Slashdot Mirror


UK Politician Arrested Over Twitter 'Stoning Joke'

History's Coming To writes "The BBC is reporting that a Tory city councillor has been arrested over a 'joke' he posted to Twitter suggesting that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a UK based writer, be stoned to death. The full tweet read, 'Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really.' Following complaints he was arrested under the Communications Act 2003 and bailed. He has since apologized. This comes on the same day that a conviction for a Twitter 'joke' about blowing up an airport was upheld."

15 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. Doing in wrong... by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously he should have phrased it "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome columnist?"

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  2. Asshat by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Joking about killing a writer whose views you don't agree with? Surely they teach you not to do that in their "Politics: Good Manners 101" class.

    1. Re:Asshat by SirThe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe, but he still shouldn't be arrested for it!

    2. Re:Asshat by digitig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a Muslim secularist and campaigner for democracy and women's rights (amongst other things), I think that there is a real chance that there are many who wouldn't see calling for her to be stoned to death as a joke, and there is good reason for the tweet to be considered incitement to violence. Joking about the death of a random celeb is one thing; it's another thing when that person really is already at serious risk of violence.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:Asshat by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe, but he still shouldn't be arrested for it!

      Your freedom to swing your words stops at deathtreats.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Asshat by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've read through all the comments to this article and I haven't seen anyone yet suggest that the councillor was perfectly serious, just hoped he could get away with it. Perhaps he wasn't expecting that this would push someone over the edge to do what they have already been wanting to do to her for years, but there is no question that it was one conservative from one culture helping to legitimise the view of another in another.

      It is interesting to ask whether speech protections should include the right to say, "Give an opinion that I don't like and I shall call for your death."

  3. Re:About The news by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can someone please stone spammers to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really.

  4. Re:Stupid by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the UK, it is illegal to threaten to kill someone. There is no exemption for it being just a joke, because that provides a pretty trivial loophole ('Oh, did he take it seriously officer? I was only joking...').

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It takes just one determined (and mentally ill) person who does not see this as a joke for a murder to happen. This is one of the main reasons why this kind of 'joke' is not acceptable.

    However, if you assume someone of that sort of mental illness, you can't guarantee he/she'll misinterpret anything else you say as an "order" to murder someone. If you start down the path of kowtowing to people whose mental deficiencies give them homicidal tendencies, you don't solve any problems. Ever.

  6. Nice demonstration of "reasonable restrictions" by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and more specifically, how a law that on the surface seems perfectly reasonable can be so easily misused.

    The law is against menacing, the statement -- made publicly, not directed at any given person -- is
    "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

    Any sensible person can see there is no threat there, it's just someone being a drama queen. But it violates the letter of the law and it's politically expedient to ignore the obvious.

    Similarly,
    "Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."
    is not a serious solicitation to murder; it's just someone being an ass. Or making a point in an offensive way, given that he says he was responding to a comment by Alibhai-Brown that no politician has the right to comment on human rights abuses, including the stoning of women in Iran.

    I would presume that this is the program in question, though I haven't listened to it so don't know.

    1. Re:Nice demonstration of "reasonable restrictions" by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe he shouldn't make that point in an offensive way?

      Your dedication to the principle of freedom of speech is touching.

      Maybe he should dispute points and present his opinions.

      Maybe that wouldn't be as effective as being nasty.

      Or would he rather just slander everyone to death?

      There's no slander involved here.

  7. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having free speech doesn't mean you have freedom from responsiblity.

    Nine time out of ten, people who say this really mean "I don't really believe in free speech at all". And you are not number ten.

  8. Is English your third language? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "All he asked was a rhetorical question. "

    I don't know what planet you are from, but "Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death?" is not a rhetorical question here on planet Earth. It is a direct request. In the USA said person could go to jail for life if somebody read the request and actually granted it. This is in fact quite appropriate. Blasting such a request across the internet to hundreds of thousands of people, any one of which could be an instable nutbag, is gross negligence at best, and any death resulting from gross negligence is and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Is English your third language? by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

      As long as "the full extent of the law" is to require the speaker to live with the the guilt and shame of having said something which inadvertently led to someone's death, I agree with you.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  9. Re:Stupid by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And even if it were a purposeful incitement to violence --

    Who is truly responsible there -- the person urging violence, or the people who actually take it upon themselves to commit the violence that is urged??

    Are we all so stupid as to do everything some twit exhorts us to do??

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?