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.
Maybe, but he still shouldn't be arrested for it!
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.
Not that it entirely defends his poor joke but he was reacting to her recent assertion that politicians have no right to criticize human rights abuses such as stoning women in Iran.
asked if she could be stoned - NOT shot; not beaten to death with a cricket bat; but stoned, as in an old fashioned fantasy sort of way.
s/n old fashioned fantasy/ current, 3000 mile to the southeast/
...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.
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!
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!
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.
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?
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.
That all depends on who you ask.
I was not aware that Yasmin was a Muslim in support of democracy and women's rights. Knowing that now, I think asking for her to be stoned to death enhances the joke. It's much funnier.
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".
"...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/