Slashdot Mirror
In UK, Twitter, Facebook Rants Land Some In Jail
concealment writes with this excerpt from an Associated Press story, as carried by the Houston Chronicle:"In Britain, hundreds of people are prosecuted each year for posts, tweets, texts and emails deemed menacing, indecent, offensive or obscene, and the number is growing as our online lives expand. 'Fifty years ago someone would have made a really offensive comment in a public space and it would have been heard by relatively few people,' said Mike Harris of free-speech group Index on Censorship. People take it upon themselves to report this offensive material to police, and suddenly you've got the criminalization of offensive speech. Figures obtained by The Associated Press through a freedom of information request show a steadily rising tally of prosecutions in Britain for electronic communications — phone calls, emails and social media posts — that are grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character — from 1,263 in 2009 to 1,843 in 2011. Justice Igor Judge said in his judgment that the law should not prevent 'satirical or iconoclastic or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humor, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.'"
... because if they aren't they get locked up....
Turns out it was a slippery slope after all!
who knew, eh?
(apart from everyone who pointed it out)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Big Brother is watching...
Stay cool, no need to troll like this: the message here, I believe, is "don't even think for a second that internet makes you anonymous: we (the authorities) can and will find you, and make this public as a warning to everybody else".
This is not about the Brits, this is happening all over the world. It is just that in the UK they seem to be a tad more diligent in enforcing the "nobody gets away with it" regime --remember how some rioters that were caught on camera were eventually tracked months later and -perhaps disproportionally- punished a while back.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
If they're going to round up people, I wish they'd round up youtube commenters. Those idiots need some help and re-education.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A genuine opinion can also be deliberately obnoxious. Who the fuck gets to choose which is which, anyway, and therein lies the problem. All restrictions on speech do is maintain the status quo and ensure that what is now considered "offensive" will always remain so.
Its 2 faced and all about pacifying the mob, the UK is starting to get very mob like, witch hunts for pedos, people stoning MPs, people in the UK are very unhappy lately but we are not allowed to come out and say it in case we offend someone and have to spend a night in jail.
A direct Example of the 2 facedness of the system here: check out Franky Boyles Twitter, the stuff that comes out on there is generally very offensive (I love you Boyle!! regardless of what i say here), yet he is not in jail. Yet we see the poppy burner, the guy that said mean things about someones dead dad, and a few others all in get arrested. The mob wants them to pay, and the police then back up the mob, such a bad precedent but too late now.
Another reason for the police jumping on this is that they are trying to look like they are not just there to collect speeding tickets and rounding up pot dealers so they have deciced to start a new war on socail media, hell the war on drugs was a good spinner maybe this is will be equally good. I dont want to sound completely negative, but where i live the police are not that well liked, in context it took 8 police offices to remove a man from a swimming pool for swearing at some teenage kids that were splashing him,
In closing my understand with UK law is that if you piss off someone powerfull enough the way the UK law is structured means they will always have something on you. I think thats the goal of the system to make sure they have something on everyone and then keep everyone in their places and no one gets above their station.
iMe
If offensive speech and behaviour got everyone into trouble, then Anjem Choudhury and his mob would all be in jail.
Strangely enough, this hasn't happened... In Britain, you can only be racist, bigoted or offensive if you're white. Brown people get a free pass.
Not to shit in your corn flakes but Brits are about as obese as Americans.
...this is happening all over the world.
Yes, but the US is special:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Two of the examples given were blatant miscarriages of the legal system and we should all be concerned about them. However the vast majority of these messages are not be protected under free speech. If someone sends death threats, racially abuses someone etc then I am entirely happy for them to be prosecuted. Calm down a bit and have some perspective.
In the UK you can get arrested for all kinds of things you say: Calling a police horse gay, for example. If someone feels like something you say could insult someone, you get arrested. Now, not all of these (ludicrous) charges are successful, but still I think there already is a bad chilling effect.
Listen to Rowan Atkinson's (Mr. Bean) excellent 10 Minutes speech on the topic and why he is part of the campaign "Feel free to insult me".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/13/remembrance-day-burning-poppy-cartoon
I'm sure if we sample the most crime-ridden portions of each of our countries we'll find lots of people with bad teeth.
Living in a nice middle class neighborhood, all the kids have braces or straight teeth and an adult with yellowed teeth is called a "smoker."
As for American Beer, try our microbrews, not the Pepsi-subtitutes from BevCo. As for complicated recipes for turning cheap ingredients into tasty ones? Try a prize winning Peach Pie in Georgia. For good food in the Pacific NorthDamp, we eat fresh fish and good steak we import from the Mid-West. Applying the "not invented here" standard to your food will make for a pretty lousy diet in any country.
It's not paradise, but tooth decay and crappy food are conscious choices here, not the only options.
My, what a lovely pile of straw you have created! I hope you didn't have to murder too many strawmen to make it!
1) most dental hygenists I have met take very good care of their teeth, and most don't resort to veneers. Contrary to your vicious assault on that strawman, there *are* american dental hygenists, and they DO take care of their teeth. Fluoride? The effect it has in supressing tooth decay came from american dental hygenists. Fancy that.
2) French Toast. Created at the French House, an american bed and breakfast, according to several noteworthy gastronomists.
3) all beer tastes vile. The manner in which it is served does not matter. It is an acquired taste, much like black liquorice. Arguments over beer are like arguments over religion. Foolish from the beginning, and without real substance, created exclusively to divide and enable spear rattling and jingoistic ego masturbation on the part of the arguer. Insisting upon an objective truth being present in such an intrinsically subjective experience as "favor" is completely irrational.
That's 3 strikes. You're out.
Try to say "I hope you'll dont find the bomb" while being patted down by the TSA. That will get you in handcuffs faster than you can say "free speech".
That's stupid, but neither insulting or offensive.
There ain't such thing as total freedom as long as you share this galaxy with others.
Boundaries are being checked and moved every day.
Currently they are moving the wrong way (in UK and elsewhere). We have to hold against it. But don't live under the assumption, there ever will be no boundaries.
Now I'm gonna tell ya a story, a tale of wrong and right; and freedom is the reason you can't take it without a fight.
So now I'm startin' up a posse (suck my dick, suck my dick) to come and look for you; we're gonna put a stop to what you want to do.
You fucking whores (you fuckin' whores), that's all you are!
You say our records are offensive (you're a douche, you're a douche), our messages ain't right, you say "We're gonna label records so our kids can grow up right".
You fucking whores (let them decide), that's all you are!
"Shit, fuck, Satan, death, sex, drugs, rape", these seven words you're trying to take.
"Shit, fuck, Satan, death, sex, drugs, rape", right or wrong it's our choice to make.
America the beautiful, land of the free - Don't change the words to land of hypocrisy!
Now I'm startin' up a posse (fascist scum, fascist scum) and we'll damn sure make you see, something that offends you may not be offensive to me.
You fucking whores (you fuckin' whores) That's all you are!
Now you might take offense to a word like "fuck" or "shit" (dick!); but you fuckin' don't have the right (cunt!) to discriminate me for saying it!
You fuckin' whores (you fuckin' whores), that's all you are!
So now I'm startin' up a posse (motherfucker, motherfucker) to fight for freedom of choice, to fight for freedom of speech, we're gonna make you hear our voice.
And now I don't do this to shock you (that's the end, that's the end), I don't do this for spite; you've got the choice, don't buy it, don't read it, and don't say your opinion's right
You fucking whores (you fuckin' whores), that's all you are (cunty, cunty, cunty, cunt)!
You know you can't censor my feelings, you can't censor my thoughts. Censorship's against everything America stands for.
You fuckin' whores (let us decide), that's all you are (and this ain't sexist, either)!
It is basic human nature to try and stop people from doing whatever it is that they don't like.
The notion that we should respect the freedom of others, as noble as it is, goes against the path-of-least-resistance of human cognition.
So, even in countries that value freedom, you have large groups of the populace that strive to take it away from each other.
Eternal vigilance, and all that.
Yes, but the US used to be special:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
They have made such a law. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act
If anything is going to utterly destroy the Internet, it's going to be censorship, because once you open the door to censoring one type of speech, you start an avalanche of censoring all types of speech. It's like bigotry and racism: Once you cross that line and devalue one group of class of people, you can devalue any group or class of people. Before too long the only way to avoid eventual prosecution would be to stay off the Internet completely.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Yes they have. And it needs to be stricken down. Plus, it's not the only violation. As it stands, the 1st amendment, and the rest of the bill of rights are mostly ceremonial and rather toothless. But, they're still on the books, should we ever decide to take action to enforce them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Funny how the people that tend to do the reporting also tend to do and say things just as bad, if not worse, than they report. I'm all for lining them up and smacking some sense into them. Wait is that menacing?
I've been on the receiving end of that when I worked in retail. I was reported to my boss by an elderly lady, and she actually called the cops, because of a comment she says she overheard me telling another employee as she is cussing me out and threatening me in all kinds of hilariously awkward ways and the minute the cop arrives she is the grandma next door all the kids in the neighborhood love as their own grandma. Of course nothing came of it as I don't even know what in the hell she was talking about.
When it comes to non-violent protests and speaking your mind, I'm all for it. Talk is just talk and if someone wants to burn a flag or a book, so freaking what? Have at it. The slope gets slippery as you near the point between free speech and illegal or violent actions but we shouldn't be moving it further into free speech territory thus removing rights and freedoms, making mere words or personal actions illegal when they cause no real harm to another except offending your holier than thou morality.
Anonymity and the internet do get the worst out of us.
Anonymity can also bring out the best in us when there is reason to fear bringing out such parts otherwise.
Europe (including the UK) is special too: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
Unfortunately that's followed by the proviso "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." Yes, we had our equivalent to the Patriot Act written in from the outset.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Not to shit in your corn flakes but Brits are about as obese as Americans.
We can't have our British friends closing the obesity gap.
Everyone waddle down to Golden Corral right now!!
That would depend on whether or not he has a voice activated murder weapon.
They're called Muslims. Insult the qur'an and they go on a murderous outrage
Works for most religions:
"They're called Catholics - suggest a woman should have choice over her own body and they'll bomb your pub"
"They're called protestants - say the wrong thing on the wrong street and they'll burn your entire neighbourhood"
"They're called Buddhists - say the wrong thing and they'll set themselves on fire..."
Wait... that one didn't work so well.
I find more and more that if the word "morals" is present in any law or constitution that it can be translated to mean "except when we don't want to."
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Nope, we just invented manners, it's very different.
For those who don't know, here's the actual situation in the UK:
The courts generally consider internet posts in the same way they do traditional journalism, you can say what you want as long as it isn't libelous, incitement to commit a crime, or "grossly offensive". Bloggers and Tweeters etc are generally given more leeway and lower fines/sentences than traditional journalists on the grounds that, while ignorance is no excuse, "proper" journalists should very certainly know better. There is no written constitution as such in the UK, and therefore no official right to free speech, but it is generally accepted that the really important free speech, such as speaking out against the government, is protected, and European legislation does provide some protection which UK law omits entirely.
The big problem is the highly subjective "grossly offensive" element mentioned above. The interpretation of this is very much down to the opinion of the judge and/or jury overseeing the case. In my opinion they've been overly touchy about this - after all, you can shout at somebody in a pub that you are going to kill them and chances are the worst you'll see is the inside of a cell for 12hrs and a drunk and disorderly charge.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
discussing with a friend from england one day we talked about differences similar to this one. And at one point he said something along the lines of "and that is precisely the difference. You are an American citizen, I am a British -subject-."
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
To be fair, a lot of it is compartmentalization. Many extremely religious people have no problem applying logic and reason to other areas of their lives.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I shouldn't have to re-iterate that old mantra of "not all free speech is free!", and you may disagree on the law on some points like what "racial hatred" is exactly. But if you don't like what someone said and send them a message saying you will find and murder them - do you honestly believe that you shouldn't go to jail? Threats of murder get you jail time, whether it's done in person, over the phone, or over the internet - despite being "just something you said".
I have no issues with what you say here, menacing/threatening messages are something which rightly should be actionable, but, unfortunately, I think you're missing the scope of the legislation in the UK which was designed to deal with these eventualities, and how it's being (ab)used.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
Now, here's the problem, the act, as worded, places no emphasis on the intent of the content, just on its nature.
Say person X posts something 'objectionable' on something as public as Twatter/whatever, rightly or wrongly, this act gives the police a ready reason to arrest them and charge them, as maybe someone, somewhere who looks at it will be offended by the content of the post. (I'm not even going to get into the minefield that is 'what constitutes grossly offensive. indecent or obscene')
However, Say person X sends person Y an 'off colour' joke (beit racist, sexist, sick, name-your-poison) via email or SMS message, under the terms of this act, even if both persons X and Y have no 'issues' with this joke, the mere fact that someone, somewhere may find it '..grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character..' is enough to make it an offence under this act based on the content, despite the intent of the communication being to make person Y laugh.
So, ok, someone sends you a sick/racist joke via SMS, fast forward a couple of months, you're arrested for whatever, the police go through your phone, find said joke, now the person who sent you the joke may expect a visit from our boys in blue and a subsequent prosecution under the terms of this act (I say may, as they're very capricious that way.)
I'll keep the focus on the transmission of jokes here for two reasons;
i. I know someone who almost fell afoul of this act for receiving a racist joke via the company email. The police were about to be involved by the management until I pointed out that the act covered the sending only, the email did not originate from this person, or even from within the company, eventually they only received an (undeserved) formal warning at work. (Fun fact, I was about to appear as a witness at the tribunal for this person, and was going to gleefully point out that by allowing the email to pass through their filters and actually end up in the person's inbox even though their monitoring software had flagged the content as racist and warned the admin, the company was technically guilty under Section 127(1)(b) of the Communications Act 2003)
ii. Humour, being very subjective, is where this act has the potential of being most abused.
Now, I'll laugh at a wide range of things and I do have a rather 'sick' sense of humour, and here's my major concern. This act means, within the scope of any electronic communication, my sense of humour is now the purview of the Legal system.
In Britain, finding the wrong thing funny is now a potential crime.
We're talking about the UK, not Ireland. At that he'd have to be somewhat old (born before 1949) to be one of the very few British subjects left.
More likely he was just too stupid to know that he was a British citizen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject#After_1983
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism