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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: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: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 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

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: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: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: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.

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: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: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 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.

Slashdot Mirror

UK Man Arrested For Offensive Joke Posted On Facebook

48 of 606 comments (clear)