UK Man Arrested For Offensive Joke Posted On Facebook

The joke in question by Sprite_tm · 2012-10-07 20:30 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by Pecisk · 2012-10-07 20:45 · Score: 2

Sick, but that would be civil case.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Re:The joke in question by Spad · 2012-10-07 20:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Smauler · 2012-10-07 20:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by LordLucless · 2012-10-07 21:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:The joke in question by technos · 2012-10-07 21:49 · Score: 2

Superinjunctions and libel tourism seem to say otherwise.

--
.sig: Now legally binding!
Re:The joke in question by lattyware · 2012-10-07 21:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Re:The joke in question by robably · 2012-10-07 21:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by agentgonzo · 2012-10-07 22:12 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by ReallyEvilCanine · 2012-10-07 22:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

> 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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 22:17 · Score: 2, Funny

You're a fucking spectacular nincompoop.
Re:The joke in question by jader3rd · 2012-10-07 22:30 · Score: 2

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 by DrXym · 2012-10-07 22:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by MisterBuggie · 2012-10-07 22:54 · Score: 2

I would love to know what you think the Queen has to do with any of this...
Re:The joke in question by DrXym · 2012-10-07 22:56 · Score: 2

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 by slim · 2012-10-07 22:58 · Score: 2

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 by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-07 23:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:The joke in question by queazocotal · 2012-10-07 23:19 · Score: 2

"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 by HungryHobo · 2012-10-07 23:41 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-07 23:41 · Score: 2

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?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:The joke in question by HungryHobo · 2012-10-07 23:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by nschubach · 2012-10-07 23:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:The joke in question by Martin+S. · 2012-10-08 00:15 · Score: 2

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 by heathen_01 · 2012-10-08 00:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Hentes · 2012-10-08 00:47 · Score: 2

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 by Inda · 2012-10-08 00:49 · Score: 2

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.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:The joke in question by heefeneet · 2012-10-08 01:07 · Score: 2

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 by mrmeval · 2012-10-08 01:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Re:The joke in question by 1u3hr · 2012-10-08 01:22 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by drinkypoo · 2012-10-08 02:07 · Score: 2

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.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:The joke in question by tmosley · 2012-10-08 02:18 · Score: 2

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

People like you make me sick.
Re:The joke in question by toriver · 2012-10-08 03:52 · Score: 2

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:context by slimdave · 2012-10-07 20:37 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Re:context by kraut · 2012-10-07 20:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
no taxation without representation!

Funny joke, related by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 20:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Chrisq · 2012-10-07 21:13 · Score: 5, Funny

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:context by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-07 20:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Re:context by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 20:44 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

For fuck sake, not again! by kinarduk · 2012-10-07 20:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

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! by nukenerd · 2012-10-07 20:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

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! by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-08 05:26 · Score: 2

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.

Re:context by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 20:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Grossly offensive to whom? by MartinSchou · 2012-10-07 20:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by psiclops · 2012-10-07 22:12 · Score: 4, Informative

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..

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Re:Grossly offensive to whom? by slim · 2012-10-07 22:49 · Score: 2

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? by serviscope_minor · 2012-10-07 22:55 · Score: 2

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.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Grossly offensive to whom? by BlueStrat · 2012-10-07 23:07 · Score: 2

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

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Grossly offensive to whom? by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-07 23:33 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Grossly offensive to whom? by jwdb · 2012-10-08 01:59 · Score: 2

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.

Too much control agenda by DrNoNo · 2012-10-07 20:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:context by Eraesr · 2012-10-07 20:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Taboos used to be useful by srussia · 2012-10-07 21:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:Taboos used to be useful by Chrisq · 2012-10-07 21:24 · Score: 2

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:context by Rosy+At+Random · 2012-10-07 21:11 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
Would you like a slice of toast?

Re:context by hattig · 2012-10-07 21:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Zemran · 2012-10-07 21:14 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.

Re:Really? by ciderbrew · 2012-10-07 21:22 · Score: 2

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:context by s7uar7 · 2012-10-07 21:28 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Some background ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-10-07 21:42 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Some background ... by Jessified · 2012-10-08 03:04 · Score: 2

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:Oh dear ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 22:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:context by Zemran · 2012-10-07 22:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.

Re:context by somersault · 2012-10-07 22:25 · Score: 2

For further context, we were making a repetitive joke.

--
which is totally what she said

Re:context by agentgonzo · 2012-10-07 22:30 · Score: 2

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 by Alranor · 2012-10-07 22:32 · Score: 2

For further context, they were making a repetitive joke

Re:Really? by agentgonzo · 2012-10-07 22:38 · Score: 2

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.

Yes we know, so what? by Viol8 · 2012-10-07 23:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by Hal_Porter · 2012-10-07 23:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Yes we know, so what? by Tastecicles · 2012-10-08 01:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:Yes we know, so what? by Viol8 · 2012-10-08 01:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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? by Cederic · 2012-10-08 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:**Where** was this posted by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-07 23:23 · Score: 2

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.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Re:Oh dear ? by GeorgeRidout · 2012-10-08 00:03 · Score: 3, Informative

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:Consequences to your own actions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 00:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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).

Re:Oh dear ? by Custard+Horse · 2012-10-08 01:09 · Score: 3, Informative

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 ? by ScottyLad · 2012-10-08 01:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Philosopher (n) - a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity

Re:Oh dear ? by tmosley · 2012-10-08 02:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 ? by tmosley · 2012-10-08 02:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 ? by History's+Coming+To · 2012-10-08 02:31 · Score: 2

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).

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.

Re:Oh dear ? by Blue+Stone · 2012-10-08 03:07 · Score: 2

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.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

He's now in jail by xaxa · 2012-10-08 03:27 · Score: 2

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:Oh dear ? by toriver · 2012-10-08 03:35 · Score: 2

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 ? by isorox · 2012-10-08 03:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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:bad-taste joke by TaoPhoenix · 2012-10-08 03:46 · Score: 2

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.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Re:Oh dear ? by slim · 2012-10-08 03:48 · Score: 2

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:context by toriver · 2012-10-08 04:11 · Score: 2

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

Re:Oh dear ? by jvkjvk · 2012-10-08 04:27 · Score: 2

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.

Slashdot Mirror

UK Man Arrested For Offensive Joke Posted On Facebook

87 of 606 comments (clear)