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."
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.
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.
Can someone please stone spammers to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really.
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
Sure thing. On the movie set when a bad guy threatens to kill the good guy it should be taken the same way. You cannot prove they weren't serious. What about when you get pissed off at someone and say "God, I want to kill you!". You cannot prove you weren't serious. Common sense would tell you this man didn't want to actually kill someone.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
The problem with political jokes is they get elected.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
....at the time the joke was made, but police didn't believe him since he had no Alibhai.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
On the other hand, saying "oh come on guys, it was just a joke!" seems like it could easily turn into the "insanity" plea.
Unlikely. See, what most people don't know and never bother to find out because they're too busying being incensed over people "getting off" under an insanity plea, is that while you don't go to jail if you plead insanity, you instead go to a prison mental ward... where you can be kept forever. That's right - if you just plead out of a 10-20 year sentence by claiming you were insane, you just opted into a potential life sentence. The state can keep you locked up in the mental ward until they believe you're completely sane. And since they don't like people who claim to be insane, they don't rush to release you.
So, yeah, I don't think people will say "oh, come on, it was just a joke," when the result is being locked up for the rest of their lives.
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.
A day doesn't pass that either one of the tabloids is blasting the government for not acting on a perceived threat or an official or government department coming out with what should really be considered an outrageous policy.
A nice one was (yesterday?) the stopping of the head of MI6 from boarding a plane to the US because she had a can of hairspray larger than the allowed 100 milliliters in her bag.
Yes it's outside of the allowance but hey she's not exactly your typical terrist!
In the UK common sense has been outlawed.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
...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.
Sam Kinnison said it best, "You'd have gotten the same thing from the Monkees!". Crazy people might interpret nearly anything as a command from God to do a crazy thing if that's what they're predisposed to. If we're going to restrict speech based on the possibility that a crazy person might mis-interpret it, then we can't say anything at all, including "Hi" or an acknowledging grunt. Of course, silence might also be "creatively" interpreted....
My goodness! I can't believe you would seriously stone someone just for spamming. People like you should be shot.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
The UK government have already instilled this fear. If an islamic man had posted that about a white woman, you can guarantee he would be arrested, charged and convicted for it. Similar has already happened. If this councillor gets away with it it'll be yet another case of hypocrisy from our corrupt government.
He sings, "Everybody must get stoned!"
Inciting violence! Against everybody!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
Both the twitter posts cited in the article are jokes in poor taste by frustrated people, but are they evidence of intent to kill someone or blow up a plane? People bent on that sort of act rarely advertise their intent on some public media.
What's next? Being prosecuted for threatening to kill someone's character in World of Warcraft?
When I was a cop there were dozens of times that angry and/or frustrated people made comments (to me or to others) like "I'll kill you" or "You're dead if you do that again" or something similar. You have to make allowances for frustration and understand it's only human nature to make threats. Of course, it's different if you think they might actually do what they say, but that's not the usual case - people who are going to attack you just do it, they don't threaten first.
The difference is that on twitter (indeed, the internet in general) there's a permanent record. That plus a stupid/malicious prosecutor plus a judge who doesn't understand human nature is a recipe for damn stupid legal decisions.
Stoning is far too good for spammers. They should be burned at the stake.
I'm wondering what the context is here. What provoked him to make this "joke"?
I think there ought to be an exception for jokes, but only funny ones. That solves the loophole, and punishes people for making bad jokes. Win-win.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
>Where do you have greater freedom of speech and presumption of innocence: Britain or Saudi Arabia?
On balance I'd say Britain
>Where are you more likely to be harassed by police for trivialities: Britain or Saudi Arabia?
Not sure, do you have the figures that you could share with us?
>Every day the two look more alike.
Evidence from, say the last 5 days: could you give us five separate summaries to prove this point?
>And now I will commit a crime in the eyes of England:
I suppose you mean "in the laws of England". Are you aware that England and Britain are different?
People in Europe should rightly be worried about free speech laws. They are already a lot stricter than the US ones, and I am very much in favour of allowing more free speech in Europe, not less. I think all speech should be allowed...
...except direct calls for violence against individuals and groups. And that is exactly what this is. He didn't even add a smiley... how is this to be interpreted as a joke? The guy does not deserve full punishment for this, but arrest and prosecution are warranted IMHO, if only to give him a slap on the wrist for utterly irresponsibly behaviour. This is a bit like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The UK doesn't have Freedom of Speech. It's that simple.
Do you honestly think that someone who would murder based on this tweet wouldn't have committed murder anyway?
You need to put it his comments in context. She said that UK politicians have no right to comment on things like stoning of women in Iran, presumably because that's a Muslim thing and she's a "political correctness" extremist who would sooner allow an innocent teenager to die a horrible death than dare insult precious male Muslim feelings. He shouldn't have even apologized, never mind get arrested. It's obviously a sarcastic response to her comments and in no way an incitement to violence.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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
I'd also argue that the next Briton who accuses the US of being "less free" than Europe must be stoned.*
*Not must "must be" in the sense of "somebody should go out and make sure that..." but more in the sense of "It's obvious that... is already..."
Bullshit.
Any sane person can see that this is a joke. Those that aren't sane are at risk for violent behavior already and -anything- can put them over the edge. Plus, this was a guy on a city council. A city. council. I don't know about you, but the people on my city council I really don't care what they say personally or not. This isn't an MP, this isn't the Queen, this isn't David Cameron or Nick Clegg saying this its some random city council member.
Free speech should be free speech, especially when it comes to things that are obviously jokes. If someone was going to kill this person, they were going to do it no matter what some random city councilor said or not.
Yes, it was an off-color (or would it be colour?) joke that wasn't very professional. Could people demand he not be re-elected and elect someone else? Yes. Should they arrest someone for an obvious joke? No.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
This is a great point. If you're going to do the mental gymnastics to translate a question (Is ___ possible?) to a threat, then you ought to be capable of *also* realizing this is a joke. Either take things at face value or don't; self-translating someone's sentence into a threat just for a prosecution is garbage.
The joke is that the woman who he "said should be stoned" said that no British politician should be able to complain about stoning in Muslim countries, because Muslim culture allows for stoning.
He then "said she should be stoned."
The implication here is that she has no right to complain about him wanting to have someone stoned.
"Not all the time" is a worthless statement. Give the percentage of the time. Otherwise, you are not adding information to the discussion. Almost nothing is "all the time" and so assertions of an obvious nature that aren't related to the general case are worthless.
What is the average time "served" for someone who successfully pleads insanity vs the average time actually served by those convicted of the same crime? What is the recidivism rate for each? Without those, exceptional cases, no matter how many, are useless.
Learn to love Alaska
Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death?
is NOT asking if anyone is capable. It is asking someone to DO it.
its like saying: can someone please take out the garbage.
and regardless making threats about people lives in public jokingly or otherwise is a definate no-no.
people are prosecuted for saying much less potentially dangerous remarks. e.g. libel and defamtion of character neither of which are usually related with loss of life.
$ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
Pretend for a moment that a Muslim posted on Twitter that a UK politician should be stoned to death. Considering the attempted murder of a MP recently and the UK removing YouTube videos, I'm sure that they'd get arrested. I doubt slashdotters would stand up for him in the same manner as they're doing for this jerk.
Now look, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even...and I want to make this absolutely clear...even if they do say "Jehovah".
Worthless? Pointing out that what the previous post said happened, as though it happened all the time, does not happen all the time? I guess a percentage would be nice. I haven't found one yet.
So we're stuck apparently. Neither of us has the numbers you want, right? I'm not sure why the burden of proof is on me at this point.
Unfortunately, I have looked/read online and can only find usage and "success" rates, but not rates of success getting a lower time-served sentence (asylum vs. prison).
Apologized? What did he apologize for? Even if he meant it, whatever happened to freedom of speech? Forget it. I already know the answer. The corrupt governments of the world are abolishing it and/or never implementing it in the first place.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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?
The statement of an opinion: "Blacks should be lynched" is protected by the first amendment. The request "would someone please lynch [name of black person]" is not a statement, and is not protected by the First Amendment.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The joke is that the woman who he "said should be stoned" said that no British politician should be able to complain about stoning in Muslim countries, because Muslim culture allows for stoning. He then "said she should be stoned." The implication here is that she has no right to complain about him wanting to have someone stoned.
Dude...that's so meta...I think you just blew my mind. It's like when the Offspring sold T-shirts with the Napster logo on them, and Napster sued them for copyright infringement.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Are you fucking kidding?
There's a hell of a lot wrong with this country but that's not one of the problems. The UK has been one of the most active in the world in dealing with the problem of arranged marriages, and other abuse. We've been pouring a fortune into it with a number of high profile convictions, as well as countless other cases of assisting people in getting out of those kind of situations. Our country even intervenes politically and legally as far as it can in situations where people have been taken to other countries, such as Pakistan to be married on.
Perhaps the reason you hear about the UK in this context is precisely because we're one of the few countries in the world that does deal with the problem rather than sweep it under the carpet. We even have specific precedent whereby if someone has been pushed into an arrange marriage they can have it anulled specifically on that basis without having to worry about the usual divorce proceedings-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/teenager-wins-battle-to-annul-arranged-marriage-658001.html
If you were looking for a reason to slag off the UK, this wasn't it. Pick one of the thousands of other reasons, like, I don't know, perhaps the fact people are being arrested merely for saying something on Twitter as in TFA?
Was that, since the Iraq war and allegations of torture by British troops, she did not think British politicians were qualified to criticise human rights abuses in China. Anyone who reads this as approval of the stoning of women in Iran is a fucking idiot.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it