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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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: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: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:context

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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.

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: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

[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.

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: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.

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?

[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: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.