Kaldor wrote:

 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.

 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?

 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?

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

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.

 Albatross wrote:
'Precisely' is a word that has a specific meaning. Learn it. This situation is more nuanced than you are suggesting.

That is an incredibly reductive and essentialist way of looking at it. It's also not remotely connected to reality.

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

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.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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'?

 Bromsy wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 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.

 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?

 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.

 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!

 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.

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

By that logic racist abuse should be legal. I mean, it's only hurt feelings, right?

Absolutely. And it is, over here.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
'Precisely' is a word that has a specific meaning. Learn it. This situation is more nuanced than you are suggesting.

Doesn't appear to be.

That is an incredibly reductive and essentialist way of looking at it. It's also not remotely connected to reality.

Are your laws not written by democratically-elected legislators?

By that logic racist abuse should be legal. I mean, it's only hurt feelings, right?

Absolutely. And it is, over here.

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?

 Jihadin wrote:

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

 Albatross wrote:
Exactly.

I have as much to do with the drafting of this law as you do with so-called 'Obamacare'.

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?

Common Sense Laws are....wait...there is no common sense laws...

 Kaldor wrote:
No it's not.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Basically people ought to use a bit of common sense when they spout their gak.

If this was the case , what would happen to the dakka dakka off-topic forum?

 Seaward wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
No it's not.

Could you point out the law that prohibits it, por favor?

 Kaldor wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
No it's not.

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."

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Exactly.

You're more than welcome to enlighten me.

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.

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?

 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.

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.

 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."

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

 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.