12 weeks in Jail for offensive web posts about poor April Jones

super_furry

steve9859 wrote: »

It means intending to provoke a reaction. As far as I can tell, he wasn't being funny, so can only assume he was trying to get some 'bites'. And if he didn't realise he was doing that, then he's an idiot. I've no sympathy for the guy....certainly not losing sleep about him, and his idiot ilk who troll away on social media, being jailed.

So do you think Frankie Boyle should be sent to jail for his jokes about Madeline McCann?

humanji

Does anyone have a link to what he actually said (the full list of comments)? I can't find it on the Guardian link (it's probably obvious, but I'm on the 3 o'clock slump).

I'm getting a bit of deja vu with this story and the one about the guy who was arrested for making jokes on twitter (I think about some footballer). Everyone was up in arms and then it turns out the guy was actually sending racist death threats. I'm just wondering if Woods was arrested for something along these lines or if the story really is as stupidly insane as it first sounds.

ArmaniJeanss

humanji wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to what he actually said (the full list of comments)? I can't find it on the Guardian link (it's probably obvious, but I'm on the 3 o'clock slump).

I'm getting a bit of deja vu with this story and the one about the guy who was arrested for making jokes on twitter (I think about some footballer). Everyone was up in arms and then it turns out the guy was actually sending racist death threats. I'm just wondering if Woods was arrested for something along these lines or if the story really is as stupidly insane as it first sounds.

I assume it was the joke from 5 years ago.
Whats the difference between *geeky teenage star* and *high profile missing girl*? *Geeky teenage star* is still a virgin.

It was Beiber and Madelaine McCann 5 years ago, The Soham girls and someone else 10 years ago.

Nulty

humanji wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to what he actually said (the full list of comments)? I can't find it on the Guardian link (it's probably obvious, but I'm on the 3 o'clock slump).

I'm getting a bit of deja vu with this story and the one about the guy who was arrested for making jokes on twitter (I think about some footballer). Everyone was up in arms and then it turns out the guy was actually sending racist death threats. I'm just wondering if Woods was arrested for something along these lines or if the story really is as stupidly insane as it first sounds.

Some guy made direct remarks to Tom Daly the olympic diver about his deceased father. those were directed to the guys twitter account. Thats a form of harassment.

RustyNut

WindSock wrote: »

Well as someone posted on this thread earlier, no one bats an eyelid when it's peado priests. Or Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter.

Which reminds me, did ya hear the one about the paedo priest, jimmy savile, Gary glitter and Apr.........



Looks over sholder



Maby not?

Fighting Irish

Scioch wrote: »

Is the moral of this story to start getting together in angry mods and descending on the homes of all the dirt bag TD's and bankers to get them arrested ? Cos I'll do it.

:rolleyes:

dj jarvis

My name is URL wrote: »

The fact that the police have stated that he was arrested for 'his own safety' says all you need to know about the mentality and intelligence of those emotionally attached enough to the whole story that they'd react in such a way to a stupid Facebook post.

The media as usual are the real scumbags in all of this.

so true

the media in the UK have a lot to answer .
I remember a case soon after the soham case , a pediatrician was attacked in his home becasue the knuckle dragers could not tell the difference between a pediatrician and a pedophile , apparently they both " mess with kids ":eek:

public hysteria fueled by the media , IMO everyone of the 50 strong crowd should have been locked up , what if it had happened in the case i just mentioned ? 50 angry stupid people turning up at your home wanting to kill you becasue you are a pediatrician

and the biggest issue in all this is the fact that it looks like the judge was also
influenced by the mob and the media

really scary stuff - funny, the British like to give off this air of moral superiority when it comes to cases like this , yet in my experience , behind closed doors the are a very deviant people , wife swapping , dogging , child abuse rings ect ect , dont get me wrong , i am sure it happens everywhere , just the brits come across as two faced on this subject.

** not saying for one minute that they would condone or endorse in ANYWAY child abuse - just the attitude to sex in public and the in private - two very different attitudes **

gerbilgranny

I hate these sort of disgusting jokes/comments.

And naturally, I have every sympathy for April and her family.

But I can't help making a comparison - the Great British Public generally seem to think it was okay to make jokes like that about Jade Goody.

She may have been no saint, but she wasn't racist - and actually, I don't think she was nasty.

Yet for a while she was treated in the British press like Public Enemy No 1, and at the time, moderators on many Big Brother Forums saw nothing wrong with posters saying she should be killed!

And many people online think it's perfectly acceptable to joke about her death. After all she was just some hideous reality tv personality, wasn't she? Forget about the fact that she was the mother of two very young children.

Don't imagine I'll get more agreement on this - but I wanted to say it, anyway...

Fratton Fred

dj jarvis wrote: »

so true

the media in the UK have a lot to answer .
I remember a case soon after the soham case , a pediatrician was attacked in his home becasue the knuckle dragers could not tell the difference between a pediatrician and a pedophile , apparently they both " mess with kids ":eek:

It wasn't Soham, it was the good old news of the screws again stirring up hatred when they published the names and addressess of a load of released peadophiles. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm

dj jarvis wrote: »

really scary stuff - funny, the British like to give off this air of moral superiority when it comes to cases like this , yet in my experience , behind closed doors the are a very deviant people , wife swapping , dogging , child abuse rings ect ect , dont get me wrong , i am sure it happens everywhere , just the brits come across as two faced on this subject.

Huh? Sorry, but coming from someone in Ireland that's a bit much.

http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/irish-woman-dies-after-dog-sex-0013864-1

Blisterman

jackal wrote: »

What you don't seem to get is that it is the very fact that the case is well known that encouraged said idiot to do his attention seeking troll routine.

If nobody bats an eyelid about children from uganda, then thats not going to attract the attention he craves and he is not really succeeding. So these trolls are always going to go for the high profile things and try to gain attention.

I think the police have better things to be doing than checking peoples facebook for potential trolling. If enough people brought it to their attention, then things would be different.

Well if it's attention he craves (which I don't think it is, given he used the semi private medium of Facebook to post it), then arresting him and charging him, is only helping him attract attention.

dj jarvis

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It wasn't Soham, it was the good old news of the screws again stirring up hatred when they published the names and addressess of a load of released peadophiles. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm



Huh? Sorry, but coming from someone in Ireland that's a bit much.

http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/irish-woman-dies-after-dog-sex-0013864-1

i stated that it happens everywhere - i sure that includes Ireland
and i was coming from the slant of one the one hand the Teleraph/sun/ bla bla on one hand ruining someone career for getting caught riding in a car , or getting caught having group sex , yet these very things THRIVE in the UK behind closed doors

and a example of this would be that a swinger group in the Uk has close to one million members, yet when they tried to expand into Ireland they did not get ANY members

they seem to say and act one way for the media and the community - yet act very differently in private - as i said a tad two faced

its like group think every time a case like this comes to light, it just looks more exaggerated in the UK than other places i have lived

efb

El Weirdo wrote: »

It could be argued that proper trolling is.

This isn't proper trolling, it's just called that by the media who have a great, new internet-themed buzzword they can attach to any story about "offensive" posts on Twitter or Facebook.

So what is 'proper trolling' have you an example?

Undercover Elephant

steve9859 wrote: »

It means intending to provoke a reaction. As far as I can tell, he wasn't being funny, so can only assume he was trying to get some 'bites'. And if he didn't realise he was doing that, then he's an idiot. I've no sympathy for the guy....certainly not losing sleep about him, and his idiot ilk who troll away on social media, being jailed.

"Incitement" in the JS Mill / Brandenburg v. Ohio sense (i.e. the ones which are used to justify restrictions on free speech) means that you are encouraging people to immediate lawless action. It definitely doesn't mean saying something stupid that might make people attack you.

Fratton Fred

dj jarvis wrote: »

i stated that it happens everywhere - i sure that includes Ireland
and i was coming from the slant of one the one hand the Teleraph/sun/ bla bla on one hand ruining someone career for getting caught riding in a car , or getting caught having group sex , yet these very things THRIVE in the UK behind closed doors

and a example of this would be that a swinger group in the Uk has close to one million members, yet when they tried to expand into Ireland they did not get ANY members

they seem to say and act one way for the media and the community - yet act very differently in private - as i said a tad two faced

its like group think every time a case like this comes to light, it just looks more exaggerated in the UK than other places i have lived

say what now? You do realise that the Sun has a semi naked woman on poage three everyday. I'd hardly call that trying to make itself out to be a beacon of morality.

Group think happens everywhere.

http://www.herald.ie/news/angry-mob-chases-man-from-flat-as-hes-accused-of-flashing-at-children-from-his-balcony-3201130.html


Anyway, I'm off to burn a few mythical bond holders for making me bankrupt.

Tomk1

FaceBook comments arrest terrifies trolls
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:FaceBook_comments_arrest_terrifies_trolls
From my second most reliable news source, 1st being AH

goat2

no body in their right mind would even think of making sick jokes about children,
what kind of mindset does a person have,
in mind has to be a sick person who think like that never mind putting out there.
when anyone with any bit of human compassion would be hoping and wishing that april and maddie mccanne and other children who have been taken will be reunited with their parents in good health and having been taken good care of.

El Weirdo

efb wrote: »

So what is 'proper trolling' have you an example?

There are examples of proper trolling all over this site every day.

It's the subtle ones. The ones that it takes a while for you to realise what they're doing, but when you go back over their posts and look at their contributions as a whole, you see it.

davet82

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

attention seeking , disturbed scumbag trying to impress his mates! Lil Sh*t should have got longer. He will be out in 3 weeks :rolleyes:

gary glitter got 16 weeks compared to this guys 12 week sentence for another more disturbing internet crime imo so i think its actually excessive if anything...

i agree with your description of the guy though


on another note, its a pity justice isn't as swift for other crimes committed in the UK not just the 'popular' ones at the moment

steve9859

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

"Incitement" in the JS Mill / Brandenburg v. Ohio sense (i.e. the ones which are used to justify restrictions on free speech) means that you are encouraging people to immediate lawless action. It definitely doesn't mean saying something stupid that might make people attack you.

Leaving aside legal speak, I would have thought that 'incitement' would apply to anything that you have posted something specifically to wind people up. That seems to the the common theme in the cases in which people in the UK have been jailed for social media comments.

Im sure he didnt mean for people to attack him, but I'm sure he intended to wind people up for no reason other than his own kicks and giggles.

Galwayguy35

I'm delighted the tosser got jail, why would someone want to make a joke about a little girl who has probably had a horrible end to her short life.

I hope he gets a few slaps inside,

steve9859

steve9859 wrote: »

I don't really have a problem with it. A few more examples are made, and people might start thinking twice about posting and twittering that kind of stuff. It's about time some boundaries of behaviour were set, just the same as there are behavioural boundaries when you're walking down the street.

Those boundaries are largely unwritten. For example, if I call you a prick on the street, it's not a nice thing to do, but you can't get me arrested for it. There are boundaries for behaviour on the Internet, just like everywhere else.

steve9859 wrote:

The Internet shouldn't be some place where anything goes.

You don't understand how the Internet works, do you? Policing it is impossible. Even in the most totalitarian of states, it is trivial to subvert Internet censorship.

steve9859 wrote:

They need to track down some of the people involved in some of the tragic on-line bullying cases recently as well, and throw the book at them

That's completely different to the original subject. Online bullying involves persistent, deliberate attacks on a person with the sole intent of causing pain. It's the exact same as bullying in real life, except on the Internet. Bullying isn't some kind of failure of a government, it's a failure of everyone around the people involved to put a stop to it.

Galwayguy35 wrote:

I'm delighted the tosser got jail, why would someone want to make a joke about a little girl who has probably had a horrible end to her short life.

I don't understand your reasoning. Do you actually think it's a good idea to start imprisoning people who say distasteful things or make occasional offensive jokes? Did he constantly send messages to the family, mocking them for their loss?

What if you cracked a joke in the pub about Madeline McCann and the thought police dragged you away? I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune.

Undercover Elephant

steve9859 wrote: »

Leaving aside legal speak, I would have thought that 'incitement' would apply to anything that you have posted something specifically to wind people up. That seems to the the common theme in the cases in which people in the UK have been jailed for social media comments.

Im sure he didnt mean for people to attack him, but I'm sure he intended to wind people up for no reason other than his own kicks and giggles.

Yes, and that's the nub of it. People are going to jail for winding other people up. This is not at all the same thing as trying to start a riot. It is the antithesis of free speech. It encourages anyone and everyone to claim "offence", rather than arguing back. It simply hands the floor to the most deranged loony in the room.

Zebra3

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm delighted the tosser got jail, why would someone want to make a joke about a little girl who has probably had a horrible end to her short life.

I hope he gets a few slaps inside,

:rolleyes:

Of course by your own logic, you should be locked up for what you just posted. :

MaxSteele

British government couldn't care less about it's citizens. They just lick arse to look busy and do as they're told.

Reminds me of this farce.

Sure he'll have great fun. He can join the Aryan Brotherhood, get a few swastika's tattooed and engage in shank fights with blacks and latinos during shower time. :rolleyes:

Undercover Elephant

Deleted User wrote: »

Those boundaries are largely unwritten. For example, if I call you a prick on the street, it's not a nice thing to do, but you can't get me arrested for it.

You can, actually. Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, section 6. It has the same language which allows the British police to arrest anyone who they don't like, as soon as the word "fcuk" comes out of their mouths.

Undercover Elephant

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

You can, actually. Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, section 6. It has the same language which allows the British police to arrest anyone who they don't like, as soon as the word "fcuk" comes out of their mouths.

Yeah, and who is actually going to go to the Gardaí because someone called them a prick on the street? Maybe an eight year old. Will the Gardaí actually arrest the culprit?

Lingua Franca

Depends on whether or not you've been slipping them free coffees...

Undercover Elephant

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, and who is actually going to go to the Gardaí because someone called them a prick on the street? Maybe an eight year old. Will the Gardaí actually arrest the culprit?

Does it matter? Serious question. Isn't the lesson from this case that giving large discretionary powers to law enforcement officers is a bad idea?

steve9859

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't understand how the Internet works, do you? Policing it is impossible. Even in the most totalitarian of states, it is trivial to subvert Internet censorship.

IMO that doesnt mean that you dont try, and just wash your hands of it. Personally I think the UK authorities are doing a decent job of sending a message about what is acceptable. When explaining to your kids what they shouldn't be posting on-line, it's a hell of a lot easier when you're able to point to someone who is in a prison cell for what they did

Mountainsandh

goat2 wrote: »

no body in their right mind would even think of making sick jokes about children,
what kind of mindset does a person have,
in mind has to be a sick person who think like that never mind putting out there.
when anyone with any bit of human compassion would be hoping and wishing that april and maddie mccanne and other children who have been taken will be reunited with their parents in good health and having been taken good care of.

Totally agree with you Goat2, but it's not about that really, it's more about a man having the right to be thick, repulsive and offensive, if that does not cause harm to another person.

Some try to argue that being "offended" is to be harmed, imo it's not the same.

Mountainsandh

steve9859 wrote: »

IMO that doesnt mean that you dont try, and just wash your hands of it. Personally I think the UK authorities are doing a decent job of sending a message about what is acceptable. When explaining to your kids what they shouldn't be posting on-line, it's a hell of a lot easier when you're able to point to someone who is in a prison cell for what they did

Ah now, in fairness steve9859, I have young kids too, and you can be sure they'll never post something as bad online, and I won't need an example like your man to explain anything like that to them.

My name is URL

Meanwhile, Justin Lee Collins has been spared a jail term and instead received 140 hours of community service for abusing and harassing his ex-girlfriend

A jury found the Friday Night Project presenter guilty of subjecting his 38-year-old partner to sustained emotional and domestic abuse during their seven-month relationship.

The court heard how the TV personality forced his girlfriend to write down on a pad all her previous sexual encounters regardless of how graphic.

Collins made her sleep facing him, throw away DVDs because they featured actors she found attractive and made death threats against her.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/351100/Justin-Lee-Collins-found-guilty-of-harrassing-ex-girlfriend

super_furry

steve9859 wrote: »

IMO that doesnt mean that you dont try, and just wash your hands of it. Personally I think the UK authorities are doing a decent job of sending a message about what is acceptable. When explaining to your kids what they shouldn't be posting on-line, it's a hell of a lot easier when you're able to point to someone who is in a prison cell for what they did

Again I'm asking you, do you think Frankie Boyle should be sent to jail for his jokes about Madeline McCann?

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand your reasoning. Do you actually think it's a good idea to start imprisoning people who say distasteful things or make occasional offensive jokes? Did he constantly send messages to the family, mocking them for their loss?

What if you cracked a joke in the pub about Madeline McCann and the thought police dragged you away? I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune.

Well I guess that is the difference between us, I would never make a joke about a missing/murdered kid so no I wouldn't be singing a different tune.

Galwayguy35

Zebra3 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Of course by your own logic, you should be locked up for what you just posted. :

No i shouldn't.

Thrill

The thing that gets me is how far the bar has fallen.

An offensive opinion and sick jokes are now things you can be brought to court for and sent to jail over.

They seem to be able to interpret "grossly offensive" in any manner they choose. The current measure seems to be the size of the outcry over something posted online.

Feeona

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Ah now, in fairness steve9859, I have young kids too, and you can be sure they'll never post something as bad online, and I won't need an example like your man to explain anything like that to them.

It's not your kids (or kids like them) that need the example. There are seriously f*cked up people in society who need to be told and shown the difference between right and wrong, and no matter how much money, time, man hours and other resources are spent on trying to get the message across, some people either don't understand or choose to ignore the message.

Allyall

Seems like he's starting to gain some backing from the media.. a little..
In terms of Jail time..

The Guardian
Matthew Woods 'joking' about April Jones on Facebook is sick, not criminal

The Mirror
Why Twitter trolls like Matthew Woods should not be jailed.. no matter how vile they are

Huffington Post
The Law is a Twit

Chortle
When did being a dick become a crime?

Etc..

It is ridiculous that any jail time was given at all..
For one, it is an easy way out for the Court system. "Lock him up. Case Over."
Bullshít. They didn't even talk about it. This sort of case should be treated well different than that of a normal case. He should have been made pay a fine, and maybe some community service, with someone who may have opened his eyes. This 12 week sentence really has me annoyed. I don't know why, as it doesn't affect me, unless i go an live in the UK and start to abuse people online, but it does take away one of our most basic rights as human beings.. It's ridiculous sentence, and those morons that were on their way to his house should all be shot.

Nulty

Nulty wrote: »

What are you taking about? Are we allowed think of these jokes? Are we allowed write them down and hide them, are we allowed tell the joke to someone we think will find them funny? Are we allowed tell someone the joke so as to gauge the opinion of someone who hasn't heard it? Would it make a difference if his page was private?

What else do you want to stop people from saying? What's suitable offensive to you other than this? Is denying the holocaust as bad or worse in your estimation? Are we allowed tell holocaust jokes? What if a holocaust survivor tells a holocaust joke or a victim of sexual abuse tells a joke about sexual abuse?

I have tonnes more questions I could ask.

Exactly. All this 'it's not funny because it's X' stuff is so hypocritical. Look at all the jokes made on here about disabled people, other nationalities, all sorts of stuff. Anyone could get offended about anything.

Madam_X wrote: »

Kennedi Handsome Scabby I've made it clear I agree jail is ludicrous, so your third sentence is moot.

What would you deem social media comments that are harmful to others?

Things like death threats certainly warrant police attention, as do sustained bullying/harassment campaigns and internet stalking.

Posting a stupid joke on Facebook is in no way harmful to anyone. Nobody in April's family would have even seen it if some moron hadn't reported it to the police.

It's a total non-story and would have been ignored ten years ago, before the Great British Public turned into ridiculous, childish wet blankets with no sense of perspective. People who report things like this to the police should be arrested for wasting police time.

Allyall

Kennedi Handsome Scabby wrote: »

People who report things like this to the police should be arrested for wasting police time.

+1

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Wow. This is unreal. 3 months in jail for what?

It's an idiotic thing to joke about a child like that, but they sent him to jail for that?

Posts like this are hilarious;

I have young kids too, and you can be sure they'll never post something as bad online

This is laughable Mountainsandh, how exactly do you know what your kids will and will not do?

saintsaltynuts

Although i don't condone jokes about this little girl but if something like this happens and somebody says something sick about it it's like they get the blame.Alot of angry people out there have to vent their anger somewhere so they do it towards some eejit who is probably too thick to even think about what he was doing.

BASHIR

1984 springs to mind to be honest. We'll be afraid to say anything in case it might offend someone. As much as I think the joke is disgusting, how in hell is this a criminal offence.

Madam_X

Until the British state imprisons people for criticising the government/appearing to be critical of the government; spies on people in their homes; forbids any discussion/criticism of same, 1984 comparisons are comparing like with unlike.

A bit too RTDH to be making such statements.

Icepick

Even if it was a crime, this is just a waste of taxpayers' money. Fines and/or community service would be much more appropriate.

dirtyden

No sympathy for him.

Disgusting thing to do.

If racism online is a crime (incitement to hatred or whatever they call it) I dont see why something like this should not be.

BASHIR

Madam_X wrote: »

Until the British state imprisons people for criticising the government/appearing to be critical of the government; spies on people in their homes; forbids any discussion/criticism of same, 1984 comparisons are comparing like with unlike.

A bit too RTDH to be making such statements.

I never compared it, I said it sprang to my mind. Also I doubt he was smart enough to have his profile private but if it were then I would argue against your second point. Plus I dont know what RTDH is cant comment on that.

Allyall

dirtyden wrote: »

No sympathy for him.

Disgusting thing to do.

If racism online is a crime (incitement to hatred or whatever they call it) I dont see why something like this should not be.

Sympathy for him is irrelevant. He posted a joke (Few jokes) online, and is in prison.

:eek:

Run_to_da_hills

Today you will get arrested for a sick joke.

Tomorrow you will arrested for daring to suggest 7/7 was an inside job.

True sign of the up and coming fascist police state.

Allyall

UK "Freedom of Speech"

The UK is known around the world for its respect for and tolerance of free speech. Although free speech has long been recognised as a common law right in Britain, it also has a statutory basis in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the "Convention"), which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

In fact, Article 10 of the Convention goes beyond free "speech" and guarantees freedom of "expression," which includes not only the spoken word, but written material, images and other published or broadcast material.

When, however, you begin to consider the possible range of expression --including, say, hate speech that incites violence -- it becomes apparent that even a tolerant society has to put some limits on freedom of expression. Therefore, much of the law relating to free speech is concerned with trying to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the use (or abuse) of that freedom in a way that harms society.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights itself recognises the need for some limits on free expression. It provides, however, that limits can only be imposed in order to achieve certain specified aims, and only in so far as is necessary to achieve those aims. The Convention lists several permitted reasons for limiting free speech, including national security, the protection of health or morals, and protection of peoples' rights and reputations.

In my opinion, the people that incited hate speech that incites violence, are the ones that decided to get a Posse together, and call around to his house.

Should they not be arrested also??
If i was locked up "For my own safety", because 50 nutjobs had got together to call around to my house, i would want, at the very least, the "leaders" or Organisers arrested also. - As a matter of fact, I'd demand it.

Probably 5,000 or more people read his pages of sick jokes, and 50 or so, got together to beat him.. How the fúck does it make sense, that he's the one arrested?