Student gets 250 hours community service over Tweet

IvaBigWun2

A UK Student who tweeted that people wearing Help for Heroes shirt 'deserve to be beheaded' has been sentenced to community service

• Deyka Ayan Hassan, 21, meant the comment to be a jokey criticism of the design of the t-shirt worn by supporters of the forces charity
• She was arrested at home after admitting to police she had tweeted 'to be honest, if you wear a Help for Heroes t-shirt you deserve to be beheaded'
• Ordered to do 250 hours of unpaid work by magistrates today, having admitted a charge of sending a malicious electronic message

Could this ever happen in Ireland?



Full article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337635/Lee-Rigby-murder-Student-tweeted-people-wearing-Help-Heroes-shirt-deserve-beheaded-sentenced-community-service.html

seklly

You have to do community service in jail now?

hatrickpatrick

A UK Student

Stopped reading there. The UK has gone batsh!t insane in recent years when it comes to freedom of expression, I can think of several Middle Eastern regimes which would be very proud...

IvaBigWun2

seklly wrote: »

You have to do community service in jail now?

Well not jailed but the result was still a bit mad.

Edit: Fixed!

Late Student

We need tougher laws on online defamation IMO

crazygeryy

he should have got the death penalty in fairness.

Late Student

She not he and no it was a tasteless joke it seems. But this incident in hysterical Britain aside the laws here for real defamation is weak.

sdanseo

crazygeryy wrote: »

he should have got the death penalty in fairness.

It was a She. Pays to read the thread before you jump in with silly comments

Locanfetzava

The UK and USA are bed buddies in this rising fascist "New World Order" as it has correctly been coined.

I only read today that a US teenager has the prospect of an 8 year prison sentence for a malicious blog.

It makes me sick that the leaders of both these countries are working overtime trying to arm Islamic terrorists to kill and murder in illegal wars in Syria and beyond while their own citizens are being chastised for the pettiest of offences.

http://rt.com/usa/prison-years-teenager-sarcastic-383/

Late Student

I would agree that is mad but they do have issues with these shootings and it's full of nutjobs over there who are armed..whos to say he was joking?

crazygeryy

sdeire wrote: »

It was a She. Pays to read the thread before you jump in with silly comments

oooops

silly comments in ah, never.

Festy

Late Student wrote: »

I would agree that is mad but they do have issues with these shootings and it's full of nutjobs over there who are armed..whos to say he was joking?

"LOL" "JK" :pac:

mathepac

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Stopped reading there. ...

+1. I suspected it would be someone trying to make a thread out of some piece of anodyne / right wing nonsense from a UK red-top.

Cody Pomeray

So people can be prosecuted or sued for what they say online, should we be surprised?

While a lot of online conversations are 'barstool chitchat', I don't believe we should automatically treat online statements very differently to speaking with a megaphone on Dame Street.

keith16

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

So people can be prosecuted or sued for what they say online, should we be surprised?

While a lot of online conversations are 'barstool chitchat', I don't believe we should automatically treat online statements very differently to speaking with a megaphone on Dame Street.

Ah but something like twitter has the ability to reach a global audience unlike the Dame St. Guy.

A common theme with these arrests is that they are related to tweets that comment on highly sensitive topic or event that could incite hatred. If she had just randomly tweeted that without the event ever taking place, it would go unnoticed.

It really is a horrible thing to have tweeted.

corktina

horrible and stupid thing to tweet imo. 250 hours seems harsh, but it has a deterrent effect i guess.

Ruudi_Mentari

keith16 wrote: »

It really is a horrible thing to have tweeted.

yeah what a sweet tweet he should join the morning chorus!






In hell.....

kneemos

keith16 wrote: »

Ah but something like twitter has the ability to reach a global audience unlike the Dame St. Guy.

A common theme with these arrests is that they are related to tweets that comment on highly sensitive topic or event that could incite hatred. If she had just randomly tweeted that without the event ever taking place, it would go unnoticed.

It really is a horrible thing to have tweeted.

It has the ability to reach a global audience but in reality a handfull is the most that will ever read it.There has to be some protection against incitement to hatred in fairness though in this case the penality was a bit extreme,at least it will keep her off the computer.

Getting arrested for stuff like that is absolutely stupid

Ruudi_Mentari

bluewolf wrote: »

Getting arrested for stuff like that is absolutely stupid

- I've been to prison for less.

Thinking about it, there should be a legal halfway house between being arrested and doing nothing, something where you are challenged on what you say, but get warned what's offensive about what you say & asked do you still stand by it. Every bit as hassling as court, but without the dire consequences.

What think ye?

SpaceTime

It's tasteless, offensive and stupid behaviour but i really do think they've gone way too far in the UK in terms of over reacting to Tweets and Social Media.

People say offensive, horrible things all the time. We need to be able to respond to those things with argument and debate not just by censorship and criminal sanctions.

That's really threading on very thin ice and moving towards a society that is more like a dictatorship without the freedom of speech rights that the UK is supposed to stand for and fight for.

Not only that but they gave a really dumb tweet the oxygen of massive national publicity !

Twitter is more than capable of suspending or closing an account for breech of T&Cs.

Ruudi_Mentari

Whatever his sentiments, hot-headed young buck and all that you know the medium and how it can be used these days so a rallying call for copycat headings is insane how's he not in the nick; m8.

Grayson

It's nuts. She contacted the police over threats of rape and murder, but she was found to be the criminal. i wonder if a single one of those threats was followed up on.

Deyka Ayan Hassan, 21, contacted officers after receiving hundreds of vitriolic responses to the message on May 22, including threats to rape her and kill her by burning down her home, Hendon Magistrates' Court heard.

But she was herself later arrested at home after admitting to police she had tweeted 'to be honest, if you wear a Help for Heroes t-shirt you deserve to be beheaded' as a 'joke' about the design of the item of clothing.

Amirani

Ruudi_Mentari wrote: »

Whatever his sentiments, hot-headed young buck and all that you know the medium and how it can be used these days so a rallying call for copycat headings is insane how's he not in the nick; m8.

Did you read the OP?

wp_rathead

First off, was **** and tasteless joke - no disbuting that

All that should have happened was her twitter account be blocked- no need for courts to get involved unless it was constant, continued harrasment

Interesting how people who tweeted her back going "**** you, you deserve beheaded" don't get any community service

SeanW

IvaBigWun2 wrote: »

A UK Student who tweeted that people wearing Help for Heroes shirt 'deserve to be beheaded' has been sentenced to community service

• Deyka Ayan Hassan,

But was it actually a joke?

Grayson

wprathead wrote: »

First off, was **** and tasteless joke - no disbuting that

All that should have happened was her twitter account be blocked- no need for courts to get involved unless it was constant, continued harrasment

Interesting how people who tweeted her back going "**** you, you deserve beheaded" don't get any community service

At the most it should have been a fifty quid fine and maybe, just maybe a few hours of community service.

AdamD

There should be no punishment whatsoever

She said jokingly that people wearing a certain t-shirt deserve to be beheaded.

Other people contacted her personally to threaten raping and killing her.

How is she the person being penalised?

It's not that she was prosecuted that surprises me, but the ridiculous lack of priorities that the British (and in my opinion, the Irish) judicial systems seem to have. We've heard loads of stories from both Britain and Ireland about repeat offenders committing literally hundreds of crimes and never being put away until they eventually kill someone. And yet internet bloggers and people running movie-streaming sites can get time in prison easily. It makes no sense.

Then there's also the issue of it being to do with the armed forces. Like they're a special group of humans you couldn't dare slag, while a young woman being threatened with rape is just desserts after such a slagging.

SpaceTime

She appears to have gotten some serious abuse on Twitter for her comments. That's how freedom of speech works! You say something, other people respond.

The state doesn't jump into the middle of it to censor everything.

Amirani

SpaceTime wrote: »

She appears to have gotten some serious abuse on Twitter for her comments. That's how freedom of speech works! You say something, other people respond.

The state doesn't jump into the middle of it to censor everything.

It appears they do judging by the outcome.

Jester252

Maybe she will think before she tweets again. Just a reminder free speach only exists in the USA. Her stupid comment did nothing but incite anger which is against the law.

Amirani

Jester252 wrote: »

Maybe she will think before she tweets again. Just a reminder free speach only exists in the USA. Her stupid comment did nothing but incite anger which is against the law.

Your post incites anger in me. Does that make it against the law? You should probably go turn yourself in.

sheesh

say something offensive and get community service! franky boyle must be
sh**ting himself!

Jester252

NiallSparky wrote: »

Your post incites anger in me. Does that make it against the law? You should probably go turn yourself in.

I suggest you look up hate speach laws.

Amirani

Jester252 wrote: »

I suggest you look up hate speach laws.

You already told us her crime though and the legality of it? What more does the law say?

It is my opinion that you have committed the same crime, and that's all this is about, opinions?

Jester252

NiallSparky wrote: »

You already told us her crime though and the legality of it? What more does the law say?

It is my opinion that you have committed the same crime, and that's all this is about, opinions?

If you looked up hate crime laws. You'll know what she did wrong.

AdamD

Jester252 wrote: »

If you looked up hate crime laws. You'll know what she did wrong.

Since you supposedly know do you want to fill him in or what?

biko

She's kinda cute. Will make a good fourth wife for some lucky warrior.

What exactly is wrong with saying that? Free speech just a fading memory in some countries? And what does "inciting anger" even mean?

Is it any different to me saying right now online, "Any one with a swastika tattoo deserves to get beheaded."?

Amirani

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with saying that? Free speech just a fading memory in some countries? And what does "inciting anger" even mean?

Is it any different to me saying right now online, "Any one with a swastika tattoo deserves to get beheaded."?

Absolutely agreed. I've seen more hateful comments online many times. The poor British Army needs protecting though.

holystungun9

Late Student wrote: »

We need tougher laws on online defamation IMO

Stick 'em all in the prison forum. Boards could make a tidy little profit.

humbert

It's not the magnitude of the sentence it's the disturbing fact that she has been charged for expressing an opinion. She was not inciting hatred. That malicious electronic message legislation is really and truly Orwellian.

The world changes slowly and what is normal changes along with it but there are a lot of new laws being brought in, particularly in the UK and America, that should never be view as normal.

Dostoevsky

IvaBigWun2 wrote: »

A UK Student who tweeted that people wearing Help for Heroes shirt 'deserve to be beheaded' has been sentenced to community service

Proper order. For centuries all these British heroes have been going around the world selflessly civilising the natives and even going to the trouble of looking after their lands and wealth out of concern for the natives. That anybody could question whether they were/are actually heroes, or are just robbing murdering bastards and thugs in the uniform of a foreign occupying force is just not tolerable.

Heroes, every last one of them. Forget this, and pay the consequences.

R P McMurphy

Jester252 wrote: »

Maybe she will think before she tweets again. Just a reminder free speach only exists in the USA. Her stupid comment did nothing but incite anger which is against the law.

Maybe you should think before you post

Gummy Panda

In Ireland, does the incitement to hatred act cover social media?

COYVB

Jester252 wrote: »

free speach only exists in the USA

LOL!

Jester252

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
A person guilty of an offence under this section is 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.

stoneill

People need to learn the difference between intent and impact.
She is an English and Politics student and couldn't foresee how her tweet would be received?

Feathers

humbert wrote: »

It's not the magnitude of the sentence it's the disturbing fact that she has been charged for expressing an opinion. She was not inciting hatred. That malicious electronic message legislation is really and truly Orwellian.

Agree with this. The current laws we have were written with post & telephone in mind and then expanded to cover 'electronic' communication — social media in general is a completely different medium.

The delivery is more akin to broadcasting, & while that can mean that you've a wider reach, it also means that the impact on an individual is more diluted — it's not equivalent to targetting someone & sending them malicious post or telephone calls.

At the same time, traditional broadcasting has checks & balances in place to make sure anything that would contravene the law isn't aired — e.g. running things through a legal team, or the 6 second delay even on live broadcasts.

People use social media to talk in their own tone of voice, & think that they're talking to an audience who understands that tone of voice. It's easy to say they should be more educated in the law, but I think the problem here is that the law hasn't yet caught up with the medium.