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

Blisterman

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

It's amazing the number of people that think 'free speech' means you can say whatever the hell you like. 'Freedom of speech' doesn't cover things like hate speech, harassment, libel or slander.

Actually, the purpose of a right to free speech, is specifically to protect people with controversial, or even obscene opinions.

The reason for that is because nearly every idea which revolutionised the world for better or worse saw opposition and attempts at censorship when it was first proposed: The Theory of Evolution, Protestant Reformation, US Civil rights movement, the list goes on. In each case, what was being proposed was disgusting and abhorrent to the people of its day.

I'm not saying some idiot on Facebook is going to revolutionise the world, but that's its purpose, and the right to freedom of speech is an extremely valuable thing, which should be protected.

Latchy

Not everybody it seems is getting jail time for offensive remarks posted on FB.

A man who posted a Facebook message that said "all soldiers should die and go to hell" after six British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan was today spared jail.

Azhar Ahmed, 20, admitted posting the message two days after the deaths of the servicemen in March.

He was charged after the mother of one of the soldiers read the comments and was so upset she called the police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/09/azhar-ahmed-spared-jail-facebook-rant-british-soldiers_n_1950591.html


Other idiots are getting jail time ...

A man who wore a T-shirt with offensive comments referring to the the killing of two police officers in Greater Manchester has been jailed.

Barry Thew, 39, admitted wearing the shirt, which made reference to the deaths of PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes, at Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester.

Thew, of Worsley Street in Radcliffe, was jailed for four months.

Insp Bryn Williams said Thew's actions had been "morally reprehensible".

A police spokesman said Thew had been arrested after being seen wearing the T-shirt "just hours" after the two PCs died in a gun and grenade attack on 18 September.

He said the messages on the white shirt, which Thew was wearing in Radcliffe town centre, had been handwritten.

Mr Williams said that "to mock or joke about the tragic events of that morning is morally reprehensible and Thew has rightly been convicted for his actions".

"While officers on the ground were just learning of and trying to come to terms with the devastating news that two colleagues had been killed, Thew thought nothing of going out in public with a shirt daubed with appalling handwritten comments on," he said.

Thew was also sentenced to a further four months for breaching the conditions of an earlier 12 month suspended sentence for the possession of cannabis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19911943

Madam_X

Blisterman wrote: »

Actually, the purpose of a right to free speech, is specifically to protect people with controversial, or even obscene opinions.

The reason for that is because nearly every idea which revolutionised the world for better or worse saw opposition and attempts at censorship when it was first proposed: The Theory of Evolution, Protestant Reformation, US Civil rights movement, the list goes on. In each case, what was being proposed was disgusting and abhorrent to the people of its day.

I'm not saying some idiot on Facebook is going to revolutionise the world, but that's its purpose, and the right to freedom of speech is an extremely valuable thing, which should be protected.

He's not disputing that, just saying some people seem to think you could broadcast/publish whatever you liked up to now - you couldn't. And never could.

FourFourRED

I copied and pasted a joke from Sickipedia about the April Jones story on my Twitter page. Should I be jailed for 3 months too? :rolleyes:

Should Frankie Boyle be jailed for his 9/11 jokes? This is ridiculous.

Latchy

If everybody was made an example off half the world would be in jail .

Mickeroo

Madam_X wrote: »

He's not disputing that, just saying some people seem to think you could broadcast/publish whatever you liked up to now - you couldn't. And never could.

I think there's a difference between being able to say whatever you want and being able to crack a joke about whatever you want.

steve9859

Latchy wrote: »

Not everybody it seems is getting jail time for offensive remarks posted on FB.



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/09/azhar-ahmed-spared-jail-facebook-rant-british-soldiers_n_1950591.html


Other idiots are getting jail time ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19911943

Was just about to post that story about the guy getting 8 months. We are all debating where the line is drawn in respect of this stuff, but that t-shirt IMO is not a joke that might be offensive to some people.....rather he is being deliberately and obscenely provocative....and IMO is over the line and punishment should be meted out.

With respect to the differences in sentences, you get different sentences laid down by different judges in every area. It is not specific to this particular issue. A burglar might get a suspended sentence from one judge, community service from another, and a year inside from another for the same crime. That is just how the justice system works, and the check and balance exists in the right to appeal, not only the right of the defendent, but also the right of the CPS if they feel the sentence is too light

Ush1

Absolutely insane that he got sent to prison.

Have to say I'm suprised this happened in England rather than America where hate crimes are a big issue.

He said it on his own facebook page so basically for him and his mates? Would he have got sent down had his page been private?

Allyall

Ush1 wrote: »

Absolutely insane that he got sent to prison.

Have to say I'm suprised this happened in England rather than America where hate crimes are a big issue.

He said it on his own facebook page so basically for him and his mates? Would he have got sent down had his page been private?

I think it was a Public FB page that had fans. It was called something like "Sick Jokes" or similar.

There is so much more to this, People had been making complaints about him for a while, and nothing was done, so he was even more confident that he was operating inside the law. FB did nothing either, and actually still have tons of sick joke pages active.

This guy didn't even get a warning. Not that that should make a difference, as the whole punishment is ridiculous for this.

Ush1

Allyall wrote: »

I think it was a Public FB page that had fans. It was called something like "Sick Jokes" or similar.

There is so much more to this, People had been making complaints about him for a while, and nothing was done, so he was even more confident that he was operating inside the law. FB did nothing either, and actually still have tons of sick joke pages active.

This guy didn't even get a warning. Not that that should make a difference, as the whole punishment is ridiculous for this.

But you had to like the sick jokes page to get it? As in, you would have to be avidly looking to be offended to find it.

What do people expect from a page called sick jokes?

end of the road

steve9859 wrote: »

that t-shirt IMO is not a joke that might be offensive to some people.....rather he is being deliberately and obscenely provocative

yeah, for those who want it to be, meanwhile for those who have a life, they will just get on with it, to be honest he was only arrested because of that particular police forces anger and upset, nothing else.

steve9859 wrote: »

and IMO is over the line

not enough to justify a waste of money like this.

steve9859 wrote: »

punishment should be meted out.

no it shouldn't, waste of money.

Allyall

Ush1 wrote: »

But you had to like the sick jokes page to get it? As in, you would have to be avidly looking to be offended to find it.

What do people expect from a page called sick jokes?

Yeah. That was his point a month or two ago, when people were complaining about something else. He kept telling them that they didn't have to log in to his page (or whatever the correct term is), to view the jokes that they didn't like. They could look at pages with funny animals etc..

He had a large group hating him before April Jones happened. So they just took their opportunity to pounce.

Latchy

steve9859 wrote: »

Was just about to post that story about the guy getting 8 months. We are all debating where the line is drawn in respect of this stuff, but that t-shirt IMO is not a joke that might be offensive to some people.....rather he is being deliberately and obscenely provocative....and IMO is over the line and punishment should be meted out.

That would be how I see it .If guy had some beef about the police beforehand and wore that T shirt as a protest, it is in the main, still obscenely provocative and also offensive to most people

With respect to the differences in sentences, you get different sentences laid down by different judges in every area. It is not specific to this particular issue. A burglar might get a suspended sentence from one judge, community service from another, and a year inside from another for the same crime. That is just how the justice system works, and the check and balance exists in the right to appeal, not only the right of the defendent, but also the right of the CPS if they feel the sentence is too light

That is why there is at the moment an ongoing debate in UK as to weather life should mean life instead of these 15,20 year terms .

Blisterman

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."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19910865

Voice of reason from the most senior prosecutor in the UK.

Allyall

It's not totally dissimilar to Libricide or THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc7rBVUIHUg

In the end, i think it was those who did the burning, that came out looking like they should. I am not comparing Matthew Woods to the Beatles, or Miguel de Cervantes etc.. But i am comparing the Facebook Self appointed censors, to the people who used to burn all that material..

end of the road

story 1
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/09/azhar-ahmed-spared-jail-facebook-rant-british-soldiers_n_1950591.html

He was charged after the mother of one of the soldiers read the comments and was
so upset she called the police.

she should be charged with and jailed for wasting police time along with being forced to pay back every penny spent on investigating this and all court costs. their was nothing wrong with the comment to be honest, he does have a point, i have more concern for the innocent men women and children who are killed in war then those actually fighting it.
story 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19911943

Thew, 39, had admitted a public order offence and was jailed for four months.

public order offense my b////. a waste of time money and a prison space to.

Speaking after the hearing at Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester, Insp
Bryn Williams said Thew's actions had been "morally reprehensible".

so are a lot of things, racism for one. still you don't see people being dragged before the courts for some of the racist trash they write on facebook, unless of course its a celeb, all though its the average foreign national who has the trash writing about them so thats okay

A police spokesman said Thew, of Worsley Street, Radcliffe, had been arrested
after being seen wearing the T-shirt "just hours" after the constables died in a
gun and grenade attack in Mottram on 18 September.

yeah, proves my point his arrest was out of anger and upset of the police rather then the comments.

Latchy

Allyall wrote: »

In the end, i think it was those who did the burning, that came out looking like they should. I am not comparing Matthew Woods to the Beatles, or Miguel de Cervantes etc.. But i am comparing the Facebook Self appointed censors, to the people who used to burn all that material..

The burning of Beatles records back then is a perfect example of hysteria but as we know was done when a comment by Lennon was taken out of context but still managed to offend those southern bible belt Americans .

end of the road wrote: »

his arrest was out of anger and upset of the police rather then the comments.

A red rag to a bull will only make him charge .

Allyall

Latchy wrote: »

The burning of Beatles records back then is a perfect example of hysteria but as we know was done when a comment by Lennon was taken out of context but still managed to offend those southern bible belt Americans.

That's what originally reminded me. That these people were offended by something he said, and then acted on it.
FB is just a community, with, as in real life, plenty of people you don't like, watching your business. I'm not on it, nor will i ever be, but i watch the news and nearly once a fortnight without fail, something ludicrous happens on it. My perception of it is, the people that use it, don't have general common sense..

I added the book burning as an afterthought because of the stupidity of it.

steve9859

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, proves my point his arrest was out of anger and upset of the police rather then the comments.

The upset of the police was due to him being deliberately provocative, which I don't think counts as free speech....the timing of it proves that. It is not a sick joke....it is deliberate taunting. And you're blaming the police...!!!

Ash.J.Williams

tigger123 wrote: »

People need to realise that the things you post online are not viewed in the same way as the jokes you crack when you're around your friends.

it's fine if you're frankie boyle but not if you are a teenager

end of the road

steve9859 wrote: »

The upset of the police was due to him being deliberately provocative, which I don't think counts as free speech....the timing of it proves that. It is not a sick joke....it is deliberate taunting. And you're blaming the police...!!!

yes i am, they weren't impartial, they let their upset and anger cloud their judgement, also theirs going to be at least a 10 to 20 % cut in officers in the uk so they will try and do what they can to either hault the reduction or make it less of a reduction and if arresting people for saying something offensive is an option they will take it as they can say something like this.
(with inventions such as social networking we will not be able deal with ordinary crimes as well as this if this reduction happens, social networking needs as much dedication from us as investigating murder for example)

Latchy

Allyall wrote: »

That's what originally reminded me. That these people were offended by something he said, and then acted on it.
FB is just a community, with, as in real life, plenty of people you don't like, watching your business. I'm not on it, nor will i ever be, My perception of it is, the people that use it, don't have general common sense.

I think people who don't use Facebook ( for whatever reasons they care to name ) fail to realize is that you only add as friends who you wish and you also get rid of anybody who you deem to be causing offense or you just ' plain don't like ' but also having tons of friends just for the sake of numbers is daft and stupid in itself .

but i watch the news and nearly once a fortnight without fail, something ludicrous happens on it.

We seem to live in a news world were we are waiting for the next big human ''**** stirring '' story

I added the book burning as an afterthought because of the stupidity of it

I knew why you did to .

steve9859

end of the road wrote: »

yes i am, they weren't impartial, they let their upset and anger cloud their judgement, also theirs going to be at least a 10 to 20 % cut in officers in the uk so they will try and do what they can to either hault the reduction or make it less of a reduction and if arresting people for saying something offensive is an option they will take it as they can say something like this.
(with inventions such as social networking we will not be able deal with ordinary crimes as well as this if this reduction happens, social networking needs as much dedication from us as investigating murder for example)

Well, I blame him, 100%. The context of this is very different to Franky Boyle making a similarly offensive joke. 8 months is harsh but he wont serve that. But I'm with the police on this one.

As as fpr social networking, it needs boundaries set....but we ain't ever gonna agree on that, so no point going round in circles.

Lingua Franca

steve9859 wrote: »

The context of this is very different to Franky Boyle making a similarly offensive joke.

How? What if Frankie Boyle had gone on stage in Manchester that night wearing that t shirt or telling jokes about dead pigs? 8 months jail for him?

As as fpr social networking, it needs boundaries set....but we ain't ever gonna agree on that, so no point going round in circles.

It does have boundaries set. You can adjust your privacy settings and there's actually quite a lot of choice. You can block people. You can make your account visible to friends only. You can organise your friends into lists and select who sees what (for example, no children can see anything I post unless I specifically allow that list to see a post). And with social media, you actually can choose your family as well as your friends. You can report spam and threatening/incitement to hatred posts (which ARE illegal) to facebook.

Do really you think you should actually be able to monitor and choose what I post on there?

Allyall

Latchy wrote: »

I think people who don't use Facebook ( for whatever reasons they care to name ) fail to realize is that you only add as friends who you wish and you also get rid of anybody who you deem to be causing offense or you just ' plain don't like ' but also having tons of friends just for the sake of numbers is daft and stupid in itself .

Yep, i get it, but people can still read my posts, or repost my posts. People you may add may will not have the same sense of humour as you, only some will, and that in itself could lead to misunderstandings.. I wouldn't be in a pub/Bingo Hall/Club and walk up to a guy i know barely, and proceed to tell him some story about my coat hangers, or tell him my beliefs, or whether or not i agree with abortion etc.. So why do it online?

Latchy wrote: »

We seem to live in a news world were we are waiting for the next big human ''**** stirring '' story

Yeah, but i'm referring to cráp that apppears, like People's private messages on the front wall, or a girl in Netherlands inviting 23,000 people to a party. (Which has happened loads of times IIRC)

Not slating FB, each to their own, but if you use it, you have to show some common sense.
That applies to everyone. But no matter what you say on it, Jail should not be a possible outcome. It is sheer Madness.

Helix

Allyall wrote: »

Yep, i get it, but people can still read my posts, or repost my posts. People you may add may will not have the same sense of humour as you, only some will, and that in itself could lead to misunderstandings.. I wouldn't be in a pub/Bingo Hall/Club and walk up to a guy i know barely, and proceed to tell him some story about my coat hangers, or tell him my beliefs, or whether or not i agree with abortion etc.. So why do it online?

why would you have a guy you barely know on your facebook?

the only people who can read your facebook posts are the people you want reading your facebook posts. it's not rocket science

if some friends are into more risque stuff than others, make a list and only make those posts visible to that list

sceptre

It's a funny old world where being tauntingly offensive can get you a jail sentence while <insert other idiotic thing of your choice> doesn't. I get offended by blatant stupidity more than almost anything else, yet I don't want to see people put in prison for it. In any case, we'd run out of prison spaces before the weekend.

I completely fail to see the difference between some random teenager making idiotic explicit posts on facebook and a well-known comedian saying the same thing in public or on twitter. Facebook has policies against certain things, it's their playground.

end of the road

steve9859 wrote: »

I'm with the police on this one.

really? your okay with a police force not being impartial? and using their anger and upset as an excuse to arrest people rather then a crime? if you are thats fine but most wouldn't be.

Allyall

Helix wrote: »

the only people who can read your facebook posts are the people you want reading your facebook posts. it's not rocket science

But People can repost your posts..

sceptre wrote: »

It's a funny old world where being tauntingly offensive can get you a jail sentence while <insert other idiotic thing of your choice> doesn't. I get offended by blatant stupidity more than almost anything else, yet I don't want to see people put in prison for it. In any case, we'd run out of prison spaces before the weekend.

Steve Hughes sums it up perfectly.. BBC removed his video from Youtube

http://www.thatvideosite.com/v/2822

marienbad

It took the best part of 10 years to get Abu Hamza extradited and this guy gets jailed in the space of 10 days ? How is that possible ?

It seems these stupid and naive posters are pressed into confessing to a vague internet crime as in a kind of plea bargain deal and on this basis are then sentenced ?

This could not possibly happen with proper lawyers . Remember a few years ago Billy Connolly made a joke about a soldier held in captivity and constantly threatened with execution . And the following day he was excuted - cue shock outrage at Billy but only for a few days .

It seems telling jokes in poor taste depends on who you are - plus sa change ...

Helix

Allyall wrote: »

But People can repost your posts..

the only people who can read your posts are people you let read your post. set your privacy settings up properly and ONLY people on your friends list, or people who are on special lists for certain things, made by you, can read them

you seem to be under the illusion that everyone can read everyone elses posts. they can't - not if you set your privacy settings up properly

Latchy

Allyall wrote: »

Yep, i get it, but people can still read my posts, or repost my posts. People you may add may will not have the same sense of humour as you, only some will, and that in itself could lead to misunderstandings.. I wouldn't be in a pub/Bingo Hall/Club and walk up to a guy i know barely, and proceed to tell him some story about my coat hangers, or tell him my beliefs, or whether or not i agree with abortion etc.. So why do it online?

Anybody posting their strong religious ,political views or their own brand of humor to the masses can expect to get a lot of attention and it wont always be of the nice kind either ....''you reap what you sow'' .

I am sure many people have posted something on FB only to take it off or edit it ,not because they were out to intentionally offend ( sensible people don't need to ) but because they thought how they worded something ' might ' do and of course if you know somebody on FB and in real life then your banter is not going to be miscued .

Yeah, but i'm referring to cráp that apppears, like People's private messages on the front wall,

I think that was found to be false ,it wasn't private messages but only quote from what other people friends were posting .

or a girl in Netherlands inviting 23,000 people to a party. (Which has happened loads of times IIRC)

Yet people never seen to learn .

Not slating FB, each to their own, but if you use it, you have to show some common sense.
That applies to everyone. But no matter what you say on it, Jail should not be a possible outcome. It is sheer Madness.

Exactly ...which is what people in the main are saying here but the idiots who don't put much or any thought into what they are posting don't have that basic common sense .

My name is URL

The UK's director of public prosecutions today announced new guidelines which means that people making non-threatening yet offensive, obscene or just plain stupid posts online are less likely to face prosecution.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/19/twitter-facebook-jokers-prosecution?INTCMP=SRCH

The guidelines come into force on Wednesday and Starmer has drawn a clear distinction between grossly offensive, obscene or false posts and those that credibly threaten violence, harass or stalk and breach court orders such as anonymity for rape victims. He said the CPS would deal "robustly" with the latter categories of social media use which include trolling.

Nice to see common sense prevailing...

YFlyer

Or join the Westboro Baptist Church.

kristopher_1

My name is URL wrote: »

Nice to see common sense prevailing...

Hmm, fiscal sense?

My name is URL

kristopher_1 wrote: »

Hmm, fiscal sense?

Well, amongst other things I'm sure, though I doubt it was a deciding factor.

Do you believe that people who cause offense to others should be jailed despite no other crime taking place?

opti0nal

My name is URL wrote: »

Do you believe that people who cause offense to others should be jailed despite no other crime taking place?

That would depend on whether or not causing offense to others is a crime.

My name is URL

opti0nal wrote: »

That would depend on whether or not causing offense to others is a crime.

Well it isn't.. so case dismissed!

The Court's supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a "democratic society". Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. It is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society".

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57499

kristopher_1

My name is URL wrote:

Do you believe that people who cause offense to others should be jailed
despite no other crime taking place?

I believe you may feel different if it was your daughter that was raped and murdered and someone made a joke about it.

My name is URL

kristopher_1 wrote: »

I believe you may feel different if it was your daughter that was raped and murdered and someone made a joke about it.

Thank god for objectivity...?

kristopher_1

My name is URL wrote: »

Thank god or objectivity...?

People today lack empathy.

The mother of April Jones is going out of her mind and people want to make jokes..

My name is URL

kristopher_1 wrote: »

People today lack empathy.

The mother of April Jones is going out of her mind and people want to make jokes..

The mother of poor little Tragic April has more important things to be thinking about at this point in time than a few nobodies cracking sillies.

Isn't it all well and good for us to be able to get so offended about all the bad stuff happening to strangers?

kristopher_1

Am I missing something here?

Is this a hoax or something?

Lingua Franca

No, what people are saying here is that April Jone's mother has better things to be doing with her time than scouring the internet looking for people making sick jokes about her daughter. You are getting affronted on her behalf.

kristopher_1 wrote: »

People today lack empathy.

The mother of April Jones is going out of her mind and people want to make jokes..

Ahh, you're new. Welcome to the internet! LOLcats is that way and wikipedia is straight ahead. Never, ever confuse wikipedia with sickipedia. And DON'T GO INTO THE BASEMENT, it is many levelled and dark.

GLaDOS

kristopher_1 wrote: »

People today lack empathy.

People have the same level of empathy as they always have, some people are assholes, and that's always been true.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

kristopher_1 wrote: »

I believe you may feel different if it was your daughter that was raped and murdered and someone made a joke about it.

maybe he would but that doesn't mean he'd be right

RustyNut

kristopher_1 wrote: »

I believe you may feel different if it was your daughter that was raped and murdered and someone made a joke about it.

I wonder could you point me to the approved list of subjects about which it is ok to make jokes without worrying about offending someone ?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

RustyNut wrote: »

I wonder could you point me to the approved list of subjects about which it is ok to make jokes without worrying about offending someone ?

airplane peanuts


it's a short list

kristopher_1

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote:

maybe he would but that doesn't mean he'd be right

I think it's safe to say anyone that finds a joke about a child being murdered and raped has some issues and maybe needs help.

They should have let the mob beat the sick asshole up, that would be completely well deserved. He probably watches children being raped on the internet if he can find something like that funny.

That's my view on the matter and if you don't like it, tough sh!t because I really couldn't give a fck what any of you think and I really mean I don't care for what you think..seriously. stick your views up your ass.

orestes

kristopher_1 wrote: »

I think it's safe to say anyone that finds a joke about a child being murdered and raped has some issues and maybe needs help.

They should have let the mob beat the sick asshole up, that would be completely well deserved. He probably watches children being raped on the internet if he can find something like that funny.

That's my view on the matter and if you don't like it, tough sh!t because I really couldn't give a fck what any of you think and I really mean I don't care for what you think..seriously. stick your views up your ass.

I don't think we're the ones that need help dude, that's some serious anger management issues right there