally over the top.
Thats what the artical says. Its possible that the artical is wrong, but if he was posting it elsewhere then I woult have thought they would have said it.
A man who posted ''despicable'' comments on his Facebook page about missing April
If your settings are for public viewing in theory anyone can see it, especaly if you have hundreds of friends, but still people have to chose to go to your page or chose to be friends, not just looking at a page about puppys and kittens and find offensive posts.
rubiksnoob wrote: With laws like these, how on earth has Matty evaded the authorities this long?
But seriously, you guys across the pond must have some pretty thin skin if you need laws against calling people names. Must be the lack of sun.
Oh, what fething nonsense. It isn't about having a law against 'calling people names', it's about an individual judge not doing his fething job properly. You guys aren't exempt from that too, y'know. Or do I have to pull up some truly grotesque miscarriages of just from YOUR nation's recent legal history? I mean, you come from a country that, instead of not torturing people, simply changed the legal definition of what torture is so they could continue doing it to people who had been detained without trial, and that came right from the top.
This story is merely one about an overzealous judge who abused existing laws designed to protect people from harassment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lordhat wrote: "Laws" like these make me ashamed that Britain's our ally.
And statements like that should make your fellow Americans ashamed that you're one of them, given the number of Brits that have fought and died alongside your countrymen, you absolute rotter.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Yes, please, where is society going if we cannot have our right to make obscene comments about a kidnapped child on a popular social media respected?
If he had made the exact same comments in a pub for example he would have had no legal issues at all.
Using insulting words or offensive language is usually an offense IRL. I have no objection to this man being charged and jailed, although the sentence is extreme and should be appealed, IMO.
No, he absolutely should be legally allowed to say what he said, just not to the dead kid's family. As I'm pretty sure he didn't do that, this just seems like one judge bowing to the public mood, and going completely over the top in stretching the law to ensure that this little scrote gets fethed for saying some unpleasant gak.
Incidentally, I find the whole media and public reaction to this girl's disappearance to be more than a little hysterical and disproportionate. We seem to be taking any and every opportunity to indulge in mawkish outpourings of fake sentiment these days. It's like the whole country has been on a period since Diana died.
Saying that, she was the Princess of Hearts and I won't have a bad word said about her.
Albatross wrote: And statements like that should make your fellow Americans ashamed that you're one of them, given the number of Brits that have fought and died alongside your countrymen, you absolute rotter.
EDIT: Better, Kilkrazy?
If you found his statement offensive, could you not have him arrested next time he sets foot in Britain?
I for one am happy to have Britain as an ally, though I do wish you guys would get on board with the free speech thing.
I probably say this because I identify with the parents of the missing child in this case, but I'm glad he's getting punished for being a colossal jerk.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
You know, the more I read that quote the more I can't help but think 'no, you won't.' I mean, seriously, no-one will ever write a letter home to their wife, telling them they love them, and to tell the kids that their father loves them very much, but he has to go and die in the great war to make sure people are allowed to be mean on the internet.
I mean, I get the principle and I agree with it, but god damn if that quote doesn't way overstate it.
I disagree. When someone is being insulting or offensive, they are directly impacting someone else's pursuit of happiness and deserve to be punished for it. We have laws governing the use of language in or near public spaces, and I think that's important for a well mannered society.
I would rather live in an ill-mannered society where I know I can say what I please, while understanding that others whom I may disagree with may do the same, than in a well-mannered society where you have to worry about stepping on toes and offending delicate sensibilities.
rubiksnoob wrote:I would rather live in an ill-mannered society where I know I can say what I please, while understanding that others whom I may disagree with may do the same, than in a well-mannered society where you have to worry about stepping on toes and offending delicate sensibilities.
This offends me deeply. It implies that I'm delicate because I'm being offended by this, which offends me deeply.
rubiksnoob wrote: I would rather live in an ill-mannered society where I know I can say what I please, while understanding that others whom I may disagree with may do the same, than in a well-mannered society where you have to worry about stepping on toes and offending delicate sensibilities.
Fair enough. I'd rather live in a society where there's legal recourse to punish someone who starts dropping F-bombs and C-bombs in front of a group of kindergarteners.
rubiksnoob wrote: I would rather live in an ill-mannered society where I know I can say what I please, while understanding that others whom I may disagree with may do the same, than in a well-mannered society where you have to worry about stepping on toes and offending delicate sensibilities.
Fair enough. I'd rather live in a society where there's legal recourse to punish someone who starts dropping F-bombs and C-bombs in front of a group of kindergarteners.
Language intrinsically has no meaning.
What is "Obscene" to Americans is not "Obscene" to the British.
Censorship is Obscene!
We should be able to say what we want, when we want. Americans are too hung up on being "Politically Correct" It is sickening.
I disagree. When someone is being insulting or offensive, they are directly impacting someone else's pursuit of happiness and deserve to be punished for it. We have laws governing the use of language in or near public spaces, and I think that's important for a well mannered society.
You can't effect The Pursuit of Happiness... that movie is already out, broham.
That said... there are a million (hyperbolic) reasons to curtail free speech, but none that I support. It's the most important freedom there is, and whilst it would be great to live in a society that isn't crass or rude... that has never existed. If you want to use social pressure to exert controls over the majority that the few are able to buck while suffering only social punishment - that is fair. Making it a legal issue is horse puckey. Saying mean things shouldn't be a crime, no where no how. Saying things that directly endanger people is another matter, which is usually covered separately and should be.
Bromsy wrote: Saying mean things shouldn't be a crime, no where no how.
It's ridiculous to think that I could sit outside your house and scream obscenities at you with no repercussions, or swear at your children in front of you, or do any other number of offensive or insulting things. And you don't even want to be able to do something about it?
Blows my mind.
Even in America there are laws about what you can say about other people in the form of slander and libel.
You missed my point completely. Note the part where I say I agree with the general sentiment of Voltaire's comment - that people should be able to say what they want.
My comment was that posting that comment, which involves dying, to indicate the seriousness with which one takes the issue of some guy being an donkey-cave on the internet, is completely overplaying the issue. You aren't actually willing to die to stop that jerk going to prison, if you were you'd be on a flight to Britain to attempt a suicidal rescue plan.
But you haven't got a flight booked, because you're a functioning human being capable of prioritising, and therefore you realise that some guy serving jail time for being as ass on the internet may not be good, but it isn't actually something you're going to die over.
The idea, of course, is that we protect speach like this jerk's, so that it doesn't come to more serious restrictions that are actually worth dying for - when government looks to shut down political debate or artistic expression.
Unless of course you do have a flight booked, and are currently contacting underground weapons suppliers in the UK to provide you with what you need for your suicide mission. In which case my hat's off to you, you crazy bastard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaldor wrote: Fair enough. I'd rather live in a society where there's legal recourse to punish someone who starts dropping F-bombs and C-bombs in front of a group of kindergarteners.
Really?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: I probably say this because I identify with the parents of the missing child in this case, but I'm glad he's getting punished for being a colossal jerk.
Blah blah, free speech, I know.
But I can't feel bad for him.
I think people miss the significant distinction between 'we shouldn't do this' and 'I feel bad for this guy'. Someone doesn't have to be sympathetic for us to realise that what we're doing to them is wrong.
Kaldor wrote: Fair enough. I'd rather live in a society where there's legal recourse to punish someone who starts dropping F-bombs and C-bombs in front of a group of kindergarteners.
Really?
Absolutely. Australia already has laws to that effect, and I haven't noticed any sharp drops in our freedoms because of it. If anything, I feel it makes us more free, as we don't have to just tolerate offensive scumbags in and around public areas.
It's all about WHERE the words are used in my mind. In a pub or on facebook? Fine whatever but I'd say in the U.S. such venom filled posts if directed to say, the family members of these little girls directly would be covered under the Fighting Words doctrine.
Snapshot of the Fighting Words Doctrine courtesy of Le Wiki:
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
Monster Rain wrote: I probably say this because I identify with the parents of the missing child in this case, but I'm glad he's getting punished for being a colossal jerk.
Blah blah, free speech, I know.
But I can't feel bad for him.
I agree with you, in that I certainly don't feel bad for him.
That being said, "free speech", isn't some totally, wildly unrestricted thing in this country, either. I'm not directing this at you, but speaking in general - for some reason the concept of "freedom of speech" is increasingly yelled inaccurately by people that really should know better, like Juan Williams. It's not freedom from consequences. It only restrains the government from censoring you, not other private actors.
More on-topic, though; we already accept that to have a functioning society, we have to have some restrictions on free speech. You're not free to threaten someone, you're not free to yell fire in a crowded theater, you're not free to slander or defame someone, and you're not free to, in most jurisdictions, cause a breach of the peace with your words.
What I'm saying is that he could have theoretically been arrested in this country for what he posted, and constitutionally, that's probably not a problem. Maybe. Depends on how the SCOTUS interprets Facebook in relation to Snyder v. Phelps.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's all about WHERE the words are used in my mind. In a pub or on facebook? Fine whatever but I'd say in the U.S. such venom filled posts if directed to say, the family members of these little girls directly would be covered under the Fighting Words doctrine.
Thats the point, he didn't direct them at the family, and they were not venom filled, they were sick jokes on his own facebook page.
Who has never made a tastless joke on the internet? THAT is the problem here. Someone is having there life ruind for making a tastless joke in a semi private place. According to all of the reports he did not direct them at anyone but his "friends". The papers are using the word Troll because they don't know what it means. They think it means anyone making offensive comments on the internet.
Kaldor wrote: Absolutely. Australia already has laws to that effect, and I haven't noticed any sharp drops in our freedoms because of it. If anything, I feel it makes us more free, as we don't have to just tolerate offensive scumbags in and around public areas.
There aren't laws that'll punish you for saying a rude word in front of a child.
I mean, I can go outside and say feth to a child right now, if I have to to prove the point.
Meh, I think he got what he deserved. It isn't being edgy or 'dark humour'; it's just being a nob and in the process upsetting quite a few people who have probably not had the best of weeks.
And being a nob deserves a prison scentance, along with the life destroying consiquences of that? I would hardly call it proportionate.
I think Frankie Boyle is a nob, and has made comments just as offensive, yet noone is calling for him to go to prison.
I just don't agree with this "hang em all" attitude that many people have at the moment. I have worked with ex prisoners and have seen the destruction even a short spell in prison causes and worry that the public are all to ready to distroy someones life because they have no idea what the real effect of a criminal record and prison is.
How many people made jokes when Michael Jackson or Princess Dianna died? Those would have offended there friends and family. Should they go to prison?
This HANG EM ALL! THINK OF THE CHILDRUN Daliy Mail attitiude is ruining peoples lives for the sake of an ill considerd joke to friends that one of them took offense to. It's not like the guy hunted down the girls mother and started sending her thretaning emails, he made some jokes, all be it in very poor taste.
Albatross wrote: And statements like that should make your fellow Americans ashamed that you're one of them, given the number of Brits that have fought and died alongside your countrymen, you absolute rotter.
EDIT: Better, Kilkrazy?
If you found his statement offensive, could you not have him arrested next time he sets foot in Britain?
I for one am happy to have Britain as an ally, though I do wish you guys would get on board with the free speech thing.
I love this crap. Like the USA is this liberal bastion of freedom where you're free to say whatever you like, and express yourself without fear. You might have it written down on a piece of paper, but functionally, that's just bs. The USA is far more puritanical than the UK. Even just this week, we've heard that there are states in which a person is not allowed to hold public office if they are an atheist. Hell, saying you're an atheist in certain places would probably get you lynched.
The land of the free! This is the land of the free! Why, if I say
anything that displeases them, the free mob will lynch me, and that's my
freedom. Free? Why I have never been in any country where the
individual has such an abject fear of his fellow countrymen. Because,
as I say, they are free to lynch him the moment he shows he is not one
of them.
-- D. H. Lawrence (1885-1930)
Any person who, in or near a public place or within view or hearing of a public place uses profane, indecent or obscene language or uses threatening, abusive or insulting words, shall be guilty of an offence.
Electroo wrote: And being a nob deserves a prison scentance, along with the life destroying consiquences of that? I would hardly call it proportionate.
He committed an offence. Within the courts sentencing remit they decided his punishment. Nob or not.
Making sexually suggestive comments about a child is in poor taste at best. Making them whilst an abduction and likely murder case is being investigated is pretty criminal if you ask me. Criminally stupid and ignorance is not a legal excuse.
He put the comments in the public domain, justice is served.
I find this kind of thing interesting (ignoring for a moment the awful subject material) as it serves to illustrate the kind of class/wealth/type of people in the UK, and perhaps why this sentence has been completely OTT.
Specifically, we have a lot of 'multi-tier' systems and structures here in the UK, throughout society. Someone with wealth can choose to send their kids to the best schools, eat in good restaurants, live next door to similar people, go to a private hospital etc. etc. In all of these cases, they don't have to have anything at all to do with the kind of scumbag that would make this kind of post on Facebook. They essentially live in a different universe, and it's why the majority of Politicians in the UK have absolutely no idea of the levels of poverty and generally just crappy places that exist in the UK - and so the government legislation reflects that. The one exception to this is on the roads - here, your local government representative driving his Beemer can encounter David Crud on the road (who has just drunk a few tins of beer before climbing behind his un-insured car, and then losing control of it on a wet road because he doesn't have any tread on the tyres). So, the government legislates the hell out of the highways and pumps a massive amount of money into policing the roads and the people who use them, to the point where we have a level of government control over transport that would make a Soviet Union commissar frown.
I think what we are seeing here is a similar kind of issue. I would hazard a guess that making poor-taste jokes is probably quite far down the list in terms of the negative things he has contributed to society. No doubt he says similar things to the people around him, but the point is that those other people live low down towards the bottom level of the social hierarchy, and those things matter relatively little when you've got cars being torched down the road or have to put 3-4 locks on your door and essentially live in some kind of hellish, 24-hour a day live version of the Jeremy Kyle show. But to those who live in isolation to this kind of stuff, and to whom the most stressful occurrence is someone down the road planting a type of native grass that clashes with their Confuscian pond display, it must seem absolutely reprehensible to say such ghastly things. And so, the Judge comes down on it like a sack of potatoes. To say it is not overly harsh is ridiculous - I've heard of people convicted of manslaughter getting smaller sentences.
I think really this whole thing says a lot about the social and class differential that still exists in the UK, despite many years of argument that it doesn't exist any more or is somehow evaporating.
Mr. Burning wrote: Making sexually suggestive comments about a child is in poor taste at best. Making them whilst an abduction and likely murder case is being investigated is pretty criminal if you ask me. Criminally stupid and ignorance is not a legal excuse.
Sure, it's "criminal", but only in the sense that it violates a horrible law. It's offensive, tasteless, and the guy is a for saying it, but he has a right to say it.
This is also a good time to point out that things the majority find offensive need the MOST protection in the law, not the least. Nobody cares about the right to freely say things the majority agrees with and wants you to say, the whole point of the guarantee of free speech is that you still have that right even when the majority doesn't like what you're saying. Once you take that away you cease to have any meaningful freedom.
Electroo wrote:And being a nob deserves a prison scentance, along with the life destroying consiquences of that? I would hardly call it proportionate.
One of the earliest life lessons learned as a child is that actions have consequences, whether it's touching a hot stove or taking responsibility for you actions. From an early age you learn that being naughty (for want of a better word) has repercussions. The length of the sentence and whether he should have been prosecuted aside, this chap is now learning that lesson all over again. Perhaps he should have thought a bit more about his actions before trying to be funny? It seems to me this country would be a smidge better for all who live here if everyone took a little time to think through their actions before doing it, instead of pissing and moaning when all of a sudden the consequences of their actions catch up to them. Man up and take some responsibility for what you have done.
Actually, I think 12 weeks probably is a little harsh but I don't disagree with the prosecution, rather the sentence.
Pacific wrote:
I think really this whole thing says a lot about the social and class differential that still exists in the UK, despite many years of argument that it doesn't exist any more or is somehow evaporating.
I think it says more about the fact that our judicial system is still too open to interpretation and precedent rather than having much more fixed tariffs and sentences. Instead of being down to luck of he draw in which judge you get, crimes should have sentences much less open to judge's interpretation and opinion.
I think it says more about the fact that our judicial system is still too open to interpretation and precedent rather than having much more fixed tariffs and sentences. Instead of being down to luck of he draw in which judge you get, crimes should have sentences much less open to judge's interpretation and opinion.
“This case is one of a growing number involving the use of social media that the CPS has had to consider. There are likely to be many more. The recent increase in the use of social media has been profound. It is estimated that on Twitter alone there are 340 million messages sent daily. And the context in which this interactive social media dialogue takes place is quite different to the context in which other communications take place. Access to social media is ubiquitous and instantaneous. Banter, jokes and offensive comment are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions.
“Against that background, the CPS has the task of balancing the fundamental right of free speech and the need to prosecute serious wrongdoing on a case by case basis. That often involves very difficult judgment calls and, in the largely unchartered territory of social media, the CPS is proceeding on a case by case basis. In some cases it is clear that a criminal prosecution is the appropriate response to conduct which is complained about, for example where there is a sustained campaign of harassment of an individual, where court orders are flouted or where grossly offensive or threatening remarks are made and maintained. But in many other cases a criminal prosecution will not be the appropriate response. If the fundamental right to free speech is to be respected, the threshold for criminal prosecution has to be a high one and a prosecution has to be required in the public interest.
“To ensure that CPS decision-making in these difficult cases is clear and consistent, I intend to issue guidelines on social media cases for prosecutors. These will assist them in deciding whether criminal charges should be brought in the cases that arise for their consideration. In the first instance, the CPS will draft interim guidelines. There will then be a wide public consultation before final guidelines are published. As part of that process, I intend to hold a series of roundtable meetings with campaigners, media lawyers, academics, social media experts and law enforcement bodies to ensure that the guidelines are as fully informed as possible.
“But this is not just a matter for prosecutors. Social media is a new and emerging phenomenon raising difficult issues of principle, which have to be confronted not only by prosecutors but also by others including the police, the courts and service providers. The fact that offensive remarks may not warrant a full criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean that no action should be taken. In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media.”
The whole point here is whether or not the law is right
127Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
law seems sound enough to me.
I don't see why the electronic medium in question should provide some level of protection or shielding that one wouldn't get if one was using the postal service or telephonic communications , which was the original intent/raison d'etre for the act.
.. so, one would suggest it is precisely the way it is interpreted that is the issue at hand, for now and the future.
I think the biggest point in this particular case is that this guy only posted on his personal facebook wall. Thats like getting arrested for someone overhearing you making a joke about the Twin Towers, when one of their family members was involved, which is fething ridiculous.
Vitruvian XVII wrote: I think the biggest point in this particular case is that this guy only posted on his personal facebook wall.
Which, as you can read above, is illegal. One would suggest that it's also against the policies of facebook too possibly, but that's not really here or there.
Im ok with this, morale of the story, dont be a douchebag.
He may have not caused any physical harm but he did/could cause psychological harm, just as bad really.
But maybe a more appropriate punishment for such a carless act would may be say 3 lashes I dunno I quick slap in the face to tell him how stupid he is and that society doesnt appreciate scum.
Albatross wrote: I love this crap. Like the USA is this liberal bastion of freedom where you're free to say whatever you like, and express yourself without fear. You might have it written down on a piece of paper, but functionally, that's just bs. The USA is far more puritanical than the UK. Even just this week, we've heard that there are states in which a person is not allowed to hold public office if they are an atheist. Hell, saying you're an atheist in certain places would probably get you lynched.
That offended me. Who do I call over in Britain to have you arrested for saying things I didn't like on the internet?
Seriously, you guys are free to run your country however you like, but this is such a remarkably...man. I can't even think of a good adjective. I'll be referring to this in all future discussions as the "My fee-fees hurt, waaaaaaaaaaah!" law.
Albatross wrote: I love this crap. Like the USA is this liberal bastion of freedom where you're free to say whatever you like, and express yourself without fear. You might have it written down on a piece of paper, but functionally, that's just bs. The USA is far more puritanical than the UK. Even just this week, we've heard that there are states in which a person is not allowed to hold public office if they are an atheist. Hell, saying you're an atheist in certain places would probably get you lynched.
That offended me. Who do I call over in Britain to have you arrested for saying things I didn't like on the internet?
Seriously, you guys are free to run your country however you like, but this is such a remarkably...man. I can't even think of a good adjective. I'll be referring to this in all future discussions as the "My fee-fees hurt, waaaaaaaaaaah!" law.
Is that really how you approach debate? Like a 5-year old? Is it really any wonder that your political system is in such complete disarray when the job of politicians is to appeal to an electorate that includes millions of people such as yourself, people who are incapable of understanding or discussing complex, nuanced issues without resorting to macho posturing and childish baby-talk? Grow up.
Because imo, thats like getting arrested for making a joke to your mates. Or indeed, arrested for posting a sickipedia joke on a website, like twitter or even Dakka.
Vitruvian XVII wrote: Because imo, thats like getting arrested for making a joke to your mates.
That's not illegal and is unlikely to be, not least only on grounds of enforceability.
Or indeed, arrested for posting a sickipedia joke on a website, like twitter or even Dakka.
..yy..ee..ss.... which, as said/referenced above, could well be illegal.
( and, of course, against the site rules please bear in mind faint souls of the OT board ! )
You keep saying you don't think it's right -- as in moral or just ( which is fair enough), but you -- and I mean in the general sense here, please do not take this as an attack or impugnment upon your good self here -- don't seem to be able to articulate as to *why* this is so.
Being annoyed at a comment that you disagree with or not agreeing with someone is TOTALLY different to someone taking the piss out of someones kidnapped and possibly dead daughter, Jesus......
Vitruvian XVII wrote: I was trying to say that he didnt directly attack anyone immediately involved.
Why does or should that matter ?
The problem is that the legislators don't quite know what to make of social media, in that it's neither broadcasting, nor interpersonal interaction.
Consider this: I could tell you some horrendously offensive jokes about dead kids - that would be fine, legally. I couldn't broadcast those same jokes on television or radio. They would be censored, and why? Because they can be heard by large numbers of people, who would likely take offence. The problem with social media is that they have a reach similar (if not greater) to broadcasting, in that posts can be potentially seen by millions, but there is also the expectation of almost unlimited personal expression because of how Facebook is constructed. Attempts to reconcile these two factors are behind this current farrago. FWIW I think it's a mistake to proceed like this - people shouldn't be getting arrested and convicted for things they say on Facebook, unless they are directly harassing people.
Censorship is tricky, and I don't think it's particularly helpful to have Americans, who happen to live in a massive glass house, throwing stones at us over this. Censorship of public broadcasting is actually pretty strict over there. I've seen US programs that have bleeped out blasphemy, and you certainly wouldn't get away with using the 'c' word anywhere apart from HBO, if memory serves.
Albatross wrote: Is that really how you approach debate? Like a 5-year old? Is it really any wonder that your political system is in such complete disarray when the job of politicians is to appeal to an electorate that includes millions of people such as yourself, people who are incapable of understanding or discussing complex, nuanced issues without resorting to macho posturing and childish baby-talk? Grow up.
It's not posturing. It's complete incomprehension at how a culture that prides itself on having a stiff upper lip can decide that someone saying something that someone else doesn't like is such a heinous crime that it requires jail time.
Yeah I agree with Albatross myself, I personally don't think you should be able to get arrested for this kind of thing, but I understand it. We live in a democracy, and if the overwhelming majority of people agree that you should, then so be it.
I can understand the law, I reckon it really got support after Muslims started posting things about soldiers. I can recall several high profile cases the last few years where people have been banged up for attacks on military personnel or burning poppies or what have you. I personally disagree with the law as I've said, but Im pretty sure I'm in the minority.
Regards Seawards comment, thats just mud slinging for the sake of it. No one country has a monopoly on "freedom" and getting into a slagging match over which country is more or less puritanical is childish.
I will say that I have lived in the States, my missus is from California and she has been here for three years and has no desire to return to the US. Hardly the reaction of a girl who moved to a country that is like a prison.
The States just has a hard on for the big "freedom" word because it is a young country. Its a bizarre phenomenon for a legal alien, but I've mentioned it loads of times. The US is a nation that really does suffer from collective paranoia on this one subject. You hardly ever hear the word freedom in Britain and Europe.. go to the States and its "Freedom Radio" and freedom this and freedom that and land of the free.. Like the more you say it the more it will be true. On some issues the US is far more militant and puritanical than we are.. on others, they are less so.
Guns being an obvious one... but really, do you think we miss every Tom Dick and Harry having access to firearms? You can keep that "freedom" all to yourselves thanks very much.
I think the main point though, is that I would happily live in the US again, and we might wind up back there one day (although, somewhere with less traffic If I get my way!) because its hardly any different at all, ergo there is no need to have such an infantile reaction and decide we live In North Korea just because we have decided as a nation not to tolerate the ramblings of horrible bastards.
Albatross wrote: Is that really how you approach debate? Like a 5-year old? Is it really any wonder that your political system is in such complete disarray when the job of politicians is to appeal to an electorate that includes millions of people such as yourself, people who are incapable of understanding or discussing complex, nuanced issues without resorting to macho posturing and childish baby-talk? Grow up.
It's not posturing. It's complete incomprehension at how a culture that prides itself on having a stiff upper lip can decide that someone saying something that someone else doesn't like is such a heinous crime that it requires jail time.
As I said, I don't agree with jailing the bloke either, but it really isn't just "saying something that someone else doesn't like" its a bloke taking the piss out of a family that has just had a five year old girl murdered. Surely you can see why that might provoke a hostile response?!
Did you read the story? Apparently he got arrested for his own safety because a crowd of up to fifty people turned up at his house.
Oh, and if you want to just read some things people don't like, friend me on facebook. I don't have the mods on my balls there.. its an unending rant of good natured bigotry, intolerance, and hatred, and I'm still here!
Let me try again, and it could well be that im the only one who actually holds this opinion, but meh. Or maybe im completely off point on the whole thing and am just being dumb.
This guy makes some jokes and obscene comments about the whole April thing. He then gets arrested.
Now as i understand it, he posted these comments on his facebook wall, without any direct reference to anybody (other than the children that were the 'butt' of the joke, as it were). Yet somehow this is seen as an attack on the families of the children and a blatant attempt to cause distress and strife, and was maliciously targeted. That is what i dont understand and what i find 'wrong' about the whole situation. I would completely understand and agree with the court had he posted these to a family member, or on a group or something similar.
That said, i still think this guy is an ass. Hell his jokes arent even funny
I wonder how much it will cost to lock this guy up when paying a fine and court costs likely would have proved to be an adequate enough attitude adjuster? More frustrating for me however is the number of stabbers, drink-drivers and child porn hoarders avoiding jail, many of whom are repeat offenders, only to hear about an offensive idiot being detained; sometimes I suspect the British judicial system of trolling.
mattyrm wrote: As I said, I don't agree with jailing the bloke either, but it really isn't just "saying something that someone else doesn't like" its a bloke taking the piss out of a family that has just had a five year old girl murdered. Surely you can see why that might provoke a hostile response?!
Absolutely. But that doesn't matter. It's why the dumbass "Innocence of Muslims" drek shouldn't be banned, either. Someone's always going to find something to be offended about, often to the point of hostility, and as I've said in countless other threads, I don't believe you have a right not to be offended.
Did you read the story? Apparently he got arrested for his own safety because a crowd of up to fifty people turned up at his house.
Oh, and if you want to just read some things people don't like, friend me on facebook. I don't have the mods on my balls there.. its an unending rant of good natured bigotry, intolerance, and hatred, and I'm still here!
Oh hang on.. Is that a bobby at the door?
It possibly well could be, some day. If your description of the stuff you say on Facebook is accurate, I don't see how you'd have any defense against going to jail over it yourself if someone decided they didn't like it.
The reason we find laws like this so incomprehensible, by the way, is because we genuinely do believe in the marketplace of ideas over here. We're aware that you don't need the government stepping in to tamp down on people spouting off offensive crap because, ultimately, if it's not a reflection of the values of society, society will do a good enough job defeating it all on its - submitting both the offensive speech and the speaker to ridicule, scorn, whatever else. Say dumb gak, wind up discredited.
Albatross wrote: Is that really how you approach debate? Like a 5-year old? Is it really any wonder that your political system is in such complete disarray when the job of politicians is to appeal to an electorate that includes millions of people such as yourself, people who are incapable of understanding or discussing complex, nuanced issues without resorting to macho posturing and childish baby-talk? Grow up.
It's not posturing. It's complete incomprehension at how a culture that prides itself on having a stiff upper lip can decide that someone saying something that someone else doesn't like is such a heinous crime that it requires jail time.
See, that's much better. Now we can have a grown-up discussion about it.
A few things:
-You seem to have made up your mind (in that you referenced the entirety of British culture) that we all support this turn of events. As you have seen, some do. There are also, I'll wager, thousands upon thousand who absolutely do not, myself included.
-You also seem to think that this is about merely saying things on the internet that people don't like. That's not quite true. This specific incident relates to a young girl who is missing presumed dead - the search is literally still ongoing. This arsehole (and he is one, no question) who posted those things on facebook thought that he was just expressing himself, having a bit of a laugh with his mates about a taboo subject. The point is, it was seen by a lot of people who were extraordinarily offended that he would make jokes about the rape and murder of a child when the search for her (let's face it) body is still ongoing. I mean, imagine how her parents must feel. How would you feel?
Yes there are certain rights which are and should be inviolable in principle. The UK has a constitution too, and England was the first country to enshrine freedom of speech in it's constitution, iirc. However, one of the great things about democracy is that, as a society, we are able to come together and say 'this is not OK'. It is not OK to post groteseque sexual things about a missing girl where anyone, including the little girl's parents, could see it. That is civilisation.
Now, that's not necessarily something I agree with, per se. He shouldn't have gotten jail time. Perhaps an ASBO banning him from social media sites? If Facebook had been doing their job properly they would have yanked his account anyway. I have to wonder what the moderators where doing when all this was going on.
RossDas wrote: I wonder how much it will cost to lock this guy up when paying a fine and court costs likely would have proved to be an adequate enough attitude adjuster? More frustrating for me however is the number of stabbers, drink-drivers and child porn hoarders avoiding jail, many of whom are repeat offenders, only to hear about an offensive idiot being detained; sometimes I suspect the British judicial system of trolling.
The police would have to offer him protection for him and maybe his family since you know he was local and posted some pretty 'awkward' things.
He also wrote comments of a sexually explicit nature about the five-year-old
The police and CPS have saved us time and money by preventing have a go heroes and vigilantes kicking seven shades of crap out of him.
Fingers crossed he's an idiot who 'has done nothing wrong' and wants to be in general prison population!
The reason we find laws like this so incomprehensible, by the way, is because we genuinely do believe in the marketplace of ideas over here. We're aware that you don't need the government stepping in to tamp down on people spouting off offensive crap because, ultimately, if it's not a reflection of the values of society, society will do a good enough job defeating it all on its - submitting both the offensive speech and the speaker to ridicule, scorn, whatever else. Say dumb gak, wind up discredited.
One would point out that pretty much the whole of Europe was as baffled by the over reaction to Mamzel Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" from back in the day.
Still, one must remember the poor and hard working lawyers eh ?
Albatross wrote: See, that's much better. Now we can have a grown-up discussion about it.
We were having one of those before. I am sorry if you do not like that cutting out all of the rhetoric around this resolves it down to, "My feelings were hurt, you should go to jail!" but that's precisely what it is.
A few things:
-You seem to have made up your mind (in that you referenced the entirety of British culture) that we all support this turn of events. As you have seen, some do. There are also, I'll wager, thousands upon thousand who absolutely do not, myself included.
I wouldn't say I've made up my mind about who does or does not support laws I like. I've made up my mind that I consider the law itself ludicrous, and said as much. That said, if the majority of your countrymen did not support the law, I imagine it would no longer be a law, so it seems reasonable to assume that the majority of the British are in favor of laws preventing, at their core, the hurting of the feelings of others.
-You also seem to think that this is about merely saying things on the internet that people don't like. That's not quite true. This specific incident relates to a young girl who is missing presumed dead - the search is literally still ongoing. This arsehole (and he is one, no question) who posted those things on facebook thought that he was just expressing himself, having a bit of a laugh with his mates about a taboo subject. The point is, it was seen by a lot of people who were extraordinarily offended that he would make jokes about the rape and murder of a child when the search for her (let's face it) body is still ongoing. I mean, imagine how her parents must feel. How would you feel?
How is that not "saying things on the internet that people don't like," exactly? That's what it is. The guy said something that a lot of people, myself included, do not like. If it had been about my missing daughter, I would have liked it even less. What does that matter? Again, the fact that the guy hurt my feelings is not an offense for which he should be arrested.
Seaward wrote: cutting out all of the rhetoric around this resolves it down to, "My feelings were hurt, you should go to jail!" but that's precisely what it is.
There was a nail, and you just hit it on the head.
reds8n wrote: One would point out that pretty much the whole of Europe was as baffled by the over reaction to Mamzel Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" from back in the day.
Still, one must remember the poor and hard working lawyers eh ?
That one baffled me as well, and you'll note my response to the suggestion from a non-American that we might have laws which are less than optimal in regards to the maintenance and preservation of rights did not prompt me to call you either childish or an idiot. Food for thought.
RossDas wrote: I wonder how much it will cost to lock this guy up when paying a fine and court costs likely would have proved to be an adequate enough attitude adjuster? More frustrating for me however is the number of stabbers, drink-drivers and child porn hoarders avoiding jail, many of whom are repeat offenders, only to hear about an offensive idiot being detained; sometimes I suspect the British judicial system of trolling.
The police would have to offer him protection for him and maybe his family since you know he was local and posted some pretty 'awkward' things.
He also wrote comments of a sexually explicit nature about the five-year-old
The police and CPS have saved us time and money by preventing have a go heroes and vigilantes kicking seven shades of crap out of him.
Fingers crossed he's an idiot who 'has done nothing wrong' and wants to be in general prison population!
It's a fair point actually, there was an example of this in Scotland quite recently where a football fan posted some vile comments advocating the rape of Protestant babies on his page. His personal information was promptly discovered and promulgated, and him and his immediate family had to be moved in to a hotel under police protection.
sebster wrote: I think people miss the significant distinction between 'we shouldn't do this' and 'I feel bad for this guy'. Someone doesn't have to be sympathetic for us to realise that what we're doing to them is wrong.
Those were two separate statements that I made.
A: I'm glad that being an Alpha-Class dildo on the internet can have legal consequences. I mean, we all have a little fun, but there's a limit.
B: I don't feel bad for the guy.
Also, as has already been pointed out rather well by Ouze and others, speech isn't completely unrestricted even in places with relatively liberal free speech laws.
Bromsy wrote: Saying mean things shouldn't be a crime, no where no how.
It's ridiculous to think that I could sit outside your house and scream obscenities at you with no repercussions, or swear at your children in front of you, or do any other number of offensive or insulting things. And you don't even want to be able to do something about it?
Blows my mind.
No, I could call the cops and you'd be told off or arrested for disturbing the peace or something along those lines. The point is you'd be arrested for what you're doing, not the content of what you were saying.
Albatross wrote: See, that's much better. Now we can have a grown-up discussion about it.
We were having one of those before. I am sorry if you do not like that cutting out all of the rhetoric around this resolves it down to, "My feelings were hurt, you should go to jail!" but that's precisely what it is.
'Precisely' is a word that has a specific meaning. Learn it. This situation is more nuanced than you are suggesting.
I wouldn't say I've made up my mind about who does or does not support laws I like. I've made up my mind that I consider the law itself ludicrous, and said as much. That said, if the majority of your countrymen did not support the law, I imagine it would no longer be a law, so it seems reasonable to assume that the majority of the British are in favor of laws preventing, at their core, the hurting of the feelings of others.
That is an incredibly reductive and essentialist way of looking at it. It's also not remotely connected to reality.
-You also seem to think that this is about merely saying things on the internet that people don't like. That's not quite true. This specific incident relates to a young girl who is missing presumed dead - the search is literally still ongoing. This arsehole (and he is one, no question) who posted those things on facebook thought that he was just expressing himself, having a bit of a laugh with his mates about a taboo subject. The point is, it was seen by a lot of people who were extraordinarily offended that he would make jokes about the rape and murder of a child when the search for her (let's face it) body is still ongoing. I mean, imagine how her parents must feel. How would you feel?
How is that not "saying things on the internet that people don't like," exactly? That's what it is. The guy said something that a lot of people, myself included, do not like. If it had been about my missing daughter, I would have liked it even less. What does that matter? Again, the fact that the guy hurt my feelings is not an offense for which he should be arrested.
By that logic racist abuse should be legal. I mean, it's only hurt feelings, right?
sebster wrote: My comment was that posting that comment, which involves dying, to indicate the seriousness with which one takes the issue of some guy being an donkey-cave on the internet, is completely overplaying the issue. You aren't actually willing to die to stop that jerk going to prison, if you were you'd be on a flight to Britain to attempt a suicidal rescue plan.
Give me liberty or give me death!
The fact that the guy is in jail is crazy.
What kind of society puts a guy in jail for writing something on facebook. That is obscene.
Were his posts tasteless? some would thing so.
Were his posts funny? maybe a few people would think so.
Should he be arrested for speech that does not threaten/harm others or result in physical harm to others? No way.
sebster wrote: My comment was that posting that comment, which involves dying, to indicate the seriousness with which one takes the issue of some guy being an donkey-cave on the internet, is completely overplaying the issue. You aren't actually willing to die to stop that jerk going to prison, if you were you'd be on a flight to Britain to attempt a suicidal rescue plan.
Give me liberty or give me death!
The fact that the guy is in jail is crazy.
What kind of society puts a guy in jail for writing something on facebook. That is obscene.
Were his posts tasteless? some would thing so.
Were his posts funny? maybe a few people would think so.
Should he be arrested for speech that does not threaten/harm others or result in physical harm to others? No way.
Again.
He posted comments of a sexual nature about April, a minor.
Posting on facebook is like shouting it from the hill tops, Where did the notion come from that FB was private? that only a select few could read wht you put on your 'wall'?
Azhar Ahmed sentenced over Facebook soldier deaths slur.
Azhar Ahmed sentenced over Facebook soldier deaths slur
Ahmed posted the message on Facebook just days after the soldiers' deaths
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Death slur Facebook man guilty
Demo at Facebook troop slur court
Afghan blast soldiers repatriated
A man who posted an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers has been given a community order.
Azhar Ahmed, 20, of Fir Avenue, Ravensthorpe, West Yorkshire, was found guilty in September of sending a grossly offensive communication.
He said he did not think the message, which said "all soldiers should die and go to hell", was offensive.
Ahmed was also fined £300 at Huddersfield Magistrates' Court.
He will have to do 240 hours of community service over a two-year period.
Ahmed was charged after the mother of one of the soldiers read the comments and was so upset she called the police.
Comments removed
The six soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) in Lashkar Gah on 6 March, in the deadliest single attack on British forces in Afghanistan since 2001.
Sgt Nigel Coupe, 33, of 1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, was killed alongside Cpl Jake Hartley, 20, Pte Anthony Frampton, 20, Pte Christopher Kershaw, 19, Pte Daniel Wade, 20, and Pte Daniel Wilford, 21, all of 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment.
Ahmed's message was posted just two days later on 8 March.
The six soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan on 6 March
Nicholas Barker, defending, said Ahmed was initially voicing "legitimate concerns" about the victims of war but went on to overstep the mark.
When he realised his comments were causing distress he removed them, Mr Barker added.
District Judge Jane Goodwin said the law should not stop legitimate political opinions being strongly voiced.
But she said the test was whether what was written was "beyond the pale of what's tolerable in our society".
'Freedom of speech'
She told Ahmed: "You posted the message in response to tributes and messages of sympathy. You knew at the time that this was an emotive and sensitive issue.
"With freedom of speech comes responsibility. On March 8 you failed to live up to that responsibility."
The sentence was met with cries of "disgusting" from protesters in the public gallery, some of whom walked out while the district judge was speaking.
One man was detained by police while leaving the court after shouting comments at the judge.
After the hearing, a man who had a conviction for sending a menacing electronic communication on Twitter overturned, criticised Ahmed's sentence saying it was a bad day "for freedom of speech".
Paul Chambers, who posted a message saying he would blow up an airport when it closed after heavy snow, tweeted: "Glad all that fighting wasn't for nothing."
He also commented on the jailing of a man who admitted posting an offensive comment on Facebook about missing five-year-old April Jones.
Same thing? maybe.
Two different outcomes. Displaying the wonders of our legal system. This guy showed some remorse. I wonder if our other friend did the same or if he was a complete prick.
sebster wrote: My comment was that posting that comment, which involves dying, to indicate the seriousness with which one takes the issue of some guy being an donkey-cave on the internet, is completely overplaying the issue. You aren't actually willing to die to stop that jerk going to prison, if you were you'd be on a flight to Britain to attempt a suicidal rescue plan.
Give me liberty or give me death!
The fact that the guy is in jail is crazy.
What kind of society puts a guy in jail for writing something on facebook. That is obscene.
Were his posts tasteless? some would thing so.
Were his posts funny? maybe a few people would think so.
Should he be arrested for speech that does not threaten/harm others or result in physical harm to others? No way.
Again.
He posted comments of a sexual nature about April, a minor.
Posting on facebook is like shouting it from the hill tops, Where did the notion come from that FB was private? that only a select few could read wht you put on your 'wall'?
I do not understand your point?
He posted "...comments of a sexually explicit nature about the five-year-old who went missing last week from near her home in Machynlleth, mid Wales."
While tasteless, and offensive, it can hardly be compared to screaming FIRE! in a crowded theater. It is not likely to cause immediate and widespread panic resulting in people being trampled or the like.
The guy HAS caused anguish to the parents of April. He HAS incited the local population to violence which would have resulted in physical harm (against his person but thats by the by)
If he had chatted to his mates in the pub he would have gotten away with it. I would say most of us make remarks and statements that are close to the bone. Putting something physical on the web or in print is deffo going to cause you some trouble though and in this case, the guy got what was coming.
Yeah, no physical harm came to the targets as a result of his comments; and I do not believe the state recognizes the concept of mental anguish as a result of insincere language. This conviction will be overturned upon appeal very quickly on the grounds that it was a judgement made based on matters of taste rather than law, and thus in violation of his rights as a citizen.
EDIT: @ Mr Burning, if indirect statements leading to violence from a crowd was the test, as you claim, then anyone in the UK could be jailed for talking gak about Mohammad. Fortunately, that is not how the law works under your Bill of Rights.
Bromsy wrote: Saying mean things shouldn't be a crime, no where no how.
It's ridiculous to think that I could sit outside your house and scream obscenities at you with no repercussions, or swear at your children in front of you, or do any other number of offensive or insulting things. And you don't even want to be able to do something about it?
Blows my mind.
No, I could call the cops and you'd be told off or arrested for disturbing the peace or something along those lines. The point is you'd be arrested for what you're doing, not the content of what you were saying.
Swear at my kids (even though both are as big as me now) and parts of you will be five different bayous within four hours. The parts not served up as "extra special doggie treats," that is. The Legions are always hungry!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Can't we not agree that this is a judge sending a message, but the punishment is completely out-of-line with the crime?
Can't we not also agree that the kid is a gak and probably deserved it anyway?
Can't we not also agree that I'm a sexy, sexy man?
The last part anyway, plus you have more cow-bell.
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, no physical harm came to the targets as a result of his comments; and I do not believe the state recognizes the concept of mental anguish as a result of insincere language. This conviction will be overturned upon appeal very quickly on the grounds that it was a judgement made based on matters of taste rather than law, and thus in violation of his rights as a citizen.
EDIT: @ Mr Burning, if indirect statements leading to violence from a crowd was the test, as you claim, then anyone in the UK could be jailed for talking gak about Mohammad. Fortunately, that is not how the law works under your Bill of Rights.
Fair enough, didnt think that one all the way through
I don't think an appeal will be lodged though. The guy can spend 12 weeks inside under a certain degree of protection.
Frazzled wrote: Swear at my kids (even though both are as big as me now) and parts of you will be five different bayous within four hours. The parts not served up as "extra special doggie treats," that is. The Legions are always hungry!
"I respect free speech, but if you actually use it, I'll chop you up and feed you to alligators and wiener dogs!"
Bromsy wrote: No, I could call the cops and you'd be told off or arrested for disturbing the peace or something along those lines. The point is you'd be arrested for what you're doing, not the content of what you were saying.
But what if I'm not disturbing the peace? I'm just being incredibly rude and offensive. You'd rather have the cops just make something up and arrest me on the spot? Because that somehow makes your citizens more free?
Utterly bizarre.
It doesn't matter. KM was kind enough to post about the US 'fighting words' doctrine which, although I'm sure it varies from state to state, allows people to be arrested for the content of their words.
Seaward wrote: The reason we find laws like this so incomprehensible, by the way, is because we genuinely do believe in the marketplace of ideas over here. We're aware that you don't need the government stepping in to tamp down on people spouting off offensive crap because, ultimately, if it's not a reflection of the values of society, society will do a good enough job defeating it all on its - submitting both the offensive speech and the speaker to ridicule, scorn, whatever else. Say dumb gak, wind up discredited.
By that logic racist abuse should be legal. I mean, it's only hurt feelings, right?
Absolutely. And it is, over here.
But, you have similar laws...
Despite US protestations, under the 'fighting words' doctrine (as well as others, I'm sure) you can and will be punished and censored due to the content of your words. As you should be.
So, you're legally allowed to walk up to a black man and say "feth you, you goddamn n**** monkey, I hope you catch AIDS!", correct? That's legal?
Sure thats legal. What going to happen afterwards is not going to be legal. The amount of individuals that venting their anger on the individual will be charged for assualt. The individual that said those words will be charged for inciting a riot/disturbence or something. Common Sense Laws are....wait...there is no common sense laws...
I have as much to do with the drafting of this law as you do with so-called 'Obamacare'.
I voted for the guy who signed it, I'll be voting for the guy who's vowed to try and repeal it. If enough of my countrymen are of a like mind, I imagine we'd have a fairly significant effect on Obamacare.
Which is exactly what I said: if the majority of Britain did not support 'feelings hurt' legislation, I can't imagine it would stick around. That's how democracy works.
So, you're legally allowed to walk up to a black man and say "feth you, you goddamn n**** monkey, I hope you catch AIDS!", correct? That's legal?
Yup. It might run afoul of 'fighting words' doctrine, but the Supreme Court's been narrowing that definition more and more every time it comes up.
Could you point out the law that prohibits it, por favor?
As KM pointed out, and you yourself mentioned:
Snapshot of the Fighting Words Doctrine courtesy of Le Wiki:
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
It seems so alien to me, to censor people because you're offended by what they're saying. I dunno, I just can't help but think, "Maybe you should ignore them?" If you're so immature that you are incapable of responding to the opinions of others in a nonviolent way, maybe the problem is with you and not the idiot who offended you.
Could you point out the law that prohibits it, por favor?
As KM pointed out, and you yourself mentioned:
Snapshot of the Fighting Words Doctrine courtesy of Le Wiki:
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
You should read the article further. The definition of what constitutes "fighting words" has been considerably narrowed over the years since 1942. For example: "In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that 'arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender' on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words."
To try. What I'm saying is that this is a far more complex and nuanced issue than you are making out. In fact, I've said that at least once. Freedom of speech is not absolute, nor should it be. There are shades of grey. This requires debate on what should and should not be acceptable, debate that doesn't centre around 'hurr, hurt feelings'-type statements. It's not that simple, just like physical injury isn't simple, because it ranges from mild bruising right up to severed limbs. Likewise, there is a world of difference between telling someone you don't like them and hurting their feelings, and going up to a gay man and screaming in his face that he is a filthy fa***t piece of gak and he deserves to die. That sort of thing absolutely should not be allowed in a civilised society. It's about striking an appropriate balance, and unfortunately I don't think this judge has done that.
I have as much to do with the drafting of this law as you do with so-called 'Obamacare'.
I voted for the guy who signed it, I'll be voting for the guy who's vowed to try and repeal it. If enough of my countrymen are of a like mind, I imagine we'd have a fairly significant effect on Obamacare.
Good for you. Did you all draft it?
So, you're legally allowed to walk up to a black man and say "feth you, you goddamn n**** monkey, I hope you catch AIDS!", correct? That's legal?
Yup. It might run afoul of 'fighting words' doctrine, but the Supreme Court's been narrowing that definition more and more every time it comes up.
So you can be prosecuted for 'hurt feelings', yes? I find it hard to believe that a cop wouldn't arrest someone he saw doing that.
Albatross wrote: To try. What I'm saying is that this is a far more complex and nuanced issue than you are making out. In fact, I've said that at least once. Freedom of speech is not absolute, nor should it be. There are shades of grey. This requires debate on what should and should not be acceptable, debate that doesn't centre around 'hurr, hurt feelings'-type statements. It's not that simple, just like physical injury isn't simple, because it ranges from mild bruising right up to severed limbs. Likewise, there is a world of difference between telling someone you don't like them and hurting their feelings, and going up to a gay man and screaming in his face that he is a filthy fa***t piece of gak and he deserves to die. That sort of thing absolutely should not be allowed in a civilised society. It's about striking an appropriate balance, and unfortunately I don't think this judge has done that.
You may want to reconsider your trip across the pond, then, as we're the country where Westboro Baptist Church is alive and kicking and constitutionally protected. The KKK. Stormfront. And so many, many others. They've all done things similar to what you describe, and worse. Pissing someone else off - even to the point where they want to hit you or call your mom fat or whatever else - is simply not grounds for throwing someone in jail.
Here, anyway.
And yes, it really is as simple as hurt feelings.
So you can be prosecuted for 'hurt feelings', yes?
No.
I find it hard to believe that a cop wouldn't arrest someone he saw doing that.
Well, I don't know what to tell you, aside from try, because it's the case.
Seaward wrote: The definition of what constitutes "fighting words" has been considerably narrowed over the years since 1942. For example: "In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that 'arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender' on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words."
Sure. And I'm not entirely au fait with all the state and federal legislation and case law in the USA, but overturning legislation specifically prohibiting "speech or symbolic expression that 'arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" does not make that behaviour legal if it is covered adequately by other legislation/case law as I'm certain it is.
For example: a specific law preventing racial abuse is not needed, when a law exists preventing all language likely to "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" is in effect.
Albatross wrote: To try. What I'm saying is that this is a far more complex and nuanced issue than you are making out. In fact, I've said that at least once. Freedom of speech is not absolute, nor should it be. There are shades of grey. This requires debate on what should and should not be acceptable, debate that doesn't centre around 'hurr, hurt feelings'-type statements. It's not that simple, just like physical injury isn't simple, because it ranges from mild bruising right up to severed limbs. Likewise, there is a world of difference between telling someone you don't like them and hurting their feelings, and going up to a gay man and screaming in his face that he is a filthy fa***t piece of gak and he deserves to die. That sort of thing absolutely should not be allowed in a civilised society. It's about striking an appropriate balance, and unfortunately I don't think this judge has done that.
You may want to reconsider your trip across the pond, then, as we're the country where Westboro Baptist Church is alive and kicking and constitutionally protected. The KKK. Stormfront. And so many, many others. They've all done things similar to what you describe, and worse. Pissing someone else off - even to the point where they want to hit you or call your mom fat or whatever else - is simply not grounds for throwing someone in jail.
Here, anyway.
Meh, I go to Spain every year, even lived there for a bit, and they had fascists in charge not that long ago. I'll forgive anything for decent food and nice weather.
Kaldor wrote: For example: a specific law preventing racial abuse is not needed, when a law exists preventing all language likely to "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" is in effect.
That is true.
And what defines that language is subjective, and almost always the subject of a civil case rather than a criminal one.
Frazzled wrote: Swear at my kids (even though both are as big as me now) and parts of you will be five different bayous within four hours. The parts not served up as "extra special doggie treats," that is. The Legions are always hungry!
"I respect free speech, but if you actually use it, I'll chop you up and feed you to alligators and wiener dogs!"
In my defense, one is freedom of speech, the other a direct attack on my children. I have literallly sworn to defend them to my death, and the wiener legions are endless.
Sidenote, I was called tonight by GC, that she is getting her ears pierced. Yikes!
LoneLictor wrote: It seems so alien to me, to censor people because you're offended by what they're saying. I dunno, I just can't help but think, "Maybe you should ignore them?" If you're so immature that you are incapable of responding to the opinions of others in a nonviolent way, maybe the problem is with you and not the idiot who offended you.
This here is the voice of reason...
What the poster did was dispicable... and should be told so... but, definately not jail worthy.
If that jail time is upheld, then ya'll don't have free speech anymore.
Any person who, in or near a public place or within view or hearing of a public place uses profane, indecent or obscene language or uses threatening, abusive or insulting words, shall be guilty of an offence.
Now, while this is only the Victorian version I'm quite confident you'll have a similar version in your own state.
Meh, in most states in Australia abortion is illegal. Most people are stunned to discover that, because abortion clinics operate openly. There's a vast difference between having a law sitting idle on the books since the 1960s, and anyone getting actually punished someone for simply being rude in front of a child.
So, can you find me an example of someone being given any kind of penalty for saying something rude in the presence of minors?
Peregrine wrote: Sure, it's "criminal", but only in the sense that it violates a horrible law. It's offensive, tasteless, and the guy is a for saying it, but he has a right to say it.
Well, he doesn't have a right to say it. If he did then he wouldn't be doing jail time for it.
What you mean is that he should have a right to say it, or that government should have no power to punish him for saying it.
A: I'm glad that being an Alpha-Class dildo on the internet can have legal consequences. I mean, we all have a little fun, but there's a limit.
B: I don't feel bad for the guy.
Also, as has already been pointed out rather well by Ouze and others, speech isn't completely unrestricted even in places with relatively liberal free speech laws.
Sorry, my post wasn't clear. I was absolutely agreeing with you, and thought you split out the "I don't feel bad for the guy" and "we shouldn't punish people for being donkey-caves" thing quite well.
sebster wrote: So, can you find me an example of someone being given any kind of penalty for saying something rude in the presence of minors?
I once charged someone and sent them to court for swearing in public. I don't have the records to hand, it was years ago, and I never bothered following it up to see if it resulted in a conviction, but the person was still arrested, charged, and sent to court.
What kind of society puts a guy in jail for writing something on facebook. That is obscene.
Were his posts tasteless? some would thing so.
Were his posts funny? maybe a few people would think so.
Should he be arrested for speech that does not threaten/harm others or result in physical harm to others? No way.
Once again.... I agree that this doesn't deserve jail time, or any punishment at all. I am pointing out to you that your claim that you will defend to the death his right to say this stuff is not true. If it were true, you would be out there actually defending his right to say it, and not just posting on the internet.
But you aren't. You just like talking in emotionally charged language.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaldor wrote: I once charged someone and sent them to court for swearing in public. I don't have the records to hand, it was years ago, and I never bothered following it up to see if it resulted in a conviction, but the person was still arrested, charged, and sent to court.
Interesting. I stand corrected.
Well then, that's a very silly law we have (or possibly just you Victorians have).
Wow, everyone who goes to a football match is a criminal.
Wow, everyone who goes to a football match is a criminal.
Don't let that out...can only imagine two teams that hate each other going at it and home team fans nuke the law enforcement call centers to report it.
Well then, that's a very silly law we have (or possibly just you Victorians have).
Wow, everyone who goes to a football match is a criminal.
It's not used very often, and a judge still makes the final call on what constitutes offensive or insulting language. Context is extremely important. When I was going through the academy one of our law instructors told us a story about a judge that decided that the use of the F word in the context of the charge in question, was not offensive. I think the crook had sworn at the police for something, and the judge ruled that due to the nature of their job the police should not find that word offensive. The judge then called the next case. One of the jobs of police in Victoria is to provide court security, which includes locating the people who need to be present for the relevant case, and if they're not present they are to call out "No appearance, your Honour". Well, the next crook wasn't present, so the court security called out "No fething appearance, your Honour". To which the judge reputedly replied "Point taken, but don't you ever swear in my courtroom again".
It's since been amended so that the charge is not applicable if the person on the receiving end of insulting words is a police officer, as we'd then be able to slap that onto every charge sheet since nearly every crook lips off at some point and really, we should be used to it. Context, as I said, is very important. No one's going to be arrested for swearing during a football game, but having a loud and offensive shouting match on the street in front of a church bingo group might have some more serious repercussions.
Honestly, it's more of a tool that allows police to deal with public nuisances and I'm glad they have it in their toolbox. No one is going to bother with the paperwork of compiling a brief of evidence for such a minor charge. 99% of the time, the police will just tell them to pull their heads in and move on, and that'll be the end of it. But when someone is making an donkey-cave of themselves and generally being obnoxious it gives police another option for raining on their parade, and I'm fine with that.
Well I'm glad you clarified that Kaldor... I half expecting to be arrested the second I stepped off the plane from the states. I swear like the worst kind of sailor or dock yard worker.
And now a quote from the great Stephen Fry, legendary comedic actor, on the subject of offensive things. There is an incident of language in said quote, so it has been spoiler-ed in hopes of not breaking international law some how.
What kind of society puts a guy in jail for writing something on facebook. That is obscene.
Were his posts tasteless? some would thing so.
Were his posts funny? maybe a few people would think so.
Should he be arrested for speech that does not threaten/harm others or result in physical harm to others? No way.
Once again.... I agree that this doesn't deserve jail time, or any punishment at all. I am pointing out to you that your claim that you will defend to the death his right to say this stuff is not true. If it were true, you would be out there actually defending his right to say it, and not just posting on the internet.
But you aren't. You just like talking in emotionally charged language.
The letter has already been written. Not much more I can do being across the pond.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is your opinion regarding the objective of deliberately skewing justice in this way?
What we saw here is similar to what happened when student Liam Stacey imprisoned for two months for the Twitter comments he made after a black footballer called Fabrice Muamba had a heart attack on pitch.
Its only an incidental side effect of the society, not a policy goal. However the UK has headed towards an openly dogmatised culture for political ends. In the late nineties the previous government made heavy use of PC dogma to focus recruiting in public employment, namely unless one subscribed to it one could easily not be employed, promoted or retained. In effect this party politicised the civil service under a form of 'morality'. Furthermore this new morality is very unevenly handled, some forms of offence are weighted more heavily than others. So to Tweet about imposing militant Islam is just an opinion, even calling for people to be put do death is ignored, but to make light of a public tragedy or mild forms of indirect racism is a severe offence warranting immediate arrest and heavy punishment.
The Facebook troll concerned with this case, Matthew Woods was even taken into protective custody, a euphemism for refused bail, indicating in the polices eyes (another heavily dogmatised part of the civil service) that off colour comments on Facebook will likely invoke vigilante action, a ludicrous suggestion frankly.
You have to do quite a bit normally to land yourself in prison for 12 weeks on a first offence. Similar to say a violent mugging. Neither of the cases directly addressed family, they were just open comments. Sick, yes, but not criminal.
However in a dogmatised society that form of sickness cannot be tolerated, and when the judiciary are dogmatised sentencing for these acts are treated like violent crimes against a person, in fact worse. Many first time violent offenders do not get custodial sentences.
The manipulation of social boundaries has resulted in minor vocal misdemeanours being treated as very serious offences, what is most alarming is that the bulk of the general public are ok with that. That is of no surprise as PC indoctrination has gone a very long way in the UK, freedom is dying here, and very few people are noticing.
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, no physical harm came to the targets as a result of his comments; and I do not believe the state recognizes the concept of mental anguish as a result of insincere language.
Of course it does. You are talking about a country which still considers 'alarming the Queen', as in, causing her emotional distress, to be worthy of up to 13 years of prison.
Here, he could've been sued under civil law for emotional distress, usually up to 60k.
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, no physical harm came to the targets as a result of his comments; and I do not believe the state recognizes the concept of mental anguish as a result of insincere language.
Of course it does. You are talking about a country which still considers 'alarming the Queen', as in, causing her emotional distress, to be worthy of up to 13 years of prison.
If you're talking about Marcus Serjeant, he got five years, and that was for firing a pistol at her. True, it was loaded with blanks, but HM was riding a horse at the time and could have been killed if she'd been thrown off. That's treason. They should have hung the bastard.
If you're talking about Marcus Serjeant, he got five years, and that was for firing a pistol at her. True, it was loaded with blanks, but HM was riding a horse at the time and could have been killed if she'd been thrown off. That's treason. They should have hung the bastard.
I wasn't refering to any specific case, just to the law itself, as we still have the same one over here too. I'm even a bit surprised about it having been used lately. It was more to point the fact that there is definetely a concept of 'stress' or 'anguish' in Criminal law, as well as in Civil law.
I'll google that Marcus Serjeant right now! Me likey some good old kingslayer stories.
EDIT : He sucked balls. No good call to rebellion or anything. Meh...
If you're talking about Marcus Serjeant, he got five years, and that was for firing a pistol at her. True, it was loaded with blanks, but HM was riding a horse at the time and could have been killed if she'd been thrown off. That's treason. They should have hung the bastard.
I wasn't refering to any specific case, just to the law itself, as we still have the same one over here too. I'm even a bit surprised about it having been used lately. It was more to point the fact that there is definetely a concept of 'stress' or 'anguish' in Criminal law, as well as in Civil law.
I'll google that Marcus Serjeant right now! Me likey some good old kingslayer stories.
It's hard to slay anyone with a starter pistol, short of them falling off a horse. He was a fantasist. Not that I'm implying that you are, or anything.
Albatross wrote: It's hard to slay anyone with a starter pistol, short of them falling off a horse. He was a fantasist. Not that I'm implying that you are, or anything.
Honest.
Meh, as much a fantasist as anyone who still think it's in vogue to have a Monarchy in the 21st century.
Plus, there's the french thing I've got going on. We don't do nice things to our monarchs. Ours still hiding in New York, last I checked.
Albatross wrote: The Queen isn't in New York last time I checked, my Canadian chum.
You're right, of course, I was refering to the most likely contender to the French throne (there's 3 right now, he's the heir of the House of Bonaparte). It's hilarious, these people acts as if they still had a chance, or as if it was somehow something anyone in their right mind would aim to acheive.
Also, I get a kick everytime I get to read that Mattyrm's quote. Hilarious.
Bromsy wrote: Saying mean things shouldn't be a crime, no where no how.
It's ridiculous to think that I could sit outside your house and scream obscenities at you with no repercussions, or swear at your children in front of you, or do any other number of offensive or insulting things. And you don't even want to be able to do something about it?
Blows my mind.
Even in America there are laws about what you can say about other people in the form of slander and libel.
Actually, Kaldor, that is illegal after a certain point: if you sit outside my house and scream obscenities, it becomes illegal if I ask you to stop and go away, and you don't. It's called harassment. Point is, it only becomes illegal after you have been asked to stop. If the parents asked him to take it off his page for being offensive, and he didnt, it would be a crime over here as it's a case of written harassment. Also, saying things about others that cause them to lose social status, jobs, money, etc (cause measurable damage) count as libel/slander, and these are also illegal. Posting something on your own facebook page here is not, however it can prevent you from obtaining employment if your employers care about what you post. That said, sounds like the guy is a total douche-waffle and deserves to meet Batman in a dark alley (and tell Batman 'haha, your parents are dead, numbnuts'), but while he is a total and uncaring/thinking ass, it wasn't illegal. (unless parents asked him to remove and he told them to suck it and refused)
Albatross wrote: The Queen isn't in New York last time I checked, my Canadian chum.
You're right, of course, I was refering to the most likely contender to the French throne (there's 3 right now, he's the heir of the House of Bonaparte). It's hilarious, these people acts as if they still had a chance, or as if it was somehow something anyone in their right mind would aim to acheive.
Also, I get a kick everytime I get to read that Mattyrm's quote. Hilarious.
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, no physical harm came to the targets as a result of his comments; and I do not believe the state recognizes the concept of mental anguish as a result of insincere language.
Of course it does. You are talking about a country which still considers 'alarming the Queen', as in, causing her emotional distress, to be worthy of up to 13 years of prison.
Here, he could've been sued under civil law for emotional distress, usually up to 60k.
Which would be thrown out of court in about two minutes once the judge recognized that there was no way to prove direct damages. And 'alarming the queen', -which is a stupid law, for sure- only applies to the Queen, and possibly the Queen Mother.
Is it just a random thing without any directing force?
The purpose was explained above. What we are seeing here are just public symptoms, fruits of a doctrinal change intended to party politicise the civil service, which is intended and to a large extent was broadly apolitical before that time.
Considering the many comments I've made on the Queen, I'd half expect him to go medieval on my ass if I did get to meet him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Which would be thrown out of court in about two minutes once the judge recognized that there was no way to prove direct damages. And 'alarming the queen', -which is a stupid law, for sure- only applies to the Queen, and possibly the Queen Mother.
What, no way to prove direct damage? Of course you have. Have the parents say ''this fethed me up really badly'', and then have an expert say ''yes, your honour, hearing sick jokes about your kidnapped kid may feth you up badly''. There.
Hell, you can claim psychological damages for being 'badly' fired.
More recently, someone received 3000 $ in psy damages for ''being laughed at'' because she had her picture taken in the street and put in a magazine.
Kovnik Obama wrote:More recently, someone received 3000 $ in psy damages for ''being laughed at'' because she had her picture taken in the street and put in a magazine.
Pretty sure that had more to do with likeness rights in a publication.
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, no physical harm came to the targets as a result of his comments; and I do not believe the state recognizes the concept of mental anguish as a result of insincere language.
Of course it does. You are talking about a country which still considers 'alarming the Queen', as in, causing her emotional distress, to be worthy of up to 13 years of prison.
If you're talking about Marcus Serjeant, he got five years, and that was for firing a pistol at her. True, it was loaded with blanks, but HM was riding a horse at the time and could have been killed if she'd been thrown off. That's treason. They should have hung the bastard.
He was lucky not to be bayonetted on the spot. The guards showed admirable restraint.
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, no physical harm came to the targets as a result of his comments; and I do not believe the state recognizes the concept of mental anguish as a result of insincere language.
Of course it does. You are talking about a country which still considers 'alarming the Queen', as in, causing her emotional distress, to be worthy of up to 13 years of prison.
If you're talking about Marcus Serjeant, he got five years, and that was for firing a pistol at her. True, it was loaded with blanks, but HM was riding a horse at the time and could have been killed if she'd been thrown off. That's treason. They should have hung the bastard.
He was lucky not to be bayoneted on the spot. The guards showed admirable restraint.
Indeed, I wasn't aware of this until his hilarious ...
... [removed by Moderator]
If you sent a death letter to the President, and then fired six shots at him from a fething pistol, you would very likely be a dead man. And most people would probably have said he deserved it anyway. Firing a blank firing hand gun at a pensioner on a horse, just after you have sent her a letter saying assassins are after her?!
What Serjeant did was absolutely disgusting, and what will he have served? 3 years? And been given plenty of psychiatric care... and then he got on with his life.
Social media laws to be discussed in wake of prosecutions
Starmer: "Chilling effect on free speech"Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
No action on abusive Daley tweet
New guidelines for policing social media are to be discussed to avoid a "chilling effect" on free speech, the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales has said.
Director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer QC told the BBC that the right to be offensive "has to be protected".
His comments came in the wake of two prosecutions for offensive postings.
Matthew Wood was jailed on Monday for posting comments about missing girl April Jones.
The teenager's 12-week prison sentence was followed by the prosecution of Azhar Ahmed, 20, who was given 240 hours community service after writing an offensive post about dead British soldiers.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will invite lawyers and academics, as well as representatives from social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter, to be part of the discussions.
The new measures are expected to be announced before Christmas.
Continue reading the main story
Social media on trial
Oct 2012 - Matthew Woods
Mr Woods was jailed for 12 weeks after he made several "abhorrent" postings about missing five-year-old April Jones on Facebook. Members of the public had reported his comments to the police who arrested the man for his own safety after 50 people went to his home.
Oct 2012 - Azhar Ahmed
Twenty-year-old Mr Ahmed (above) was given a 240 hour community service order for posting that "all soldiers should die and go to hell" on Facebook. He said he did not think that the message was offensive.
Aug 2012 - Daniel Thomas
Port Talbot Town FC footballer Daniel Thomas was arrested after an abusive message about Olympic diver Tom Daley was sent. However no charges were brought against Mr Thomas after it was deemed that while offensive, the tweet was not a criminal act.
Mar 2012 - Liam Stacey
Swansea University student Liam Stacey was sentenced to 56 days in prison for posting offensive comments about the then-Bolton Wanderers football Fabrice Muamba. The midfielder had collapsed during an FA Cup match against Tottenham Hotspur.
May 2010 - Paul Chambers
Mr Chambers tweeted a "silly joke" in which he threatened to blow nearby Robin Hood Airport - which had been closed after heavy snow - "sky high" if it did not re-open in time for him to visit his girlfriend. His conviction for sending a "menacing electronic communication" was later quashed.
'Grossly Offensive'
A freedom of information request revealed that there were 2,347 investigations after complaints regarding posts on social media in 2010. This number rose to 2,490 in 2011 - about 50 different cases across the UK each week.
Mr Starmer said prosecutors were finding it difficult to work within the existing law.
"The emerging thinking is that it might be sensible to divide and separate cases where there's a campaign of harassment, [or] cases where there's a credible and general threat, and prosecute in those sorts of cases.
"And put in another category communications which are, as it were, merely offensive or grossly offensive.
"[It] doesn't mean the second category are ring-fenced form prosecution, but it does I think enable us to think of that group in a slightly different way."
Another suggestion is whether social media sites should be asked to improve their moderation procedures to ensure offensive content is more swiftly removed.
Some police forces contacted by BBC Newsnight were concerned that resources were being wasted on too many petty rows online.
Policing comments
However Ralph Cowling, co-founder of music social network ThisIsMyJam, told the BBC he had concerns about such an approach, particularly for smaller networks like his.
"There's no way with a team of four people we could monitor the hundreds of thousands of posts that go up every week," he said.
"Ultimately, we wouldn't want to - it's not our job to police individual comments. What we're here to do is to suggest community guidelines and have the community discuss that between themselves."
Mr Starmer said the new guidelines would enable relevant authorities to use remedies other than criminal prosecution to address instances of offensive activity.
"The threshold for prosecution has to be high," he added.
"We live in a democracy, and if free speech is to be protected there has to be a high threshold.
"People have the right to be offensive, they have the right to be insulting, and that has to be protected."
Freedom of speech is important, however it is also subject to social rules.
Social media on the internet has exploded in a few years. Previously, people were not able to offend in the way they can now. It was impossible for your speech or writing to reach a national audience so quickly and easily, unless you were a national TV presenter or something.
Social behaviour and the law have not caught up with this phenomenon. We are seeing the fallout as people react to the new situation.
Kovnik Obama wrote:More recently, someone received 3000 $ in psy damages for ''being laughed at'' because she had her picture taken in the street and put in a magazine.
Pretty sure that had more to do with likeness rights in a publication.
Nah, the publication was amateur and didn't draw any profit, thus there wasn't any amounts associated with likeness rights. The photographer was at fault, so he was ordered to withdraw the picture. She also sued for damages, and when the judge asked for what damages, her answer was literraly 'I was laughed at'. That was all that was needed (although admittedly the damages were really low)
It was one of the first jurisprudence we studied in civil rights.
What Serjeant did was absolutely disgusting, and what will he have served? 3 years? And been given plenty of psychiatric care... and then he got on with his life.
Three years is low but fair. He fired a starting pistol at Her Majesty, he wasn't trying to make a political point he was just mad and due to what he was 'armed' with wasnt trying to do harm.
There was a case in the seventies of someone who tried to kidnap Princess Anne. He had a real gun and shot and wounded several people in his attempt. He got locked away on a life tarrif, he is still alive in prison and is never getting out.
.
Kilkrazy wrote: Freedom of speech is important, however it is also subject to social rules.
Social media on the internet has exploded in a few years. Previously, people were not able to offend in the way they can now. It was impossible for your speech or writing to reach a national audience so quickly and easily, unless you were a national TV presenter or something.
Social behaviour and the law have not caught up with this phenomenon. We are seeing the fallout as people react to the new situation.
Yeah, I said pretty much exactly that a couple of pages ago. Glad you agree.
whembly wrote: No... people needs to understand that those are just "words".
And? People can just use whatever words they want, in whatever context and whatever place? With no consequence? Is that what you think is appropriate?
I'd much rather live in a country where I can be free from harassment, persecution and abuse.
Restricting the legal use of language in some situations is no different from any other behaviours. We don't have a freedom to punch people in the face, and no one complains about that. Words can be just as, if not more damaging than a punch in the face. Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.
Sure, deciding where to draw the line is hard. Does that mean we should just throw our arms in the air and say it's too hard, so we'll just allow everything? That's just lazy.
whembly wrote: ''Else, [insert slippery slope argument here]'' is easy, but really, if we cared about those, we would never pass a law in.
That's my POINT. It IS a slippery slope.... where do you draw the line?
At what reason allow. It's reasonnable to allow women to burn their bras in protest of [insert issue xyz here]. It's reasonnable to punish people who go out of their ways to say things in public space that might horribly hurt anyone.
It's not like this guy couldn't have stopped himself from saying these things, or that he didn't know that for a great majority of people, this isn't an acceptable discourse.
whembly wrote: No... people needs to understand that those are just "words".
And? People can just use whatever words they want, in whatever context and whatever place?
Yes
With no consequence? Is that what you think is appropriate?
What do you mean by this?
No.. you should NEVER be free of consequences...
You should be able to say things... but better prepare to accept any retort, counter-protest, or AGRESSIVE BIDEN.
We don't want THOUGHT POLICE or threats to be jailed for saying/writing something on YOUR OWN FACEBOOK page!
I'd much rather live in a country where I can be free from harassment, persecution and abuse.
Won't exist... I'd rather live in a country where STANDING UP FOR YOURSELF is encouraged.
Restricting the legal use of language in some situations is no different from any other behaviours. We don't have a freedom to punch people in the face, and no one complains about that. Words can be just as, if not more damaging than a punch in the face. Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.
Sweet holy Emprah on Terra...
They're just "words".
Sure, deciding where to draw the line is hard. Does that mean we should just throw our arms in the air and say it's too hard, so we'll just allow everything? That's just lazy.
No... it means that you acknowledge that there will be people will say gakky things in this world and you LEARN to ignore them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: Sorry... d-usa got me on a drinking game based on the VP debates... very BUZZED now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT 2: And Kaldor and Kovnik... sorry... still buzzed.
whembly wrote: d8ae26e15d270441fddb6e883e0f8981.png]We don't want THOUGHT POLICE or threats to be jailed for saying/writing something on YOUR OWN FACEBOOK page!
It's not really Thought Police material. You are allowed to chuckle at your own sick jokes. You are allowed to tell them in a very private manner to people you trust will understand (but even then you should be prepared to get seriously burned if you don't practise caution). You are allowed to think things that might hurt someone, but you should never go out of your way to hurt them. And to realize that this would hurt some people, well, that's just really really basic.
No... it means that you acknowledge that there will be people will say gakky things in this world and you LEARN to ignore them.
This isn't some fat teen getting called fat. This is parents going through what I can imagine must be the worst possible moment in their lives. You don't have 'oversensitive' kidnappee's parents that must grow a shell like you have oversensitive emo kids. I very well imagine anyone in this situation must be close to madness. In these cases, yes, I can see matters of decency and politness actually having legal repercussions.
EDIT: Sorry... d-usa got me on a drinking game based on the VP debates... very BUZZED now.
EDIT 2: And Kaldor and Kovnik... sorry... still buzzed.
Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.
Someone is upset with a man who happens to be a teacher. They publicly accuse him of being a child molester.
That's ok, because they're just words.
A young gay man is bullied at school and at home until he takes his own life. He was weak, they were just words.
One company lies about the business practices of another, causing the other company to lose market share and be forced to downsize, resulting in lay-offs. But that's ok, because it was just words.
Words can hurt. They can hurt far more than a simple assault can.
Many people take their own lives as a result of 'words'. Words can destroy livelihoods and incite violence.
Right... so?
Someone is upset with a man who happens to be a teacher. They publicly accuse him of being a child molester.
And that Man should use whatever civil recourse in his disposal... have you not heard of SLANDER?
That's ok, because they're just words.
Yup... certainly not jail worthy.
A young gay man is bullied at school and at home until he takes his own life. He was weak, they were just words.
Yes... they're WORDS! I know what's it like on the recieving end of being bullied. (PM me if you want more details)
I learned the hard way... but they're WORDS... they don't, and shouldn't mean gak to me.
One company lies about the business practices of another, causing the other company to lose market share and be forced to downsize, resulting in lay-offs. But that's ok, because it was just words.
That company has legal recourse for Slander (or more likely LIBEL). Not jail worthy....
Words can hurt.
Never said they didn't...
But what you do with it after being on the recieving end... is up to you.
whembly wrote: And that Man should use whatever civil recourse in his disposal...
That company has legal recourse for Slander (or more likely LIBEL). Not jail worthy....
You're saying there should be no recourse at all. Because they're just words.
Both slander and libel deal with words. The saying of them (either spoken or printed, blah blah blah) and how they affect people. You've explicitly stated on multiple occasions that there should be NO repercussions for ANY words, said in ANY place in ANY way.
A young gay man is bullied at school and at home until he takes his own life. He was weak, they were just words.
whembly wrote: And that Man should use whatever civil recourse in his disposal...
That company has legal recourse for Slander (or more likely LIBEL). Not jail worthy....
You're saying there should be no recourse at all. Because they're just words.
Both slander and libel deal with words. The saying of them (either spoken or printed, blah blah blah) and how they affect people. You've explicitly stated on multiple occasions that there should be NO repercussions for ANY words, said in ANY place in ANY way.
Me saying that you have a right to say it does NOT equate to being free from consequences... keep up kid... and you have the advantage since I'm a smidgeon away from being drunk.
A young gay man is bullied at school and at home until he takes his own life. He was weak, they were just words.
Yes.
My god.
eh what?
So you BLAME the bully for the death of that gay man? (edit: is this hypothetical or is there a real case that I'm missing?)
whembly wrote: Me saying that you have a right to say it does NOT equate to being free from consequences...
So, what you're saying is you have a legal right to say whatever you want, but there should be legal repercussions for saying the wrong thing?
Huh?
Why have slander and libel laws if they're just words? Why have fighting words doctrine if they're just words? Do you think laws that can penalise people for the words they use are a good thing or a bad thing?
So you BLAME the bully for the death of that gay man?
Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally. At the moment this is a hypothetical, but I could dig up a few real cases if you want. I'm sure you're well aware enough of cases like this that I don't need to though.
whembly wrote: Me saying that you have a right to say it does NOT equate to being free from consequences...
So, what you're saying is you have a legal right to say whatever you want, but there should be legal repercussions for saying the wrong thing?
Huh?
You're not quite there...
Point #1: What this kid posted on his own facebook wall was dispicable... and he should be roundly criticised for it. But, it's not jail worthy.
Point #2: We need to encourage folks to stand by what they said and even say, oops, my bad... sorry. But, we shouldn't be thrown into jail for these things.
Why have slander and libel laws if they're just words? Why have fighting words doctrine if they're just words? Do you think laws that can penalise people for the words they use are a good thing or a bad thing?
The Fighting Words doctrine, Libel and Slander are reserved for the most extreme cases as its REALLY difficult to get a win in court.
So you BLAME the bully for the death of that gay man?
Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally. At the moment this is a hypothetical, but I could dig up a few real cases if you want. I'm sure you're well aware enough of cases like this that I don't need to though.
I totally disagree...
There's no reason whatsoever to take your own life.... and I've been Bullied.
Should we penalise people for the things they say?
no.
So you want to live in a society without laws like slander, libel, perjury, fighting words doctrine, false advertising, etc?
That would be an interesting social experiment, but not one I'd like to be a part of.
THERE. IS. NO. REASON. TO. TAKE. YOUR. LIFE. (period!)
So screw anyone who feels like that, amiright? Oh, and rape victims. There's no reason they can't all be black belts and carry guns, so anyone who gets raped must be asking for it, amiright?
You came through it without killing yourself. Many, many people don't. And clearly, it's their own fault for being so weak.
Should we penalise people for the things they say?
no.
So you want to live in a society without laws like slander, libel, perjury, fighting words doctrine, false advertising, etc?
That would be an interesting social experiment, but not one I'd like to be a part of.
You're not paying attention or I'm not adequately explaining...
We do live in a society with slander, libel, perjury, fighting words doctrine, false advertising... but, the standards to win these cases are HIGH... as it should be.
What this kid did on Facebook wouldn't have broken those laws... as it shouldn't.
THERE. IS. NO. REASON. TO. TAKE. YOUR. LIFE. (period!)
So screw anyone who feels like that, amiright?
Please stop putting words in my mouth m'kay?
Depression is a big fething deal and we should always help those in need... but, again... there's no reason for suicide.
Oh, and rape victims. There's no reason they can't all be black belts and carry guns, so anyone who gets raped must be asking for it, amiright?
How in the bloody hell did this turn into rape coversation? Are you equating what this kid said on his personal Facebook Wall to rape?
I stole this, as this is what I'm feeling now after that statement:
You came through it without killing yourself. Many, many people don't. And clearly, it's their own fault for being so weak.
I can't believe the words I'm reading.
If they weren't weak, would they have killed themselves?
No, I get it. You don't want any laws that penalise anyone for anything they say.
I just think that's absolutely insane.
How in the bloody hell did this turn into rape coversation?
Because you're blaming the victim. It's the victims fault they weren't strong enough. It doesn't matter if it was continued systematic verbal/written abuse, or rape. If the victim couldn't handle it, it's the victims fault. That's exactly what you're saying here:
whembly wrote: If they weren't weak, would they have *been a victim*?
Here's a protip: It's not the victims fault.
If I get mugged, it's not my fault for not being Chuck Norris. If I get hit by a drunk driver, it's not my fault for being on the road. If I get burgled, it's not my fault for not having a better security system. If I get bullied, and take my own life, IT'S NOT MY FAULT for not being tough enough to handle it.
If I get mugged, it's not my fault for not being Chuck Norris. If I get hit by a drunk driver, it's not my fault for being on the road. If I get burgled, it's not my fault for not having a better security system. If I get bullied, and take my own life, IT'S NOT MY FAULT for not being tough enough to handle it.
Since I'm catching the tail end of this.....debate....your speaking sarcasticaly right?
No, I get it. You don't want any laws that penalise anyone for anything they say.
I just think that's absolutely insane.
I'll try again...
You should be free to say/write anything UNLESS it meets the threshold for libel, slander, etc, legally.
I should also note that just because you're "free" to say something... someone else is "free" to retort.
You have freedom of speech, not FROM speech.
How in the bloody hell did this turn into rape coversation?
Because you're blaming the victim. It's the victims fault they weren't strong enough. It doesn't matter if it was continued systematic verbal/written abuse, or rape. If the victim couldn't handle it, it's the victims fault. That's exactly what you're saying here:
whembly wrote: If they weren't weak, would they have *been a victim*?
You're changing my quote...
So, lemme get this straight... you're equating what that kid wrote on his facebook wall to rape/abuse?
Here's a protip: It's not the victims fault.
If you commit suicide, then yes, it's your fault.
If I get mugged, it's not my fault for not being Chuck Norris.
Strawman... a crime was comitted against you... duh.
If I get hit by a drunk driver, it's not my fault for being on the road.
Strawman... a crime was committed... duh, don't drink and drive
If I get burgled, it's not my fault for not having a better security system.
Strawman... a crime was commited... duh, dats your stuff!
If I get bullied, and take my own life, IT'S NOT MY FAULT for not being tough enough to handle it.
Now we're getting somewhere...
Assaulting, Stalking, and Harrassment is a crime... and in a way it is bullying.
But "being bullied in a social setting" because you're gay, in a band, poor, rich, gangsta, not gangsta enuff, four-eyed, deaf, or WHATEVER...
That's LIFE... people can be gakky to each other.
Still not a reason to kill your self. And if you do... it's YOUR FAULT!
If I get mugged, it's not my fault for not being Chuck Norris. If I get hit by a drunk driver, it's not my fault for being on the road. If I get burgled, it's not my fault for not having a better security system. If I get bullied, and take my own life, IT'S NOT MY FAULT for not being tough enough to handle it.
Since I'm catching the tail end of this.....debate....your speaking sarcasticaly right?
I'm pretty sure not sarcastic... but, what do I know?
whembly wrote: You should be free to say/write anything UNLESS it meets the threshold for libel, slander, etc, legally.
So, we SHOULD have laws that penalise us for what we say?
Great. I agree.
Re: victim blaming -
Why is it not my fault for getting mugged, but it is my fault for being bullied into suicide? I really don't understand how you can force that disconnect in your mind.
Kaldor wrote: So, we SHOULD have laws that penalise us for what we say?
Yes. They should be the bare minimum required for society to function, though, not protection from people being offended or getting their feelings hurt.
Why is it not my fault for getting mugged, but it is my fault for being bullied into suicide? I really don't understand how you can force that disconnect in your mind.
Most people, as far as I'm aware, aren't wizards with the power to control minds.
Kaldor wrote: So, we SHOULD have laws that penalise us for what we say?
Yes. They should be the bare minimum required for society to function, though, not protection from people being offended or getting their feelings hurt.
Absolutely. I consider being able to go about day-to-day activities without the threat of extreme verbal or written abuse to fairly essential to a functioning society.
Most people, as far as I'm aware, aren't wizards with the power to control minds.
Only a wizard could influence the way someone thinks?
Kaldor wrote: Absolutely. I consider being able to go about day-to-day activities without the threat of extreme verbal or written abuse to fairly essential to a functioning society.
See, I prefer not to live in a nanny state.
Only a wizard could influence the way someone thinks?
2/10. Try harder.
Okay. Could you tell us the secret code words that would force you into nothing but committing suicide?
Oh, you can't. Guess they were just too weak to make it in life, huh?
Strange how the bullies were charged, convicted and sentenced. How's your freedoms now?
Just fine. None of them were charged for hurting someone's feelings.
My question was about you, though. If bullying can make individuals kill themselves, what are your secret passwords?
I don't know. I've never been subjected to months or years of protracted bullying.
But it absolutely happens. I just linked you to two instances where it happened, where the people doing the bullying were arrested, charged and convicted because of said bullying. The law still has some catching up to do, but it's getting there. Cases like Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince usually result in calls for more or tighter legislation. But I don't need to repeat the articles here, just go and read them.
Can't we agree bullying is different then offensive speech? With bullying it's speech with malicious intent usually combined with physical abuse. Even if it's just spoken it's mental abuse and more akin to Slander or Libel then it is to me saying something offensive about Jesus or Mohammed in a public place and me hurting someone's feelings.
Kaldor wrote: But it absolutely happens. I just linked you to two instances where it happened, where the people doing the bullying were arrested, charged and convicted because of said bullying. The law still has some catching up to do, but it's getting there. Cases like Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince usually result in calls for more or tighter legislation. But I don't need to repeat the articles here, just go and read them.
No, you didn't.
You linked me two cases where people were charged, in one case, with fraud, and in another with statutory rape, stalking, and a whole host of other charges, none of them bullying. The people in question were bullying; they were not charged with bullying. It's almost like there are enough laws out there to cover genuine criminal behavior, which is yet another good reason why we shouldn't criminalize hurting someone's feelings.
Arsepiece writes offensive crap on his T-Shirt the day these two police are killed. He looks like a dole warrior and nob end, but he shouldn't be going to jail.
If those poppy burning Islamists just got a fine for doing that and shouting "British troops burn in hell" on Armistice day, then why is this guy facing jail time.
Arsepiece writes offensive crap on his T-Shirt the day these two police are killed. He looks like a dole warrior and nob end, but he shouldn't be going to jail.
If those poppy burning Islamists just got a fine for doing that and shouting "British troops burn in hell" on Armistice day, then why is this guy facing jail time.
Ridiculous.
Blame New Labour, mate. Their time in power represented a massive sustained assault on civil liberties. Further reading here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Taking-Liberties-Chris-Atkins/dp/1905978030 If you can get past the rather naff attempts at 'comedy', there's actually some really chilling stuff in there.
Arsepiece writes offensive crap on his T-Shirt the day these two police are killed. He looks like a dole warrior and nob end, but he shouldn't be going to jail.
If those poppy burning Islamists just got a fine for doing that and shouting "British troops burn in hell" on Armistice day, then why is this guy facing jail time.
Ridiculous.
Once again, I concur. The guys a scum bag, but not a send him to jail scumbag.
Freedom of speech is under attack. Next thing you know, we wont be allowed to point out how inherently prejudiced Islam is towards women and gay people!
The point is, a lot of this legislation was brought in to supposedly fight against terrorism, but was quickly co-opted by police because it makes their jobs easier. Blair and co. brought in legislation that literally allowed coppers to arrest anyone for anything.
Albatross wrote: The point is, a lot of this legislation was brought in to supposedly fight against terrorism, but was quickly co-opted by police because it makes their jobs easier. Blair and co. brought in legislation that literally allowed coppers to arrest anyone for anything.
Such a complex world we live in.. as I said, it takes integrity and backbone to not practice staggering hypocrisy in these situations, and I suppose thats why they occur. I'm sure that all of the people who support jailing this dick head (probably most people) would happily support jailing a Muslim for saying "Kill all White British make UK Sharia!" etc etc
Its down the chaps like you and I to point out that its only freedom of speech if you stick up for the unpopular! The popular speech doesn't NEED defending because everyone agrees with it.
As a man who supports the Muslims rights to say anything at all, I must also say I find this fethers treatment deplorable.
Its logical to allow this kind of thing, when a fool is running his mouth off, he identifies himself as an idiot to all and sundry. I don't want horrible bastards to be quiet, and I want them to keep on talking so we can keep an eye on the bastards!
Blame New Labour, mate. Their time in power represented a massive sustained assault on civil liberties. Further reading here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Taking-Liberties-Chris-Atkins/dp/1905978030 If you can get past the rather naff attempts at 'comedy', there's actually some really chilling stuff in there.
Going to have a look at that sir, the movie is on youtube in various parts so i'll have a gander there first.
On a completely unrelated but useful point, The Thick of It is back on tonight after a strange 2/3 week break. Yaaasss!
With nothing else to do today after my bike ride, I've just sat chugged some beers and watched that whole Taking Liberties film. It started off alright just pointing out some silly gak laws that have been passed.. and then rapidly defended into hippy propaganda.
What a pile of gak, also, I noticed that on the list of named people extradited to the USA from Britain they named Al Zarqawi?!
Now, the only one I remember is the mother fether who got blown to bits when I was in Iraq.. so I think they were fully making things up as well.
Also, most of the bastards that were being held I fully agreed with, and half of the "Britons" that were held were not actually British, they were just assorted Libyans, Algerians and Bangladeshis that frankly, I couldn't give a feth about anyway.. there is no smoke without fire don't you know. And of the ones that actually are British born and bred, one of them was in Afghanistan during a war on a "fishing holiday"?! Pull the fething other one!
Until they actually start arresting people for nothing (they don't) I will take it all with a fistfull of salt.
Kilkrazy wrote: I wonder if it is possible that two different muslims might have the same surname.
Actually very likely. The general shortlist of common names used in the Islamic world is less than those used in the west, and thats not including wierd stuff like the names chavs and celebs call their kids.
Kilkrazy wrote: I wonder if it is possible that two different muslims might have the same surname.
Actually very likely. The general shortlist of common names used in the Islamic world is less than those used in the west, and thats not including wierd stuff like the names chavs and celebs call their kids.
Yeah obviously! I did a google though naturally, no other Al Zarqawi's s I could find other than the horrible fether that I remember getting toasted. If it was a British citizen extradited, I presume I would have been able to find a story about it on the BBC.
How come when I act needlessly facetious you ban me for it? Surely if you have any integrity at all you should hold yourself up to the standards you demand of others?
I mean, its painfully obvious that you don't, but you could pretend for appearances sake.
At least I had a go at searching, and considering that pretty much every documentary has its own angle to promote, my premise, that a documentary may have lied to promote its own message due to the fact that I recognise a name and a second person with the same name hasn't appeared in the public forum, perfectly logical.
Although, as I happily and openly said I wasn't a 100% sure and it was simply an observation Im happy to be proven wrong, so if you have an actual comment, link, or piece of evidence to suggest I'm incorrect I'm more than happy to hold my hands up.
Okay. Could you tell us the secret code words that would force you into nothing but committing suicide?
This is one of the stupidest false choice ever offered. People cannot be influenced because there's no 'specific' wording that will force them into commiting suicide? And this is why you beleive that psychological distress cannot be caused?
Okay. Could you tell us the secret code words that would force you into nothing but committing suicide?
This is one of the stupidest false choice ever offered. People cannot be influenced because there's no 'specific' wording that will force them into commiting suicide? And this is why you beleive that psychological distress cannot be caused?
It sounds to me like Monty Pythons lethal joke sketch.
Kovnik Obama wrote: This is one of the stupidest false choice ever offered. People cannot be influenced because there's no 'specific' wording that will force them into commiting suicide? And this is why you beleive that psychological distress cannot be caused?
I believe you cannot cause a mentally healthy adult enough psychological distress through nothing more than saying mean things to cause them to commit suicide, yes. If you truly wish to contend that someone could hurt your feelings enough that you'd kill yourself, I'd be curious as to what it would take. That's my question. No one's been up for answering it so far, which suggests to me that I'm on the right path.
Kovnik Obama wrote: This is one of the stupidest false choice ever offered. People cannot be influenced because there's no 'specific' wording that will force them into commiting suicide? And this is why you beleive that psychological distress cannot be caused?
I believe you cannot cause a mentally healthy adult enough psychological distress through nothing more than saying mean things to cause them to commit suicide, yes. If you truly wish to contend that someone could hurt your feelings enough that you'd kill yourself, I'd be curious as to what it would take. That's my question. No one's been up for answering it so far, which suggests to me that I'm on the right path.
Mate, its trivially easy to prove you wrong. Just google "bullying" for feths sake!
I was in CA last year and there was a story all over the news about a middle aged mom who was jailed for making a fake facebook profile to verbally abuse a teenage girl who wound up topping herself. If you took the time to look, ill warrant there are thousands of cases where a simple endless barrage of sustained abuse can lead to it. There have been numerous cases where people have been ganged up on in an office environment or some such and sustained to prolonged abuse and harassment and the next thing they get found swinging somewhere.
Now, you can certainly argue about the personality of the people that do it, or suggest perhaps there are other factors to consider, I mean, I bet that most people don't concern themselves so much with verbal abuse that it affects their health, certainly if I worked in an office and 4 or 5 of my coworkers were harassing me i'd just give them gak back, Id probably quite enjoy myself, I like thinking up colourful insults for people or photocopying my testicles and sending a copy to all of their mothers or something else suitably mature, but honestly you can't possibly make the argument that it doesn't happen, because sadly you hear about this type of thing all the time.
Not everyone is as mentally robust as the next man.
mattyrm wrote: Mate, its trivially easy to prove you wrong. Just google "bullying" for feths sake!
I was in CA last year and there was a story all over the news about a middle aged mom who was jailed for making a fake facebook profile to verbally abuse a teenage girl who wound up topping herself. If you took the time to look, ill warrant there are thousands of cases where a simple endless barrage of sustained abuse can lead to it. There have been numerous cases where people have been ganged up on in an office environment or some such and sustained to prolonged abuse and harassment and the next thing they get found swinging somewhere.
Now, you can certainly argue about the personality of the people that do it, or suggest perhaps there are other factors to consider, I mean, I bet that most people don't concern themselves so much with verbal abuse that it affects their health, certainly if I worked in an office and 4 or 5 of my coworkers were harassing me i'd just give them gak back, Id probably quite enjoy myself, I like thinking up colourful insults for people or photocopying my testicles and sending a copy to all of their mothers or something else suitably mature, but honestly you can't possibly make the argument that it doesn't happen, because sadly you hear about this type of thing all the time.
Not everyone is as mentally robust as the next man.
That's a fairly famous story out of Missouri, though I'm surprised you heard about it last year. I thought it was several years ago.
Either way, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. If someone wants to go to the trouble of creating a bunch of sockpuppet accounts, creating identities to impersonate, and enlisting the aid of others to wage a dedicated campaign of psychological torture, yes, it's possible they'll get some teenagers to kill themselves. It's not what I would define - or what I meant - when I said that no mentally healthy adult will commit suicide because someone said something mean to them. That is going far beyond "saying something mean." And there are already laws under which you could be prosecuted covering such behavior in the US, so we don't need UK-style "hurt feelings" legislation.
You know, call me old-fashioned if you wish, but I rather enjoyed it when we had freedom of speech in this country. It was, after all, the main thing that people would point to and say that made up better than any of the dictatorships: There are so many people that any one of them having a vote is unlikely to make a difference, and we weren't perfect when it came to having an open and honest government, but at least we could say what we liked. You could even argue that it was the main reason for the world wars, the ability to say what we liked about anything rather than being locked up for saying "I don't think being gay is wrong!"
Yes, bullying is wrong. Yes, it can cause suicide, all manner of mental scarring... I know, I've experienced bullying. But surely the solution is simply to educate people to the point where they don't bully, rather than punishing them for saying something? The fault lies with the parents and teachers, not with the trolls who simply don't understand that it's wrong!
What's sadly hilarious is that this isn't even a case of bullying, it's a case of a dude saying something on his personal Facebook page and being tossed in jail for it. Whether or not you think we should jail people who tell others they do not like their hairstyle, and in so doing cause the individual with the unfortunate hairstyle to commit suicide, this is more a case of a guy telling his buddies he didn't like the hairstyle of some dude he saw walking down the street earlier today, and being thrown in jail on the off chance the dude ever somehow hears it.
Seaward wrote: What's sadly hilarious is that this isn't even a case of bullying, it's a case of a dude saying something on his personal Facebook page and being tossed in jail for it. Whether or not you think we should jail people who tell others they do not like their hairstyle, and in so doing cause the individual with the unfortunate hairstyle to commit suicide, this is more a case of a guy telling his buddies he didn't like the hairstyle of some dude he saw walking down the street earlier today, and being thrown in jail on the off chance the dude ever somehow hears it.
Hey I'm not even arguing the toss on that score, I don't agree with people being jailed for saying nasty gak, I was merely pointing out that yes, some people will top themselves if they get some verbal and you are wrong on that point. You don't have to be beating people up to get them to want to toss back some pills and hoy themselves in front of a train.
As I've said several times, I disagree entirely with jailing people for saying nasty gak, and I said the exact same when they jailed a Muslim for burning poppies and saying he was dancing a jig on soldiers graves or whatever the feth he did. I am fully in agreement with you.
What I am saying though is that its not a black and white issue, mention the F word and you lot get your knickers in a twist because you are raised on a diet of "freedom" this and "freedom" that incessantly. I certainly don't feel as though I can't say what I want in the UK, my facebook page is an endless tirade of abuse and I've never had a bobby come round. I think that you need to be saying some really fethed up stuff to wind up in court, so I'm not massively bothered personally, but yes I do agree with you.
I'm also saying that there is no point in acting like school kids going "my country is better than yours" as some people are doing, because no nation has a monopoly on freedom. Sometimes I shake my head in disbelief at what happens here, other times me and my missus laugh about the draconian gak in America. Its swings and roundabouts. As I've said many times before, none of us are really "free" its a fething illusion that you lads like to keep repeating because it makes you feel better, but if we elect someone and they do the exact opposite of everything they say they will.. then we all have to suck on it and there is jack gak you can do about it. You still have to obey thousands of rules, you still have to toe the line, try not paying your taxes and see how free you are.
Further adding to this complex mess, I really hate it when in Britain we have to let people that are clearly absolute scumbags out of prison because unlike America, we can't detain people indefinitely without charge, so sometimes I feel like some freedoms suck. I mean, theres no smoke without fire, they really aren't going to detain someone like me who has no real agenda despite the slippery slope arguments. The suspension of habeas corpus in the states bothered me not at all frankly.
Like I say, freedom is just a word. At the end of the day, as long as I am free to do the 8 or 9 things I enjoy in life relatively unmolested, then thats free enough for me. Frankly if some bloke has been held without charge for 2 years but its clearly obvious that there are a laundry list of offences that could be linked to the bloke, then I couldn't give a feth about the fething fether!
p_gray99 wrote: There are so many people that any one of them having a vote is unlikely to make a difference, and we weren't perfect when it came to having an open and honest government, but at least we could say what we liked. You could even argue that it was the main reason for the world wars, the ability to say what we liked about anything rather than being locked up for saying "I don't think being gay is wrong!"
@Matty
I agree with most of your points about that documentary, but I'm still pretty concerned about the protests and police quoting the terrorism act to scare people away. Police asking for your details which they have absolutely no right to know. Ultimately it gets resolved at the high court but that costs as gak ton of money, when it's fairly obvious that it shouldn't need to go that far.
The biggest problem that I have with it all is your right to protest being infringed. It's more concerning to me because British people seem to be loosing more freedoms while everything is pissed away on the EU, Immigrants, Tax Dodgers and Dole Warriors.
The book goes in to more detail, cites sources and interviews people from across the political spectrum. And yes, police were granted the power to arrest and detain anyone who did anything 'suspicious', a word which could apply to almost anything. I mean, someone got nicked for reading aloud an article from Cosmopolitan (iirc) that was critical of the Blair government.
Albatross wrote: The book goes in to more detail, cites sources and interviews people from across the political spectrum. And yes, police were granted the power to arrest and detain anyone who did anything 'suspicious', a word which could apply to almost anything. I mean, someone got nicked for reading aloud an article from Cosmopolitan (iirc) that was critical of the Blair government.
These people must not be allowed back into power.
All I know about Cosmopolitan is it gives really bad relationship and sex advice.
All I know about Cosmopolitan is it gives really bad relationship and sex advice.
Cosmo isn't about the advices and tips. It's about making your girlfriend read dirty stories in an acceptable format. I swear, my ex would go all blushy about 10 minutes after getting her issue. 30 minutes later it was ''hump till your knees bleed time!''
Isn't there something out there about how the purpose of society is to provide a fair, safe and just existence for all as opposed to pure Darwinism? You know the natural state of man where we run around with clubs and smack each other in the skull till one of us stops twitching to see who gets the most meat and women?
Kaldor wrote: A young gay man is bullied at school and at home until he takes his own life. He was weak, they were just words.
Exactly this. He was weak. They are just words.
Yeah, and I guess it was the Jews fault they didn't resist the Nazis. Their fault for being weak, huh?
That's the logic here, isn't it? If we aren't able to resist an aggressor, we are weak and deserve our fate?
This makes no sense. The jews were not captured for being weak. They were very strong. And also, many of them did resist...
The logic is that someone who kills him/herself over verbal bullying is usually weak and or unstable. I would never EVER think of anything like that. You ever here of the saying "Sticks and Stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me?" Some people need to learn that that is true. Words are not actions. I'm not saying that words can't change things in this sort of way, I'm saying they shouldn't be able to. People who are offended and really hurt by WORDS should be put into treatment.
That's false from every single point of view. There is a whole field of linguistics which is entirely dedicated to the analysis of the pragmatic side of langage.
I'm not saying that words can't change things in this sort of way, I'm saying they shouldn't be able to. People who are offended and really hurt by WORDS should be put into treatment.
By opposition to people who go out of their way to hurt and offend others?
. What is this country coming to? 
Saying that, she was the Princess of Hearts and I won't have a bad word said about her. 
for saying it, but he has a right to say it.
)
