British Men Jailed For Online Hate Crimes

chrb writes "Two British men have become the first to be jailed for inciting racial hatred online. The men believed that material they published on web servers based in the United States did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law and was protected under the First Amendment. This argument was rejected by the British trial judge. After being found guilty, the men fled to Los Angeles, where they attempted to claim political asylum, again arguing that they were being persecuted by the British government for speech that was protected under the First Amendment. The asylum bid was rejected and the two were deported back to the UK after spending over a year in a US jail."

Comments

We've heard this before

[Anonymous Coward]

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." - Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator

There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK

[number6x]

There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK

It is simply a fact.

The vast majority of countries do not allow simple basic freedoms. Even the freedom for stupid people to say stupid things.

Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK

[idlemachine]

I don't know about the UK but here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country.

Oh, really?

So the US would never extradite a British citizen from their legal residence in Australia for criminal acts that weren't performed on American soil?

And I'm guessing you believe the US would never declare that it could kidnap foreign citizens if they were unable to extradite them because the country in which they resided didn't view their actions as extraditable offences?

Unfortunately, those of us who live outside the US can't afford to be so delusional.

Re:Point of Origin?

[Quothz]

Here we go again! If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?

That would be due to the British Nationality Act of 1948, which asserts British criminal jurisdiction over British citizens for crimes committed overseas. The US has a similar law, as do many nations.

Re:Point of Origin?

[RsG]

The summary is somewhat misleading.

The convicted parties were handing out leaflets in the UK, which drew complaints due to their racist content. The content of the leaflets was stored on a US server, but "published" (printed really) in the UK. Both defendants lived in the UK, but sought asylum in the US after they were charged.

Jurisdiction is not the problem here - in every country I know of, storing "illegal material" outside the local borders does not constitute a legal defence. If we were talking about weapons or drugs, then storing internationally (say in a safe haven where they're legal) while distributing locally (where they're illegal) would still get you charged.

The question is whether the material should be illegal in the first place. That has nothing to do with jurisdiction and everything to do with civil liberties.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Psyborgue]

I think it's a combination of your opinion and grandparent in US society. It's a series of small crises (real, imagined, or exaggerated), within each a different freedom slightly eroded. The right erodes a certain set of civil liberties and the left erodes a different set. Power shifts hands, sure, but the freedoms generally don't come back once they're gradually taken away. Look at how second amendment rights have been gradually eaten away or how the right has somehow managed to establish authority over what people put in their own bodies, something Jefferson was explicitly opposed to.