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

Ever heard of WW2?

[SmallFurryCreature]

The holocaust is not a crime to you? Most would call that a hate crime but obviously you disagree. You think spreading hate is perfectly fine because you are a white rich boy who has an extremely large army to keep him safe from hate.

You do NOT live in a free society. The many people locked up in cuba on your behalf proof that. You just life in a society that leaves you free. Not exactly the same thing.

Hate crimes exist in europe because in europe we have seen far to closely what happens if hatred is left unchecked.

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.

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.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

These guys had no such protections, and they knew it.

I wouldn't say that they knew it - it's been pretty widely held (for about the last 10 years - since these for of question started cropping up), at least amongst the technological community, that the only practical way of determining jurisdiction on the internet was to go by the location of the server.
What Mr Justice McMoron has done here is actually strike a blow against the rule of law. In this case the servers were located in the US - the accused lived in the UK so that's apparently enough for jurisdiction, but that leaves us only one step away from the chaotic nightmare of courts deciding that they have jurisidction on the sole basis that the material is accessible from their country. At that point, the proverbial will hit the fan - there will be so little material which isn't illegal somewhere that one will be able to put nothing on line.

Justice McMoron has simply made a mindless and irrational power-grab, and taken a pretty big step towards wrecking the internet in the process.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[antirelic]

Even worse. Those same people, those who are "proud to have voted for a black man" are the same people who believe in "socialism". These same people drive up taxes in their own state in the quest for their Utopian fantasy, only to drive their state into fiscal calamity (see California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York for details). Then those same idealogical "elites", watching the fruits of their fantasies choke the life out the world they live in, move to those evil nasty, low tax, red states (see Nevada, Texas, Florida, and Virginia for details).

Then they start the quest for their Utopian fantasy all over... and with it the same decay happens all over again (see Virginia for details).

And dont worry about those evil closet racists moving because "xxxx" (insert undesirable minority group there) are moving into their neighborhoods. I am sure our new government god will make sure these social injustices will be corrected.

right attitude, poor tactics

[circletimessquare]

of course racist speech is heinous, because of what it inevitably results in

same with drawings of children in sexual situations

but you don't outlaw either

what you do is you allow all of it, and then you TRACK the fuckers

then when the pathetic fuckers take their retarded thoughts to their inevitable conclusion, and you take them down a lot easier, because you already know who and where the losers are

what, you think my attitude is wrong? let's remind you please exactly what (certainly not who) we are dealing with here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_von_Brunn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawna_Forde

you want to talk rights?

you lose your right to be tolerated when you yourself do not tolerate

that observation trumps all other discussions on rights

what is the point of tolerating intolerance?

a tolerant society that tolerates intolerance is a short-lived society. you further tolerance in this world by fighting intolerance. tolerating intolerance merely allows it to spread

and no, this is not hypocrisy:

"i hate you because you are black": intolerance

"i fight you because you hate people for being black": intolerance of intolerance

you can't equate the two, they are logically separate