Slashdot Mirror
UK Men Get 4 Years For Trying to Incite Riots Via Facebook
An anonymous reader writes "In addition to the 12 arrests from last week, a judge has sentenced 20-year-old Jordan Blackshaw and 22-year-old Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan to four years in prison for their failed attempts to use Facebook to incite riots in the UK. The judge said he hoped the sentences would act as a deterrent. The two men were convicted for using Facebook to encourage violent disorder in their hometowns in northwest England."
If you are going to make an example of someone, make an example of someone who actually succeeded in using social networking to incite violence and cause damage. These two were just some drunken idiots who thought the riots were cool and wanted to bring them to their town while in a state of inebriation. Fine the hell out of them and make them do some work for the community, no need to take four years of their lives away for something they failed utterly at.
The article says they're appealing it and I'll wager they'll see drastically reduced sentences. 4 years is utterly absurd. Put the people who were actually throwing molotovs and smashing storefronts into the joint for four years, but not guys who made Facebook posts, especially when one deleted it after waking up with a hangover.
I'll wager these guys won't do much in the way of hard time. They certainly shouldn't.
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
I'll use my right of free speech and call you a bloody idiot. This wasn't to "bring change in a corrupt system", this was about having a bit of fun destroying stuff, beating up people, and looting.
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
The limit is in both impact and the success. There shouldn't be a limit on your speech as long as you are nonviolent and not forcing yourself upon others. If you are willing to become violent to make your point, you had better be ready to take it all the way *and win*. See American Revolution (violent, yet successful) vs. current situation in Syria (violent, yet getting mowed down in the streets).
As far as "this is censored" goes... I call bullshit. One of the few things that government is actually supposed to do is to protect its law-abiding citizens from real dangers - most tangibly represented as foreign armies and violent thugs. Physical security is among the most basic responsibilities of a government. The rioting kids are fortunate to be alive at the same time as the most convenient and far-reaching communications breakthroughs in human history. The government isn't telling them they can't have a voice, the government is telling them they can't smash up poor shopkeeps' storefronts to make their point.
It just goes to show that even on the internet you can get in big trouble. A lot of people are learning that you can't get away with "everything" on the internet anymore. I'm surprised these people actually used their name. Haven't they heard of the people that have gotten fired for posting things about their job from there?
I'd suggest that these people (and most of the other people involved in the riots) aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the box...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The judge said he hoped the sentences would act as a deterrent.
This could be a pretty big problem.
The Judge himself is pretty much saying here that he considers the punishment to be excessive compared to the crime but that Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan should be punished more because the legal system doesn't want to bother with the rest of the criminals.
Well, it is not exactly his wording and it might not be that way in this particular case but I have seen that kind of reasoning in other cases and I seriously doubt that the two boys even would have been arrested if it weren't for a lot of other people running around causing trouble in the UK at the moment.
Compare to the average file sharing case where the plaintiff is punished because he could potentially have distributed a work to 10000 other people.
In those cases it is assumed that the plaintiff has distributed the work to 10 other people and that he should take the punishement for the crimes that those other 10 people did. (Not that it clears them from any legal action in the future.)
... any more.
gotten
pp. of get, showing vestiges of the O.E. form of the verb.
That's a lot of people just out to have fun. When you have massive riots in multiple cities, I'd be hard pressed to consider it just reckless lawlessness as entertainment. Look at Syria. How has those in charge characterized the rebellions? Lawless hooligans out to just cause trouble. No one believes it. But then you have riots at home and our precious security feels endangered.. doesn't sound so far-fetched anymore. How exactly would civil unrest against a perceived corrupt political system manifest? When anyone that shows any attempt at leadership is arrested, you wouldn't expect any type of organized demonstrations. You'd get a chaotic mess of angry people lashing out.
No they probably won't catch most. There were an awful lot of rioters and looters. But they have arrested nearly 3000 people with 1300 having been in front of the courts so far. And they'll be continuing to track them down for weeks or months to come. So it's not that they don't have people who actually rioted/looted that they can make examples of.
The motivation is obvious. They don't want anyone else to incite a riot. Deterrence being one of the 3 justifications for punishment, and the most important one in this case.
Oh come on.
With a political message and marches in the streets, not blatant theft of consumer goods. To illustrate:
This is a political riot.
This is people stealing things because they want to.
The guys in this article started facebook pages called "Smash dwn in Northwich Town" (sic) and "The Warrington Riots". There is nothing political about what went on in the UK.
Welcome to British youth culture.
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
The country is morally corrupt. When lords are send to jail by the bus load but still only a fraction of the ones who made a complete mess of things can you expect the people on the bottom not to feel they can do some leeching of society as well?
Human society doesn't work because we are social or because we are good but because more or less the majority doesn't want to much fuzz so they get along. Just see how on footpads people tend to go left-right despite their not being any law for it. Because going against the stream is a nuisance.
But there are some people who love going against the stream and that is okay, society needs a few to shake it up and then. A few. Not the entire bloody lot. One shady lord just makes for some good headlines and a feeling that they are the same as us after all. Hundreds of corrupt lords makes people feel they are being told to be behave by criminals.
In England so far the elections are not so much about electing the most popular party but the party that is considered the least sleaziest. The tories got kicked out because there sleaze just got so big nobody could ignore it anymore, then labour sleezed it up and now the tories are back with their sleaze. It is almost amusing until you realize that in many ways england is as bankrupt as greece. Worse even if you realize that greece isn't supposed to be rich, any loss in wealth is fictional wealth. England was a rich nation and now it isn't. When you got to sell of your carriers and lay of thousands of police, you are not doing well. But no brit can admit it.
If you visited England over the last few decades you have seen a country sliding into poverty. No income, no plan, hoodlums at the controls.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In this particular case, it wasn't a call to fix or change the system, but that doesn't negate the point: it's important to clarify what limits we are willing to place on free speech and to understand the consequences of those limits. I agree that this instance seems reasonable, but I think it's important to have guidelines so that we don't have to consider everything on a case by case basis. A call to riot for the sake of destruction is a crime. A call to protest is not. But what about a call for civil disobedience, to ignore laws deemed unjust? You are still inciting people to break the law, but the character of the crime is much different. Of course, even in the US, where there is a codified right to free speech, there are definite limits. You aren't allowed to shout fire in a public building, and you aren't allowed to make credible threats against a person. But what makes a threat credible?
There are other examples which are even less clear. How should we handle the publishing a list of abortion doctors' addresses, with a vague call to arms? Is the call to arms just rhetoric, or is it a true incitement to violence? If we make the determination by the wording, people will just find euphemisms to use. With these facebook posts, not only was intent clear, but given the nature of current events, it was more likely that people would act (and a belief that someone will actually take your call to arms seriously seems like it should factor into things). However, it is a call to an even worse crime, and even though intent can't be proven, it is hard to believe that someone would publish such a list without hoping someone else would act.
Free speech is a great ideal, but we've never had completely free speech, and that's the way it should be. However, if we want to balance our idealism with practicality in a consistent and even handed way, it's important to understand exactly what society will and will not accept.
First of all, research has shown again and again that harsh penalties simply do not work as a deterrent to other offenders.
Secondly, does the judge expect that another riot is around the corner? Who is he trying to deter?
I expect the sentence to be reduced on appeal.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
As a British Subject, I'd love to see actual examples of an ASBO being issued for criticism of the government...
Because it's something I've never heard of.
There is a difference between demonstrating people who want political change in a non-democratic country, and people who go on a looting rampage in one of the richest democracies in the world.
I do not think that the rioters were trying to achieve change. I have yet to see anything other than people taking stuff and destroying things because they thought they could. Why it seemed like a good idea is something to look into.
It's not even a basic level of morality that's required, a political protest requires at the very least some sort of aim (other than acquisition), wouldn't you say?