Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The guy broke a law, in a particularly offensive way.

Who cares? The whole point here is whether or not the law is right, not the boring question of whether he broke it or not.

The law is right as it is currently the law of the land.

He can appeal his sentence (as is the law of the land).

The law may change.

Who cares.

 filbert wrote:

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.

http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/09/dpp-statement-on-tom-daley-case-and-social-media-prosecutions.html

20.9.12

key paragraphs

“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

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

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.

consider :
-- language warning !

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/30910472373/troll#disqus_thread




Automatically Appended Next Post:
MOD Note :

If you've constructive or cannot contribute in an adult fashion then please don't post.

Thanks.

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.

Why should the medium of what you say matter ?

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.

I was trying to say that he didnt directly attack anyone immediately involved. Thats what i find ridiculous.

 Vitruvian XVII wrote:
I was trying to say that he didnt directly attack anyone immediately involved.

Why does or should that matter ?

 Seaward wrote:

 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......

 reds8n wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 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!

Oh hang on.. Is that a bobby at the door?

Yeah i struggle with that sometimes

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.

Lol, i post this and Albatross sums it up better and quicker

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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!

 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.

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.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:
t prompt me to call you either childish ....

I'll be referring to this in all future discussions as the "My fee-fees hurt, waaaaaaaaaaah!" law.

Poor effort, must try harder.

 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.

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?