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

whats the crime in hate crime?

[biscon]

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.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[clarkkent09]

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.

I don't believe in hate speech crime, not because I am a racist or a homophobe but because I believe in the right of individuals to think and to say whatever the fuck they want without somebody shutting their mouth by force or putting them in jail for it. Laws prohibiting hate speech don't have to be abused to be wrong, they are also wrong when functioning as intended. If you disagree with racists or homophobes feel free to say so, but don't use the force of government to shut them up because you are replacing one evil with a greater one. And besides, is there an easier thing to argue against and to ridicule than the irrational and primitive nonsense that such people tend to say. Why would you even need such laws is beyond me. I am only sorry that the US government is not willing to step up and protect people from other countries, however odious their beliefs might be, who are persecuted at home for no greater crime than speaking their mind and who seek refuge here.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I don't believe in hate crime...

Well, most people do. And these days, that's all you need to throw someone in jail forever: The consent of the people.

It's easy to get that consent as well. You just need to own a few newspapers and get a few people to cry on television. Gets 'em every time.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Hate crime laws don't suppress racism... they might suppress public expression of racism, but people will still hate privately, likely using the hate crime laws themselves as a valid excuse to promote hate to others. "Look at James Byrd, they gave two of the three white guys that dragged him to death the death penalty and the other life, while the three black guys that did the same thing to Ken Tillery got 15, 20 and 70 years..." It's hard to enforce the law equally when the purpose of the law is to setup specific protected classes and that will result in more division.

IMO, it's much better to get people to express themselves publicly since it gives them an avenue to vent while simultaneously allowing you to deflate their arguments before they can spread the hate.

I live in NY... and you'll hear lots of people saying they were proud to vote for a black man for President, but those same people moved when blacks started encroaching on their white neighborhoods, send their kids to mostly white private schools, etc. While they publicly talk a good game, they still don't want to be around "those kind of people" privately. That undertone of racism is allowed to go unchallenged though, largely because as long as the racism isn't overtly public, it "isn't" really racism. I'd argue refusing to let your kids go to school with someone of a different color isn't much different from beating someone else up for being a different color. The same hate exists, just expressed differently... Sure, one is a violent crime which deserves a penalty in its own right, but the other goes completely unpunished and undiscussed.

Ultimately, if we want racism (and sexism, homophobia, etc) to end, we need to stop drawing lines to divide people into different camps and giving special treatment to "the right groups." Anything short of equal treatment breeds a hate itself.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[bitt3n]

whether you see a greater evil in suppression of speech or unreasoning hatred.

I think the case can be made that suppression of speech is a potent means of perpetuating unreasoning hatred. One is unlikely to change a person's mind by preventing him from speaking it.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Your definition of "thought crime" as "muttering to yourself" is completely bogus trivializing.

As for the tolerance of "hate speech" creating a freer and safer society here - the difference between the US and most of the rest of the world is we let it all hang out - the good, the bad and the ugly so that we get public discourse and an eventual meeting of the minds, even if it does take a generation or two and a lot of nasty words to get there. We are the most ethnic and culturally integrated country in the world in part because of that - contrast that to all the states with laws against insulting groups, your immigrants are far, far less integrated into mainstream society.

You can't fight bad words with censorship, only good words in response to bad words can do that. Censorship just takes away the opportunity for someone to respond with good words.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[c6gunner]

I live in NY... and you'll hear lots of people saying they were proud to vote for a black man for President, but those same people moved when blacks started encroaching on their white neighborhoods, send their kids to mostly white private schools, etc. While they publicly talk a good game, they still don't want to be around "those kind of people" privately.

That's complete nonsense. They don't live in those neighborhoods and send their children to those schools because they want racial segregation - they do it because those neighborhoods and those schools are upper-class environments where their children can prosper without having to worry excessively about crime or violence, and because those schools tend to offer a better quality of education. Parents who can afford to send their kids to a private school don't start the selection process by saying "hrm, let's see which school has the fewest negros" - they send their children to the best school they can find. Unfortunately, due to the economic discrepancy between the races, those schools tend to have fewer black students, but you're confusing correlation with causation.

You know, it's like you went out to a rich neighborhood, looked at the kind of cars most of them drive, and then concluded that rich people must be massively pro-German. It makes no sense.

As for the whole "proud to vote for a black man" thing ... that IS racist. If you're more proud to vote for a particular candidate due to his race, you're a bigot, regardless of whether he's black, white, green, or purple.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Psyborgue]

Or maybe suppression of the speech will drive it underground, make it taboo, and in a sense, make it more appealing to those who are lonely and looking for a sense or subversive belonging. Think Streisand Effect, teenage rebellion, and drug prohibition rolled into one.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[lgw]

The hate crimes legislation comes into play, at least in the US, when it crosses from just expression to incitement of violence or represents a threat to other people's safety. This isn't really that fine of a line, I'm not aware of cases going forward where it wasn't terribly obvious that it had crossed the line sometime previously.

I agree completely Citizen! The fact that it was already illegal to incite violence was inadequate - that only protected public safety, and did nothing to deter BadThink. We must trust the Leaders to guide us towards GoodThink at all times! Inciting violence because you lack thought process approved by our Leader is far, far worse than otherwise inciting violence, because it's more important to stop BadThink than violence any day.

Jailing MPs who argue in parliament against the positions of the ruling party could only happen in the UK, here our Leaders are firm supporters of free speech and would never abuse power in any way!

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[shaitand]

'I live in NY... and you'll hear lots of people saying they were proud to vote for a black man for President, but those same people moved when blacks started encroaching on their white neighborhoods, send their kids to mostly white private schools, etc.'

I'm sorry but that is not racism. They aren't moving because blacks are moving into their neighborhood they are moving because the culture that prevails in black neighborhoods is encroaching on their own. The same is true of the schools.

I'm sorry to all of those who want to call it the 'new racism' but opposing your children being influenced by a culture of rap/hip hop that romanticizes abuse of women, use of dangerous drugs like crack, gang violence, and the idea that people should be loud, rude, and obnoxious in their interaction with others is perfectly valid. The fact that people are afraid to express that idea openly and publicly without fear of being called racist is a sign that the public face of "white" america is diseased not their thoughts behind closed doors.

Why were people willing to elect Obama (your votes are still private not public actions like you seem to suggest)? They elected Obama because his race is irrelevant what is important is that he didn't show signs of being a part of that culture and because he doesn't speak ebonics (which is superficial but to anyone who didn't grow up speaking ebonics it simply sounds like the broken English of the uneducated).

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[RsG]

I agree completely Citizen! The fact that it was already illegal to incite violence was inadequate - that only protected public safety, and did nothing to deter BadThink. We must trust the Leaders to guide us towards GoodThink at all times! Inciting violence because you lack thought process approved by our Leader is far, far worse than otherwise inciting violence, because it's more important to stop BadThink than violence any day.

The trouble with busting out 1984 references and parodies every time this happens is it cheapens them to the point of irrelevance. If every infringement upon liberty, no matter how significant, is called tyranny, than what shall real tyranny be called?

Orwell would probably be troubled by the direction we're heading in. He'd also probably be appalled at how silly we've made his (legitimate) concerns look to the world.

1984 is a chilling look at how the world could become if we let it, it is not raw material for constructing alarmist strawmen.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[c6gunner]

Who said they were rich?

Relatively rich.

When I moved to Canada, my family didn't have much money and we lived in one of the worst areas in the city. We had plenty of neighbors of all sorts of races and religions, and it didn't bother me a bit - I was mainly worried about the daily robberies and assaults, the drug addicts in the stairwells, and dog-shit being left in the hallways. So as soon as we saved enough money to afford better accommodations, we moved.

We moved again, 3 more times in the following 10 years. During each move, our new area was less "diverse" than the last one. According to your world-view, that means we're horrible bigots who hate minorities. In reality it's just a case of us being able to accumulate wealth, and preferring to live in a cleaner, safer environment, surrounded by people who care about their neighborhood. I wouldn't give a damn if 90% of my neighbors were black as long as the quality of the people and the maintenance of the area remained the same. Race isn't the problem - crime, violence, and shitty attitudes are. If I lived in an all-white neighborhood where I had to worry about crime, violence, drug addicts in the stairwells and dog-shit in the the hallways, I'd move out of that area too. What would that make me - a Self-Hating-Caucasian?

And no, neither I nor the rest of my family is "rich" even now, but we are a hell of a lot better off than we were when we got here, and could certainly be considered rich when compared to the people who still inhabit our original neighborhood.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[MaskedSlacker]

Actually from what you presented in your post, there is no evidence whatsoever that the museum shooting was a hate crime. A white man goes and shoots a black man at the holocaust museum. There is nothing in the act itself that suggests a hate crime (any more than someone knocking over a 7-11 with a sikh cashier is likely to be a hate crime against sikhs).

The problem with hate crime laws is that it is near impossible to actually prove that the crime was motivated by racial or other prejudice (except for particular cases where say, the culprit specifically told someone that's why he was going to do it). Even if a person is publicly known to hate members of another group, and he murders a member of that group, that is not proof that his prejudice was the motivator, but it will very likely get him convicted under the hate crime law.

In effect, the burden of proof is so low on the 'hate motive' that it becomes no different from the UK's law. It makes certain thoughts illegal, just in the US case you only get charged if you commit an actual crime as well--then the prosecutor says, "Not only did he murder John Doe, but he hates people like John Doe, so that must have been why," with no evidence that this was actually a factor.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[timeOday]

I agree about the potential risks, but not in this case. The Holocaust Museum shooting perpetrator is a poster child for prejudice, with a 60 year self-avowed history of anti-semitism. Furthermore, the Holocaust Museum has such overt symbolism that he could not possibly have attacked it without knowing exactly what message he would send. Are you arguing it's just a coincidence he attacked there?

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[RsG]

Right, the argument that begins with a metaphor. If you put a frog in boiling water, it leaps out; put it in warm water and boil it incrementally, and it cooks alive.

Trouble is, the metaphor has it exactly backwards. In real life, the frog getting dropped into boiling water dies swiftly, while the one in the slowly heating pot jumps clear when the temperature rises beyond its comfort level.

Same applies in real life. I can't think of a single genuinely totalitarian regime in the past century that came into being incrementally without something disastrous to accompany it. Nazi Germany had the lingering aftereffects of WWI coupled with a failed economy, same applies to Soviet Russia, China was recovering from an invasion, as were too many other parts of southeast Asia to count. Lets not even get into the myriad tyrants in the middle east, all rising amidst local turmoil.

You get totalitarian regimes in the wake of wars (especially losing ones), societal collapses, economic depressions, massive social injustice or other transitory crises. Things go wrong and the government "steps in", taking power with the promise of giving it back when the trouble has passed, which only happens occasionally.

Impose tyranny gradually and the opposition to tyranny will also rise gradually to meet it. Impose it all at once, under the guise of necessary sacrifices in the face of adversity, and the opposition can be silenced swiftly.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Foobar of Borg]

Very good. My only complaint about your post is that, at least in the States, the far right has the same strategy. The far left gives us tyranny in one way, while the far right gives us tyranny in a different way. It's as though they are playing for the same team.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[PopeRatzo]

slowly wiping out Liberty in the West and replacing it with Tyrannical Socialist government.

Pal, I don't think you have any idea what "Tyrannical" or "Socialist" really means. You're just parroting corporate-sponsored Right-Wing AM radio talking points. You think that because you jump up and salute every time Rush or Hannity or Sarah Palin or some UK neo-nazi hollers is showing some sort of "love of Freedom", but you're really just reacting to a careful marketing plan put in place by corporate powers who feel cheated when someone on the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder makes ten cents more per hour. If we give everyone health care, after all, how are we going to force them to keep working for wages? If we educate people, after all, how are we going to fill the factories with minimum wage workers? If people stop believing in their patriarchal God the Father, expecting to go to heaven, they're going to expect better lives now and want to keep from fouling their planet, which would be bad for profits.

When you try to suggest that any Western European or North American country is headed for "Tyrannical Socialism" you display the kind of ignorance that you'd expect from someone who uses a sig like "Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". You're ready to believe any kind of crap that you're told, as long as it comes with a heaping dose of hatred of people with darker skin or funny accents.

You say that the idea of "hate speech" laws are a tool to take away our freedoms. What do you think of laws that use the word "terrorism" to do the same? It's OK, because those laws are aimed at the muslims, but hate speech laws are aimed directly at your own hate-filled self. Your misplaced fear is not that hate crime acts are going to take away your freedom, but that your very world-view is called into question. You're so in love with your own hatred and ignorance that you're afraid someone's going to take it away like a favorite blanket.

You'd be pitiful if you weren't such a danger. You have this notion that there was some magical period in our history when we were "Free" and had "Liberty" and even though you can't point to any such period on a time-line, you're eager to turn the clock back as long as it means that you can go back to feeling superior to the wogs.

And don't try to say "You don't know me," because I've spent enough time in red state America and the rural UK to know folk like you like the back of my own hand.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[mi]

If you prevent public displays of it, the distribution of hate speech, and the dissemination of such practices, you prevent societies' young from learning and eventually deifying that type of behavior.

Yes, because it worked so well against drug abuse...

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[TeXMaster]

If CEO Y believes that minority A are lazy and don't work well then ultimately his company will fail compared with CEO X who believes that all races perform equally. Maybe not on a single example Y vs X example since there are other factors but over time a statistically significant sample will develop and prove itself. At which point CEO's who follow the money will win, regardless of which stance that is.

Except when the vast majority of employers share the view of CEO Y and thus almost nobody will hire people from minority A which will then have to resort to some other form of survival, which will generally be crime or social welfare, thus reinforcing the stereotype that justifies the view that put them in the situation in the first place.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Bob Gelumph]

You say that the idea of "hate speech" laws are a tool to take away our freedoms. What do you think of laws that use the word "terrorism" to do the same?

I'd say that both sets of laws are generally bad. I would think that a law against directly and effectively inciting violence would be better. If a person is just ranting, rather than actually trying to organise people to go hurt others, then as despicable as their speech may be, I'd prefer them to be able to say it.
My thoughts on the matter boil down to this: People have the right to be jerks, but we should be creating a world where people don't want to be jerks.
These neo-Nazis are exercising their rights, and society has failed because they have chosen to exercise them in this way.
These guys don't seem to have actually hurt anybody, so I'd prefer to see them get counselling to deal with the root cause of why they feel the way they do. A reformed neo-Nazi would be a better instrument against Nazism that someone who never thought about it one way or the other.
For you U.S. citizens out there, you should be opposed to these guys being jailed, because if they were jailed for the same act in the U.S., it would be unconstitutional, and by applauding it, you would be effectively saying that you are opposed to the first amendment. And if you believe that the constitution is so good for you, then you should be striving for others to have the freedoms that you have.

Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate

[Orion Blastar]

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.

Re:Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate

[rolfwind]

At one time it did, but now there are limits to free speech. Both in the UK and USA now.

While the USA is getting there, it's still easily the best, any laws on the books probably will be struck down before the Supreme Court (although having that as my last line of defense does not reassure me).

Most countries with "Freedom of Speech" have so many exceptions to the rule that it's worthless, see Germany. Popular speech doesn't have to be protected but that's all they seem to try to protect. That is pretty ironic as the terrible parts of their history was not due to Freedom of Speech, but slavish adherence to the state, which is still ingrained in the national attitude.

It's ironic that the Founding Fathers were considered "liberals" in their day (look up the term classical liberal) but both sides of the political spectrum would love to censor speech at any opportunity, just for different reasons.

The UK does not have free speech.

[Bartab]

If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.

There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any more.

[EWAdams]

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.

The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[SpinyNorman]

"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.

Re:Ever heard of WW2?

[SoVeryTired]

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.

Re:Published any pictures making fun of Mohammed?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

And his point is that because "hate speech" is outlawed in most of the rest of the world that violence is always just under the surface. Its like forest fires - stopping the little ones is like censorship, but the end result is that the big ones are unstoppable and far more dangerous, just like riots. Communication, no matter how ugly, is how we work out differences before resorting to violence. Prevent people from working out their differences peaceably and it should be no surprise that violence is all that's left.

Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.

[BlueParrot]

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.

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

[c6gunner]

There is no free speech anywhere, just people that harp on that they have it and others dont.

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.

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

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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!