Slashdot Mirror
UK Man Jailed For 'Offensive Tweets'
Motor writes "A UK judge has jailed a man for 56 days after he posted offensive comments on twitter about a footballer who had a heart attack during a game. He's also been thrown out of his university degree course weeks from graduating. His comments may have been offensive... but do they really justify a prison sentence and ruining his life?"
Can you really be imprisoned in the UK for posting something racially insensitive? Just because he wrote something about a soccer player people liked doesn't mean he should be arrested and sent to jail. What kind of wacky police state does the UK have that this is acceptable legal policy? Don't the police there have better things to do than be made to chase down Twitter trolls?
A UK judge has jailed a man for 56 days after he posted offensive comments on twitter about a footballer who had a heart attack during a game. He's also been thrown out of his university degree course weeks from graduating.
I'm surprised that, being a judge, he hadn't already graduated. Seems a bit political by the university anyway.
This took place in a country outside of the United States. They don't have the first amendment. If a person is guilty of "inciting racial hatred" and they admit to it, as is the case here, then they are punishable by local law.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Nowhere in the article is it said that the student has been "thrown out"; in actuality he's suspended pending the internal disciplinary process (as is, as far as I know, standard whenever a student is arrested). [For what it's worth I happen to be a postgrad at Swansea]
Not just this story but other stories about censorship of the internet & television channels, indicate to me that free speech is no longer a right in the UK. That's a shame because that's where the right was first re-born in the modern world.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Interestingly, Association football is named after the fact that it was originally played by peasants, on foot. (The comparison was to polo, which was played by rich people on horseback.)
As for the importance of our respective footballs, is the championship game of your football season essentially a national holiday?
Liam Stacey was not arrested for offensive comments. He was found guilty of inciting racial hatred.
He wasn't thrown out of university; he is suspended pending an investigation.
The reality of freedom of speech (at least the US concept) is that it is not consequence free speech. While the article does not mention any actual harm committed through racial insensitivity, I can only assume that someone was threatened and that the threat was taken seriously through Liam's postings. If no actual harm was committed, society does not benefit by having someone go to prison.
No - fuck you, colonial traitors!
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
I made a similar submission this morning regarding this issue.
This guy is being prosecuting for making critical remarks about British soldiers.
These guys were sent to prison for encouraging rioting on Facebook.
The BBC has more information here.
Everyone believes that Democracy won the cold war over Communism, but given what's happening in the west today, how true is that?
Here's what he wrote, according to the Daily Mail: âoeLOL, **** Muamba. Heâ(TM)s dead.â (I assume he actually wrote "fuck", there.)
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
The media actually hardly ever publish what was written in cases like these. It's easier for the public to accept the judgement if they don't know the details.
We had a similar thing in the UK with the riots a few months ago - there was a prison sentence of four years for someone who called for his friends to come to a riot on facebook, even though no-one other than the police turned up. The naivety is with the people that think it's acceptable to incite violence or make racist comments because it's on the internet. This is usually because they think thing like twitter and facebook are some big anonymous system and they won't get caught, whilst ironically in the UK this behaviour is currently less tolerated than similar crimes committed in person.
And let's put this into the proper perspective. This man insuted another man. He did NOT initiate actual coercion (theft, fraud, physical force) or threat thereof. He simply insulted another man.
Government, on the other hand, has clearly initiated coercion (actual physical force) against this man, the insensitive asshole.
A real crime needs both an aggressor (the initiator of coercion) and a victim (the recipient of coercion). The real crime should be perfectly clear by now. The victim is the insensitive asshole, and the aggressor is government.
The laws of human nature trump the laws of government by definition.
If the guy is a paying student the university can suspend him if they think so, but if it's a college funded by the taxpayers they shouldn't have the right to choose between students. There are people convicted of murder studying and getting degrees in jail but a guy guilty of speechcrime can get suspended?
Us Brits invented Baseball to, you know.
You can find them here:
http://deadspin.com/5896709/racist-tweets-about-fabrice-muamba-get-student-56-days-in-jail
I find the argument that using the internet is more dangerous than actual speak because more people can "hear" it a bit silly.
These laws seem to have been created to prevent immanent violence based on racial hate on the street, but because the internet records information it is much easier to prosecute these type of "crimes".
No wonder the news article didn't quote any tweets. There's nothing to quote. Actually reporting on what was written would probably just get people angry about the response, which is probably not their intention.
Those explanations are common, but not necessarily true.
Indeed, the term "football" may have either come from the fact that feet could be used to progress the ball, or because it was played on foot. It is not known which is true, though. The one thing that can EASLY be dismissed, though, is that football means that ONLY the feet can progress the ball, given that even some of the precursors to soccer/association football allowed players to use their hands, as well.
Rather, back in the early 1800's, the term "football" was simply a generic name of an entire class of sports, but as time progressed, and these ball games spread throughout the world, different places adopted different rules. Today, the most common variants are Association Football (soccer), Rugby Football, American Football and Australian Rules Football, though there are many others being played as well.
American football was developed largely in New England and southern Quebec, where elements of Rugby football were adopted to make it a "running game" rather than a "kicking" game. It wasn't until the late 1800's that American football distinguished itself from other forms, when Walter Camp included rules on the line of scrimmage and later limited the number of downs. As a result of his rules, the utility of kicking the ball diminished greatly - to the point where there are typically only two players who kick the ball on a given team, and the fair catch kick, while still in the rules, has been attempted three times in the last 20 years, and there has not been a successful attempt since 1976.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 29
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
A real crime needs both an aggressor (the initiator of coercion) and a victim (the recipient of coercion). The real crime should be perfectly clear by now. The victim is the insensitive asshole, and the aggressor is government.
Post-WW2, we live in modern regulatory states. These penalize, and sometimes criminalize, regulatory infractions. Deliberate failure to pay taxes, for example, or deliberately structuring your transactions to avoid anti-money-laundering techniques, or driving a vehicle without a license.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!