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.
Slippery Slope Argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
moox. for a new generation.
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.
And certainly your idea of what is useful and what is not is the correct one and should be enforced by law, right?
Slippery Slope isn't a real argument. It's a position people take when they don't have a real argument, as slipper slope can applied to pretty much anything. Try again please.
I deem your post useless. its harmful and I think you should pay a penalty for it.
how's a few days in the lock-up sound to you?
but you ARGUED for this. you agree that some speech should be curbed if its not 'useful' and your post was certainly not useful to ME.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The point of free speech to protect unpopular speech.
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.
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.
You can't be more subjective than what you are describing. What is "kharma-whoring" or "drama-queening"? Where exactly something crosses the line between "useful policy discussion", and "drama-queening" for example? Should any emotional outburst be outlawed? If a people cries while talkign about something should what he is talking about be dismissed, or better, outlawed?
There is no such thing as conditional free speech. Any conditional free speech is no free speech at all, because there is always someone else who will be deciding what can be said and what cannot based on his own interpretations of abstract things like "emotional acts", as you so clearly showed.
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.
It's on a continuum, and there must necessarily be a blurry line somewhere along it where the distinction is subjective. So in giving the judiciary the ability to make that subjective decision, you genuinely do create a slippery slope, towards the point where you have "free speech" as long as you stay within boundaries set by the Establishment.
Also, I question the argument that "emotional gestures" aren't "useful". Sometimes a dramatic gesture is what it takes to draw attention to a worthy cause. For example, Suffragettes chaining themselves to railings.
Slippery Slope isn't a real argument. It's a position people take when they don't have a real argument, as slipper slope can applied to pretty much anything. Try again please.
Yes and no. Properly used, it is a perfectly usable and completely valid point. Here, for instance, the point is that if they start suppressing one individual's freedom of speech, there is less of a barrier for them to start suppressing others as well. It's perfectly true, as illustrated a thousand times (at least) by history. It's an argument from induction (countless examples of human history) rather than deduction (it actually doesn't follow a priori that one action will lead to another... but in practice it usually does). As such, it does not always hold true... but it often does (and of course some people use it poorly, to argue that one thing will lead to another, unconnected thing).
Perhaps more importantly, it can only be used in combination with some argument that the first step shouldn't be taken at all, because if that step should be taken and further steps should not, then there is no slippery slope. In this case, the argument is that freedom of speech should be protected no matter who it offends, which is a pretty reasonable argument.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I find this entire discussion on freedom of speech useless and therefore revoke your freedom of speech.
You are not free to disagree with me nor are you allowed to argue. Since neither will change my opinion, they are useless and therefore not protected by free speech according to your own previous statements.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
The point of free speech is to protect informative discussion and analysis of policy.
No, the point of free speech is to allow me to say whatever the hell I want without fear of government reprisal, so long as I'm not stomping on someone else's rights in the process. Whose rights are being violated by this man burning a poppy? There is no right to never, ever, ever be offended.
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.
It's more like karma-whoring than political speech.
So what? Karma-whoring should be illegal now?
The UK has been trying to be America for some time now. We're like that scrawny kid who leans out from behind the bully, pathetically supporting everything the bully does.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
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 ?!
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves voting on what to have for lunch.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
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."
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.
...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.
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.
Also, I question the argument that "emotional gestures" aren't "useful". Sometimes a dramatic gesture is what it takes to draw attention to a worthy cause. For example, Suffragettes chaining themselves to railings.
A single poor fruit vendor committing suicide in a very public manner...
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.
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."
The point of free speech to protect unpopular speech.
That's what he said: "The point of free speech is to protect informative discussion and analysis of policy."
What do you think that means?
It's not really true regardless - free speech, like freedom of the press and many other rights, is an attempt to reign in corruption and tyranny. Protecting unpopular speech is just a means to an end. The GP really has a point here, he clearly wasn't trolling. Shame he was modded down just because people disagree with the point he was making.
As for the point he was making: I disagree with it. It's true that flag burning can get in the way of rational discussion, but if you've ever been to a protest you know that they aren't places for rational discourse. They're places for outrage and people doing stupid shit. You don't want the people to do this, it can really harm a good cause when a protest turns ugly, but a protest that is guaranteed to be orderly is a protest over an issue that no one cares about.
Outlawing flag burning, or outlawing cursing at authorities, or outlawing stupid chants, means outlawing protests. And as much as rational discourse is needed to find solutions to problems, protests are needed to implement those solutions. (Yes, really. Some protests are stupid, some are useless, but others have changed the world.)
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."
What the hell is going on in Britain these days? Is it time to officially change the name to Airstrip One?
Proverbs 21:19
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 find it amusing that your current speech would not fall under that protection. It's not analytic since it ignores obvious flaws with the idea (such as who gets to decide what speech qualifies). I doubt it's "discursive" in any sense of the word due to the lack of nuance and understanding. And it is only informative in that it informs us of your profound unfitness for making policy decisions.
It's on a par with dancing on an Arlington Cemetery grave.
The UK has been trying to be America for some time now. We're like that scrawny kid who leans out from behind the bully, pathetically supporting everything the bully does.
Last I checked, we here in the states could post a pic of a burning poppy or insult people via Twitter without getting arrested by the thought police, so I guess you're saying that the scrawny kid is trying to out-bully us?
The point of winning most wars is not to rid the world of tyranny, it is to decide who gets to be the tyrant.
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.
Freedom of Speech... just watch what you say
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!
Just for the record, this isn't the government that anyone in the UK chose. And in any case, the conduct of police officers in most parts of the UK is not subject to oversight by anyone directly elected to serve in that capacity by the general population (at least until this Thursday, that is).
Not that concealment's point here makes much sense anyway. The major benefit of legally protecting certain individual rights at constitutional level is precisely to avoid mob rule, or slightly indirect versions of mob rule such as treating people differently according to what is politically expedient in the short term for administration of the day. As the saying goes, a perfect democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
Who's political analysis? Because this sounds suspiciously like attempting to define the borders - and thus possible conclusions - of what can be discussed. It reduces public discussion into a meaningless ritual that can only confirm the status quo - which, of course, is why politicians would certainly very much love such a standard. So would a lot of other people too, just as long as they get to define the topics that may be discussed and the conclusions that may be drawn.
I didn't know Queen Elisabeth has a Slashdot account.
Also, Your Highness, confirmation bias means that people find opinions that mirror theirs "informative" and "analytical". See any Slashdot discussion for plenty of examples.
And that's another problem: many special interests have a stake in keeping people ignorant, thus apolitical speech needs protection too. If it's not, it's just a matter of time before, say, movie studios demand that bad reviews be removed.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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
Yes, I'm aware the rest of the speech lays out policy ideas. My point is that the standard of demanding policy doesn't really make sense either: there are a lot of useful political expressions that don't create an immediate policy response.
For example, a sign that says "Goldman Sachs Sucks!" doesn't present any kind of policy or fact. But that doesn't make it an invalid political expression: If a lot of people agree that Goldman Sachs sucks, then that sign gets those people who agree talking to each other about exactly how Goldman Sachs sucks and what could be done about it. When they start, they probably don't have policy proposals or research studies, just some bad experiences. But by expressing the opinion, they may spark the effort to create those policy proposals and research studies.
I am officially gone from