Slashdot Mirror
Man Arrested For Photo of Burning Poppy On Facebook
Barence writes "A British man has been arrested for posting a picture of a burning poppy on Facebook. The poppy is a symbol of remembrance for those who died in war, and the arrest was made on Remembrance Sunday. 'A man from Aylesham has tonight been arrested on suspicion of malicious telecommunications,' Kent police said in a statement after the arrest. 'This follows a posting on a social network site of a burning poppy. He is currently in police custody awaiting interview.' The arrest has been criticized by legal experts. 'What was the point of winning either World War if, in 2012, someone can be casually arrested by @Kent_police for burning a poppy?' tweeted David Allen Green, who helped clear the British man who was prosecuted for a joke tweet threatening to blow up an airport."
Arrest the arresting officer on suspicion of stupidity.
The point of free speech is to protect informative discussion and analysis of policy.
Emotional gestures don't actually do that.
Burning flags, burning poppies, etc. express discontent but not much else. In fact, it seems to me that these events get in the way of actually having a discussion on the issue and getting closer to resolution.
It's more like karma-whoring than political speech.
"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."
What was the point of winning either World War if, in 2012, someone can be casually arrested by @Kent_police for burning a poppy?
The point was that from 1945 to ~2010, they could not be so casually arrested.
Liberty is not static; it must periodically be re-conquered from those who would deny us.
But I thought America was the oppressive country hat hated free speech, surely this cant happen in the UK! Why Europeans are superior in every way to Americans!
Fuck that cocksucker. Throw his ass in jail and let some niggers fuck him in the rectum. He needs his sphincter stretched, bleeding, and bruised.
As well as the picture, he published the words "How about that you squadey cunts". (A squaddie being British slang for a low-ranking soldier). This at a time when emotions are heightened with the Remembrance Day.
The Criminal Justice Act says:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
So that's the legal justification for arresting him.
I think it's an unjust law -- I believe in free speech -- but it's the police's job to uphold the law as it's written, not how it *should* be written.
i always thought it would be awesome to live in the UK because of the healthcare system but as a chronic troll I don't want to risk getting arrested for posting flamebait!
The BBC has pedophiles and incompetent editors that post stories that are meant to suppress free speech and now this.... UK isn't as free as its citizens say.
...why the f*** you burn his poppies if it's illegal?!
This isn't subjective. It's not a question of what one person considers useful speech and another doesn't, at least unless you're trying to defend the flower-burners.
Useful speech is the kind of stuff we see on the floor of Congress, in policy discussions, in think tanks, in political essays and so on.
Non-useful speech is karma-whoring, drama queening, and other forms of non-productive activity. It's not difficult to see the difference, which was clearly anticipated by the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
Most UK subjects do not realize that we don't actually have it. Speech is not protected in the UK and that won't get fixed until the people in the UK realize that, because of the cultural cross-contamination from the US most UK subjects think we have the same protected speech as you fellows across the pond.
Double irony: people down-voting the original post so that it drops to zero and won't be seen.
I read that as "photo of a burning puppy" and thought "fair enough". Not sure if I should be disappointed, or relieved for the puppy.
Somebody brought this to the police's attention - they don't actively "police" facebook, looking for this kind of stuff.
We in the UK have a glorious (sarcasm alert) tradition of being offended and/or taking things personally at the drop of a hat - eg Mary Whitehouse' organisation, or the braying mobs demanding "death to all paediatrics" (sic) whenever a kiddie is murdered (most often by a member of the child's family, it seems, so why aren't they calling for "death to all relatives"?).
I suspect someone, maybe a member of the armed forces or somebody close to them, has seen the poppy burning and rather than thinking "idiot, let's not give them the oxygen of publicity", has instead gone off the deep end and started "shouting the odds", stating that "I'll swing for him, I will", "death's too good for them", "I didn't fight a war for the likes of them" etc. and called the police. Notwithstanding the fact that they would normally the sort of person who decries the wasting of police team and the fact you "never see a bobby on the street these days" and "the streets aren't safe for our kids anymore".
Unsubstantiated hearsay, I know. I'm just blowing off steam.
Slippery slope can be a version of reductio ad absurdum, which is a reasonable argument. ie. if you follow the logical consequences of the proposition, you end up in a ridiculous place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
There is lots and lots of legislation which now covers a lot of things that weren't dreamed of by the legislators. Petty bureaucrats and over-reaching judges are really notorious for doing that. See also: unintended consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences
If I goatse the Kent Police department? I'm a US citizen.
And here I thought that the only thing that a poppy was good for was to make opium. That and making seeds to put on bread rolls that make people fail drug tests. "Officer, I wasn't using opium, it was poppy seeds on a roll, Honest!" They should arrest him for possession of drug paraphernalia, if anything. The current charge doesn't make sense and if it doesn't make sense, you must acquit.
Why is there no mention for those of us not in the UK what the symbolism of the poppy is. Is it like burning a flag? And why has nobody made the joke "Looks like the inmates are running the Aylesham"? Come on, it's easy.
Learn to love Alaska
It's about what was written in reference to it. The picture was fine, the words associated with it were deemed offensive. Debate all you want the worthiness of that, but at least report it like it is.
so its ok to burn a holy book, but its not ok to burn a poppy ? wtf britain ?!
To a politician, "useful speech" is something that attracts votes or money.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I really first misread it as "Man Arrested For Photo of Burning Puppy On Facebook". Shocked, I thought that would definitely be a good reason for arrest, for cruelty against animals.
Then I reread the headline, and realised it's an o, not a u. Poppies. So he's probably been smoking something bad. Reason for arrest, indeed. But who would be so stupid of putting photos of them doing drugs on Facebook? Shocking. The stupidity.
Then reading the summary I realised it's for burning some flower. Just a flower. Even more shocking - being arrested for burning a flower. OK that flower is a symbol of remembrance, and thus burning such a flower and telling the world you did it will certainly upset people, it's definitely not a nice thing to do, but also not exactly a reason for arrest imho.
So the whole issue is quite ridiculous. And a bit shocking, still.
it's 1984
The good learned lawyer is completely right in his comments. I imagine there are graves of brave servicemen doing a 1200rpm spin-and-rinse over how much of a bureaucratic, oppressive, surveillance police state the UK has become. The flaming-poppy-posting tosspot has every right to act the goat. Everybody eles has the right to point out to him, his social network of choice, his ISP and the rest of the straight-thinking world how much of a tosspot he is and insist that he should obligingly remove evidence of his recent idiocy and keep his tosspottery to himself in future. This situation looks to have jumped a whole big wodge of escalation and gone straight to legal remedies.
The man in jail made a philosophical point -- along with the photo he wrote "How about that you squadey cunts" (as another poster informed us)
Well, how about that? He pissed some folk off, the police brought him in to have a little chat with him, and we've all learned a valuable lesson.
Speech may be free but it's not always cheap. Sometimes you have to pay a price. This asshat isn't going to spend the rest of his life in jail for making a cunt out of himself. He's lucky the police are talking with him, he should be more worried that a veteran might take his little joke personally and come around to explain in person just how offensive he was being.
Police are there to protect property (i.e. rich people's stuff) and keep the peace in general. Better the police quiet this guy down versus letting this thing escalate. Mister Asshat could end up dead and true innocents could get caught in a crossife
...that at least a certain segment of veterans were never fighting for freedom, but rather because they got a thrill from killing.
In Canada, a couple of years ago the President of the PEI Legion threatened lawsuits against the "white poppy" campaign. This isn't even burning poppies, this is objecting to others wearing a different poppy because the white poppy symbolizes the deaths of civilians during wartime rather than the red poppy which symbolizes deaths of soldiers. Considering the symbols both originated in the 1920s, this also isn't some insolent teenager trying to get a jab in at the old men.
Luckily, it seems the veterans who are willing to use threats of violence and suppression against others to prevent their freedom of expression are fewer in number than those who ignore what they were supposed to be fighting for.
Poppy flowers don't grow in November, are in need of fresh earth and are ephemeral. No need to burn those.
I laugh every year about remembrance day controversies. In Canada there was a big stink this year about how school children should be allowed to opt out of remembrance ceremonies held at school. Someone gets arrested for burning a poppy.
Last I checked these men and women fought for our freedoms. While burning a poppy, speaking negatively about veterans, or skipping remembrance ceremonies because you rather sleep in makes you a dick, these men and women fought for the right and freedom to be a dick. Forcing someone to behave a certain way, or forcing people to participate in a ceremony is counter-intuitive to what veterans have fought for.
Freedom is not a give in, but people being dicks is a certainty.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
The players in the system are people who are often prevented from exercising their better sense and judgement by their regulations and policied. "Failure to act" generally leads to being fired. Here's a good case in point.
In many of my commentaries, I have shared the fact that I spent some time as a TSA screener. I have been faced with some rather unenviable duties both as a passenger screener and as a baggage screener. For the first two+ years of TSA's existance, I knew the system pretty well. (I don't think much has changed since then) Among these duties, I had to screen people who ... were not typical. While screening people, I had to do a manual patdown of a person with only one leg.
Though it seems unseemly, I actually did pat around the area where there was no leg. Something was in his pocket in that vicinity and had him pull things from his pockets. Among the items was a small bag of marijuana. I attempted to exercise my sense of better judgement and IGNORED the pot. (Oh, how I wished he told me "oh, it's green tea." because I could have easily had an out on the matter... in fact, I wish I had thought to say "oh! This must be green tea. I hear it is very healthy" giving HIM the idea...) But I attempted to ignore it. Another screener noticed it and started to report it. I had to fall into place or risk problems to myself.
The guy was held, then eventually wheeled away my police. Later, the police said "people, for such small amounts, please don't bother us?!" Policy actually changed to reflect better sense. But the fact was, there was no clear instruction at the time.
But we see policies and procedures often get in the way of better sense and judgement everywhere we go. From law enforcement to public education, we see stupid crap all day long. Are people REALLY that stupid or are we playing "CYA" too much to the point that things are simply ridiculous? I favor the second while I recognize that SOME people are not capable of particularly rational judgement.
Or North Korea.
They do not belong in the free world.
Why is this man in trouble, the poppy is a symbol of the worst mass killings to ever take place, which is infact all war is. Lets face it, the point of war is to kill, just kill for no real reason. The difference between a serial killer and a war vet is that the war vet was told to kill by the bully at school ( The Government ) and the serial killer took it into his own hands. I have absolutely 0 respect for any solder, war vet or anyone who plays a hand in hurting humans in an act of war. This goes for both sides!
People talk about a solder as a symbol of devotion and courage, my question is why? If the government hands me a gun and tells me to shoot someone, why should that make me a symbol for my country? I think the real symbols for a country are the people who progress science, technology and medicine. They are the people who we should respect, not the guy who grabs a gun and kills in the name of his country because he doesn't question them.
You always hear saying like "You wouldn't be here if they didn't fight" or "They protected your freedom", bull crap. War happens because people can't think of non hostel ways to settle issues. How about instead of getting hundreds of thousands of your own people killed you sit down and think before you act. I'm not saying that no one has to die but not the insane number of people who do. If you have to kill even 1 innocence person for 10 bad guys then the cost isn't worth it.
I think I'm starting to get it. We're defending our freedoms by making the terrorists laugh till they drop dead.
Malicious Communications Act
1988
1988 CHAPTER 27
An Act to make provision for the punishment of persons who send
or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing
distress or anxiety. [29th July 1988]
B E IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, as follows:—
1.—(1) Any person who sends to another person—
(a) a letter or other article which conveys—
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be
false by the sender; or
(b) any other article which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or
grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it
is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause
distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he
intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
(2) A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (l)(a)(ii)
above if he shows—
(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand which he believed
he had reasonable grounds for making; and
(b) that he believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of
reinforcing the demand.
(3) In this section references to sending include references to delivering
and to causing to be sent or delivered and "sender" shall be construed
accordingly.
Offence of sending
letters etc. with
intent to cause
distress or anxiety.
2 c. 27 Malicious Communications Act 1988
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on
summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
Northern Ireland. 2. An Order in Council under paragraph 1(l)(b) of Schedule I to the
1974 c. 28. Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the
interim period) which states that it is made only for purposes
corresponding to those of this Act—
(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule
(affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of
either House.
Short title, 3.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Malicious Communications Act
commencement 1988.
and extent.
(2) Section 1 above shall not come into force until the end of the penod
of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) This Act does not extend to Scotland or, except for section 2, to
Northern Ireland.
Where we differ from the US, and I personally support this difference, is that we do not recognise that everybody has a right to insult or defame other people. As the Dean of my college remarked, many years ago, "We have people in this college of violently opposed opinions, we have Communists and capitalists, we have atheists and religious people. We expect them to discuss their differences in a civilised manner."
On Sunday last our SOF Meeting took place when the Remembrance Day procession was taking place in town. Nobody wore a poppy, and after the meeting we heard from someone who had been brought up among the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. We are not likely to have problems with the police.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I thought it said puppy. I was a little freaked out by the tone of the writing.
The standard wasn't "emotional acts," but speech that would fit into political analysis versus speech that does not.
This isn't a negative standard, such as "His speech is emotional, ban it!"
It's a positive standard: the free speech we want to protect comes in the form of political speech that is analytical, informative and discursive, thus is useful to making policy decisions.
Anything else would not be protected.
I don't quite get the controversy. Please help me understand... how offensive is this to Brits?
On a scale of 1 to 10: 1 being "setting fire to a nice picture of cheese" and 10 being "Sinead O'Connor setting fire to a picture of the Pope, sandwiched between the Bible and the Magna Carta with the Union Jack wrapped around it", how offensive is this?
There's no difference between a group of angry people on Slashdot, and a group of voters. This is the government you chose. Assigning it a will of its own, beyond a certain recognition that it perpetuates itself, is to disclaim responsibility for your acts.
Checkmate.
It seems that fascism is alive and well in Kent. Do they have a statue of Franco, Mussolini or Hitler in the central square?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Your argument is weakened because Mary Whitehouse was a national joke. If she complained about a TV programme, the head of the BBC used to send the producer a congratulatory memo. We in the UK are suffering from idiocy being stirred up by the gutter press.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
You're using a standard for what is speech, not for what you can disqualify as speech. Insisting on standards does not create a slippery slope; however, insisting on no standards certainly can.
Honestly now. If he knowingly does something involving something senseitive to his society that is a great offense to them he should know that there might be reprocussions for it.
True I technically have the right to walk into a airport with a sign that says "Im brown so I must want to blow this place up right?" or post a picture of me burning a flag and a fake bomb at the memorial for killed soldiers because of free speech but only a fucking moron would do it and then be surprised that he is arrested for it. Does that mean I can? Sure it does. Does that mean I should? No, it does not.
I think it's an unjust law -- I believe in free speech -- but it's the police's job to uphold the law as it's written, not how it *should* be written.
How about the police upholding the European Convention on human rights which IIRC sits above UK law. Article 10 grants freedom of expression except in limited, and sensible circumstances and "insulting someone else" is not one of those. In fact if this law really is as written MPs had better watch what they say outside of the commons because they seem to spend a good deal of their time being insulting and attempting to cause MPs in other parties distress.
The ironic thing is that these same human rights laws that technically make his arrest illegal are also probably what caused it in the first place. It used to be that odious idiots who did things like burn remembrance poppies would find themselves ostracized from society to some degree which seems a very appropriate response. However that is now illegal under all these human rights laws because it is illegal to discriminate due to political beliefs. While it is very clear that things beyond our control such as gender, race, sexual preference etc. should be protected it is less clear to me that political beliefs should be protected since this is a conscience choice and so is under the full control of the individual and e.g. withholding services, insults (within reason and without threats of physical harm) etc. seems to me to be a legitimate way to make an argument against a particular political choice - certainly it is far better than locking people up!
Although all part of Western civilization, United Kingdom is NOT France nor the United States of America when it comes to law and its just execution. When it comes to offensive and hate speech, UK is far more stringent, limiting and consistent in tackling from my observations.
It's important to recognize the human bias when evaluating the venom and criminality of speech. Empathizing or the lack there of with the offended is subjective.
I'd like to draw three distinctions in such affairs:
First is the philosophical belief in freedom of offensive, non-popular speech very much at the core of Western civilization. Those who do believe in it ought to believe in it regardless of whether you empathize with those offended or not. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. Don't come here defending freedom of press/speech when it comes to anti-Muslim rhetoric, but throw the book at those whose actions offended you and vice-versa.
Second is, based on philosophy, the crafting of legislation to combat/protect particular speech. Bias can and at times does creep into legislation where one form of speech deemed offensive towards a small group is legal, while speech that might offend the majority is deemed illegal by law. Simply regurgitation "the law says so, therefore it shall be" isn't a good justification. Law can be wrong, discriminating and amended.
Third, is the execution of law by the authorities. Authorities must address each offending according to law objectively. The size of the population offended, or one's subjective views should not creep in when it comes to enforcing the law. Furthermore, making up legal technicalities in order to make the arrest based on your core bias is unjust and corrupt in my opinion.
Even though I am critical of and find freedom of speech in England to be very limiting , I respect their just interpretation of the law in a variety of cases including this one. Unlike Britain, USA I feel has much more ground to make up when it comes to drafting of legislation and its just, fair execution. There is a reason why one out of every three African-Americans will be incarcerated in their lifetime and it isn't because they are inherently criminal.
I can live with laws I might disagree with, I can use my democratic rights as a citizen to protest and influence (through voting) to amend them. However, I can't live with biased laws and those that are subjectively and selectively applied and enforced.
You might find my rant off-topic perhaps, but the message I want to convey is:
If you were here supporting freedom of expression in cases such as the cartoons of Mohammed, don't let your bias and empathy treat this issue differently.
With Naziism a resurgent threat in Greece and trying to expand all across Europe, with American Republicans who express ideas as right wing and bonkers as those of Hitler, it's nice to know that the Kent police are so on top of things that they can find someone to deal with these serious hate crimes.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Free speech is for useful speech.
Aside from a few people with certain compulsive disorders, speech generally is useful to the person who uttered it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Patch
Maybe they would like to arrest him too?
which is a half dozen Marines might have a chat with you as part of the Birthday Ball after party. (please note Marines tend to have actual Edged Swords at the Birthday party)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
What the hell is going on in Britain these days? Is it time to officially change the name to Airstrip One?
Proverbs 21:19
So if I write "I am the champion of the world!" I could be imprisoned.
Only if:
his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Point one; the guy is an idiot.
Before going into whether his actions merit being arrested I'd like to point out that the Poppy is used as a symbol of remembrance for the fallen in many Countries throughout the world. For example: "The proceeds from the sale of artificial poppy flowers will be utilized for the wellbeing of Sri Lankan Ex-Servicemen and families of the patriotic service personnel who have made the supreme sacrifice. The national ceremony to mark the Remembrance Day will be held on November 11 at the Cenotaph, Vihara Maha Devi Park, Colombo. Wear a poppy and honour the fallen."
Now, you can say anything you like but you have to bear the consequences if what you say is slanderous or offensive. This person who directed his offensive comment to "squadies" seems to be so ignorant as to not realise that the Poppy symbol has nothing whatsoever to do with serving members of the armed forces anywhere in the world.
Would this person, saying what was posted, face-to-face with a "squadie" expect to suffer no consequences?
I don't believe he should have been arrested. Stupidity is not a crime. ... & for a previous poster: We haven't been "Subjects" for many years. Check what it says in your UK passport. ;)
Mind you, I'd love to see him say what he posted to a group of "squaddies".
Tar and feather him... then hang him.
If you're a teen skateboarder in the Mall, a policeman will beat you and arrest you for calling him "dude" rather than "sir".
I fail to see the difference, except yours is not codified explicitly.
The point of winning most wars is not to rid the world of tyranny, it is to decide who gets to be the tyrant.
... of places that, as far as I am concerned, can just break off from the crust and sink into the ocean...
Along with California, New England, the midwest, and all of Europe.
a bit of a party tip if your bartender is named Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin then expect some very hot drinks.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Show me the letters patent granting him enoblement with the title of Sir, and I will use it. Otherwise he's just a dude in uniform.
In UK Law (Communications Act) it is an offence to send a offensive messages over a communications network this is the same law that makes offensive phone calls illegal and is proportionate.
First of all, parent post is from a roman_mir sock puppet. Sock puppetry should never be rewarded.
Second, said post is advocating for stripping Americans of their right to vote. Roman_mir is an unwavering supporter of a theocratic dictatorship with a unitary executive who holds unlimited power for unlimited time. Roman_mir's fantasy government would bring about the return of human slavery and the most regressive taxation system the world has ever seen. In no way would such a system prevent the arrest of a man who posted an offensive photo on facebook, indeed the man arrested would under roman_mir's system have already been executed by a for-profit court system.
In other words, if you were saying "I am the champion of the world" to a competitor in an athletic event via letter or text message in order to cause anxiety and their poorer performance then that would be a criminal act.
Freedom of Speech... just watch what you say
When this headline came across my RSS feed I at first thought this was going to be some crazy Heroin-related story.
'What was the point of winning either World War if, in 2012, someone can be casually arrested by @Kent_police for burning a poppy?
We're talking World War I, a war fought over who had the better monarch.
Protip: Victoria's grandkids won.
So if I write "I am the champion of the world!" I could be imprisoned.
Only if:
his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
So, if he, say, posted "I'm the champion of the world!" on his facebook page, and a member of the Mercury estate happened upon it...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Apparently this was done last year, too. A £50 fine:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/07/muslim-extremist-fined-for-poppy-burning
An arrest in the UK is a big deal. Regardless of a conviction, it shows up on background checks in the future and limits the jobs you can get. The police get to keep youru DNA and your fingerprints for a number of years.
It also means that you can no longer visit certain countries on vacation or for work (including the USA) without going through an expensive and time consuming visa application process.
It's a big deal and it sucks that we're arresting so many people under these laws. Mr. Bean is right - section 5 of the public order act needs to go!
White Russian.
I mean come on, this is kindergarten stuff.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Analytical refers to the nature and approach of the speech, not whether it's accurate.
On the off-chance that this is a serious question: start by looking at the whole speech.
There's rhetoric in there, but he clearly outlines policy goals and targets specific practices.
The title should be "You're using the wrong standard." LOL
Doesn't matter; under democracy, they speak for you. But even more, I think the point was unclear or you missed it. If censorship is bad because it opposes ideas, then we should consider whether down-voting a post because it threatens our popular notions is the exact same psychological impulse that "free speech" was created to protect against.
Sedition as a general exception turns free speech into not-free speech. So do overly broad defamation laws that encourage so-called libel tourism.
British law does not offer such protection.
Which is interesting, because the UK is still subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, article 10 of which guarantees freedom of expression subject only to certain specific limitations. I find the action of the arrested person in this case distasteful, but I'm not sure under which of those limitations article 10 would not apply.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Hell, I use it all the time. Thankfully its protected by free speech.
This puts me in the mood to follow someone practicing their constitutional right (opens tumblr).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
It didn't work out so well. After that situation I doubt there was much talk of deals.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Use of the law for that sort of thing has most definitely come about in response to the religious hatred laws because it specifically came about when there was a showdown between the EDL and the "Muslims against crusades" group:
Muslims against crusades was founded in 2010.
The burning poppies arrest was made "under section 127 of the Communications Act" - from 2003.
Which basically states that one could be arrested for trolling. Also, for making shit up on the internets.
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, heâ"
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
No mention of burning symbols, religious or not.
Under such a law, YOU TOO could also end up in jail for up to 6 months, because of the following statement:
This is in part, part of the West's battle with Islam, and is not the first time this has been done.
See... you just generalized an entire hemisphere of this planet of ours and several dozens of cultures and civilizations, an entire family of religions and the followers of all those religious flavors - and then you've put them on opposing sides of a statement by which you claim that those sides are in a "battle" with each other.
You do realize that all those generalizations make your statement either a phenomenal pile of bullshit - or a conscious lie.
I.e. "a message that you know to be false".
And considering that barring, maybe, Chinese you've managed to include a grater part of the population of the planet into your generalizations - it is just a matter of statistics for your generalizations to offend SOMEBODY.
I.e. Unless you want to argue some... "inability to comprehend" on your part - you wrote all that, ON the internets, to purposefully cause "inconvenience or needless anxiety to another".
Applying it that way wouldn't really be "being applied consistently and fairly" - now, would it?
On a positive side, it should cause all those annoying penis enlargement advertisements on the internets to disappear forever.
I don't blame the police, they're simply enforcing the law fairly and making it clear that it's a two way street.
Actually, THAT is exactly who you should blame. Along with those who created such a law.
It is a poorly written, overgeneralized law which tries to regulate and/or predict the effect of ANYTHING transmitted by "public electronic communications network" - on some imaginary "offended person".
I.e. It's fucking nonsense.
Police officer who would make an arrest under such a law is either deliberately trolling the judicial system, or is making an arrest out of spite.
The problem is that in this case, the law shouldn't exist at all whether it's for the Koran, a flag, or a poppy, but fundamentally it's got to be one or the other, either you can burn poppies, flags, and Korans, or you can burn none of them.
Well... You're half-right there.
In theory, there should be no such law. In theory, we should all be "brothers and sisters of humanity" to each other.
Then again, we live in a world of "extremists or just general dicks", who's aim is to cause emotional harm and to bully people.
As such, if we want such cases to be handled in civilized fashion by the representatives of a democratically elected government, instead of in an "eye for an eye" fashion - then we need SOME laws and regulations to handle such cases.
But they need to be better written.
And all sides - possible future offenders, those offended and the police should be both educated
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
So, if he, say, posted "I'm the champion of the world!" on his facebook page, and a member of the Mercury estate [wikipedia.org] happened upon it...
It's a pretty safe bet that Farrokh Bulsara left no children behind for there to be an estate.
As per usual in these UK-vs-troll cases, they fail to report if the alleged perp posted it to his own wall [innocent] or he/she went out of his/her way to post it somewhere deliberately offensive, such as in this case a soldier memorial page [guilty]. The forthcoming guidance from our dear leaders cant come soon enough... even if its wrong it will kick-start the debate. It also seems that re-tweets are exempt from punishment in these cases as demonstrated by Mr. Robin Hood Airport guy and the many, many people who retweeted it...
In British English the word "poppy" maybe sounds like "puppy"? O_o;
The other PR stunt that legislators can pull is to modify the congressional record after the fact via revise and extend. They can insert words into their own mouths which they never uttered on the floor of the House of Representatives and have those new words be a part of the official Congressional Record. Wikipedia now states that these extended "revised and extended" remarks now come in a different font or with a special bullet-symbol preceding them, whereas in the past, it always looked like a full-and-accurate verbatim rendering of the actual remarks, even when it definitely was not
...would feel perfectly comfortable with concentration camps for the poor; but we may have staved that off for another four years.
These people will make great guards for the rest of us...
As a current resident of Dumbfuckistan, a place where 'we' elected an all-Republican state government, which I am sure that for the next few years will be a laughingstock to the rest of the world. :facepalm:
In a place where Rape is "gods will" and women are supposed to be subservient to their men, we have some ugly-ass buffalo women to go with those men, lol.
'Popular me' has actually told a female in a bar that I only date within my species. Popular, I was; lol.
...haven't we burned a load of poppy fields in Afghanistan?
Liberty is not static; it must periodically be re-conquered from those who would deny us.
It's pretty obvious to me that liberty is not static. It has to be an instance method, and a virtual one at that, given how frequently it seems to be overridden.
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
Emotional gestures don't actually do that.
Yes, they do. Some of the most important political statements in history have been emotional gestures.
Burning flags, burning poppies, etc. express discontent but not much else. In fact, it seems to me that these events get in the way of actually having a discussion on the issue and getting closer to resolution.
Expressing discontent with your country's leadership is one of the very, very core ideas supporting freedom of speech. Expressing discontent publicly anounces to other people who aren't happy that they are not alone, allowing movements encouraging change to grow and flourish from small groups to larger ones.
Case in point, this guy, and this guy.
We burn poppies -- and flags, and bibles -- because it's better than burning men.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Even if it is illegal (which is debatable), it does not warrant an arrest. A fine of, say, 100 GBP would be ok. However, an arrest is grossly disproportionate. It does not serve any purpose, either, except intimidating people post stuff online that could be slightly offensive.
Not so sure, to be honest. People believed in law and order - and respect - in those days. I suspect a fair few WW2 veterans would have been more than happy to give him a good kicking.
As for freedom of speech, they don't seem to be publishing his name and address.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
... fighting when Hitler wanted to invade?
In Reason We Trust
Come on, he was just an addict trying to get a quick high. He figured since opium comes from poppies, he would just take a shortcut and smoke the flower.
No, I believe that deterring dangerous driving (which excessive speed is a subset of) by fines, bans or imprisonment might reduce the probability of it happening in the first place.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
what the hell is a poppy?