Slashdot Mirror
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."
It's an internet hate machine, you know. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY ]
is it the act of hating someone due to their racial background or sexual orientation which is illegal? or just running your mouth about it?. if its the former its thought crime and if its the latter its censorship. I don't believe in hate crime, not because I am a racist or a homofob its just that laws like that tend to be abused. Besides I like living in a free society where the government doesn't get to decide what I can legally think.
It should be something that adults can deal with.
The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy. These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers. It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door don't make the grade.
Should they be imprisoned? Maybe. But I think we'd accomplish just as much by ignoring them and their malcontent existance, as one would an internet troll.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Speech. At one time it did, but now there are limits to free speech. Both in the UK and USA now.
I guess that means we can send the KKK and Nazi groups in the USA to jail then for distributing hate speech materials. Also track down the "Anonymous" group for hate speech against Scientologists, etc.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Israelis arrest (and indeed assassinate) enemies of Israel anywhere they like. Ditto the USA. A California couple publishes porn on the Internet in California, and is tried and convicted in Tennessee, which they have never visited. You can do something in a foreign country that's totally legal there, and your own government will still prosecute you for it -- as these guys did. It's only a matter of time before the USA starts prosecuting American citizens for smoking dope and visiting prostitutes in Amsterdam.
The fact is, if you publish it on the web, you're liable for it worldwide, regardless of where you are or where the server is. Better get used to it.
I piss off bigots.
No free speech in the UK, I get that (though I strongly disagree with it!), but why not offer asylum? Don't we believe in the right to free speech ourselves? Isn't this a perfect example of a situation in which we should, when someone comes to us who is being prosecuted for a crime that we do not consider to be a crime?
"If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?"
The server was in the US, but the server is an inanimate object incapable of criminal intent, so it is not automatically relevant. The people with criminal intent were permanently in the UK at the time of the offences and the material was about the UK and ethnic minorities in the UK, targeted largely at an audience in the UK.
IANAL, but it seems that courts largely adopt an attitude of "looking through" any technology and focusing on the people involved.
They were published from the UK to servers in the US.
The leaflets/pamphlets weren't exactly being handed out in LA either...
It's not as though US citizens were extradited to the UK despite having committed no US crimes or committed crimes while in the territories of the UK. Shame for Gary McKimmon that the US authorities aren't similarly restrained.
That is true... but this is the UK we're talking about, not a tribal society.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
There are many forms of authoritarianism. It is a belief system that is surprisingly "cross-platform"; you'll find examples in all kinds of communities, secular and religious, left-wing and right-wing, liberal and conservative.
What they have in common is a mis-trust in the governed. The governed must be repressed, and cannot be allowed to have free choice. There can be no tolerance for meaningful opposition, for that would "weaken" the community, resulting in "instability", i.e., loss of control by the governing class. It is a forced form of allegiance.
All truly free societies are built on the power of persuasion.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
>You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it.
of course you can in the UK: you just have to be a muslim to do it.
Heck, you can incite crowds to murder those that 'offend' your own caveman beliefs and get very lucrative jobs in the british govt.
Seriously, live in the UK and see how 'tolerant' we are of certain behaviour from certain groups and not from others.
People notice this and it fuels their hatred at the hypocrisy.
"Freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean you can say whatever you want either. If you endanger other people by what you say (e.g. shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite others to murder, violence) there are consequences. If you slander someone there are consequences. If you lie under oath there are consequences.
Freedom of speech isn't a right that overrides all other laws, not should it be.
I'm amazed not only that this story was posted to /. but also that so many apparently have sympathy for these losers.
I have the right to say "death to [group/country/people/religion]" or "killing abortion doctors is good". You are responsible for your own choices if you decide to ask on my words, not me. In US law, anything is protected speech unless it is an *immediate* threat of violence (i.e. inciting a riot when you are actually in the riot). If you want to defeat bad ideas, fight them with good ones in the open commerce of ideas. Suppressing speech only treats the symptom and not the root cause of the problem, which is fear and misunderstanding... something that can *only* be dealt with by open and honest dialogue.
Of course overt hate speech increases violence, are you nuts? Check out history of the partition of India. In many parts of the world violence is always just below the surface, and it only takes one or two unwise remarks in public to trigger rioting.
I piss off bigots.
There is no free speech anywhere, just people that harp on that they have it and others dont.
There are certainly things you could say in the US that would mean that you would end up in jail. It might be for some other reason, but if you started publically praising the 9/11 hijackers (for example), you can expect the authorities to start looking into your business pretty closely. You had better be whiter than white. Most likely you would end up incarcerated (assuming you lived long enough to get there), for some other thing, and it is possible that the 'other thing' could be fabricated. None of this would have happened if you had kept your mouth shut. So in truth no real 'free speech'.
The difference between so called 'free countries' and oppressive ones, is how your rights scale on the basis of you not being an idiot in how you decide to use them. In free countries it is possible to make pretty much any point, and stay free of any serious persecution if you do it the right way, in the right context.
That's interesting as a blanket statement. I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination except for Obama's church which I would really call a christian church (they believe the only those who have suffered in some way get into heaven or some shit like that).
The holocaust is not a crime to you? Most would call that a hate crime but obviously you disagree.
That's a strawman argument if I ever saw one. We're discussing whether it should be legal to publicly denigrate Jews, not mass murder them.
Hate crimes exist in europe because in europe we have seen far to closely what happens if hatred is left unchecked.
And the US has never seen what happens when hatred is left unchecked? How exactly does legislating against hatred "check" it anyway? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it will go away.
Mind you, the americans think the KKK has a right to exist. In europe it is forbidden to be a member of a nazi group. Neither method seems to work in keeping people from being killed because of what race/sex/orientation they are.
Nice. Generalise about Americans in a tirade against racism. Anyone see the irony?
But this is the UK and if the UK people want a system where racists can be locked up for spreading hatred then you that is their freedom.
The brits and most of europe choose different.
And you can THINK what you want. it is spreading what you think that is restricted.
Isn't this a better definition of a society that is not free? As Voltaire said, "while I may not agree with what you say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it".
It'd be nice if there was a "-1, half-baked knee-jerk reaction" moderation option.
Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
This discussion will invariable get out the "free speech or nothing" nutcases who claim that all speech should be free, while they read and post on a moderated forum with an adblocker censoring the slashdot creators.
Americans especially have a serious amount of hypocracy in these cases. Europeans tend to know that free speech does not exist and that true free speech is far to messy to allow. Yet while in holland we recently had proposal to make holocaust (not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since) denial an actual and specific crime. At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws. Even the liberals (think left of the most left democrat/indepedent you ever witnessed) VVD who recenly proposed that hate crimes should be gotten rid off wanted the distinction between THINKING hate and inciting/causing hate.
The reason was simple, the poor guy who suggested it was INSTANTLY shot down by everyone. Not just the WW2, but the incitement to hatred that occured in Rwanda or even more recent South Africa (where there was violent against black immigrants from native blacks, I add this because you might typical assume that racial trouble in SA would be between black and white).
Europe once again is a powder keg. Parties who have immigrants as part of their agenda (meaning, they don't want them) are on the rise and with the economic downturn it doesn't take a lot to get a sensation of deja-vu. No, this is not 1930 germany. There are a lot of differences with all sides involved but right now NOBODY wishes to allow someone to start spreading hate that might find a fertile breeding ground.
We know from history that hate speech can be a serious danger if the conditions are right. Butt should our freedom to say what we believe be curtailed for the chance that something bad might happen?
I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male. What does this group have to fear from hate speech? They control the US. It is easy to say hate speech should be free when it is not targetted against you. I have no problem with americans being allowed to carry heavy weapons. In america. Go right ahead, carry a machine gun to the mall. It doesn't affect me.
But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.
The murders in holland on Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn fall under hate crimes. People spoke nasty words about them, saying it would be better if they were gone and someone listened. Wait until YOU are the one under a death treath before you say free speech should be totally unrestricted.
I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack.
Free speech is important, but being able to say anything at all without any restrictions will be abused.
Almost everything we do is restricted. From travel (I am free to travel across the globe but only with the proper papers), to reproduction (I can only do it with women who agree) our lives are regulared. Why should speech be any different?
And americans, before you try to correct me, how come that on a recent mythbusters I saw they had SO much censorship going on that it took up 50% if the screen and made the subject invisibale (jaw breaker myth). How come there are no boobies on US tv? What is the constant bleeping?
The US, where you can't say fuck, show a boody or a brandname but you should be able to race X should be gassed. Thanks but no thanks. I take holland, where you can say fuck, show full frontal nudity on a childrens program and brandnames can be shown as long as it is not advertising for the product (and I don't think your candy exploding is a very good advertisement). Neither system is perfect.
And before you quote some founder about freedom, find out how many slaves he or his friends owned.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I claim that your ability to silence what I say is harm, are you going to lock yourself up in a jail cell? Or wait, lemme guess... it's you, the wise, enlightened populist liberal, that gets to decide what constitutes "harm," what opinions are "harmful," no?
"it's spreading what you think that is restricted". Exactly. You admit that your government controls the commerce of ideas?
Whenever somebody makes the nonsensical claim that it is unacceptable to censor racist or homophobic propaganda because it is a free speech issue, consider the following examples.
1: You're not allowed to harass people, even if you do so by speaking.
3: You're not allowed to tell people lies in order to make them agree to things they otherwise would not ( i.e fraud ).
4: You are not allowed to print untrue stories that may damage somebody's reputation ( i.e libel ).
5: You're not allowed to damage people's reputation by spreading lies about them ( i.e slander )
The main problem with the laws against racism and homophobia is that they have been poorly named. They should have called it "The protection against harassment of minorities act" or something like it. As with all other liberties your freedom ends where mine begins, and just like freedom of movement does not entitle you to sleep in my front-yard, nor does freedom of speech entitle you to spread lies about my sexual orientation. If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you.
When I was a kid I tried using that argument on my parents when they insisted that I clean my room. "There's no sch thing as a clean room, only different levels of messiness". They weren't terribly impressed with that approach, and now, reading your comment, I can see why.
Orwell was supportive of individual rights, and saw it as a failing of self-proclaimed solcialists that they so often were not.
We have got to admit that if Fascism is everywhere advancing, this is largely the fault of the Socialists themselves. Partly it is due to the mistaken communist tactic of sabotaging democracy, i.e. sawing off the branch you are sitting on; but still more to the fact that Socialists have, so to speak, presented their case wrong side foremost. They have never made it sufficiently clear that the essential aims of Socialism are justice and liberty.
Orwell saw very well how stifling democracy, especially opposing speech, to protect your cause leads inevitably to facism. He wrote about the Communists taking control of Spain
"The logical end is a régime in which every opposition party and newspaper is suppressed and every dissentient of any importance is in jail. Of course, such a régime will be Fascism. It will not be the same Fascism Franco would impose, it will even be better than Franco's Fascism to the extent of being worth fighting for, but it will be Fascism. Only, being operated by Communists and Liberals, it will be called something different.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country
LOL!
Oh, wait, you were serious, weren't you?
BWAHAHAHA!
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that "kill the queers" and "string up the niggers" is how we work out our differences peaceably. Peace only comes when we stop using such language.
I agree, but you're still wrong. Peace doesn't come when people stop using such language because of government oppression, it only comes when people stop using such language voluntarily.
First, hate speech is NOT outlawed in most of the world. It's only outlawed in a few western democracies ... The violence below the surface has existed for centuries before there were any laws about such things.
Nonsense. Historically and around the world, "hate speech laws" are nearly universal. Of course, in the more backwards countries and times, "hate speech" just means "anything that opposes the government or the preferred religion". And restrictions on speech are one of the primary causes of unrest and revolution.
A liberal (in the proper sense of the word, i.e. not authoritarian) democracy must first of all agree on tolerance. Without tolerance there is no hope for peace and good governance.
You're confusing tolerance and acquiescence. I tolerate lots of religions and defend people's right to practice them, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell them that I think Christ or Mohammed were frauds or draw them with bombs in their turbans if I so choose.
Besides, have you seen the vitriol that many conservatives and Catholics are heaping on liberals? Why should they have all the fun?