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."
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.
"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
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.
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.
Publishing words that incite hatred is not "thoughtcrime". Words are not thoughts. You can think whatever hatred or whatever else you want. But speech is an action, a real act in the world that affects other people. Not all acts, not all speech or expressions, particularly in public, are protected. You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people. And currently, as always in history, published hate speech forms links in the critical path from protected hateful thoughts to non-protected violent acts that physically harm people. Those links are on the action side of the thought/action boundary.
You can't tell someone that you're going to kill them and expect to get away with it. You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it. You can think about genocide, but the moment you do something, including organizing or inciting others to carry it out, you've crossed the line. And that's when we have governments to protect us from you, not you from the consequences of your speech.
--
make install -not war
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.
. . . don't convicted criminals have their passports confiscated, while awaiting sentencing?
I just find it bizarre, that they can just hop on a plane to LA.
This would be a great Monty Python sketch with Eric Idle, as the bloke checking the passports on exiting the country:
"Ah, going to Los Angles, super, super! Business? No, holiday? Ah, spit, which one is it?"
"We are convicted criminals leaving the country, to apply for asylum in the United States."
"Ok, off you go then!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Inciting sectarian hatred is not pointless there. It matters deeply and gets people killed. As it does in those large parts of the world still riven by ethnic, sectarian, and tribal divisions.
The USA is one of the few countries that can AFFORD freedom of speech.
I piss off bigots.
they didnt speak Spanish well enough to stay here...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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.
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.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
This is old news in Finland. We have had at least 4 convictions on dubious basis within one year. "Insulting" muslims and negroes seems to be verboten while insulting christians and white males is ok. 1984.
As a fellow Finn I must say that I have not heard of such dubious convictions, and would be interested in seeing some proof of such. I would also like to point out that those who insult "muslims and negroes" in this country are overwhelmingly white Christian males. If there were widespread racism on the part of the non-white non-Christian population toward the ethnic majority, I can assure you that the yellow press would be all over it. It would be too lucrative for them to downplay it. So far, there has been no word of such, so I have a hard time stomaching your allegation that "insulting christians and white males is ok."
Also worthy of note is that insulting Muslims, Christians, Blacks or Whites is perfectly allowed and legal in this country, as long as you don't insult them for being Muslims, Christians, Blacks or Whites.
"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.
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.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.