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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense
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.
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 almost was going to vote for you, then I read your sig.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
they aren't going to catch most of the actual rioters?
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.
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.)
Prime Minister David Cameron said:
Mr Cameron is no stranger to appalling behaviour, being a former member of the Bullingdon Club, "notorious for its members' wealth and destructive binges". The club song apparently goes: "Buller, Buller, Buller! Buller, Buller, Buller! We are the famous Bullingdon Club, and we don't give a fuck!"
Cameron's 'Buller' escapades include running from the police through the streets of Oxford after a heavy flowerpot was thrown through a restaurant window.
THIS is about consequences. No one can shut you when you have to say something - but expect some punishment if something you want to say includes breaking the law in senseless way like looting and destroying others property without sensible cause. And yes, even you see your aim just, law just doesn't care. Judge might, but still you will receive penalty for initiating uncontrolled mobs and riots. If you want start a revolution, sorry kid, with all good intends it takes much more organizing than that. Otherwise mob is just a mob and in it responsibility and morality of individual goes down the drain.
4 years sounds harsh, but I don't know lot of details. I would go for 2 years, which are enough for thinking this trough.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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.
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.
They pleaded guilty. That tends to short-cut proceedings a little (no fancy speeches to a jury, questioning of evidence etc)
I agree with you, except Syria hardly violent revolution, it was peaceful demonstrations with emotional crowds for sure, but Assad didn't wait for them to turn violent - he just crushed them to show that dissident won't be allowed at any measure. Fact that he tries to do some cynical PR in same time just speaks volumes what he exactly thinks about his nation.
Those people on the top in Syria aren't that afraid from revolution than the fact that they will have to answer about their crimes.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I would post "man, someone's really begging to get his site DDoSed", but I guess I would face 4 years of jail time if I did.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've just filed a complaint against this company at http://www.la.bbb.org/business-reviews/Computer-Software-Services/CyberDefender-in-Los-Angeles-CA-13196224
Anyone else want to do the same?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Yes, continually through the Labour government, where they had databases and registers to track almost everything you wanted to do. And if it wasn't criminal, then you'd better believe they had a plan to make it illegal if they thought they could.
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.
4 years in primary school would have been more appropriate.
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.
"civil unrest against a perceived corrupt political system"
Nobody involved cared about that. Seriously - you had to be there, it really was people of various walks of life just grabbing everything out of shops then setting fire to them (then attacking firemen when they tried to rescue the families in the flats above), kicking people half to death, etc. - just going nutz to get stuff and get money and get away with settling scores against specific people or whatever community they disliked.
People being violently and/or sexually assaulted, robbed or even killed in the street. Not bankers, not politicians. Their own.
Not one bank or political institution was touched, only places with Cool Stuff in, and the cars/houses/persons of the working and/or poor people in their own communities.
"a chaotic mess of angry people lashing out"
A chaotic mess of rapturously smiling laughing people taking what they wanted and doing violence to people. Families having their homes torched and their lives endangered, swathes of jobs being ended by businesses being torched when nobody can afford insurance these days.
Killings of people who tried to help the victims, attacks against ambulances trying to treat the victims, attacks against firemen trying to put out fires.
Seriously, I don't know how to explain this convincingly enough without sounding emotive - this is in the place I've grown up in. Don't let people get away with saying it was a political demonstration - I mean you had to be there but seriously it REALLY. WASN'T., I would say what we all saw and endured had no protest component to it whatsoever past about 9pm on the first night - it was just open season for the cannibalistic predators of London to hurt/take from their own.
OK pal, you must be snorting the cheap home made acid a bit too much, or you're simply speaking from the comfort of your mom's basement outsie of the UK. I can tell you that I am. Let me definitively tell you that these guys aren't political protestors. They are cheap hooligan thugs who enjoy a bit of the old smashy smashy and in and out.
Monday week ago I was caught between the looters and teh police in Lewisham while returning a car. I had rocks and bricks sailing past my head. Then on Tuesday, one of our neighbours decided to make a stand and stop these little pricks from taking his wheelie bin to transport their ill gotten goods by asking them politely not to do it. Their response? They stabbed him. He's in intensive care and may not live.
Last night, we had 3 thugs breaking in to the place next door to us. We called the police and they responded very quickly and arrested the 3 of them. This is the same kind of "protestor" that everyone is talking about. So you know what? NO. These ARE NOT protestors, they're opportunists. The BBC has given them ample opportunity to present a case, and none have been able to do so. The internet is not rife with reason, but rather rampant stupidity on the topic.
This is not society's fault, nor the fault of the police, or the government, but the fault of a generation of bottom feeding scum sucking opportunists that need a harsh lesson in reality dealt to them.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
This wasn't "people hitting the streets". I am the first person to support direct action and protest, but you really need to go and examine what has gone on before you exhort this - it sounds like these people had a political purpose.
Go, examine the offenses and what happened. I promise you, it was not politicians or political institutions being protested against or smashed, it was not banks, it was not the government, hell it mostly wasn't even the police.
I can tell you how it was, I saw it. It was mostly just shopping with violence instead of cash, lots of poor/working people in their OWN COMMUNITIES getting hurt in a weird sort of hedonistic holiday for violent bastards, where the weak were being feasted upon all over the place.
The geeks on this site who like to rail against global capitalism and so on, and who support political protest/direct action are the sort of people who were getting robbed, assaulted and burned out of their homes in a heartbeat in that environment. Prey of a mob of people who have realised they can get away with whatever the hell they like. No politics necessary.
Aside from the fact that they pled guilty, what else do you expect? This is an open and shut case – they can trivially be tied to their Facebook accounts, the contents of the Facebook account can be established, and it can easily be established that 1) Facebook asks you not to give your login details to other people 2) that the post came from somewhere they commonly post from.
Why would they spend more than an hour or two on it, even if they didn't plead guilty?
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.
To be clear, these "drastic cuts" in deprived areas are not optional.
No-one has any money, least of all the people in the area.
Spending money you don't have and will have to pay back has made the cuts more extreme than they might have needed to be.
Some of the poor are poor because they waste what they have - like a bunch of hooligans did this time. On the other side sometimes the rich aren't rich, they just borrow high.
Riots don't bring money out of no where to make someone with no money pay for what you can't pay for yourself.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
I'm sorry to say that but for an outside European observer the UK is becoming more and more like a totalitarian country. There are cameras everywhere
Let me guess, an outside European perspective gained from reading The Daily Mail? The number of cameras in Britain is massively over exaggerated. The number that's usually thrown around was generated by taking a mile of one of the busiest streets in central London, counting the number of cameras (including speeding cameras and privately owned CCTV cameras inside shops on both sides) and then multiplying that number by the number of miles of roads in Britain.
The more realistic number includes motorway monitoring cameras, which are not recorded, have one person monitoring about 100 of them, and are used to notify radio stations and so on of large traffic jams and dispatch emergency services to accidents. The next highest number is automated speed / red light cameras. The government controlled ones in city centres are operated by the local councils and are mostly being shut down because they provide little benefit and the councils can't afford to operate them.
and face-recognition software is used to identify people on it
Not sure why this is a sign of totalitarianism. Is it less totalitarian if you have a human matching the faces to photographs? The face recognition that's been talked about in the media recently has been matching the faces of people from Facebook who said things like 'I got a new 42" TV in the riots!' to images from shops' CCTV. How evil...
internet and phone serveillance everywhere,
Unless you think The News of the World and Phorm are government agencies, I'm not sure where this comes from.
and all big parties are decidedly right-wing
Bullshit. One of the two parties in our coalition government is still slightly left of centre, and my MEP is from a decidedly left-wing party.
it is still legal in the UK to beat up your children
any UK news source, then you'd see examples of parents being imprisoned and having their children taken into care for this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
and it turns out that this invasion was illegal under international law, should they be prosecuted as war criminals?
how about if someone says we should torture POWs? and we do torture POWs? are those people guilty now of war crimes?
how about if someone says we should kill all the lawyers? if some lawyer gets shot, should that person go to prison?
how about if some website is full of comments about how downloading movies and music in violation of copyright law is legitimate because the companies are evil? should those commenters all go to prison as copyright violators too?
In this case a blatant example of currency speak in a court of law, the difference between innocence and guilt being the size of the cheque book available to pay off lawyers, in this case zip, zero, nil.
First and foremost, no riot, no violence, not even a couple of drunks fighting. Second 750 million facebook users, bloody hell, one page amongst 750 million how many people were actually going to see it. Thirdly it is pull not push, people actually have to get it, it is not pushed out to them. Fourthly and most importantly the people who want to become involved, actually already have to have a desire to become involved the absence or presence of one page on the internet amongst billions in meaningless, is is just the communications medium. Fifth what was claimed as the level of interaction by the court, how many accessed the page (excluding idiots in police uniforms ramping it up for the sake of easy arrests and promotions), how many replied and how many added to it.
This is nothing more that abusive autocrats seizing an opportunity to demonstrate their power by destroying peoples lives, clearly innocent people who were selected virtually at random, there was absolutely no intent of justice.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The "it was a joke" line has already been tried and failed here in the UK, in a case where it was actually more obviously a joke.
The only consequences from these people's actions are that they got arrested and prosecuted. They didn't actually incite anyone to riot, noone responded to their posts by turning up and rioting. No riots occurred in the places they suggested in their posts. The only people who responded to the posts were the police, who are now butthurt that they turned up to defend shopping centres on the strength of a stupid facebook post. They should be prosecuted for wasting police time, if anything. They are being punished for intent to cause consequences, not for actually causing consequences.
Korma: Good
Only because it was raining in Scotland.
Absit Invidia
Actually, you are referring to a case where disproportinate force was used by a farmer against a 16 year old burglar. The force was him firing a shotgun into the kid, and the disproportion was that he shot him in the back when he was running away for his life, screaming don't shoot me.
This has been widely misinterpreted in the UK that you can't do anything when someone breaks into your house and threatens your life. According to the westminster system, you have the right to use proportionate force against an intruder. Proportionate being the grey zone. Thankfully, a recent case where a family was help up by knifepoint cleared the waters somewhat, as when the father killed the guys with a knife, he eventually got off on self defence because he had an honest and reasonable fear for the safety of his family. David Cameron, our PM, intervened and said that an investigation of clear disproportionate force should be able to be used against an intruder to remove all doubt, although it has been argued that this would simply cause a spiral of violence. However, the judiciary and the legislate have made it quite clear. If your robber is running away, you can't do anything, but if he's entered your home and you have a genuine fear for your life, smash him in the face with a brick.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
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?