UK Man Arrested For Offensive Joke Posted On Facebook

An anonymous reader writes "A tasteless joke posted on Facebook saw a man arrested in the UK under section 127 of the Communications Act, for sending a public electronic communication which is 'grossly offensive'. Matthew Wood, 20, of Eaves Lane, Chorley, UK will appear before Chorley Magistrates' Court on Monday."

Comments

The joke in question

[Sprite_tm]

FYI: According to the internet, the joke in question was:
'What's the difference between Mark Bridger and Santa Claus? Mark Bridger comes in April.' ...yeah.

Re:The joke in question

[Pecisk]

Sick, but that would be civil case.

Re:The joke in question

[Spad]

Yes, it's offensive and no, it's not particularly funny, but the police are starting to take the piss a little now with these charges.

Saying things that people don't like should not be a crime with the exception of those that are explicitly inciting others to commit crimes.

Re:The joke in question

[Smauler]

This goes to show how pointless prosecuting this guy is - the Streisand effect ensures that the law is worse than counterproductive, it's actively resulting in what the law was trying to do, which is prevent these kinds of jokes being made on the internet (which is a bit of a stupid fucking law, IMO). If I repeat it, will I be arrested too (yes I am a UK national)? If not, why not?

Only one way to find out...

What's the difference between Mark Bridger and Santa Claus? Mark Bridger comes in April.

Re:The joke in question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it be a case at all?
Other than a case for punching the guy in the face, that is.

Re:The joke in question

[Zemran]

It is a sick joke but a smack in the mouth would be a more appropriate response...

Re:The joke in question

[alendit]

Oh dear, 4chan shold be collectively jailed any moment now...

Re:The joke in question

[zennyboy]

I would have thought Facebook was in the same situation as Slashdot

Re:The joke in question

[Lisias]

As far as I know, Facebook has representatives on every country it wants to make some money.

Re:The joke in question

[Sique]

This would be an "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus not allowed. If done anyway, it would amount to grievous bodily harm.

Re:The joke in question

[Chrisq]

As far as I know, Facebook has representatives on every country it wants to make some money.

More to the point he probably displays things like his real name, schools attended, etc. on his timeline, so the police don't have to subpoena his details.

Re:The joke in question

[LordLucless]

If you were the father of this child, I'd say this could very easily insight terrible actions of violence.

Incite. And so what? Telling a Muslim that Mohammed was not a prophet could very easily incite him to terrible actions of violence. Should that be forbidden? Making that the standard just means that if someone wants to suppress your speech, all they have to do is kill you, and say it was the fault of your nasty, inciting speech. Damn, what a deterrent.

The standard the GP was referring to was actually encouraging violence - as in, a post that said something like "go and kill all the unbelievers", or, as in this case, "I want to kill Mark Bridger". Those statements should be investigated, and if it turns out they're credible as threats of violence, then punishment should be forthcoming. But banning anything that might make people mad? I think you've just violated the entire premise of free speech - if the only things you say don't make people mad, nobody's going to stop you saying them in the first place. It's entirely those forms of speech that make people mad that need protection.

Re:The joke in question

[technos]

Superinjunctions and libel tourism seem to say otherwise.

Re:The joke in question

[lattyware]

Because who decides what is too offensive? The government? What if they decide telling a joke about the government is too offensive to them, ban you from doing that? What about if they decide jokes about euthenasia are too offensive? Ban those too?

The government should not have the power to censor speech because it gives them too much power - they are already in a highly absuable position, we need to ensure we have a way to stand up and say something is wrong, otherwise the system collapses.

Not being offended is not something anyone should have a right to. If someone wants to make a joke about someone's dead daughter, fine. It's that father's responsibility to be a mature adult and not attack them.

Re:The joke in question

[robably]

It's not counterproductive as they see it. They want you, the public, to know that if they want to get you they will get you. They are being bullies, not custodians of the law. They already got their intended chilling effect by making an example of this guy, and now everyone will be a little more nervous about what they post online - they don't need to prosecute you as well. But they might, and if a law is being applied selectively it should not be applied at all.

Re:The joke in question

[agentgonzo]

Because who decides what is too offensive? The government?

If you actually want the answer to this question, then it's "the courts of law" (I'm sure that there is a specific one to deal with this, but I don't know enough about the system). The law courts are deliberately NOT answerable to the government to prevent interference from the current incumbents.

Re:The joke in question

[ReallyEvilCanine]

> The UK has excellent freedom of expression. As the Clash wrote, "As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it," a revelation which might pop your little two-volt cork. A little insight into what "incite" means (since you don't even know the difference between the two words): To incite someone isn't to simply make them angry or feel violent, it means to provoke them to taking violent and illegal action, such as rioting or killing. Making someone mad isn't "incitement" you buffoon. Likewise, the US Constitution explicitly makes the freedom of speech/thought/expression "inalienable".

It's downright scary that same people who so bitterly complain about the saccharine superficiality world of the US are the same people who now defend a law which so stifles and criminalises speech that as it stands, even the conflict in an episode of Teletubbies or Zingzillas could have you arrested, defending yourself in court while facing years of imprisonment. All you have to do to find yourself in that position now is simply refuse to accept Islam when pressed (that's "grossly offensive" to a Muslim) or tell a dumb joke.

It's such stupidity and grievous censorship of thoughts and ideas that tipped the balance in favour of staying in Germany rather than moving back to the UK.

Re:The joke in question

[asdf7890]

It depends on the place it was posted. If it were posted in a private page then it is just a terrible joke between like minded people, no worse than a joke over a beer in a pub.

If it were posted on a known venue for sick jokes, then again I would consider it perfectly normal (on the basis that if you visit a venue for offensive jokes then you should expect to find jokes that might offend you) and any complaint should be handled by civil procedures.

If on the other hand it was posted on a public resource, the matter definitely comes under the pervue of the obscene publications act and similar legislation, and if posted to a public page relating in some way to the case in point then it is a deliberate attempt to cause mental harm and shoudl eb prosecuted appropriately.

Of course practically speaking your own facebook page is no less public than a support page for the victims, so that area is a bit more grey than my first statement suggests.

Re:The joke in question

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking spectacular nincompoop.

Re:The joke in question

[WillKemp]

This would be an "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus not allowed. If done anyway, it would amount to grievous bodily harm.

I think you're getting your jurisdictions muddled up - the country in question is the UK, not the US.

Re:The joke in question

[jader3rd]

How different is telling this joke to her father, to yelling fire in a theatre.

The difference in the US is the physical proximity. If telling the joke to the father involves the father being in close physical proximity then it wouldn't be protected as free speech if it could be considered "fighting words" or "an incitement to violence". Writing down and publishing the joke is free speech because of the lack of physical proximity and the delay in time.

I know in the US telling fire in a theater isn't protected as free speech, but I'm not as positive about yelling fire in a theatre.

Re:The joke in question

[Quakeulf]

The article reads like an April's fools joke...

Re:The joke in question

[thegrassyknowl]

But this post could be considered an incitement to violence and that is a whole different kettle of policemen.

Re:The joke in question

[DrXym]

Why would it be a case at all?

Look at the section in the act. Sounds like some people were grossly offended by this joke which concerns 5 year old girl who is assumed to be murdered and is currently front page news in the UK at the moment. I don't think making tasteless jokes should be subject to criminal law but the police do have grounds to make an arrest. A way to look at it is this dickhead has volunteered to become a test case to see what the limits of the law actually are. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up in European courts of justice if the matter is pushed that far by prosecutors or championed by civil rights defenders.

Re:The joke in question

[MisterBuggie]

I would love to know what you think the Queen has to do with any of this...

Re:The joke in question

[DrXym]

The police's job is to investigate and make an arrest on the basis of law. It's for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine if the case should then be prosecuted and their determination would be made on a) whether its in the public interest to prosecute, and b) whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. The police don't pick and choose what laws they wish to follow although they or the CPS may choose to issue a caution or penalty for a minor crime.

Re:The joke in question

[maroberts]

Of course practically speaking your own facebook page is no less public than a support page for the victims, so that area is a bit more grey than my first statement suggests.

Well not exactly. Your personal Facebook page/wall is your own diary and you permit friends to view it. You have a legitimate expectation that friends accept your twisted sense of humor, and will not be offended by same. A Victim Support page is an entirely different matter.

Re:The joke in question

[PartyBoy!911]

Who the fuck is Mark Bridger???

Re:The joke in question

[slim]

If you actually want the answer to this question, then it's "the courts of law"

More specifically, in the UK, a magistrate or a jury; and if the defendant doesn't want to accept a magistrate's verdict, they can always appeal to a full court.

Then again, juries only decide guilt or otherwise. Judges decide on the sentence.

Re:The joke in question

[K. S. Kyosuke]

How different is telling this joke to her father, to yelling fire in a theatre.

In my country, if you yell "fire" in a non-burning theatre, you're not going to get into trouble for exercising freedom of expression, you're going to get into trouble for scaremongering and causing public danger. These are completely different law articles, mind you.

Re:The joke in question

[LordLucless]

Do I think it should be illegal to go into a mosque and loudly, grossly defame the Islamic belief and culture.

The UK has excellent freedom of expression

Well, now we can see why you think that. Go stick your face back in the muzzle, you seem to like it there.

Re:The joke in question

[queazocotal]

"I want to kill Mark Bridger" is not incitement, unless it's used in a context meaning "you should want to kill Mark Bridger too".

Re:The joke in question

[RaceProUK]

Of course you can. You'll then be arrested for inciting panic/disturbing the peace.

Re:The joke in question

[RaceProUK]

In real terms, the Queen has less power than a broken toaster. The true power lies in the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall.

Re:The joke in question

[durrr]

If facebook is a public resource then 4chan is one too.
Which means a lot of arresting is to be expected.

Re:The joke in question

[durrr]

Mere words should never be punished or punishable by any form of physical violence.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should be flogged in public because they deeply offend me and my religious belives and general sense of entitlement and ego and other arbitrary social constructs.

Re:The joke in question

[HungryHobo]

Someone pointed out elsewhere:

"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."

He didn't write that joke on the page for the victims. someone else did but with a screenshot of his personal page.

Probably reposted to the page by an offense junkie who gets off on showing off things they think people should be offended by.

Re:The joke in question

[AmiMoJo]

Making that the standard just means that if someone wants to suppress your speech, all they have to do is kill you, and say it was the fault of your nasty, inciting speech. Damn, what a deterrent.

You still get convicted of murder, even if incited.

The problem with the current law is that incitement is defined as speech likely to cause someone to do something. "Likely" is undefined, so basically the law says anything you say that may cause the dumber and more extreme members of society to do something is banned. You have to judge just how dumb and extreme they are.

That of course has nothing to do with this case, which is about offence. It seems that Facebook is deemed a public forum. You could repeat this joke privately without any problem, but "publishing" it to a wider audience could be a problem. Again this area is not very well defined. If you have a private Twitter feed with only three followers would that count as "publishing"? And hasn't the CPS, by bringing a prosecution, caused the joke to be widely repeated and published?

Re:The joke in question

[bhagwad]

Umm...why couldn't people just mark it as spam instead?

Re:The joke in question

[bhagwad]

It should be perfectly legal to be an asshole. Shouting "Fire" in a theatre has specific, well known physical consequences. In an effort to save their lives, people might stampede. The father on the other hand is expect to merely ignore what some random dude says - no matter how offensive. His life or physical safety is not perceived to be in danger.

Re:The joke in question

[bhagwad]

Those who were "offended" could have just ignored it right? Or marked it as spam. If enough people do that, problem solved! Why isn't this a perfectly ideal solution?

Re:The joke in question

[HungryHobo]

Someone pointed out elsewhere:

"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."

So he did post it on his own wall.
It should have been a case of "who cares". but some offense junkie took a screengrab and reposted it for shits and giggles on the support page.

Probably with some equivilent to "hey look at this sick fuck everyone, look and be offended while I bask in the joy of having brough this guys wall post to your attention, now quickly get the pitchforks"

the world is full of self righteous assholes who aren't just easily offended but actively seek out offense and make sure to tell everyone else who they think should be offended as well.

Re:The joke in question

[bhagwad]

Words should be responded to with words. Don't break the virtual barrier. In no universe can anyone "get what he deserves" if he faces physical punishment for merely typing something. Emotional harm is not punishable in situations like this.

Re:The joke in question

[nschubach]

I'm no fan of this particular line of laws, but what it sounds like to me is that they have the wrong person. They should be going after the person that copied the IP of the man who wrote it. After all, did he give permission for that other person to use his copyrighted material?

Re:The joke in question

[Andy_R]

This is actually one of the parts of the US Constitution that's based on an older UK law, our Bill of Rights (1689) says "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;"

Re:The joke in question

[nschubach]

I've been in a theater that caught fire. I was watching a movie and one of the speakers behind the screen caught fire. It was right there in front of the entire theater to see. Did people trample each other to get out? Nope. We all got up calmly and walked outside. "Yelling fire in a theater" is grossly exaggerated, IMHO.

Re:The joke in question

[asdf7890]

Deliberate griefing and spam are *not* the same thing.

Re:The joke in question

[Martin S.]

Because who decides what is too offensive?

The legal test is called the reasonable man test and it boils down to the jury to fulfil that role, if they find it offensive it is offensive.

Re:The joke in question

[asdf7890]

That is how it should be, yes. Though I'm careful not to post anything that I wouldn't say loudly to a friend while chatting in a the middle of a public place full of people I don't know. There are various ways for the things I post to be brought to the attention of people who might not like them despite my best efforts to keep my less savoury posts "friends only".

Re:The joke in question

[yahwotqa]

Arrest this guy! Or at least mod him funny.

Re:The joke in question

[bhagwad]

Deliberate griefing IS spam, in that spam is simply something unwanted in your message stream. Do you want deliberate griefing? No. Then it's spam.

Re:The joke in question

[Hentes]

The police couldn't find the guy, so they made some something up not to go home empty handed.

Re:The joke in question

[heathen_01]

In real terms, the Queen has less power than a broken toaster. The true power lies in the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall.

No, the true power lies with the people. Convincing the people to use that power is the tricky part...

Re:The joke in question

[Hentes]

I know it's Streisand effect and fight the power, but I think in this case reposting the joke is just as tasteless as making it in the first place. We could argue about the story and the effects of censorship without that knowledge just fine. But I guess the modders here disagree with me.

Re:The joke in question

[Inda]

Thanks for sharing that. I was aware of this story before Slashdot posted it but I didn't feel the need to hunt for the joke. It's an old, old joke.

Speaking of old jokes, that maths teacher who ran off to France with that 15-year-old a few weeks back. He was practicing long division; seeing how many times 30 went into 15.

Old, old jokes. Lock me up and throw away the key.

I heard a phrase once: "All Americans see themselves as future millionaires and their current situation is temporary." or something like that. It's that can-do attitude people see in Americans.

I feel us British are the same with comedy. We all think we're just one joke away from our chance at the Hammersmith Apollo (large venue in London where comedians reach their peak). I've even said something similar about myself: For every 10 jokes I tell, one is a gem, the rest are forgetable.

Bad comedy is just that. Bad. Bad in the bad way.

Re:The joke in question

[oakgrove]

Exactly what I was thinking. But, hey, why inject common sense into public discourse, right?

Re:The joke in question

[heefeneet]

Because who decides what is too offensive?

The legal test is called the reasonable man test and it boils down to the jury to fulfil that role, if they find it offensive it is offensive.

Really? They seem to be using the "little old church-going lady" test these days.

Re:The joke in question

[HungryHobo]

I imagine it's hard to go after someone who would argue that they were commenting on his post for copyright and that would also argue that the intention wasn't to cause offense but rather to inform people about someone being offensive.

the law covers intentionally trying to deeply upset people but not with introducing people to things which will upset them.

it gets into that sort of silly tripe when people bring in censorship.

Re:The joke in question

[mrmeval]

It's such stupidity and grievous censorship of thoughts and ideas that tipped the balance in favour of staying in Germany rather than moving back to the UK.

Your words bear repeating. I don't have the words to describe in a formal way what I've been reading in the British and international papers. I suggest anyone who has an interest in watching them slowly self-terminate read a couple of the less sensational newspapers, you're unlikely to find a UK blog of any worth and also try a French, German and Indian paper. The ones I subscribe to have an English edition.

I consider what is happening to the individual in the article to be oppression and grounds for asylum.

Re:The joke in question

[1u3hr]

This 'joke' was posted on a facebook page dedicated to the search for (now the body) of this little girl.

But not, according to reports, by the accused. He posted it on his own page.

Re:The joke in question

[Colven]

Interesting example I picked, but you're reply is besides the point. My example assumes he is not considered to be so by Muslims, and that it is a huge offense to say such a thing. Substitute Muhammad with Jesus and Muslims with Christians and the point is just the same.

Re:The joke in question

[nschubach]

Then how is that different from someone publishing a book stating they would rather have a world without (let's say) Christians and someone re-posting that quote? It could be offensive to someone who identifies themselves as a Christian and the person that wrote it may have some other information to back up that claim or it could have been taken out of context. Now you have to dedicate time and money tracking down the quote, determining intent...

I just wish people would get over themselves and remember the old childhood saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Re:The joke in question

[Colven]

In a court of law, certainly not. I'm conflicted about the topic, actually, because I don't think this man's words should have gotten him arrested. But in the realm of social consequences, it's debatable what is an acceptable response. So, I happen to disagree with your first statement. If you so something so grossly callous and heartless, you deserve a pretty harsh response.

Re:The joke in question

[slim]

I've been in a theater that caught fire ... We all got up calmly and walked outside.

[Sigh] It's a meme from the days when building regulations and safety procedures where less rigorous than today. Imagine an 18th century theatre; lots of wood and other flammable materials. Crammed full of people; the rich sitting in balconies. The poor standing, tightly packed, below the stage. No emergency exits. A fire could kill almost everyone in there. Raising a false alarm would be likely to cause a couple of tramplings at least.

Re:The joke in question

[1u3hr]

It's not counterproductive as they see it. They want you, the public, to know that if they want to get you they will get you. They are being bullies, not custodians of the law. They already got their intended chilling effect by making an example of this guy

Who do you think think this "they" is? Does the government care about some drunken twat making a joke? Do you think the cops were clicking on Facebook looking for bad taste jokes? Some busybody laid an official complaint and the police had to follow through. Same as the "airport bombing"" twitter joke. The judge will also probably be wishing it would all go away. The guy will probably apologise, get a warning and be released.

Re:The joke in question

[slim]

No, I wouldn't.

But Frankie Boyle tweeted a joke which combined Jimmy Savile and Madeline McCann. Probably as offensive as this joke, although possibly tempered by the passing of time. He has not been arrested.

Re:The joke in question

[PReDiToR]

He's not the guy that dresses in a red and white suit and comes in December.

Re:The joke in question

[Sun.Jedi]

If you were the father of this child, I'd say this could very easily insight terrible actions of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Catsouras_photographs_controversy

In both cases poor taste and intentionally hurtful actions have taken place. The response in both cases should have been to delete the offending mail/thread/post and move on. A picture, post, message or thread is not a reason to react with violence. While there are some differences in the two (US vs UK law, the ability for Bridger to pay out any civil penalties, etc), the easiest method was overlooked; i.e. ignore the trolls.

As a father of 4, I can't begin to imagine the feelings and emotions being in either position would bring, but I can say I'm not reaching for a pitchfork/torch or a gun to settle it.

Re:The joke in question

[robably]

The Police, that's who.

Some busybody laid an official complaint and the police had to follow through

No, they didn't. Any rational human being would have laughed them out of the station. People say tasteless things. Move on.

Re:The joke in question

[marcushnk]

I had to google search to "get" this joke...

Re:The joke in question

[khallow]

If you were the father of this child, I'd say this could very easily insight terrible actions of violence.

That's what the law is for. To punish you when you do "terrible things" which happen to be against the law. It's worth noting here that no one had to be offended. It wasn't directed to the victim's family, that is, not harassment.

Freedom to get one's point across is one thing. Freedom to hurt another while doing so (or while not even conveying anything meaningful) is another.

You generally can't allow one without the other.

Re:The joke in question

[drinkypoo]

the world is full of self righteous assholes who aren't just easily offended but actively seek out offense and make sure to tell everyone else who they think should be offended as well.

That's how society is supposed to work -- name and shame. That would work fine without these bad laws. I have often raised the point that speech is not free in the UK, and I am typically told that this doesn't apply to UK citizens. That's not a good argument; if speech isn't free for everyone, it's not free, is it? But now we see that it DOES very much apply to citizens. This is what we have to look forward to in the USA if we continue to permit corporate interests to operate our government.

Re:The joke in question

[drinkypoo]

The UK has excellent freedom of expression

Obviously not. Besides, there are other reasons why this isn't true. Sedition is still illegal, but only for non-citizens. The difference between the US and the UK is that we know what "right" means; it applies to everyone. Non-citizens have (in theory) the same legal right to free speech that citizens do in the USA. Not so in the UK, where they can still be done for seditious speech! Let alone examples like this, where the victim is not even being blamed, let alone attacked.

Re:The joke in question

[1u3hr]

The Police, that's who.

Thanks. Sorry I couldn't read your mind and work it out for myself.

Some busybody laid an official complaint and the police had to follow through

No, they didn't. Any rational human being would have laughed them out of the station. People say tasteless things. Move on.

The law exists and the police don't have the discretion to just ignore an offence, no matter what they, or you, thought about it. It's up to the crown prosecutor and then the judge, not the police.

Re:The joke in question

[khallow]

The law courts are government. Just because they're a relatively independent branch of government (who pays for their staff and infrastructure? who appoints the committee which appoints judges?) doesn't mean that one has removed the government from the process.

Re:The joke in question

[slackware 3.6]

Umm now a days if anyone offends a Muslim they do get arrested.

Re:The joke in question

[tmosley]

I see, so you are in favor of "free speech zones".

People like you make me sick.

Re:The joke in question

[tmosley]

Both are free speech, and should be dealt with non-judicially. Resorting to the police, and worse, the police having the power to pursue charges is an indication that your society has failed. Much more pertinent would have been to go back to his own Facebook page, and tell his mother and boss about his little jokes. Ostracizing someone for anti-social behavior of this type is the appropriate response, not locking people up in boxes and setting precedents for the next guy who makes a crack about the Queen or some shit.

Re:The joke in question

[tmosley]

I see you are new to the police state. I'd say "enjoy your stay" but you won't, as your ignorance of it will likely lead to tragedy in your future.

Re:The joke in question

[slim]

... then you reject the core of the legal system in the UK, the USA, and most of the Western world.

A bunch of losers who couldn’t even make up an excuse to skip jury duty, with ZERO expertise on anything and most likely caveman education

I served on a jury last year. It never occurred to me to try and skip it. I considered it my duty to society. When you pick 12 people at random, you get a reasonable cross-section, and we ranged from highly educated to left-school-at-16. It is the prosecution and the defence's job to educate the jury on subjects that are relevant to the case (we came away from our case knowing a lot more about coup and contrecoup head injuries).

In the case of "reasonable man" judgements on offence, the only way you can gauge offence is to take a random sampling of the general population, and ask them how offensive they find the matter. That sounds like a jury to me.

Re:The joke in question

[firewrought]

It is a deliberate attempt to cause mental harm and should be prosecuted appropriately...

Here's a better opinion:

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
--Voltaire

Anyone can claim "mental harm" at hearing a joke they don't like. And maybe they actually are mentally harmed, but you can't make the world a perfect place thru legislation: human conflict is an inevitable part of living and you can't just rule it out existence. By making a law like this, you open wide avenues of abuse ("offensiveness" is vague and subjective, unlike harm caused by actual physical violence), and you cast a mental shroud across the entire populace, because each person now has to watch what they say extra hard. It's a silent oppression... the sort of thing that inhibits spontaneity and interferes with the business of living.

What's next? A law against facial expressions (frowns, angry glares) intended to cause mental distress?

Re:The joke in question

[czth]

I hate to break it to you, but the "courts of law" are part of the government, even though there is some separation of branches.

Sadly, it won't do you any good to point out that the prosecutor and the judge are both working for the state, however. It's a corrupt monopoly, but it's a profitable and comfortable one for those in power.

Re:The joke in question

[czth]

Yelling "fire" in a theater is not a question of freedom of speech but of property rights:

In short, a person does not have a "right to freedom of speech"; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises. He does not have a "right to freedom of the press"; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it). Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights, including the right of free contract and transfer which form a part of such rights of ownership. There is no extra "right of free speech" or free press beyond the property rights that a person may have in any given case.

Furthermore, couching the analysis in terms of a "right to free speech" instead of property rights leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. The most famous example is Justice Holmes's contention that no one has the right to shout "Fire" falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of "public policy." And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.

For, logically, the shouter is either a patron or the theater owner. If he is the theater owner, he is violating the property rights of the patrons in quiet enjoyment of the performance, for which he took their money in the first place. If he is another patron, then he is violating both the property right of the patrons to watching the performance and the property right of the owner, for he is violating the terms of his being there. For those terms surely include not violating the owner's property by disrupting the performance he is putting on. In either case, he may be prosecuted as a violator of property rights; therefore, when we concentrate on the property rights involved, we see that the Holmes case implies no need for the law to weaken the absolute nature of rights. (emphasis mine)

(Murray Rothbard, chapter 15, The Ethics of Liberty.)

Re:The joke in question

[dkf]

If you actually want the answer to this question, then it's "the courts of law"

More specifically, in the UK, a magistrate or a jury

Even more specifically, it's either a jury or a panel of three magistrates and the latter only for cases with a normal maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment for adults, or 2 years for juveniles; jury trials are always presided over by a judge. (There's also a set of rules for how to deal with awkward cases around the boundary where the trial is held in magistrates courts and where a crown court handles sentencing. They're relatively rare though, being for cases where there's an unusual number of aggravating factors.)

Re:The joke in question

[toriver]

Free speech fundamentalists abound... the stupid is strong here.

Re:The joke in question

[DrXym]

The ignorance is when people say "police state" without understanding what the role of police in the real world actually is. In this case they were doing exactly what their mandate requires - enforcing laws on the statute book. They are not responsible for prosecuting the person, or in what the judge might consider, or the jury, or the various other higher courts all the way up to EU level which would certainly be appealed along the way.

Re:The joke in question

[toriver]

Yes, he married a child (as happened frequently in Christian countries as well - also in India even in recent times), consummated the marriage as the traditions then dictated, and then stayed married to her for a decade until his death. So, less a child molester than your average Catholic priest, then.

(You seem unaware that concepts like "age of consent" are very modern. In New York state it was ten until the 1890s when women's right activists got it increased.)

Re:The joke in question

[toriver]

Hundreds of years of tradition where someone either got a bullet or a fist if they said someone's daughter was a whore disagree with you. "Freedom to be a fucktard" is an academic myth among theorists that wouldn't know real life or human nature if they ever stumbled across it.

Re:The joke in question

[StingyJack]

It will only be a matter of time before Jackie "The Joke Man" Martling starts crying about how this is his joke and he should be paid for it.

Re:The joke in question

[Oakey]

There were at least two Facebook pages calling for the murder of Mark Bridger. This was one of the comments;

"Jessica Morris Keep it open- we need somewhere to convene if he gets released- we will need to arrange a march to his house for welsh justice if he gets released!!! X"

Re:The joke in question

[clintp]

I've been in a theater that caught fire ... We all got up calmly and walked outside.

[Sigh] It's a meme from the days when building regulations and safety procedures where less rigorous than today. Imagine an 18th century theatre; lots of wood and other flammable materials. Crammed full of people; the rich sitting in balconies. The poor standing, tightly packed, below the stage. No emergency exits. A fire could kill almost everyone in there. Raising a false alarm would be likely to cause a couple of tramplings at least.

...Or what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was more familiar with when he cited that meme:

The crowded 19th century theater where all of the above was true, plus the theater was lit with gas lamps, the stage with arc lights, people smoking in the seats -- open flame and combustion sources everywhere. The theaters were getting larger and larger because of better knowledge of acoustics allowed it.

Re:The joke in question

[bhagwad]

Hundreds of years of tradition where someone either got a bullet or a fist if they said someone's daughter was a whore disagree with you.

There mere fact that something happens doesn't mean it's right.

Re:The joke in question

[cheekyjohnson]

the matter definitely comes under the pervue of the obscene publications act

That act sounds incredibly ambiguous and, in my opinion, obscene.

Re:The joke in question

[cheekyjohnson]

What's next? A law against facial expressions (frowns, angry glares) intended to cause mental distress?

No, a law against disagreeing with the arrests of those who have offended others! What you're doing is highly offensive, and that could bring about the end of the world!

Re:The joke in question

[cheekyjohnson]

Except, this isn't really about expressing a view like "I don't believe what you believe,"

It doesn't matter. It caused offense all the same, and apparently causing offense will bring about the end of the world. Your message is highly offensive to me, and you should be arrested under some nonsensical, ambiguous law.

Re:The joke in question

[cheekyjohnson]

In other words, the hypothetical person with an opinion test. It's great that people are getting arrested based on what certain people think a hypothetical person would think of someone's choice of words!

Re:The joke in question

[cheekyjohnson]

Or even just the jury. It's great that offense alone is reason enough to arrest someone.

Re:The joke in question

[cheekyjohnson]

... then you reject the core of the legal system in the UK, the USA, and most of the Western world.

I reject laws I believe are violations of freedom of speech, yes. I also reject the Patriot Act and the TSA (which currently exist).

Re:The joke in question

[cheekyjohnson]

But still a limitation upon freedom of speech. It just has a different name.

Re:The joke in question

[cheekyjohnson]

In an effort to save their lives, people might stampede.

I find that unlikely, but if that happened, I believe we should punish the ones who caused the actual damage: the ones who stampeded over others.

Re:The joke in question

[Cederic]

Could you provide a link please? I don't use Facebook, but I will report this to the police - I'm fucked if I'm letting them prosecute and jail someone for making a joke then turn a blind eye to someone planning to murder someone that may yet be proved innocent.

Re:The joke in question

[Cederic]

I'm a great fan of black humour, and I don't think it's ever appropriate to kill someone for making a joke.

Just don't laugh, if you feel that way about it.

Re:The joke in question

[Cederic]

the police don't have the discretion to just ignore an offence

I'm sorely tempted to set up an online movement to swamp the police with complaints about online offensiveness.

I bet you they start ignoring it. The law is selectively enforced and that makes it a very bad law.

Re:The joke in question

[madprof]

Nope, he went to jail. Same day, a guy in a car who yelled "you fucking black c***" at a woman in another car got fined 100 pounds.

Re:The joke in question

[Mackadoodledoo]

He's been sent down for 12 weeks. Some joke, do these people not read sickipedia.org or what ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-19869710

Re:The joke in question

[aralin]

It's such stupidity and grievous censorship of thoughts and ideas that tipped the balance in favour of staying in Germany rather than moving back to the UK.

Germany has anti-free speech laws as well. Try to say anything positive about the nazis, hitler or deny holocaust and to the jail you go. Any "hate speech" and in the jail you go. If the free-speech is at issue, I would not stay in Germany :D

Re:The joke in question

[omglolbah]

Sounds like something Frankie Boyle would say on Mock the Week....

I mean... He has some legendary jokes that were broadcast on BBC even that are plenty close to that joke...

Re:The joke in question

[mikael]

I thought it was the international investors and bankers - if there is anyone the MP's are scared of upsetting it is those two.

Re:The joke in question

[Kittenman]

Nope, he went to jail. Same day, a guy in a car who yelled "you fucking black c***" at a woman in another car got fined 100 pounds.

Quite seriously, the driver may have been find for "driving without due care and attention". If the police can't charge him for a 'free-speech' type-of-offence, they'll come up with something else that will stick.

Re:The joke in question

[Instine]

I'm confused. Do you think I'm religious?

Re:The joke in question

[LordLucless]

No. I'm saying you think being punished for saying something offensive is compatible with "excellent freedom of expression".

Re:The joke in question

[madprof]

If you go up to someone in public in the UK and scream racist insults at them it isn't covered under freedom of speech.

Re:The joke in question

[yoshi_mon]

Law tends to lag behind our society. Back when buildings were built with wood and cloth fire was a huge deal. Yelling Fire! was a huge deal.

These days, not so much. But we still have that legal idea that speech can be limited by that factor. It would really take a good Supreme Court to fix that...something I do not see coming any time soon.

Re:The joke in question

[TranquilVoid]

Do I think it should be illegal to go into a mosque and loudly, grossly defame the Islamic belief and culture. Yes.

That would be illegal more for public disturbance than for being offensive.

I think the difference with religion is that it is locally offensive. The Communications Act uses the phrases "grossly offensive", "obscene" and "indecent". To me this suggests something that is commonly held, by that old stalwart 'reasonable persons', to be offensive. Whether criticism of a religion is obscene, or whether obscenity becomes legal because it is done under the name of free speech, really just shows that our principles are unclear and in constant conflict at the edges.

Re:The joke in question

[quantaman]

If this is true it's a pretty critical difference. Not that he should have been arrested even if he posted it to the April Jones page, but there's a massive difference between posting to hurt the feelings of grieving relatives and being an idiot telling a bad joke to your friends.

Re:The joke in question

[asdf7890]

Deliberate griefing is generally much more specific and targeted. The harm caused is usually deliberate, or at least appreciated by the perpetrator. Bothering individual recipients (or groups) is the whole point.

Spam is more of a scatter-gun problem raising the noise/signal barrier. The sender usually doesn't see how each individual message could be a problem to the recipient even if they don't want it or simply doesn't care.

In my mind it is similar to the difference between littering (smokers flicking their dead butts on the floor) and deliberate damage (some prick using a cig to set light to a bin). One is a relatively careless action affecting many in a small way (but it soon adds up), the other is a deliberate attempt to bother a few people or damage something.

Deliberate griefing could be considered a sub-set of a larger spam problem I suppose.

(back on topic: this case seems to be neither really: from what I gather the original person told the joke on what should be a "private" page among friends (terrible and unoriginal as the joke is, that in itself should not be an offence - many of us share terrible and sometimes "over the line" jokes between friends), one of those "friends" chose to forward on a screenshot of the joke to people who would be upset by it - IMO that person should be arrested and the former just needs to be more careful who he "friend"s)

Re:The joke in question

[HungryHobo]

[citation needed]

From a quick google: he admitted that he posted comments on his own facebook page.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-woods-jailed

do you have anything showing he posted to the support page?

Re:The joke in question

[Builder]

Just being arrested is a life changing event in the UK. No more working with kids or vulnerable adults. No more working in many regular jobs. No more visiting many countries without going through an expensive visa process.

Having said that, the eejit plead guilty, so he's going inside for 6 weeks.

Re:The joke in question

[toriver]

Your freedoms end where mine begin. If you cannot accept that, go fuck a duck. Claiming the right to have freedom of expression without there being consequences to that expression is just being an stuck-up academic equivalent to a selfish six year old.

Re:The joke in question

[CTU]

Not funny, but really it is not bad enough to be offended

Re:The joke in question

[cavebison]

Sooo.. we can get arrested for making a bad joke, but incitement to violence and parading banners like "behead those who insult [deity here]" is perfectly ok freedom of speech. Weird place we live in.

Re:The joke in question

[cavebison]

Facebook as the right to use any material you post on it, afaik.

If I do the clicks necessary to repost someone FB work elsewhere on FB, isn't that the same as FB displaying your work wherever it likes? Not saying you're wrong, just asking the question.

Re:The joke in question

[nschubach]

That's probably why most places lay claim to your post content... so they can claim that the content is no longer owned by the party that wrote it. This way there's no true privacy as long as someone is able to cut/paste from the site that claims the content. Of course, there's the usual disclaimer that Facebook takes no responsibility for what the users post so eventually someone has to pay... and it's the party writing the original. Makes sense. They don't have to take privacy seriously and in case of a leak, they wash their hands of it.

Re:The joke in question

[tmosley]

Sheep to the slaughter. You will bring about tragedy to our generation, and shame to our children's.

Re:The joke in question

[Spectra72]

That's why everyone who is ever pulled over speeding always gets a ticket. No if's and's or but's. ...except that's not what happens at all.

Bottom line, the police do have discretion.

context

[chewy_fruit_loop]

for context....
the guy the joke is about has just been charged with the abduction and murder of a 5 year old girl

Re:context

[slimdave]

For further context, if needed, the 5 year old's name is "April"

Re:context

[kraut]

which would have been hard to miss for anyone in the UK, given the saturation coverage this has been receiving.

Yeah, it's a sick joke. But being offensive shouldn't be a crime.

Re:context

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I'm not sure where I am on whether or not that should be a crime, but I would like to point out that April's parents probably had their guts turn inside out upon hearing that remark.

If I were the one with the gavel, my first instinct would be to let him sweat the fear of jail for a few days then drop the case.

Re:context

[Anonymous Coward]

For further context, the exact same joke has been posted on Sickipedia about a hundred times in the last week, with no arrests. People go to Sickipedia expecting to see such jokes, so in that context it cannot be considered "grossly offensive".

But this guy posted it on the offical Find April Jones Facebook page. Thus, it might be considered directed at the victims, and is hence a breach of criminal law.

Re:context

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's a major bit of missing context. Can't find myself being that sorry for him, given that.

Re:context

[Eraesr]

Is it tasteless to make such a joke in front of that audience? Probably.
Should the police and a judge be involved in something like this? No way.
A simple moderation action by a Facebook employee (or even the page owner) could've dealt with it in a far better way. What's wrong with a little common sense?
In fact, I hadn't heard of Mark Bridger or his case, but now I do and now I know about the joke. If a moderator would've simply removed the comment, then it wouldn't spread further. Now it does.

Re:context

[Rosy At Random]

For further context, Santa Claus is a mythological character associated with a holiday.

Re:context

[hattig]

Amazing how a little bit of extra information can change a story entirely, and it really does make me wonder why it was missed out of the linked articles and the summary. Oh - that would make it a non-story!

Re:context

[Zemran]

and for more context, it was still a better love story than Twilight.

Re:context

[somersault]

For further context, "comes" is in this case a double entendre implying both physical arrival, and ejaculation/orgasm.

Re:context

[joss]

or braveheart ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybQCNb4AuW4 )

Re:context

[s7uar7]

That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page.

Re:context

[wonkey_monkey]

But this guy posted it on the offical Find April Jones Facebook page. Thus, it might be considered directed at the victims, and is hence a breach of criminal law.

That does make a difference. But I can't easily find a cite for this - do you have one? All I read is that he posted "on Facebook," but no-one's going into specifics.

Re:context

[psiclops]

but I would like to point out that April's parents probably had their guts turn inside out upon hearing that remark.

which they probably wouldn't of read/heard. if noone made a big deal about it.

regardless. if he'd posted this on their wall/sent private messages to them regarding this then i could concede that he was harassing them and should be dealt with accordingly. i can't tell if that's the case as it seems difficult to find out much about this case(i haven't looked all that hard) if he had posted this on his own wall however. then fuck you to anyone that believes he should be punished in any way. he's done nothing wrong.

if you were offended by this (what i actually find to be quite clever) joke, then you should probably learn to understand communication. sentences/statements usually do not mean what their literal interpretation would suggest.
e.g. my friends an i often say to eachother that we hate eachother(or similar) in a jovial manner. we know that it's not a literal statement, or some sort of passive aggressive dig, but it means that we are comfortable enough with eachother to fell that we can be jokingly hostile without the other interepreting it wrong.

similarly this style of humour does is not cheering on whatever it is making light of. instead it is made in a manner very close to sarcasm - it's so obvisouly known to be wrong that noones saying this is right - they're merely aknowledging that this is a bad situation in a light hearted way.

Re:context

[Zemran]

Then it would be the guy that reposted that caused harm, not the original poster...

Re:context

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pretty slippery slope trying to legislate judgement calls like what is and isn't offensive.

Re:context

[xaxa]

I'm not sure where I am on whether or not that should be a crime, but I would like to point out that April's parents probably had their guts turn inside out upon hearing that remark.

Do we know if he heard it?

The article doesn't say where the joke was posted. If it was on April's parent's Facebook page then a charge seems reasonable. If it's somewhere else, then it's clearly not reasonable.

Re:context

[serviscope_minor]

I'm not sure where I am on whether or not that should be a crime, but I would like to point out that April's parents probably had their guts turn inside out upon hearing that remark.

Well, yes, but as one other poster pointed out, claiming that a true-believer's religion is false can cause the most amazing amount of offence for certain true believers.

If I were the one with the gavel, my first instinct would be to let him sweat the fear of jail for a few days then drop the case.

Well, yes. Likewise, I wouldn't be terribly sad if April's father broke the guy's nose or kicked him hard in the nuts.

I don't feel the same way a bout religious offence. That doesn't feel very rational to me, but there is something about a difference between an attack on a specific person. A bit like the difference between soliciting murder versus being the kind of bigoted arse who thinks large numbers should be killed but doesn't actually ask for it.

Re:context

[somersault]

For further context, we were making a repetitive joke.

Re:context

[agentgonzo]

Do we know if he heard it?

The article doesn't say where the joke was posted. If it was on April's parent's Facebook page then a charge seems reasonable. If it's somewhere else, then it's clearly not reasonable.

This is one of the very few comments that actually deals with the most important part of the affair - which the media doesn't seem to have said.

Re:context

[Alranor]

For further context, they were making a repetitive joke

Re:context

[SigmundFloyd]

if you were offended by this (what i actually find to be quite clever) joke

"wouldn't of" + "what" instead of "which" + "eachother" + "noones" + wrong capitalization + bad punctuation = You find the joke "clever".

Re:context

[pantaril]

If I were the one with the gavel, my first instinct would be to let him sweat the fear of jail for a few days then drop the case.

Well maybe you should start with arresting Monty Pythons? They have jokes about second world war and jews, which must be offending to many.

Re:context

[thegrassyknowl]

Well, yes. Likewise, I wouldn't be terribly sad if April's father broke the guy's nose or kicked him hard in the nuts.

I'd be a little sad if the father got arrested for it though. Now, one can only hope this fellow is acquitted and then sues the police for illegal arrest of bringing illegal charges or some such. Fat chance of that happening though; the media has got hold of it, we [the police/courts/lawmakers] can't appear to be big pussies or the public will start to question our integrity.

Re:context

[jamesh]

For further context, they were making a repetitive joke

Hmmm... turns out that sometimes, the funniness increases with explanation. THE AXIOM IS A LIE!

Re:context

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm not sure where I am on whether or not that should be a crime, but I would like to point out that April's parents probably had their guts turn inside out upon hearing that remark.

That's possible, but do you realize how many interactions between individuals happen daily that make one party sick? In addition, I believe it's virtually given that no matter how horrible things happen, there will always be people able to turn it into humor. Perhaps it won't seem humorous to many, if not most people, but qualitatively, it will qualify as humor. I believe it's some sort of psychological defense mechanism (see the humor of population groups oppressed by totalitarian regimes, for example), sort of like religion - both of them are equally silly and can't be rationally explained (rationally as having some rational purpose, not as not having a cause you can trace with your thinking) but do happen anyway.

Re:context

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing, also, how it can affect your opinion when it's the wrong information!

He didn't post it to their Facebook page. He posted it on his own, someone took a screencap of it, and then posted that to page in question. He had no direct involvement with the page at all.

Re:context

[JustOK]

"Don't mention the war"

Re:context

[somersault]

Just in case:

joke
Noun:
A thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, esp. a story with a funny punchline.

Re:context

[jrumney]

I'm not sure where I am on whether or not that should be a crime, but I would like to point out that April's parents probably had their guts turn inside out upon hearing that remark.

The question is - where did they hear it from? The guy's Facebook page, or the media circus that made it public?

Re:context

[heefeneet]

Amazing how a little bit of extra information can change a story entirely, and it really does make me wonder why it was missed out of the linked articles and the summary. Oh - that would make it a non-story!

You cant let facts get in the way of a good ol' "UK=police state" slashdot rant.

Re:context

[misexistentialist]

No, it's the people who exposed a little girl on the internet by putting up the page. How many pedophiles are masturbating to her pictures right now? The parents should be arrested for aiding and abetting pedophilia and child abduction.

Re:context

[PlusFiveTroll]

“Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
  John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Re:context

[Jalfro]

Do you really think that the purpose of the arrest was to suppress the joke? The joke had presumably already been seen by the family of the dead girl, thus, the damage was already done. The purpose of the arrest was surely to punish this callous act.

Re:context

[toriver]

For further context, "Santa" is a dyslexism for "Satan".

Re:context

[theshowmecanuck]

You think it wouldn't be justice if they could do that to their attackers? Therein lies the problem with idiots like you. You believe in a legal system, not a justice system.

Re:context

[cheekyjohnson]

How does it seem reasonable that someone was arrested for causing offense? As far as I know, being offended isn't the end of the world. But I guess safety (Even from mean words!) is all that really matters.

Re:context

[cheekyjohnson]

Free speech is okay as long as it's something that I like. If it's offensive to me, and I see it, well, that's not free speech anymore!

Re:context

[s7uar7]

In a world when law enforcement isn't run by fuckwits, yes.

Re:context

[shutdown -p now]

It really doesn't matter, and doesn't change the story in the slightest. You shouldn't be jailed for several months for making a sick joke.

Re:context

[xaxa]

It is reasonable only for the most extreme examples, and this case could qualify. (There is so little information on what actually happened that I can't give a definite opinion. If the joke was only posted on Woods' own Facebook page then I strongly condemn the judge's decision earlier today, and I question why Woods pleaded guilty in court. I'm going to assume that's not the case, and that the message was put on a page 'owned' by April's parents.])

You wish to blindly protect free speech, but is this speech worth protecting? It wasn't political, and it's possible it was only written to cause offence. Is that what you want to protect?

In America, there are groups like the Westboro Baptist Church that protest and cause great, directed offence to specific individuals at funerals. Do you think that's right? Most British people don't. (Offending in general is fine, it's when it's personally directed to specific individuals that it can be a problem.)

See also: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/the-human-rights-act/freedom-of-expression/

Re:context

[cheekyjohnson]

Is that what you want to protect?

Yes.

In America, there are groups like the Westboro Baptist Church that protest and cause great, directed offence to specific individuals at funerals. Do you think that's right?

I think they should be able to say it. Offended? Too bad.

Funny joke, related

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference from a Nanny-state with limited human rights and the UK?

Trick question, there isn't any.

Re:Funny joke, related

[Chrisq]

What's the difference from a Nanny-state with limited human rights and the UK?

Trick question, there isn't any.

I'm deeply offended - and off to the police station ;-)

Re:Funny joke, related

[commlinx]

I'm deeply offended - and off the police

That sounds like a terrorist threat, we are on our way. What is your IP address?

--MI5

Re:Funny joke, related

[sFurbo]

There are people who find it offensive that other people use their freedom of speech in a certain manner.

There are people who find it offensive that certain other people are not dead.

In fact, for every human right, I am sure you can find some people who find it offensive that other people use it. As long as that is the case (which is pretty much guaranteed to be as long as people exist), it is a human right to be offensive, at least in those ways.

Re:Funny joke, related

[dougisfunny]

Since when has it been a human right to not be offended?

Re:Funny joke, related

[avm]

On the other hand, since when has it been a human right to go through life free of offense? The world does not, and should not, tiptoe around random individuals and their own personal sense of propriety.

Toughen up, Brits. You're making me damn well ashamed of my ancestry with limp wristed nonsensical horse shit like this.

Re:Funny joke, related

[alex67500]

Freedom of speech is a human right, unless it's insulting.
But no-one was directly insulted in this joke, it was only a stupid pun.

Re:Funny joke, related

[serviscope_minor]

Freedom of speech is a human right, unless it's insulting.

Bollocks to that.

It's quite hard to claim that Scientologists or Mormans are a bunch of loonies without being directly insulting. In fact there's things one could say about just about any religious adherants which are direcylt insulting, yet entirely reasonable.

Without insults and offence, you're left with nothing but bland banalaties.

That said, the person who posted that to the find April facebook page deserves a good, solid kck in the nuts. He's also a raging arse hole of immense propostions. And that's insulting to him. And I certianly relish the right to say it.

Re:Funny joke, related

[serviscope_minor]

Bollocks to that.

Just realised I replied to the wrong post.

Re:Funny joke, related

[isorox]

I'm deeply offended - and off the police

That sounds like a terrorist threat, we are on our way. What is your IP address?

--MI5

::1

Re:Funny joke, related

[jrumney]

The new UK government motto: "if we can't find a law to charge you under, we'll extradite you to somewhere that can".

Re:Funny joke, related

[jrumney]

::1

I always manually configure my IP to be 2130706433, that way it takes a bit longer to find me with a linear search of the address space.

Re:Funny joke, related

[Ironhandx]

It isn't, however if we're going to protect all speech no matter what we have to start protecting some of the consequences of that speech and adding in "Just Cause" clauses to existing laws surrounding physical violence short of permanent severe disability(I.E. loss of use of a limb, loss of sight, hearing, significant loss of cognitive capabilities) and death.

The situations for Just Cause should be clearly defined as several things but I think a loose mock up would be good as follows: "statements made with the intention to provoke a physical response", "Threats of bodily injury that may be of immediate concern", "Statements made to be intentionally inflammatory" and a few other things.

What I've listed there wouldn't allow for the parents to drive over to the guys house and punch them out, but it would allow for them knocking a few of his teeth out if he said it to their faces.

There are a lot of cowardly assholes out there that have been empowered by free speech laws plus laws against assault and need their asses kicked. This guy sounds like one of them. If he's insensitive enough to post something like that on facebook he's probably said something of a similar severity in real life at some point, and the person he said it to should have the opportunity to break his nose.

Re:Funny joke, related

[Brannoncyll]

On the other hand, since when has it been a human right to go through life free of offense? The world does not, and should not, tiptoe around random individuals and their own personal sense of propriety.

Toughen up, Brits. You're making me damn well ashamed of my ancestry with limp wristed nonsensical horse shit like this.

I am a Brit and I support this statement. I fully intend to write to my MP, although I expect nothing but the usual pat response (yay, democracy).

Re:Funny joke, related

[poofmeisterp]

Since when has it been a human right to be offensive?

That's like asking a religious question about denomination.

Some find it acceptable and morbidly amusing, some just morbidly amusing. Some find it acceptable but not amusing, and some find it just plain not amusing and unacceptable.

Now where do the two words "Human Rights" come into play here? Oh, yeah. That's what it's about.

Limiting jokes is over the line and just plain ridiculous. Unless we're supposed to be robotic in nature, there is no removal of humor, EVER.

There might have been a historical LACK of it in ancient times, but who knows? Maybe some of the cave drawings had humor embedded. Anyhow... Away from the podium I walk.

Re:Funny joke, related

[cheekyjohnson]

Sorry, but "speech needs protection only when it offends someone" does not imply "all offensive speech should be protected".

It doesn't imply that, but that's what I believe. Any distinctions are going to be arbitrary.

Re:Funny joke, related

[mikael]

127.0.0.1

And if he had told the joke that was so funny it could kill, he would have been arrested under the Official Secrets act:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhmnOpoGAPw

Re:Funny joke, related

[Dr Damage I]

Has anyone, anywhere, ever, in the history of the universe, tried to suppress speech that didn't offend someone?

Re:Funny joke, related

[neyla]

That is true. Not all offensive speech deserves protection. But my point was the opposite one: all the speech that needs protection, is offensive to someone. And the speech that *really* needs protection is offensive to many and/or powerful people.

For fuck sake, not again!

[kinarduk]

So the first thing that happens with any tragedy is that people make jokes about it. It happened with 9/11, it happened with 7/7 it's happened throughout history. Some people use it as a form of therapy. It's part of our coping mechanism.

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[nukenerd]

So the first thing that happens with any tragedy is that people make jokes about it. ... Some people use it as a form of therapy. It's part of our coping mechanism.

I fail to see why a 20 yo man in Lancashire, a couple of hundred miles away from the murder and unrelated to the victim, requires such therapy.

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[kinarduk]

Me too. However that doesn't change the fact that comedy and jokes are used in therapy.

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[Chrisq]

So the first thing that happens with any tragedy is that people make jokes about it. It happened with 9/11, it happened with 7/7 it's happened throughout history. Some people use it as a form of therapy. It's part of our coping mechanism.

No, there is a clear difference. The jokes after 7/7 were black humour, targeting everyone who travels. In a sense it is bravado - you show you are not worried about getting on the tube with jokes about "people getting legless on the underground", and "you'r complaining that I lost my ticket, well last week I lost my balls" and so on. This is very different to posting something directed at an abducted and probably murdered (still missing) child on a Facebook site used by parents and searchers.

I don't think he should have been prosecuted, just widely reported as the dick-head he is - but this is not the same as the sort of coping jokes you make when getting back on the underground after a terror strike.

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[HungryHobo]

Someone pointed out further up:

"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."

so no, he didn't write that joke on the Facebook page run by the people trying to find the little girl.

someone else did but with a screenshot of his personal page.

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[isorox]

Someone pointed out further up:

"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."

so no, he didn't write that joke on the Facebook page run by the people trying to find the little girl.

someone else did but with a screenshot of his personal page.

In that case the OP would presumably say the person who took the screenshot needs therapy (or broken legs)

As usual the police got the wrong guy. They did this because of intense media pressure. You'd think after the Daley debacle, and the slapping of the police over it, they'd be more useful.

However, I really don't see the difference between this and the "innocence of muslims".

Every police officer arresting some twat on facebook is one less looking for a 5 year old girl.

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[Keick]

Whole-heartily agree... Even back during the first space shuttle disasters the jokes were circulating all the local Florida schools the SAME day. I still remember around 10 of them.

The jokes, while tasteless, were still funny. The thing is when I remember one of those jokes, it immediately gives way to pause as I reflect back to that day, looking up and seeing the orange flash on my way to school. That moment wasn't funny to anyone, and it will forever be burned into my history.

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[MiniMike]

Plenty. But the he probably meant the London Bombings of July 7 2005.

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[drinkypoo]

I fail to see why a 20 yo man in Lancashire, a couple of hundred miles away from the murder and unrelated to the victim, requires such therapy.

You had me at "I fail".

It's a sick, sad world. If you just sat and thought about how sick and sad it is that things like this have to happen, it would not be a good thing. Creating humor relating to the situation functions as a safety valve for our feelings (unlike "blowing off steam" by acting violently, which only leads to more violent impulses.) Without a coping mechanism for the injustice of the world, many of us would be (wait for it) unable to cope.

Your lack of empathy does not equal evidence of anything other than your inability to treat other humans like humans.

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[drinkypoo]

This is very different to posting something directed at an abducted and probably murdered (still missing) child on a Facebook site used by parents and searchers.

Too bad he didn't do that. He posted it to his wall, and someone else posted it to that facebook site. Have anything else uninformed and thus irrelevant to say about someone you don't even know being a dick-head on invalid grounds?

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[aevan]

My guess would be they are referring to the explosions in the London Underground

Re:For fuck sake, not again!

[poofmeisterp]

So the first thing that happens with any tragedy is that people make jokes about it. ... Some people use it as a form of therapy. It's part of our coping mechanism.

I fail to see why a 20 yo man in Lancashire, a couple of hundred miles away from the murder and unrelated to the victim, requires such therapy.

I fail to see how you understand psychology.

Grossly offensive to whom?

[MartinSchou]

I'm pretty sure I could find at least a hundred people, who will agree with me that public displays of religion is grossly offensive.

Maybe even thousands.

Which raises the question - would the UK police ever arrest a clergy member simply for public displayed religion, or is freedom of religion more important than freedom of speech?

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[Sique]

(yes, atheism is a religion...a belief based only on faith that there is no God or that there is a God...both are equally faith-based beliefs)

To which is the standard reply: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[BlueStrat]

(Score:0, Troll)

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

-- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly

How is a simple quote from the POTUS speaking to the UN, with no other comment or text, a "Troll" post?

Seems like some people want that quote buried. I wonder why they don't want people in general to be aware of it?

Strat

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[psiclops]

context would be nice.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied..

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[jamesh]

I'm pretty sure I could find at least a hundred people, who will agree with me that public displays of religion is grossly offensive.

Maybe even thousands.

Which raises the question - would the UK police ever arrest a clergy member simply for public displayed religion, or is freedom of religion more important than freedom of speech?

You'll probably find a hundred people (maybe even thousands!) who are grossly offended by black people too. And asians. I think you might need some more straw..

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[neyla]

Nah. The standard reply goes that atheism is a religion the same way celibacy is a sex-position.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[jamesh]

(yes, atheism is a religion...a belief based only on faith that there is no God or that there is a God...both are equally faith-based beliefs)

To which is the standard reply: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

As i've said elsewhere, most athiests simply don't believe in god, and wish to discuss it no further. Some, however, preach about their atheism more than most christians preach about their god, and try to convert anyone who'll listen to their way of thinking. I agree that atheism isn't really a religion according to the dictionary definition, but some people are pretty relgious about it. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics but i see religion more as the practices revolving around your beliefs than the beliefs themselves.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[agentgonzo]

(Score:0, Troll)

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

-- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly

How is a simple quote from the POTUS speaking to the UN, with no other comment or text, a "Troll" post?

Seems like some people want that quote buried. I wonder why they don't want people in general to be aware of it?

Strat

I would *guess* that it's because the quote is largely irrelevant and obviously trolling for responses. "Troll" and "Flamebait" tend to get a bit mixed up on /.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[Sique]

Not exactly. Because you can accept the existance of stamps and still not collect them, but you can't accept the existance of an omnipresent, omnipotent god and in the same moment not believing in him.
No, the "non religious" is meant in the same way than the "not collecting" - completely refusing the necessity to collect stamps and defending your right not to collect them and also fighting the notion that you would somehow be a second class citizen for not collecting stamps.

So how about this: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that reports about wolves not talking to girls wearing red hoods are fairytales."

The whole idea that atheism is somehow a religion is very strange to someone who grew up without religion. It feels like getting explained that not having a buckle is also an illness. I fully understand that there are people who have a buckle, but some of them get really furious if I tell them that it's possible to get rid of it.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[rmstar]

There's a difference between not believing that P is true and believing that P is false. As far as I know, atheism refers to the second one, so it is a non-proven belief, falling into the same category as religions.

You have been misinformed.

To an atheist, god simply does not exist, and there is nothing of the sort to believe in. There is nothing in atheism comparable to the notions of faith and devotion present in all religions.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[slim]

I think you might need some more straw..

He wasn't constructing a strawman. He was attempting reduction ad absurdum.

"If we imprison people for offending someone with a sick joke, shouldn't we also imprison people for offending someone with their religions beliefs? Since the latter is absurd, so is the former."

Or that's how I read it.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[Sique]

There's a difference between not believing that P is true and believing that P is false. As far as I know, atheism refers to the second one, so it is a non-proven belief, falling into the same category as religions.

The belief that the known universe is not surrounded by a belt of yellow rubber ducks is also unproven (and if the current model of the Big Bang is correct, it will never be proven). But somehow no one calls that a religious sentiment. Most of us would rather call that common sense.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[serviscope_minor]

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics but i see religion more as the practices revolving around your beliefs than the beliefs themselves.

Yes, but that leads to all sorts of funny consqeuences if you redefine the meaning of words willy nilly.

I mena, everyone understands the nature of religious fervour. You might claim that a person is religiously devoted to/pretty religious about something, be it a favourite operating system, vi, emacs, a window manager, my little pony, etc etc.

But noone actually would claim that those things are a genuine religion. I mean one cannot actualy commit sins against the holy FVWM or whatever.

By modifying your definition to include vocal atheists, you also include pretty much every fanboi deserving of the epithet as well.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[BlueStrat]

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied..

I disagree. I think the future should rightly belong to those who would say bad things about Islam and the Prophet. And/or about Christ, Confucius, Buddha, Cthulhu, Satan, Jews, Christians, Hindis, etc etc etc.

The answer to speech you don't like or that offends you is more speech, not 6th-century jurisprudence by the sword. Nobody has a right to not be offended. Nearly anything one says or does could be offensive to someone somewhere.

Violence is a completely different thing than speech, and should not be tolerated among civilized people.

A town square is better filled with the noise and chaos of soapboxes and bullhorns than with the silence of blood and bodies.

Strat

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[squiggleslash]

Well, yeah, it's not really a reduction ad absurdum because it veers massively off-topic.

(Before I go on, a disclaimer: while I think Wood's joke shows him to be a repulsive individual - he actually posted the "joke" on a FB page dedicated to April's search, presumably read by April's family members, I don't think he should have the force of law thrust upon him.)

Here's the difference: People who have religious views do not have them (and are not expressing them) in order to deliberately wind up and upset people who don't share those views.

Even as a reduction ad absurdum, rarely is the scale - and therefore type - of "offense" to a non-believer close to what's happened here. Believing that the world is 6,000 years old isn't in the same category as making a joke implying a sexual assault against a missing kid in a forum you believe is read by that kid's family, however nerdy and concerned with details you might be.

So, no, I agree with the GP here. Wood's a fucking cretin, and any friend of his - if he has any left - should be telling him that. But a fine, court order, or jail sentence? Fuck no.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[AmiMoJo]

Because it is deliberately taken out of context:

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt â" it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women â" it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources â" it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

Obama could have picked his words a little better, but in the context of saying Christians and Muslims in certain parts of the world should get along and that means Christians not slandering Mohammed it makes sense. In the US freedom of speech would always allow it, but Obama clearly recognizes that the middle east is a rather different place and a different solution is needed to bring about peace.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[Gordonjcp]

To which is the standard reply: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

But the problem is, the atheists who say that are more annoying and preachy that be believers that they are trying to mock.

I don't care if you're an atheist. Keep your kooky beliefs to yourself.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[squiggleslash]

No, I was making the mistake of repeating what I'd read on Slashdot: https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3169021&cid=41582565

Which was probably a mistake, see reply to that post.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[jwdb]

How is a simple quote from the POTUS speaking to the UN, with no other comment or text, a "Troll" post?

Because it's a "quote" taken out of context in such a way as to wind up the partisans.

Looks like a troll to me, although could be flamebait as well.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[drinkypoo]

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt â" it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted âoeMuslims, Christians, we are one.â

They aren't one, they have fundamentally differing beliefs.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam

No, the future must belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam, or else we'll have one of two futures, either endless war, or Islamic rule. Their religion effectively exhorts them to seize the reins of power in government, and every time that happens, the results are horrific.

Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied

Those three things are not remotely the same, and to conflate them is a real piece of shit move.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[drinkypoo]

It's a matter of [very important] semantics. Atheism is not religion, it is a system of religious belief — belief pertaining to religion. There is a massive difference, and anyone who can't see it should study their dictionary until they can. If you disagree, start with the word "belief" and make sure you understand the entire definition before replying.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[Raenex]

The answer to speech you don't like or that offends you is more speech, not 6th-century jurisprudence by the sword.

Obama agrees with you. From the same speech: "the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech"

And in context:

"We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

(APPLAUSE)

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence."

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[PPH]

But we could find millions who would agree that a public display of any religion other than their own is offensive. And that's where the whole "I'm Offended" game breaks down.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[toriver]

They aren't one, they have fundamentally differing beliefs.

No, they do not. The monotheistic part is the central tenet in both, as are the core values. Or you could say Catholics and Protestants have fundamentally differing beliefs as well (according to Southern Baptists at least)... and I see you turn into the usual paranoia regarding the religion that did NOT colonize 60% of the world.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[toriver]

No it is the absence of belief in a god. In many ways it is silly we need a word for it, there are no words for not believing in UFOs, unicorns, Atlantis or arcane magic.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[drinkypoo]

The monotheistic part is the central tenet in both, as are the core values

And yet they're still willing to kill each other over the differences. Ever heard of the council of Nicea? That was because Christians were killing each other over the nature of the holy trinity.

and I see you turn into the usual paranoia regarding the religion that did NOT colonize 60% of the world.

Never fear, I have enough paranoia for all religions.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm fairly certain he was just making a point. If someone can be arrested for offending someone else, why not for other reasons than this, too?

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[cheekyjohnson]

Free speech is only allowed of the majority agree with it. What a great system that would be.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[Genda]

Apparently you've never met a Scientologist... there are so many religions that inspire an out loud WTF!!!??? Momonism (sounds like something that requires a person end up in institutional care...) Personally I like Dana Carvey's "Cult of the Golden Orb!".

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[rmstar]

But that implies that they believe that God doesn't exist. See? It's just a belief. A useless belief. Exactly as useless as the one that says it exists.

It seems to me that you are an atheist.

What other use can you make of such a belief (either the belief that it does exist or the one that it doesn't) than to feel good about thinking that you're right and lots of other people are wrong?

You are most definitively an atheist, as you do not see a point in "faith". As it were, you are not a very sophisticated atheist, but the fact is that you clearly don't give a shit about god. So far, so good. Congratulations! :-)

It't impossible for one to make use of his own beliefs. It's possible however to make use of other people's beliefs: to sell "religious people are stupid" stories to atheists and religious stories to religious people.

People make use of their religious beliefs to feel safe when they are not, or to feel loved by the universe, etc.

I am not going to comment on the rest of your comment because it's way too stupid.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[jamesh]

If there were an omnipotent beeing she could build a wall that is so high that she can not jump over it and thus she would not be omnipotent.

She moves in mysterious ways. That's pretty much a universal escape clause.

Hence it follows that there is no god (as defined by the abrahamic religions). Atheism is not a question of faith.

Sure it is. I believe there is no god, and I believe there is no need for there to be a god for the universe to exist. I can't know this though because it's unknowable, and by definition the existence or non-existence of God (or invisible pink unicorns for that matter) is unprovable. I'm certainly not so arrogant as to try and prove it to you one way or the other without concrete evidence (that can never exist). Your argument about building a wall so high it cannot be jumped over does not constitute proof.

I'll have a problem with you if you start doing bad things in the name of your god(s) (as most religious organisations have done at one or more points in their existence), or start telling others how to live their lives because your god says so, but aside from that people can believe whatever they want and I won't think any less of them.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[BlueStrat]

Obama agrees with you.

Not if you stop and read this first part (that you left out of your quotation) and think about what he's saying here.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.."

He's making a case for restricting speech that offends any of multiple ethnic and religious groups. Add a little creative interpretation and selective enforcement of such restrictions and you have a wonderful tool for the suppression of all sorts and types of speech.

When presidents from both parties commonly do things like using the IRS to harass citizens that speak out, the length of time before such laws against "offensive speech" are abused would likely make the decay time of a free Higgs boson look like a geologic age.

Be very, very alarmed and concerned when politicians start talking about making any kind of speech illegal. History shows repeatedly that it invariably grows to include all kinds of speech and eventually to tyranny.

Strat

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[Raenex]

Not if you stop and read this first part (that you left out of your quotation) and think about what he's saying here.

That first part was already quoted without any context by a borderline troll. I provided the rest of the context that makes it clear that he's not proposing what you say he is.

He's making a case for restricting speech that offends any of multiple ethnic and religious groups.

You haven't made the distinction between condemn vs. outlaw. He explicitly said the US cannot and should not ban the video that insulted Islam's prophet.

Be very, very alarmed and concerned when politicians start talking about making any kind of speech illegal.

I will. Let me know when Obama does so.

History shows repeatedly that it invariably grows to include all kinds of speech and eventually to tyranny.

Funny, because Obama said the same thing in what I quoted to you. Yet you ignore it and force a certain interpretation to a statement that can be interpreted otherwise:

"Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities."

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[TranquilVoid]

To which is the standard reply: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

It would be more akin to your hobby being sitting around doing nothing. Perhaps 'chilling out' is legitimately a hobby, perhaps it's just sitting around.

Atheism is a religion in the sense that it is a set of beliefs concerning the supernatural. It's not a religion in the usual sense of a positive set of beliefs.

Really it doesn't matter, you can't argue by label. There are some religious people who think classifying it as a religion somehow lends weight to the arguments for their particular religion. It may do so slightly only in ascribing faith. There are some atheists who think the opposite, that their position is somehow strengthened because they are separate. Everyone thinks their beliefs are sensible.

Re:Grossly offensive to whom?

[drinkypoo]

I say atheism is a system of believe, you say it is the absence of a belief, and you therefore prove that you did not read the meaning of belief as I instructed. Go get yourself a dictionary and try again. This isn't going to work unless we all use the words properly, and you aren't.

Too much control agenda

[DrNoNo]

It is totally lacking in taste, it is offensive, if the first post is accurate.

The appropriate response would be to ignore it. However, in the modern UK, there is a demand to control too much of what people say and think. To me that is far more disturbing than the joke itself.

Re:Too much control agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

I too find an accurate and on topic first post highly objectionable.

What are the traditional morals of slashdot coming to?

Re:Too much control agenda

[Jalfro]

Do you really think that if the joke had been made about your daughter you would have been able to ignore it? Perhaps you think that the desecration of Jewish cemeteries is also a manifestation of free speech?

Re:Too much control agenda

[jvkjvk]

Fortunately, we do not let the people who feel themselves directly harmed decide upon criminal punishments.

The parent was saying that AS A SOCIETY we should ignore it, not that the people directly involved would be able to do so.

Unfortunately, you have misread the parent and I will be charitable and say that, rather than you simply disagree and are clutching at straws.

Uncharitably, I then read your next line and must conclude that you are willing to equate desecration of Jewish cemeteries (presumably to incite the Nazi knee-jerk response) with someone REPOSTING SOMETHING THEY FOUND to Facebook.

I do hope you are never in any decision making capability where you can affect people's lives.

Re:Too much control agenda

[Jalfro]

I then read your next line and must conclude that you are willing to equate desecration of Jewish cemeteries (presumably to incite the Nazi knee-jerk response) with someone REPOSTING SOMETHING THEY FOUND to Facebook

I equate the desecration of Jewish cemeteries with the posting of an offensive remark on a web page dedicated to a young child who has been murdered. They both have the same motivation - to upset the bereaved.

Fortunately, we do not let the people who feel themselves directly harmed decide upon criminal punishments.

The parent was saying that AS A SOCIETY we should ignore it, not that the people directly involved would be able to do so.

I am not suggesting that those directly harmed should decide the punishment, but that in deciding the punishment society should take into account the feelings of those directly harmed.

Manners

[gmhowell]

Yes, because manners matter when they have to be legislated.

Didn't some guy named George write a book that kinda touched on this back in 1948?

Really?

[ciderbrew]

Of that is the joke then it wasn't grossly offensive. Too soon maybe. I've heard worse in the pub and I guess that's the difference. Grossly offensive being the context of the conversation and topping each others joke. Poor man.

Re:Really?

[ciderbrew]

/Poor man - Mind you, the family may not think that! Poor family and child.

Re:Really?

[ciderbrew]

QUOTE FROM AN ABOVE POST BY AC
For further context, the exact same joke has been posted on Sickipedia about a hundred times in the last week, with no arrests. People go to Sickipedia expecting to see such jokes, so in that context it cannot be considered "grossly offensive".

But this guy posted it on the offical Find April Jones Facebook page. Thus, it might be considered directed at the victims, and is hence a breach of criminal law.

This changes my standpoint. What a prick.

Re:Really?

[agentgonzo]

And to re-quote from above, it appears that he posted it on his own wall, then someone else entirely took a screengrab of his posting and potsed it to the official Find April facebook page. Once again, totally changes the standpoint. The original joke-poster was in bad-taste, but on his own wall is not too bad. Whoever re-posted it is the prick and it's him/her that should have been arrested.

Re:Really?

[Reservoir Penguin]

Why? Is it now acceptable to turn public Internet into segregated "fee-speech" zones? The potential fr slippery slope is simply overwhelming here, what next - one is only allowed to say he is an atheist on "official" atheist forums? Facebook is not a public service, it's just some guys website he runs for profit. There is no "official" April Jones page, it's all just weasel words.

Ridiculous

[GeekWithAKnife]

While it may be in extremely bad taste this opens the door to some very grey areas.

After all, how can you measure how offended I am? sure people would appeal to things like "common sense" perhaps "civility" and "morals".
The problem only becomes apparent when people start to realize that , morals are made up and really what offends you will not necessarily offend me.

What I see as funny you may not agree with, to jail people over things which offend in my opinion borders on madness.

I wonder if this sort of nonsense is how they ultimately began public stoning, witch burning.

Re:Dear UK government

[DrNoNo]

Please arrest me for i too have previously made grossly offensive jokes.

Do you mean you want the state to round up all Anonymous Cowards such as yourself - or are you just hiding behind anonymity?

Big Brother dips his toe in the water....

[Spottywot]

While this guy is clearly a vile prick, this is a dangerous precedent.

If the thought police start arresting people for being offensive on the internet then they'll be rather busy. When I read the headline I honestly thought he posted some false hope that April had been found alive or something that misled the police investigation, i.e. a legitamately arrestable offence. Yes I would like to see this guy get duffed up/ spend a few days in jail to think about how much of a disgusting moron he is, but we simply cannot arrest all the offensive people (or people who make offensive posts occasionally), so all we can do is pick and choose. What a wonderful weapon for a police state,

" Excuse me sir, some people found your article lampooning Prime Minister Cameron for lying about xxxxxx *extremely offensive*, I think you'd better come with us."

Re:Big Brother dips his toe in the water....

[Chrisq]

Agreed. There are large groups in the UK who want to suppress free speech, down to the point where it would be illegal to say that most "honour killings" are carried out by Muslims. They claim that the truth and news reporting is "offensive", if they are allowed to have people arrested for causing offence (as would happen in Muslim countries) then they will be one step closer to bringing in sharia by the back door.

Re:Big Brother dips his toe in the water....

[blackest_k]

The Maximum sentence he can receive on those charges is a 6 month sentence, and or a moderate fine.
He is hardly likely to get the maximum, but it is likely he will not be tried and convicted for several months.
which will give him some time to think and perhaps try and do something positive with his life which might at least demonstrate that he regrets his actions.

He may even be conditionally discharged although he would have to make a remarkable turn around in his life to achieve that. He would have to be demonstrating that he can be an asset to his community as opposed to the arrogant piece of faecal matter that he currently appears to be.

If he shows remorse then it will be taken in to consideration and he does have that opportunity. In a civilised society there is such a thing as appropriate behaviour and courteousness something that you should learn from a young age. It makes the world a nicer place.

At a younger age I was what you might call your typical hairy arsed biker and for some people that meant I looked a bit scary. I actually got a kick out of being polite and helpful and not swearing in front of my elders it really messes with peoples preconceptions of what they think you will be like.

It really costs nothing to just be a nice guy, don't be a complete and utter tool and people will like you for that. Just have some respect for your fellow men and women. Sure you can repeat that so called joke to your so called friends, they will probably not say a word about it but you will have gone down in their estimation, unless they are as bad as yourself. I have never figured out why some people seem to want to be seen as loathsome and vile.

We all do shitty things from time to time probably unintentionally for the most part, these are parts of your life you tend to regret for a long time. You can't change what you have done already so just try to do better next time...

Re:Big Brother dips his toe in the water....

[jrumney]

While this guy is clearly a vile prick, this is a dangerous precedent.

No it's not. "All soldiers should die and go to hell" was the dangerous precedent, this is the logical result of that precedent.

Re:Big Brother dips his toe in the water....

[jrumney]

I'm sure if he has posted this on his status, website, twitter or some other public medium it wouldn't have even got picked up

You're really sure about that?

Re:Big Brother dips his toe in the water....

[PlusFiveTroll]

“We may indeed in counsel point to the higher road, but we cannot compel any free creature to walk upon it. That leadeth to tyranny, which disfigureth good and maketh it seem hateful.”
  J.R.R. Tolkien

Taboos used to be useful

[srussia]

In the past, this sort of stuff would have been handled by societal pressure.

The legal codification of taboos has weakened their societal enforcement, and strengthened state enforcement--counterproductively, I would say.

Re:Taboos used to be useful

[Chrisq]

In the past, this sort of stuff would have been handled by societal pressure.

But Mrs T said "there's no such thing as society"

Re:Taboos used to be useful

[Chrisq]

Mrs T said "there's no such thing as society"

Mr T said "i pity the fool"

they do make a lovely couple though

Re:Facebook is public?

[MysteriousPreacher]

If true, that changes things. Seems then that this was a targeted attempt at causing distress. I'm fine with a prosecution for this, but wouldn't be if he were simply posting on his Facebook wall or any group not specifically related to the Jones case.

Oh dear ?

[Taco Cowboy]

Is that "oh dear" enough to land a person to jail?

What is the Great Britain trying to prove?

That one can't make no joke no more?

I know - and almost everybody else know - that Great Britain is famous for its "stiff upper lip", but isn't this going way overboard ??

Re:Oh dear ?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the twitter/facebook arrests lately have been totally absurd, and have achieved nothing other than wasting the tax payer's money. I thought the CPS had said that it wasn't going to pursue these sort of cases any more, but evidently I misread that.

I can understand the police investigating direct personal attacks on twitter, but this is a joke - granted, some people may find it in poor taste, but it is the sort of thing you wouldn't be surprised to hear from comedians like Frankie Boyle. It's totally absurd that anyone would even report it to the police, let alone that they should take it this far.

Re:Oh dear ?

[isorox]

Is that "oh dear" enough to land a person to jail?

What is the Great Britain trying to prove?

That one can't make no joke no more?

I know - and almost everybody else know - that Great Britain is famous for its "stiff upper lip", but isn't this going way overboard ??

I suppose technically it could be slander, given that he's not been found guilty by a jury of his peers.

Re:Oh dear ?

[DJRumpy]

Am I really reading this correctly? WTF?

"No Free Speech For You!" - Speech Natzi

(apologies for the Seinfeld reference...)

Re:Oh dear ?

[GeorgeRidout]

This 'joke' was posted on the official 'Find April' Facebook wall, where local people & family were coordinating searches, not just on his own wall. That's why it's being prosecuted.

Re:Oh dear ?

[X0563511]

Why? Why was it not just reported/deleted and let be? Is there some primal need for them to toss people through the lawyer gauntlet?

Re:Oh dear ?

[Custard Horse]

It was in poor taste generally but particularly poor taste given that it was on *that* particular facebook wall.

On the grounds that the poster must have intended to cause upset and distress, he is likely to be found guilty under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Section 127 provides that it would be an offence (and thereby means that a person can be arrested, charged, convicted, sentenced, and obtain a criminal record) if a person sends "a message or other matter" which is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" by means of a "public electronic communications network". (Description from here)

I agree with free speech but only in the case of your own liberty or the liberty of others. Making a callous joke directly to the people who have lost a child whose fate is as yet undetermined is *not* a case of free speech.

Re:Oh dear ?

[ScottyLad]

This 'joke' was posted on the official 'Find April' Facebook wall, where local people & family were coordinating searches, not just on his own wall. That's why it's being prosecuted.

Whilst I find the 'joke' to be far from funny, and posting it on the "Find April" page of Facebook in particularly poor taste, I am increasingly concerned by the enthusiasm with which the Crown Prosecution Service seek criminal convictions for posting bad taste jokes, or unpopular opinions, when these could be quickly and easily removed by the moderators of the forum in question.

I'm not a Facebook user personally, but most online forums have some means of moderation in their online forums - I would be extremely surprised it wasn't possible to report the comment to Facebook, and have them take action against the user concerned (such as removing the comment and blocking their account).

As someone else has commented, there are "comedians" who specialise in this kind of joke. Personally I don't find them funny, so I don't go to see them. Likewise, I know when I go on to an internet forum (even those of the broadsheet newspapers), I am likely to come acrosss offensive material (although I am more usually offended by the lack of originality and intellect than the comments themselves).

A country where the State legislates to prevent people from being offended is only a small step from a country where the state legislates to prevent people from voicing politically unpopular opinions. As a UK citizen, one is increasingly concerned at the level of routine surveillance and intervention by the Authorities in day to day life.

Re:Oh dear ?

[shiftless]

No, it's being prosecuted because Great Britain is ruled by fascists.

Re:Oh dear ?

[Custard Horse]

Having now read that a screengrab of his wall (which presumably was public?) was posted on the 'find April' wall, the malicious intent is decreased somewhat. However, the joke was still ill-advised given the ongoing search for the 5 year old.

The person who posted the screengrab should also be charged.

Re:Oh dear ?

[tmosley]

If the hatred of poor taste trumps freedom of speech in your eyes, then I suggest you move to the middle east.

People like you bring about the end of all freedom and the rise of all dictators.

Re:Oh dear ?

[tmosley]

In America, this is quite fully allowed. See the Westboro Baptist Church. If you want to have freedoms, then you must defend the lowest of scoundrels. If just one of them falls down the slippery slope of authoritarianism, then we all follow.

Re:Oh dear ?

[hduff]

Is that "oh dear" enough to land a person to jail?

What is the Great Britain trying to prove?

That one can't make no joke no more?

I know - and almost everybody else know - that Great Britain is famous for its "stiff upper lip", but isn't this going way overboard ??

As a Yank, I had to Google "Mark Bridger" to learn that he is accused of the abduction and murder (and I'm guessing rape based on the joke, but they haven't found her body) of 5 year-old April Jones; he's a sick man.

The joke is tasteless and crass, but hardly rises to the level of a criminal act. To do so trivializes actual crime and actual crime victims and makes a mockery of any expectation of justice for April Jones.

Re:Oh dear ?

[slim]

I suppose technically it could be slander, given that he's not been found guilty by a jury of his peers.

He hasn't even been accused of rape. Just abduction, murder, and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Re:Oh dear ?

[ethorad]

Erm, callous jokes are unfortunately a case of free speech. As Voltaire (didn't) say: I don't find your joke funny but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Things don't stop being free speech just because you disagree with them.

Re:Oh dear ?

[History's Coming To]

Agreed. I'm a Brit and I'll quite happily defend the fact that we don't have absolute free speech as in the US. There are things that are so likely to cause harm that making it illegal is entirely defensible as far as I'm concerned, but this case is very far removed from that. It's a sick joke, but a fair and just result is for the guy to be heavily criticized in public. If we go down the route of allowing Daily Mail readers to be the arbiters of what is and isn't "grossly offensive" then we might as well give up and put a religion in charge (which we're also dangerously close to).

Re:Oh dear ?

[Blue Stone]

Except that the guy who's been arrested didn't post it to the Find April Facebbok wall, someone else did.

To me it's like telling a similarly bad-tatse 'joke' (it's not really funny) to your mates in a pub. And then someone at the next table hears it and goes to the group therapy grief councelling meeting, or whatever, and says, "This is what some guy in the pub said ..." and tells the 'joke'.

Who, among these two people is causing hurt to people in a raw or sensitive state? Who is causing offence?

It's not the first guy - he's just being a harmless dick. And that shouldn't be against the law.

Re:Oh dear ?

[toriver]

Or America. Well, it perhaps does not count as inhibiting free speech if you get sued for indecency, still prevail in court but gets bankrupted by the legal costs. After all, the Dead Kennedys could just have shut up about their "anti-American" lyrics, then noone would have used the inclusion of Giger's "Penis Landscape" as an excuse for shutting them up.

And plenty of dictators have risen with the help of the ol' United States of Free Speech. Shah Reza, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, the whole chain in Egypt...

Re:Oh dear ?

[isorox]

I suppose technically it could be slander, given that he's not been found guilty by a jury of his peers.

He hasn't even been accused of rape. Just abduction, murder, and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

In the court of public opinion he's already been tried and sentenced. His life is over, even if they find her alive and well and staying with a friend.

I note that Matthew Woods (who made the original facebook "joke") has now been jailed for 3 months.

Re:Oh dear ?

[slim]

I note that Matthew Woods (who made the original facebook "joke") has now been jailed for 3 months.

Yes. He took the cowardly (but perhaps pragmatic) choice of pleading guilty.

No winners in this one, I reckon.

Re:Oh dear ?

[jvkjvk]

Oh no, Matthew Woods is the big winner in this.

He has clear insight, in a way that most of use are only peripherally aware of, into where government is trying to take us.

No doubt that although he will keep his head a bit lower profile, there has been a sea change in his heart.

You can't get that sort of Win without having that sort of experience.

Re:Oh dear ?

[jahudabudy]

There is a very large difference between supporting someone's speech and supporting that person's right to speak. I can both think that this guy is an asshat AND think he should have the legal right to be an asshat. What if I were offended by the word fucktard? Should you be arrested and prosecuted b/c you said something someone didn't like?

Re:Oh dear ?

[poofmeisterp]

...I know - and almost everybody else know - that Great Britain is famous for its "stiff upper lip", but isn't this going way overboard ??

Trying to outdo the U.S. again, eh, chaps?

Re:Oh dear ?

[cheekyjohnson]

Making a callous joke directly to the people who have lost a child whose fate is as yet undetermined is *not* a case of free speech.

It's not free speech because I personally disapprove of it!

Your comment isn't free speech, by the way...

Re:Oh dear ?

[Guido del Confuso]

You have freedom of speech, we have freedom from harassment.

You mean restriction against harassment. A freedom "from" something is not really a liberty. Recasting a restriction as a "freedom" is just statist doublespeak.

Re:Oh dear ?

[Cederic]

he's a sick man

Only if guilty. The time they took to charge him strongly suggests that he hasn't confessed, and there's been no public indication of the evidence on which he's been charged.

The whole affair stinks; first they were looking for a 'light coloured van', then they arrested the owner of a dark coloured Land Rover.

Why arrest him with no body? If they really thought he abducted her then if he hadn't killed her, they've caused her to die of thirst because he didn't return to feed her.

It looks like the police wanted to talk to him anyway, and I'd assume they have some evidence beyond that, but it's looking as dodgy as hell right now.

I actually hope that they do have the right man; not just the obvious "prevent reoffending" angle, but also because reactions like yours mean he's fucked whether he's guilty or not.

Re:Oh dear ?

[sumdumass]

The have free speech as long as the government allows it. There is no constitution or anything other the law restricting the government from limiting their speech rights. Unfortunately, with law, it can be changed with another law.

Canada is in a similar boat. They have a constitution protecting their free speech but it allows the government to define a reason to violate free speech and implement laws doing so..

Re:Oh dear ?

[Wheely]

One would assume a person with such a low UID on /. would have a better grip of a false dichotomy fallacy. Assault is not speech, obviously your logic system is broken. You have repeated this same false dichotomy several times.

Does having a low UID make you smart?

Now I feel much better!

Re:Oh dear ?

[theshibboleth]

Speech Nazi? Hell, sounds more like actual Nazis.

Re:Oh dear ?

[TheRealGrogan]

So? It's still just words. If anything, Facebook could ban the jackass user for breach of acceptable use policy. If such acts are not covered by such a policy, then that's Facebook's fault.

If you're going to have unmoderated comments (e.g. a "wall" that anyone can post to), you are going to have to expect people to defecate on it. Don't play the victim card.

Re:Oh dear ?

[migmog]

Actually the 'someone else' was in fact the same guy.

Re:Oh dear ?

[migmog]

He admitted to being the "someone else". Can't imagine he'd be in jail right now if he wasn't

Re:Oh dear ?

[Custard Horse]

Clearly they don't currently have "free speech rights" as the original poster was jailed yesterday for 12 weeks. Causing offence to strangers deliberately is okay? You live in a strange world..

Re:Oh dear ?

[toriver]

No, a punch in the face is a human response to some kinds of "speech". Surely you are not so lacking of social skills that you think people are going to act rationally at all times? Academic theorists who have nothing but words need to get out more.

Re:Oh dear ?

[tmosley]

The good people of Weimar didn't see it coming either.

Re:Oh dear ?

[tmosley]

I believe Nazi Germany enjoyed similar "freedoms", as have all police states. Keep up the good work, beetle boy. No authoritarian state was ever able to form without the ignorant consent of the masses.

Re:Oh dear ?

[speardane]

the BBC report also says he was taken into custody for his own protection, after about 50 people reported him.

That might just be a realistic claim. In the case of the two victims, people are sufficiently shocked and upset, I suspect getting strong sentence might well have saved Woods a lynching

Re:Oh dear ?

[Spectra72]

It's one thing to punch someone in the face as an automatic/instinctive irrational response to a provocative statement made in your presence.

It's quite another when the wheels of government lurch into motion over the same thing. There is nothing automatic or instinctive about thinking about and then deciding to arrest someone over statements made in poor taste on the internet. That's not spur of the moment. That's cold and calculated.

Well, this is probably going to be marked troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Or flamebait, or not at all, because no-one reads AC posts

(I post AC because I couldn't be bothered to sign up,by the way, not because I'm posting an unpopular opinion, I always post AC)

When I read the joke, then found out about the case, then read the joke again I laughed, I did it out loud. I "LOL'd". I think it is a good joke.
As for posting it where it was posted, this is really difficult for me.
I am convinced if I were close to the case, I would still find this funny. I understand that some of you will say: "You just think that, but if you really..."
Well, I agree. I can not imagine what it is like to be one of April's family members, but I BELIEVE I would still find this funny, even if I can't guarantee it.

Some background ...

[Taco Cowboy]

Sick, but that would be civil case.

For those who don't know why the joke is sick, below link will provide you some background ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-19867915

 
 
 
 

Re:Some background ...

[Jessified]

Ohhhhhh.

That context helps. As much as I'm free speech and all that, I can't say I feel bad for the guy. That was an awful awful 'joke.'

Re:Some background ...

[KingBenny]

yea, sick, still no reason to arrest someone and put them in court for what? bad taste ? idiocy ?

So...

[crossmr]

When is Iran going to invade the UK and the US and restore freedom and democracy?

Re:So...

[Tastecicles]

Mod parent UP. I am fucking sick of this country.

Re:So...

[PlusFiveTroll]

“To all the revolutionaries fighting to throw off the yoke of tyranny around the world: look at British democracy. Is that what you want?”
  Andy Zaltzman

**Where** was this posted

[AbRASiON]

Was this posted on HIS own personal wall and someone took offense or was it posted on the wall(s)? for the little girl who was kidnapped or whatever (sorry, only read half the story)

If this is on the kids wall / page, then I can very very partially understand he's at least breaking morale 'asshole' code, however if this was on his own personal page, then that's his own dumb opinion.

Anyone know? It's difficult to tell from the article.

Re:**Where** was this posted

[wonkey_monkey]

The media don't seem to be in any rush to provide details. The latest rumour seems to be that he posted it on his own wall, then someone else took a screenshot of that and posted the screenshot on a Find April support group.

Re:**Where** was this posted

[toriver]

It's Facebook, there really is no "personal" to it.

What I want to know is what kinds of ads Facebook served him after the post... :)

free speech

[MrKaos]

Sooner than later people have to decide what forum free speech takes. If it isn't on the net then it isn't anywhere. I want to be offended, because it tells me free speech isn't dead.

That said, there goes another nail into free speech's coffin.

Re:free speech

[jader3rd]

Sooner than later people have to decide what forum free speech takes. If it isn't on the net then it isn't anywhere.

People could decide that free speech is fine on the net, but Facebook is a special exception to that.

Re:French translation of the joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, that's great. He unloads in April. I'd say it's even better in French!

Pretty lame but,...

[SpaghettiPattern]

OK, the joke is pretty lame. But there's a whole subculture on the internet dealing with tasteless jokes and this seems to be one of them. You could Google for alt.tasteless FAQ.

Re:Madelein McCann

[slim]

And if he was claiming that the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter on a Facebook 'find Madelein' page? I'm sure the McCanns would be equally offended and use this law to silence any critics.

They could use the libel laws against such a "claim". If it was speculation, rather than a claim, things might be a bit more grey.

Of course, if you ignored that it was a joke, the Facebook post would be a libel against Mark Bridger - he as not yet been found guilty of anything; and none of the charges he's accused of are for sexual offences.

Arrest the government!

[Quakeulf]

They're being offensive to me with laws like this!

Earning your pain

[BemoanAndMoan]

No question the guy is a mega-douche for posting this, but I'm more befuddled what spawns this Jerry-Springeresque "look at what a tool I am" mentality. Perhaps it is just the closest things modern humans have to a dead-end-evolution-type effect, where those who aren't meant to survive do or say something repulsive in full view of the digital world, only to spend the rest of their lives applying for jobs who Google -> wtf? -> fail! this guy into a shitty life.

And, ahem, girls know Google too. So maybe it isn't all that far from Darwin's theory after all. Nature finds a way, I guess.

So you go, Matthew Wood, isolate yourself from the gene pool and general society. If I need crude, I'll look to a guy like George Carlin who knew the difference between rebellion and unwashed cruelty.

Re:Madelein McCann

[fustakrakich]

The Outrage Industrial Complex. There are people who make and sell flags and books for protesters to burn for this purpose. Evidently outrage can be very profitable.

Re:context of context

[gef7]

And then, what if the screenshot was taken by another man-in-the-middle and reposted?
something like this: original poster -> MitM -> fb-poster
and what if there was: original poster -> MitM -> fb-poster
and what if there was: original poster -> MitM -> MitM -> fb-poster
and what if there was: original poster -> MitM -> MitM -> MitM -> fb-poster
and what if there was: original poster -> MitM -> MitM -> MitM -> MitM -> fb-poster
and what if there was: original poster -> MitM -> MitM -> MitM -> MitM -> MitM -> fb-poster
[...]
You get the idea.
Now, I want to see the decision tree and the guilt attribution specified in a functional language!

Yes, agreed, the original poster had bad taste but the law is pervert and the one to be "put in jail".

Re:

[mrbester]

I would have expected Frankie Boyle...

Yes we know, so what?

[Viol8]

I've sen just as bad taste jokes about dead celebs, shuttle astronauts and so on. Yes they're tasteless , no they're not funny, but since when did having a bad sense of uhmour become an arrestable offense?

Get a sense of perspective and give it a rest with the think of the children routine.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[Hal_Porter]

If you look at the Middle Ages we had a terrible problem with witchcraft. The way we handled that was using a lightweight and ad hoc system of roving prosecutors, ie Witchfinders General.

Now we have a problem with paedophilia, exemplified by this joke. I think we need some sort of Paedofinder General.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[Tastecicles]

never happen, because we'd suddenly find ourselves short on police officers, social workers, nursery nurses and judges.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[Snaller]

You are quite right, would mod up if I had points.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[Viol8]

"Making a joke about an alledged murderer before the case has come to court or the body of his victim has even come to light yet? That's an extra special level of offense rarely seen these days, not to mention possibly prejudicial against the guy in the jury's mind in the upcoming trial "

WTF are you talking about? So a lame joke is prejudicial and will influence a jury but all the salacious tabloid speculation won't??? Fsck, what kind of planet have people like you just arrived from?

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[firewrought]

Making a joke about an alledged murderer before the case has come to court or the body of his victim has even come to light yet? That's an extra special level of offense rarely seen these days

You obviously don't get around a lot if you think that's a "high" level of offense.

At any rate, it's not worth ruining a person's life just because they said something offensive. There is nothing but misery in society going down that road (just imagine the potential for abuse by the ideologically driven). That you have a little bit of sympathy for the offended party does not change that basic fact.

In a way, the internet (and other early online communities) has proven that there are much better ways to deal with trolls. Slashdot's moderation system is a great example of this.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[interkin3tic]

since when did having a bad sense of uhmour become an arrestable offense?

Since always. Restraint is not the default for governments.

Not defending the government's actions here, by the way. Arresting people for bad jokes is stupid, a waste of time and money, and increases the likelihood that good jokes or valuable free speech will be prosecuted..

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[sarysa]

Not any different in the states..the scare I mean. A person would be free to make such a joke, and may even get laughs from folks who go that dark with comedy, but he'd probably find himself on some government watchlist. Which honestly would probably have been better...I believe this might be more likely an attempt at oneupsmanship in dark comedy than an endorsement of the act...

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[bennomatic]

This joke is incredibly, incredibly offensive, and and the maker deserves to be shunned by whomever chooses to shun him, but there's no way you could convince me that this should be an arrest-able offense.

If he were a friend of mine, I'd have at least thought about lecturing him on the value of keeping some of one's thoughts to one's self. Depending on whether this sort of joke were some sort of indicator of a pattern in his thinking, I might even stop answering his calls. But as offensive as his joke is, it's not a crime.

Now, if this guy had previous arrests for pedophilia, and if he was on some sort of a watch list, that'd be a different story altogether. If Hannibal Lecter were on work release and started making jokes on Facebook about eating his landlord's liver, well, I'd suggest that'd be enough to bring him on in again.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[Cederic]

If he were a friend of mine, I'd have at least thought about lecturing him on the value of keeping some of one's thoughts to one's self.

If he was a friend of mine, I'd have laughed.

Actually, reading the joke, I did.

You want offensive? Try the Chancellor's speech at the Conservative Party Conference today. That was grossly offensive, but I don't see the police arresting him.

Or are you trying to say that only some offensive speech should be protected?

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[bughunter]

If this kind of speech really were illegal, then half of the standup comics and drunken blokes in pubs would be breaking the law.

Hell, I was a frequent contributor to alt.tasteless in the 1990's, and just about every article posted would have been illegal, or nearly so. Many of us were from the UK, and would have been subject to laws like this had they been on the books then...

What makes this person's speech an actionable crime when the above aren't? The forum? The decade? The audience?

Or is it the government nanny taking the opportunity for sensationalism, and pretending to be effective by solving problems that really aren't the problem?

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[ATMD]

Crabs country-wide are quaking in their shells.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[adeacon]

If you look at the Middle Ages we had a terrible problem with witchcraft. The way we handled that was using a lightweight and ad hoc system of roving prosecutors, ie Witchfinders General.

Now we have a problem with paedophilia, exemplified by this joke. I think we need some sort of Paedofinder General.

Ask and ye shall recieve!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[TranquilVoid]

That is clearly a different sense of the word "offensive".

There has always been this tension between public and private behaviour. Generally behaviour and speech that would be illegal in public is commonplace in private. Facebook (in fact the entire internet) blurs the line between public publishing and private conversation. The Communications Act does not reflect the reality of modern technology (despite being of recent origin) although to be fair we are in a transition period as social mores develop to accomodate this.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[stifler9999]

Is that why I haven't heard any good social worker jokes lately..

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[bennomatic]

Or are you trying to say that only some offensive speech should be protected?

I'll type this slowly: I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l j o k e r s h o u l d h a v e b e e n a r r e s t e d .

I think that all speech that is not actually dangerous--i.e. instruction or incitement to do harm--should be protected, even my lecturing of a friend whose jokes I find offensive (were that to be a friend of mine).

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[dl_sledding]

Not to mention priests, politicians, and foster homes.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[Meski]

Sub Judice is dead, get over it.

Re:Yes we know, so what?

[peawormsworth]

Yes. This is pretty silly. Wats wrong with the UK. Its like they want everyone in the world to read this joke. Now I have. Otherwise, it would just remain in his circle of friends.

Question...

[Loki_666]

If this is wrong because someone is offended, then shouldn't it be a civil charge not a criminal one? I mean, pretty tasteless to post in on the support page, and a pretty dumb thing to do, but treating it as a criminal case.... seems too much.

Re:Why?

[RaceProUK]

Why shouldn't being offensive be a crime?

Because of the drastic limitations on free speech such a law would create.

Let's Hear It for Freedom of Speech.

[flyneye]

Makes you kinda appreciate our Creator endowed right to say " So there was this Nun, a penguin and a Hockey Official in fishnets and heels carrying a can of Crisco into the bar..."

We do try to set a good example for our backwoods cousins across the water.

Re:Let's Hear It for Freedom of Speech.

[michelcolman]

Good thing you chose a nun and not an imam. Expect to be sued by the International Hockey Federation, though. And maybe a bunch of animal rights groups. J.M. Smucker will probably be OK with it, but you never know.

There is no god.

[udachny]

There is no god.

Clearly I am an atheist and I truly think that any person believing in god has issues with reality around them, however, I don't care about public displays of anything actually.

What I DO care about is god and religion being part of government systems. Now THAT I find not only 'grossly offensive', but actually highly criminal.

Re:Do you have a child?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would I then be arrested for assault? Yes.

In any case you've changed the rules from 'posting on facebook' to 'coming round my house'.

Context is important. The guy can post what he wants, trolling has been around far longer than the internet.

I have children, I would be no less upset to read these foul words were this one of my daughters, but I would expect it.

Tasteless and tacky? yes. Illegal? no.

That's the problem with the internet

[Fuzzums]

There are so many people connected to it, there will always be people who are offended by something you say or draw.
If it's a cartoon about Mohamed or a cartoon about the ww2 holocaust, abortion, homosexuality and so on and so on.
You name it, there will be people who are offended.

The point is NOT if an opinion is the right one or not, but how to deal with the differences in opinion. Differences in opinion are not new, but without global communication the exposure to different opinions is a lot smaller and if people don't know about the other opinions, there is no reason to bother. But internet changed the world in that sense. At least for the part of the world that has internet.

The question is should you think about all the possible people that you might offend with your opinion? Should you keep it to yourself? Probably not.

If somebody in an other country does or says something that somebody else doesn't like, do you have the right to punish somebody for that?
If Assange has to be extradited because of WikiLeaks pisses off governments, shouldn't cartoonists be extradited as well?

But how about the consequences of the actions. So far Assanges actions haven't lead to any major security incidents. Ok, Information was leaked, but nobody died. Is he responsible? For what exactly? Mohamed cartoons on the other hand HAVE lead to a lot of damage and deaths. Are the cartoonists responsible for that?

Same thing for a bad joke. If I tell it to my friends, it's not a problem, but if I post it on the internet, suddenly it is, because others might be offended?

Internet makes a lot of information and opinions publicly available. Hell, it even could expose you to porn and bad jokes. Things have changed since the internet. We will have to accept we might run into different opinions, that were always there to begin with. Toughen up and deal with it in an adult manner or cancel your internet subscription.

Rather than moderate...

[Kupfernigk]

I will simply point out that the the best approach to Scientologists and Mormons is simply to tell people what they actually believe, something that they are themselves rather good at not doing. Ambrose Bierce was very good at this.

Now, what are the reasonable but insulting things you could say about Reform Judaism, Zen Buddhism, or the Society of Friends (Quakers)?

Re:Rather than moderate...

[serviscope_minor]

Reform Judaism,

You can tell them that believing in god requires a rational part of your brain to be missing.

That and you can tell them that they're not fooling anyone by parking just down the road (as oppopsed to the schul carpark like the liberals). :)

Zen Buddhism,

I'm only passingly familiar with Buddism. Some parts do not seem to need suspesion of rational thought, e.g. no need to believe in a deity, reincarnation, or even the existence of Budda himself. Not much to say about that.

Society of Friends (Quakers)

Same. If they hold a belief in something supernatural then it's irrational etc etc etc.

Re:Consequences to your own actions

[Anonymous Coward]

"If nothing else comes of it than everyone learning what a complete twat he is then the police action is fine by me."

It turns out that he didn't post to the page dedicated to finding the girl. Someone copied the joke from his page. Now how do you feel about your little nazi hissy fit?

The media and gov't are thriving on the ignorance and righteous indignation displayed by the populace in recent years, not just in the US but around the world. There's always been a tinge of this but in the last decade it's gotten out of hand.

IMHO, it's about time that everyone sat the fuck down and got a clue. Take the time to get the facts then think about what's rational. Stop being force fed by Fox and Friends, Diane Sawyer and whatever godawful newspapers there are in the UK. It's never the complete picture because rarely does that coincide with their interests: turning a profit (sensationalism in media) or increasing control (new laws for gov't and their cronies).

Ah yes, context

[SmallFurryCreature]

In dutch, but the NOS reported that a Brazillian in Australia was killed after taking LSD and being reported as having committed an armed robbery while in reality stealing two rolls of biscuit, by being tasered 14 times AFTER police tried to subdue him with teargas and the police stick.

Powned reports just the biscuits and the tasering.

Gosh, can you guess which website is a troll website?

I can.

First rule of reading internet stories, find the WHOLE story. You will be suprised at the bits people conveniently leave out to have a story slant their way.

Mind you, this story has a further bit:

The post on the girls support site, it wasn't made by the guy who made the joke post. Somebody else apparently copied it from his facebook page to the girls site.

Is this true? I don't know, to many story submissions with to many angles.

"Freedom" doesn't exist

[concealment]

If you give everyone "freedom," they'll do things that offend each other. This means we have to come up with definitions of freedom that aren't actually free. This to me suggests that we should stop claiming our goal is "freedom," and start claiming that it's harmony or mutually non-offensive co-existence or some other buzzword-laden catchphrase.

Because they're totally different

[concealment]

Telling a Muslim that Mohammed was not a prophet could very easily incite him to terrible actions of violence.

Yeah, because the Muslims aren't like you and me, and they don't have control over their reactions.

Re:Further context needed here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to cite any source for that?
Plenty posts mention that what really happend is he posted to his wall and SOMEONE ELSE took a screenshot and posted that to the support group page.

I'm grossly offended

[tekrat]

By such a law.
Can we jail the lawmakers who passed this?

I mean seriously; wouldn't a law like this make 'Honey Boo-Boo' a crime punishable by death in the UK? I mean, if we're going to base a law on what's 'offensive', I'd start with Kim Kardashian, and work my way down to every reality TV "star"....

Re:Offensive lack of empathy

[heefeneet]

Anybody that doesn't find it offensive displays a revealing lack of empathy

There's a huge difference between being offended and throwing someone in jail because it offended you.

Is this even news anymore?

[J'raxis]

Is it even news anymore that "freedom of speech" is about as respected in the UK as it is in Iran or China?

Was it about Mohammed

[gelfling]

Because talking shit about about that pork eating faggot child molester illiterate retard is frowned upon.

Re:Here's one.

[Nevynxxx]

Promptly? Since when do we deport people promptly?

"they are arrested for attempting to setup a joke and eventually deported" would work...

The sick censorship of today

[Snaller]

*** Message removed for your protection ***

In other news ..

[niks42]

Facebook launches a new 'Dislike' button, complete with audio of boos and cries of 'shame, shame' recorded from the House of Commons.

Re:On the other hand

[Raenex]

Please, show me the UN charter that gives each human the right to offend.

"Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Free speech needs protecting because of those who find your speech offensive and would persecute you for it.

50 angry people turned up outside his house

[Diamonddavej]

Regardless of what or where he posted his joke, the BBC reports that 50 angry people turned up outside his house and he was arrested at a different address for his own safety.

Re:50 angry people turned up outside his house

[Cederic]

So were they arrested? Or is it legal to form a lynch mob?

The police and the CPS appear to be focussing on the wrong fucking thing here.

Re:50 angry people turned up outside his house

[Diamonddavej]

Agreed!

There was 30 people (with pitch forks in hand) in the court's public gallery applauding (shaking their pitch forks) as he was led to prison.

People from the UK can bitch about the USA...

[Thantik]

Because we've got tons of things wrong in America, but you know what? At least we have freedom of speech. People here don't get arrested for bad jokes.

Re:People from the UK can bitch about the USA...

[toriver]

No, they just get sued for "indecency" or something like that and then go broke because of the legal expenses. Better not to speak, then.

Also, the "freedom of speech" only applies to the Government, private enterprise are free to ignore it, as some peace-symbol-tee-shirt-wearing teens learned when they were expelled from a mall after 9/11/2001.

Re:People from the UK can bitch about the USA...

[bussdriver]

Americans can be fired for political bumper stickers. It has happened. Most everybody is at will-- so baring some really foolish moves by the employer you can be fired for no reason whatsoever; also, you can be kicked off/out or refused service for any reason. They don't need to give a reason and if they do there are only a small list of which where you COULD win in court over it.

As Americans become more intolerant and more teens post their lives online for permanent archiving and profiling... it will become interesting - but will the vapid twitter-heads realize why they do not get hired or are laid off or fired?

Latest Update on this - guy got jailed

[stevencbrown]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-19869710

12 weeks in jail for his comments, which he pled guilty to...

Interestingly, he was arrested for his "own protection", after "About 50 people went to his home address".

Pretty feeble insults

[Kupfernigk]

You make my case. The most you can do is call them "irrational". Which is only an insult if you believe that "rationality", i.e. the belief that the universe has fixed rules that everything obeys, that they are discoverable, and that we should then modify all our behaviour to optimise our interaction with those fixed rules, has the answer to everything.

C S Lewis has the answer to this one: that people who claim to be totally rational merely cannot see the irrational components of their own behaviour. A complete rationalist would not engage in "ethical" behavior until it was scientifically demonstrated that to do so conferred clear benefits in measurable units. But many people who claim to be rationalists do things without any such justification.

Re:Pretty feeble insults

[Artifakt]

If you're using the word as it was originally defined, and as a lot of people actually fought and died over it in Pythagorean times, "rationality" implies that those fixed rules give rise to numerical, quantifiable ratios. That's why we have other words, such as reason or logic - because 'rational' , 'scientific', 'logical' and 'reasonable' are not really all just synonyms. Rational and Irrational, as used by common people and not modern mathematicians, are words which mean the ability to take a mathematical ratio determines what is a correct mental operation. Lewis is being careful to stick to this correct definition, in the part where he points out the results have to be in measurable units.

          Like it or not, if someone claims their ethical system is rational, and they don't have a unit of ethicalness and can't put a number on every ethical act, they are not being rational at all. They may be being reasonable (in the most literal sense), they may even be logical (in that they have used formal methods of doing that reasoning), they may well be correct, if that's even possible at all, but they need to figure out what words really apply to what they are doing.

          On the other hand, Jesus was being entirely rational when he said "Greater love hath no man than he who gives up his life for his brother". That's literally a ratio being established, by setting the peak value, so that all other acts of loving kindness can be expressed as fractions of that value if anyone wanted to. There's no indication Jesus wanted that quantification to be limited to numbers expressible as ratios - he'd probably be just fine about if if your feeding a stray kitten was expressed as an infinite non-repeating decimal instead, but by itself, that particular statement supports the establishment of a literally rational ethical system - which is exactly what so many self-professed rationalists claim religion doesn't do.

101 uses for a dead Queen

[mrmeval]

I'm writing a book "101 uses for a dead Queen" I need some artistic talent to create the pictures to specification. What countries are a safe choice to solicit authors from? I'd really be sad if I hired an artist and they are later imprisoned or executed.

He's now in jail

[xaxa]

Does anyone have a reliable reference for that?

The man has now been jailed after pleading guilty: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-teenager-jailed-facebook

Re:bad-taste joke

[TaoPhoenix]

I know, different countries and all that, but increasingly country divisions among laws are starting to blur based on world wide news like this.

Notice that this isn't even either child-pr0n or terrorism directly, it's "just mean". That's dangerous because at least the other slippery excuses get rolled up under safety. This one is "you're being mean so let's wreck your ability to get a job".

Once you allow "tasteless joke" as a valid reason to get arrested it gets really chilly, really quick. Getting ahead of the Citation Needed crowd (also a chilling factor!) there are 1,000 tasteless jokes per year in standup comedy in the UK and another 2,000 in the US. (We have more of everything, boring math and understated.) So suddenly because it's on Facebook it becomes a crime?!

That's really bad news. It's like the Powers That Be really don't want Social Media anymore.

Re:what the limits of the law actually are

[TaoPhoenix]

It should get tested, all the way.

If we have decided that being watched by Big Brother is for our own benefit, finish the charade and let's all be miserable. Or bust it and make an easy-to-cite standard for "non-dangerous speech" or something. But this middle ground is gonna be brutal, because it's all political.

7 words were harmed in this post. I avoided certain words which are normally rhetorically acceptable but apparently once posted on a social forum they no longer are.

Take THIS England!

[Panaflex]

Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhmnOpoGAPw

Re:Hitler would be laughing if he were alive.

[toriver]

Well, he and his "tell a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth" is the reason for laws like this, shitface. Because of all the crap written about Jews in the 1930s that "justified" the Holocaust. So the law is supposed to stop that shit before it hits the fan. American "freedom of speech" just leads to ambivalence, where anti-semites like Henry Ford are supposed to be countered by the speech of opposing views - but you still end up with plenty of one-sided debates because the opponents are dismissed as "un-American" or the like.

Re:Facebook is public?

[poofmeisterp]

If true, that changes things. Seems then that this was a targeted attempt at causing distress. I'm fine with a prosecution for this, but wouldn't be if he were simply posting on his Facebook wall or any group not specifically related to the Jones case.

Why even a prosecution? How about a "Hey, Facebook, remove this stupid post, NOW, please."

If someone can be arrested for having a sick sense of humor, police won't many other cases to work henceforth.

Re:Dear UK government

[poofmeisterp]

Please arrest me for i too have previously made grossly offensive jokes.

Better arrest me, too, because I'd like to hear 'em.

Freedom of speech is limited how much over there??

Re:And so what?

[cheekyjohnson]

We don't care if you don't like the imposition of responsibility on someone deciding to exercise free speech.

The Chinese government doesn't either.

Re:And so when you get arrested for assault

[cheekyjohnson]

This is LESS JUSTICE.

A situation where people don't have freedom of speech? I think not. If your only test is that someone might be offended, then I believe there is a problem.

Re:Offensive lack of empathy

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, someone who doesn't cry as much as you lacks empathy.

Re:Offensive lack of empathy

[Cederic]

So this kid should be jailed because he's got a medical condition resulting in a lack of empathy?

Or the magistrate that gave him three months should be called an officious cunt with no sense of humour?

I know which option I prefer.

Loose analogy

[poofmeisterp]

Internet world:
1. Web Site
2. Forum
3. Posting
4. People
5. Comments
6. References to post from elsewhere, GOTO 5.

--------

Real world:
1. Building
2. Room / Area
3. Event
4. People
5. Comments
6. Newpaper ads, GOTO 5.

----------------

Now what do you do when someone comes into a public vigil and makes gross statements if you have security or bouncers? Have them removed. Calling the police to start a war on words is over the top, and used beyond appropriate measures. *Unless you want more publicity*, then call the police all ya want.

Point made.

flawed logic

[redconfetti]

If you think about it, Mark Bridger doesn't come in December either, so it's not a very good joke either. Does the UK have laws against bad jokes too?

Re:On the other hand

[cheekyjohnson]

Since I say anything that offended me isn't free speech, and you don't have a right to offend, I believe you should be arrested. Your comment offends me deeply!

Why so serious :P

[Cito]

What's blue and sits in the corner?
April Jones in a garbage bag

Just substitute April Jones for any Dead Baby joke and you got a winner :P

This post approved by Mark Bridger

get your facts straight gov'nor

[Archfeld]

It did NOT originate on the FIND APRIL wall.
It was a screen scrape from his own public face book wall reposted on the find april wall. This is just another example of british facism. I suppose if it was sunday and he was standing on a soapbox in the park it would have been OK ?

Re:get your facts straight gov'nor

[TapeCutter]

It was a screen scrape from his own public face book wall reposted on the find april wall.

That's why we employ judges.

I suppose if it was sunday and he was standing on a soapbox in the park it would have been OK ?

Yes it would be ok, but it's never ok to put your soap box on the grave of the person you are denigrating.

This is just another example of british facism.

We're British, we're a bit eccentric, one of my ancestors stuck a red hot poker up a king's arse once, but we're mostly harmless these days, especially when it comes to common decency with fire side tools.

Re:get your facts straight gov'nor

[migmog]

Just trying to get the facts straight...
The guy admitted first posting it on his wall, then posting the screen grab on the Find April site, pretending it was from someone else

Sadly, sites on the internet set up by distressed people searching or grieving for their loved ones seem to attract this kind of attention.
To me, this crosses the boundary into criminal behavior. He is the most offensive kind of lowlife and deserves his 3 months in jail.

Re:get your facts straight gov'nor

[Archfeld]

While I respect you for your opinion, and will certainly defend your right to express it, and heck I find it offensive as well, but if offensive were illegal the world would be drastically different place, but not necesarily for the better.
  Sticks and stones...

What an arrest means in the UK

[Builder]

Ignoring the fact that he plead guilty and will be sentenced, just the arrest had serious implications.

This guy now has virtually no chance of ever getting a job that requires a CRB (criminal records bureau) check (let alone an ECRB check). Every job I've had in the IT world in the last 8 years has required one, and in the current economy, if they have 10 applicants with no arrests on their record and 1 with an arrest, they're not going to take the chance on him.

It means that he can't visit many countries visa-free any more. It means that his DNA and fingerprints are on file. All this for a badly timed joke.

Re:Consequences to your own actions

[second_coming]

Well done, you just invoked Godwin's law in one step.

There's a reason why...

[jep305]

... "1984" was written by a Brit.

Facebook

[SDotAnthony]

While the "Joke" is completely in bad taste, this is absolutely another reason to stay off Facebook.