Three Years in Prison for Posting Hatespeak

Vainglorious Coward writes "In the UK, a man has been sentenced to three years in prison for posting inflammatory messages to a website. Pleading guilty to inciting racial hatred on a site dedicated to the memory of a murdered black teenager, the 30-year old accused stated that he was not racist, and had intended to stir up an argument on the website, but did not believe in what he had written. The defending lawyer described her client as 'isolated and living in a fantasy world, spending hours on his computer in his room where his persona could be as he made it, good or bad.'"

Comments

Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

3 years for trolling? Isn't it a bit too much?

The blurb (IDNRTFA) makes it sound like he was posting in a private board. If it was, it'd be easy to just have him banned, and require new users to be approved by a moderator.

The GNAA better watch out. The interweb is getting dangerous...

Re:Trolls

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

The story to read is this one.

Re:Trolls

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

And this.

Re:Trolls

[theshowmecanuck]

And I am posting to slashdot from prison because of what my .sig here says.

Yep... sarcasm noted. But is it just the government you need to be afraid of for stating your mind. The Dixie Chicks, as one example, received numerous death threats, had contracts cancelled, had their records burned etc. for voicing their displeasure at Bush's decision to invade Iraq. And in the 'States where there are probably as many guns available to anyone who wants one as in a sub-Saharan African war zone, death threats are a serious thing to worry about. I know this is a 'knee-jerk' reaction but I had to say it. :-/

But *before* you go lambasting me, I do agree and envy the much freer speach that America enjoys. In Canada for example, many things said by the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S. would land them in jail in Canada. While I think the Klan are composed of mostly inbred morons, and I loath/hate/despise everything about them... I totally back their right to say whatever they want. Censoring speach is a slippery slope to government or others trying to control how you think. This is as bad as any other violation to your person. If some moron is spouting stupidity (e.g. the Klan or other Nazi or Communist shill), a good education and exposure to a wider world of knowledge is the best defence against shite like that spreading. Thought control by its nature is the exact opposite to this and counter productive. So hats off to the free speech laws in the U.S.A. However I wish that people wouldn't have to resort to expressig their differences by threating (and sometimes carrying out) to kill someone over something they didn't like hearing.

Crap, we have laws like that?

[Olix]

Eeerk, I didn't realise we had laws like that in the UK... I need to step up my "move to sweden" plan.

Re:Crap, we have laws like that?

[Das Modell]

Eeerk, I didn't realise we had laws like that in the UK... I need to step up my "move to sweden" plan.

You know what the funny thing is? All those Muslims who were inciting terror, violence and treason in the streets didn't get any prison sentences. They were standing in a public place in plain sight, saying things like "behead those who insult Islam" and "Europe is the cancer Islam is the answer." The guy in TFA was posting anonymous comments on the Internet. This is an obvious instance of "reverse" apartheid where Muslims have more rights than everyone else. It's a growing trend in many countries.

As for Sweden, the government actually shut down a site that published the Mohammed cartoons. They're as totalitarian as everyone else, and their society is on the brink of self-destruction. I suggest picking a different country to move to.

Re:Crap, we have laws like that?

[Instine]

Yes - I agree it must be even handed. Seeing banners stating the pope must be killed, etc.. isn't making me feel comfortable, and I'm not catholic (or religious). But what you don't see in the same tabloids that you saw that in, is that many of these people ARE on charges, and ending up in the dock, or being watched by various agenceis. So its actually more even handed than the papers would have you believe.

Re:Crap, we have laws like that?

[notbob]

Protect the public from racism?

How about protecting the public from censorship and violating our basic rights to free speech.

Just because someone says something in and internet message board is no reason to put them behind bars for 3 years. You want to protect one worthless groups "rights" by violating those of another, how hypocritical.

Everyone should have the right to say exactly how they feel whenever they want without fear or persecution or prosecution without exception.

If you can't handle racism then go kill yourself and be done with it as you won't have to worry about it and we won't have to listen to your whining. The world needs to move back away from this nanny state and get back to true freedoms.

Re:Crap, we have laws like that?

[demeteloaf]

Currently, In the United States, the litmus test for whether something is considered free speech is whether it would cause an "imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio). This has been taken to mean that it's okay to advocate abstract violence or breaking the law, but as soon as you start encouraging specific actions in a time frame sooner than police officers can be reasonably summoned, It's not constitutionally protected speech amymore. Inciting a riot probably falls under that category. The original case dealt with a KKK rally in Ohio, and the ruling stated that it was acceptible to promote hate against minorities, as long as the speech didn't cause an"imminent lawless action."

I think if this happened in the United States, it would have been constitutionally protected speech. We have those crazy people who show up at soldiers' funerals protesting the war with their "GOD HATES FAGS" signs, and they're allowed to do that. So I think this is a case where British Laws just happen to be more strict on something like this.

Bad Summary

[Inverted Intellect]

Bad submitter, bad!

TFA doesn't say anything about what crime in particular he was jailed for, and his sentence may have been partly or completely due to his having 33 images of child pornography on his computer.

TFA is also very lacking in details, and doesn't say anything about the reason for the search warrant, and the aforementioned lack of explanation for his sentence.

it's there too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's available in Sweden too, labeled "racial hatred incitement" ("hets mot folkgrupp")...

Re:Doing Time For Words

[quintesse]

I don't know about the UK, but I never heard of any movement in Holland that wanted to get rid of this law.

I must admit that I have no idea what you'd have to write on a website to get you in that much trouble, but I'm pretty sure that if you'd go around spreading leaflets about how the Holocaust was an okay thing to do and that we should in fact continue to send Jews to their deaths you'd wind up in jail pretty soon and most people would be relieved to have you off the streets.

But of course I'm not The Dutch People so I might be wrong :-)

Re:reputation?

[thejam]

Huh? Maybe you're just trolling, but I'll try anyway. I'm in fact not trying to stop you from saying anything, but if it hurts, you shouldn't be anonymous. Yes, you can call me an idiot in the subway, but then everyone there sees you do it, as do I. If you do that a lot, people get to know what kind of guy you are, and will ignore you. That's my point: the payback for being a verbal dinkus is that no one will take you seriously. About the 16-year-old: that's physical, and currently illegal. About big brother protecting us from mean people: I'm not saying big brother should stop people from freely speaking garbage to unconsenting minors, etc., but that big brother shouldn't protect your anonymity you if you choose to do it. Basically, there are a lot of people that have suffered systematically from speech acts, like say, women and visible minorities, and for millenia.

Re:Potty mouth vs. murder

[edxwelch]

The guy sent an appology because he didn't want to be charged, not because he was sorry.
Maybe if you read about the murder of this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/mersey side/4730559.stm) you can imagine what the family had to go through.

Re:Doing Time For Words

[kirun]

There was a bit of noise made when the law was changed recently, as previously only racial groups were protected from hate speech, and this was extended to religious groups. The law was basically the government trying to salvage some Muslim votes after the Iraq war, rather than addressing an urgent issue - since we have in the UK a credible third party (the Liberal Democrats), a small swing of votes away from Labour to the Lib Dems as a protest vote can hand the seat away to the Conservatives - this happened at least in the Shipley constituency at the last election - the Tories took the seat from Labour even though the Conservative share of the vote was down.

Back to the main point, the protest was quite high-profile, with several comedians claiming that it could stop them satirising religion (no more Monty Python and The Holy Grail, etc.). As it has happenes, religion is still (currently) satirised and criticised, despite the occasional violent protest.

incitement to violence

[rs232]

While such comments are totally unacceptable, the establishment does seem to be very selective in who they punish. For instance why are the people who made these statments not being locked up. Does political correctness only apply to white anglo-saxon protestants.

"I believe the whole of Britain has become Dar ul-Harb (land of war)," the Syria-born Mohammed said. Therefore, "the kafir (non-believer) has no sanctity for their own life or property," - Omar Bakri Mohammed

was Re:Crap, we have laws like that?

Re:Free Speech started with an idea...

[tomhudson]

It almost seems she is trying to link this to the death of her son, in that "this kind of thing" is directly responsible, as though the original murder all stemmed from people on the internet "being racist".

Hate crimes ARE linked to incitements, whether on the internet or "in real life." How would you feel if someone was posting threat to you personally - because that was what this was - saying that "the family should be burned" is a threat directed to specific individuals.

The reason people do this on the internet is because

1. they can more easily get away with it, and
2. they're more likely to get a reinforcing response

I should explain the second point a bit better ... If you're standing in a room of 10 people, and you were to come out with a statement like "the family should be burned", you're not very likely to get anyone to agree with you. Try that on the internet, and if only 1 in a million agree, that 1 is still able to "add their voice to the fire."

The guy did this because, he claims he "wanted to stir up discussion" and he's "not racist." The judge didn't buy it, and neither would most reasonable people. The guy's a racist, and like all racists, a jerk. While prison won't "rehabilitate" him, it might give others pause to reflect on the fact that their postings do real harm, and that we as a society really don't want his company.

This isn't a free speech issue, just as you can't walk into a bank and say "This is a hold-up" and, if you don't get any money, claim that you didn't commit a crime and were just exercising your right to free speech. I'm sure you can think of other examples of "free speech" we don't allow - "How much for that bag of cocaine?" "Hey little girl, do you want some candy? Get in the car and I'll give you some." "If you don't give me a bj I'll cut you!"

Re:All round nice guy

[Ansoni-San]

The issue is not that his posts were appalling or offensive. The problem is that what he said was a real threat. This was even bigger than a death threat. This was posting a public notice calling all racists, telling them that the boy's death should be celebrated, and that they should murder the rest of the family. There was already a group crazy enough to stab the boy through the head for no reason, are you saying that there's no chance a group is watching this and wanting to make a public statement about "how they feel about black people" or whatever it is they want to say?

Bringing free-speech into this is the same as saying "he just happened to say out loud that he'll pay such and such an amount to anyone who kills this certain person" and a hitman just happened to be in the room. Even in that case it could be partly forgiven if it was found that the person honestly didn't mean it and was speaking out of anger or frustration or whatever. But you don't make national, even global announcements by accident. You clearly knew what you were doing and it took too much thought to be a passing moment of jest. This racist prat deserved everything he got. In fact, he probably deserved attempted murder rather than just incitement.

Re:Lock up racist government terrorists first

[Scrameustache]

Would reading Huckleberry Finn also be a crime in Britain since it contains the N word and an aborted lynching scene?

Reading a book with the word "nigger" in it (oh GROW UP already, it's just a damn word), is nowhere, not anywhere, not even close to being near what that jerk did. That jerk went on a board set up in support of a guy that was murdered and he claimed it was great, and the the victims' family ought to be murdered too.

I'm pretty sure the point of the aborted lynching scene is NOT that all niggers must burn, and that you wouldn't make anyone genuinly feel threatened for their safety by reading your book.

Re:Potty mouth vs. murder

[RexRhino]

Incest/rape is a boogy man. While it probably happens to a very small extent in all societies, it is against the social norm of virtually all societies and cultures for the last 500 years.

However, rape, incest, and sexual deviancy fears are very useful to disparage a religion, culture, or group. From the old Nazi propoganda posters of charactures of "hooked-nose" Jews stealing away virtuous German woman, to the stereotypes in deep south U.S. about black men without sexual control, or the alternate stereotype of the inbred redneck, to the Communist propoganda about "Homosexual Capitalism"... over an over again you see stereotypes or generalizations about sex being used to disparage or spread fear about a certain group.

There is absolutly no evidence that rape, molestation, or incest is any more common amoung Amish than any other group of people. However, Amish are a religious minority, and they largely exist outside the realm of government control, corporate consumerist advertising, and modern day "political correctness". As one of the last groups to resist becoming assimilated into the rest of society and to come under control of the power elite, there is an agenda to disparage them, to undercut peoples respect for their lifestyle, and for building popular support for the final destruction and assimilation of the Amish people. The people with that agenda, both in the government and the media have been spreading FUD about the Amish being a bunch of perverts, based on a handful of isolated cases that were not really any different than what happens every day to non-Amish people.

Re:Die President Die

[Wes Janson]

I thought the number was closer to 200? Did they ever state an exact figure?

Re:Free Speech started with an idea...

[RexRhino]

First of all, how would I feel? How DO I feel?

First of all, Communists advocate violent revolution, and the murder of the Bougiouse class. I am petty-bougiouse, so I am definitly a target. Should Communist literature be made illegal?

Second of all, there are people in England who praised the 9/11 attacks and said that there should be more attacks against Americans. I am an American, so I am a target for that. Should those people go to jail?

Third, Borat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat ), the sacha cohen character, is violently racist. He advocates throwing jews down wells, murdering uzbeks, torturing homosexuals, and stereotype Gypsies. It is, of course, humor... but since there is no disclaimer or warning letting you know it is humor and it is presented as being factual, isn't his hate speech likely to "incite violence"? Shouldn't he be punished for hate crimes?

Re:State enforcement of morals

[Detritus]

When you start telling people that I'm a subhuman and should be exterminated, I'm going to exercise my right to defend myself.