Slashdot Mirror


UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet

mooterSkooter writes A 19-year-old Uk man has been arrested over an "offensive" tweet about an accident in which six people died. From the article: "The tweet, which has since been deleted along with the account that posted it, joked about the tragedy, in which the driver lost control of the vehicle and drove on the pavement, hitting Christmas shoppers 'like pinballs.' The tweet said: 'So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day.'"

360 comments

  1. WTF UK? by Stargoat · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's like the damn island hasn't heard of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"

    Mario Balotelli, a black football player with a Jewish mother is suspended a game and fined 25k pounds for posting an anti-racist picture about a multicultural Super Mario.

    Luis Suarez was essentially forced out of England for using the word negrito while speaking Spanish because it happened to sound like nigger. (While John Terry was given a sentence of half the time for using the word nigger in English.)

    Crazy arse porn rules.

    A man is threatened with life in jail for swearing too much.

    And what the fuck is an Anti-Social Behavior Order?

    How can the nation that brought us Locke also be bringing us this?

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    1. Re:WTF UK? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do you think inspired Locke to bother writing a manifesto in favor of something else? Had it already been what he wanted, why go to the trouble?

    2. Re:WTF UK? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can the nation that brought us Locke also be bringing us this?

      It is the same nation that gave us George Orwell. Sadly they seem to have taken 1984 to be an instruction manual vs. a work of fiction.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    3. Re: WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stick to defensive tweets.

    4. Re:WTF UK? by ameoba · · Score: 1

      It's like the damn island hasn't heard of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

      ...or the Streisand Effect. Arresting this young man is only going to give his comment more attention and spread it further.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    5. Re:WTF UK? by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is what happens when you have social justice warriors being perpetually offended, and little to no free speech laws. You get the march to authoritarianism, and it's happening in every western country. The difference between the UK and the US or Canada, is people are now saying "enough."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you just the problem with a model of "rights" given to you by a government.

      besides the UN doesn't acutaly have any athority at all.

    7. Re:WTF UK? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      John Terry was suspended because the FA had a grudge against him, he had already been cleared in an actual judicial court of the same offence but the FA decided that they were better than the Crown Court and found him guilty - but he had been subject to a long running series of issues with the FA regarding captaincies etc.

      The Suarez case was totally different.

      Also you seem to be deliberately mixing up actions by private bodies (the FA) with judicial court actions. Private bodies can do whatever they damn well please, within reason - there is a zero tolerance approach to racism in English football, hence the action against Suarez and Balotelli.

      And the "man threatened with life for swearing too much" had a slew of breached orders behind him, so he escalated that himself.

    8. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while the premise of wtf uk is correct i believe he actually volunteered and turned himself in to police wanting to be arrested - so either a moron or an attention seeking moron.

    9. Re:WTF UK? by shadowknot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quit trolling, GP never said anything about the US being a paragon of free speech protections. As someone who grew up in the UK and moved to the US at the age of 28 I can tell you from first-hand experience, however, that the general attitude to protecting speech, even speech that you personally find reprehensible is far more prevalent in the US than in the UK. I have had lengthy discussions with fellow Brits who seem to think that censorship according to the prevailing attitudes of the day is perfectly fine. The problem is that there's a sort of myopia that prevents many people (not just Brits) from seeing that if those prevailing attitudes change in the future a dangerous precedent will have been set. Is joking about an accident in which people lost their lives a nice thing to do? Certainly not. That doesn't mean it should be criminalized. The US and those advocating similar legislation to that implemented in the UK (criminalizing hate speech/incitement of violence) suffer from the same myopia as my former countrymen do.

    10. Re:WTF UK? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      Human rights pffft who needs them, Cameron's getting rid of them soon:
      Cameron's pledge to scrap Human Rights Act angers civil rights groups.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re:WTF UK? by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make a mistake in conflating social justice to a reaction like this. Defense/defence of social justice and free speech are highly compatible.

      The post is about control of hideous, if free speech. I'm on the side of both free speech and social justice. Many others are, too.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    12. Re: WTF UK? by Threni · · Score: 1

      I agree with you generally, although the problem with that argument is that should someone else come to power in the US that didn't like the freedom they'd just get rid of it anyway.

    13. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots, that's how.

      They know no boundary or border.

    14. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true, my initial instinct was to retweet his tweet at every UK law enforcement outfit I could find, despite the initial tweet being in poor taste.

    15. Re:WTF UK? by eneville · · Score: 2

      It was a prediction of the future, so don't be shocked that this one is close to the truth. Just don't be surprised that room 101 is full of web logs of all the bad things you said on the internet.

    16. Re: WTF UK? by eneville · · Score: 2

      People on the streets couldn't defend themselves as they were hit like #pinballs.

    17. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Leaving everything else aside, I find your comment positively frightening since you apparently have no problem with throwing someone in jail for life because they won't stop swearing. As if totalitarian ideas get any more palatable because you are given multiple times to comply - in before judicial overkill - for doing something that doesn't even harm you, but merely makes you feel uncomfortable.

      Jesus, this world is really going to hell in a hand-cart.

    18. Re:WTF UK? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      It's also the same nation that gave us Hobbes's Leviathan, which took a rather different view of government and government power than Locke, to put it mildly.

    19. Re:WTF UK? by malkavian · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the article, the guy turned himself in, from the sound of it, most likely because he had threats against himself. It's unlikely the police would have even heard of this if he hadn't gone to the station and said he'd done something stupid. It had the benefit (to him) of exposing the threats against himself, which also fall under the anti-troll and cyber bullying laws, so the people who'd threatened him will also be lined up for a big slap on the wrist.

      If this had been randomly picked up by a police trawl, I'd have been worried.. As it stands (someone turning himself in and admitting he'd be stupid, and asking for protection), it's looking like far less.. Good tabloid fodder.

    20. Re:WTF UK? by eneville · · Score: 1

      There's freedom of speech, but then there's speech that's so offensive that no eyes should read it. It's misused. Totally. Some audio cds have to carry a notice to warn parents/buyers that the contents is unsuitable for children. Welcome to 2014, the internet is a scary place, watch your children whilst they use it - don't arrest every user who posts something they may regret later as there was a humour failure.

    21. Re: WTF UK? by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      "should someone else come to power in the US that didn't like the freedom they'd just get rid of it anyway" - This is simply a facile argument and should be treated as such.

    22. Re:WTF UK? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      also the same nation that gave us The Prisoner (tv series). interestingly, one of the episodes was about 'anti social behavior' and how number six was shunned by the village when he didn't play by their rules.

      the UK seems obsessed with 'anti-social behavior' problems. ie, they INSIST you be social (huh??)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    23. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't bother taking anyone who derps about "social justice warriors" any more seriously than the folks who derp about "socialism." They're the less advanced segment of the population, and will never get up to speed, though their children might.

    24. Re:WTF UK? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      people are NOT saying 'enough' ! they should, but they are sheeply accepting everything that is told to them and forced upon them.

      its some of us geeks that object; but we are a tiny minority, pretty much entirely powerless in this world (where it counts).

      the UK folks are not pushing back at all, from what I can tell. but then, the US and canadians aren't doing much in that direction, either. the difference is that, in the US, we do have a formal set of laws that allow free speech. many other countries don't have that on their laws.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    25. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I lost some friends because they couldn't believe that "tar baby" actually wasn't considered racist until long after the term had been coined. What I find funny is that the only countries that really consider tar baby to be racist are the U.S. and New Zealand. Funny thing about New Zealand, the word "nigger" isn't considered racist and is used like "homeboy", even by people who are clearly white.

    26. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also the same nation that gave us The Prisoner (tv series). interestingly, one of the episodes was about 'anti social behavior' and how number six was shunned by the village when he didn't play by their rules.

      the UK seems obsessed with 'anti-social behavior' problems. ie, they INSIST you be social (huh??)

      They're obsessed with control. The cork is in too tight these days, it's gonna blow.

    27. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like the damn island hasn't heard of the UN Declaration of Human Rights

      Boy do I have some news for you. Have you even read the thing?

    28. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget we have idiots among us (in the UK) that think the UKIP party are the silver bullet to all our problems, oh how retarded could they possibly be, and no I'm not trolling or joking.

    29. Re:WTF UK? by rwa2 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Quit trolling, GP never said anything about the US being a paragon of free speech protections.

      Yep. The US Government is usually far behind most technological trends, but you can bet there's a good reason that the US has been archiving every tweet to the Library of Congress. They may not be using it for witchhunts right at this moment, but you can bet your keister it's gonna be trawled big-time for political fodder whenever it's expedient to perform a good ol' fashioned character assassination or simply to throw someone in jail.

    30. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he cork is in too tight these days, it's gonna blow.

      The English, they like that. All into leather and anal. "Put the cork in tighter, Smythe... oh yes, that's right buggered now, in't it?"

    31. Re:WTF UK? by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Sadly they seem to have taken 1984 to be an instruction manual vs. a work of fiction.

      My, that's original!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re: WTF UK? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      I still don't get how every discussion about the U.K. on Slashdot gets dragged off topic into a discussion about the U.S. or comparing the U.K. to the U.S. The U.K. is its own country. I'd think by now we'd be able to talk about it as its own entity. We don't frame it in comparison to other nations nearly as often. It is almost like a meme.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    33. Re:WTF UK? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      social justice warriors

      This is the new Godwin. And in this case, you are wrong. This is the police being dumb fucks, as usual. They have been given specific advice about this sort of thing, but are ignoring it.

      It's actually the people who oppose the social justice warriors who are calling for this kind of things: the Daily Mail readers. The ones who wanted the porn filters. The ones were are permanently offended about everything, especially other people people's offence.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article, the guy turned himself in, from the sound of it, most likely because he had threats against himself.

      Perhaps instead of posting it on the intarwebs he should have gone into a pub in Govan and shouted it, the silly-born bastard.

    35. Re: WTF UK? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      It's simple. People see a button labelled "comment" and they're struck by the universal human urge to give their two-penneth. If it happens to be relevant and/or thought-out then that's merely a bonus.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    36. Re:WTF UK? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are still big problems with this.

      1. The police were warned not to go after people for this kind of thing, with specific advice from the Attorney General. Yet, they carry on doing it.

      2. They don't seem to understand Twitter. The laws they are using are anti-harassment laws, designed to stop people trolling the families of victims and the like. This guy didn't send his joke to those people, and they would probably have never heard it if the police hadn't brought it to their attention.

      3. While the tweet was public, so are billions of others made every day. It's akin to saying something distasteful but not illegal to your friends while walking down the street, and being arrested because someone somewhere could have been offended by it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re:WTF UK? by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? Could you explain then why there's a sudden up swing in said "social justice warriors" trying to ban media, video games they disagree with, speech they disagree with, and censor content. I get that "feelings" are easier to make an argument with, but I don't live in a world of feels vs reality.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    38. Re:WTF UK? by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GP never said anything about the US being a paragon of free speech protections.

      Well, somebody should have said it — and I applaud you for saying it fairly well. Thank you.

      The US is a paragon of free speech — not because there is no room for improvement, but because all (certainly most) other societies are worse in this regard. And though various Illiberals do come up from time to time with seductively-sounding proposals to ban "hate" speech, and even claim, the Constitution is outdated and "people can’t really protest like that anymore", the prevailing opinion remains, that any speech should be allowed and countered only with one's own speech.

      Back to the question about UK, that country is certainly sliding farther away from liberty — along with the rest of the Western world. When a fatwa was issued calling for death of Salman Rushdie, for example, over his insulting Islam in an otherwise unremarkable book, the man received police protection and other support from his government. Nobody — except, maybe, that valiant Illiberal Jimmie Carter — blamed the victim for "deserving" the danger.

      Years later, reaction to Mohammed-mocking cartoons is rather more mixed. And while it is still legal to burn American flag, if you decide to burn Koran, everybody from local to federal authorities will be on your case pressuring you to abandon your exercise of free speech.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    39. Re:WTF UK? by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is the new Godwin. And in this case, you are wrong. This is the police being dumb fucks, as usual. They have been given specific advice about this sort of thing, but are ignoring it.

      Gotcha, you can easily see the various flappy headed social justice folks out there throwing a hissy fit whenever something intrudes on their bubbles. And they want to ban it because "it hurts my feelings" but you'd rather pretend that it really doesn't exist. Perhaps I should just call them slacktivists that make a lot of noise and ruin society for the rest of us.

      Then again, considering the stuff with "hashtag activism" coming out of the democrats these days, that sounds about right.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    40. Re:WTF UK? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Really? Could you explain then why there's a sudden up swing in said "social justice warriors" trying to ban media, video games they disagree with, speech they disagree with, and censor content. I get that "feelings" are easier to make an argument with, but I don't live in a world of feels vs reality.

      Ignorance and/or poor education? People, corporations, politicians trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    41. Re:WTF UK? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I challange your reading skills. The tweet and the account of the gay are deleted meanwhile.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    42. Re:WTF UK? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Tge free speach laws are more or less the same all over the world where countries grant them.

      Only the lible and protection laws in europe are stronger than in the USA, and that is what that guy stepped over.

      Free speach is mainly considered a contract between the government and its citicens, giving the citicens a right to attack the government (with speach) without being prosecuted.

      Free speach does not give one citizen or visitor the right to insult other citicens. Nor does it give the, the right to spread hate speach.

      Your oppinion might be that laws like that is wrong: then please accept that in our oppinion laws like this are needed and right.

      Now: the recation to that tweet might have been exagerated, but that is another topic.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    43. Re:WTF UK? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      1. An advice of the atorney general only lets the police ignore stuff they stumble over themselves.
      If I go to the police with an accusation, they habe no way to ignore me legaly, regardless what the artorney general 'ordered' them.
      And if they do anyway my lawyer will file the case directly at the prosecution office or the next best court: then they get a court order to investigate!

      Your points 2. and 3. are just nonsense. Read the damn OP and links.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    44. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a woman's world. Do not help your cuntry. Just wait to die.

    45. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but because all (certainly most) other societies are worse in this regard.

      That's not all that impressive when you consider that none of them (including the US) are actually overall good when it comes to free speech. We have free speech zones, protest permits, FCC censorship, obscenity laws, local fines for 'swearing' in some cases, bans on certain words in places like airports, etc. We also had that "fighting words" nonsense. For freedom of expression, we also have some anti-mask laws. Of course, some of those are local or state problems, and not necessarily widespread.

      So, I guess things are better, but what I care about is whether or not we're overall good, and I don't think we are.

    46. Re: WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case people are rightfully concerned about cross contamination of the bad aspects of the countries. They are their own countries but they do seem to plan and plot together because when something becomes acceptable on one side its easier to justify elsewhere whether its right or wrong.

    47. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might think that deeply sexist laws are wrong, but please accept that in many people's opinions laws like that are right.

    48. Re:WTF UK? by Stoned_Immaculate · · Score: 1

      Free speech yeah, but not free expression.
      Nudity e.g., even in a totally non-sexual context, is a great reason to be "offended" and might cause a disaster to the "offender's" life, even though it doesn't hurt anyone and it can easily be avoided to be offended by looking away. How can a country allow hate speech (including nazi propaganda) and life wrecking "revelations" during election time but put someone in jail and on a life-long sex-offenders list for just being simply naked?
      I think I prefer it "our" way: maybe we can't say everything we like everywhere, but at least other means of expression or ways of life aren't met with jail time or worse.

    49. Re: WTF UK? by Bill+Dog · · Score: 1

      I still don't get how every discussion about the U.K. on Slashdot gets dragged off topic into a discussion about the U.S. or comparing the U.K. to the U.S.

      I don't think it's just a U.K. thing. It's not unheard of in the U.S. for folks on the political Left to compare the U.S. to European countries in general, in making the suggestion that the U.S. is "behind the times" on things.

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
    50. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? They don't "insist you be social".

      If you want to stay at home, that's perfectly ok. Or stroll down the street too, that's ok.

      ANTI-Social behaviour is going out of your house and deliberately fucking up the neighborhood. And they have a list of very obvious activities that are crimes anyway.

    51. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mistake here is assuming that the subjects of the UK elite have free speech. They do not.

    52. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You and the people you call SJWs both have no idea what Social Justice means. You are both just polluting the nomenclature with your video game whining.

      The idea that people who fight for Social Justice are opposed to free speech just demonstrates your ignorance, the ignorance of your fellow anti-SJW people, and the ignorance of most of the people using the SJW label for themselves since the gamergate joke.

    53. Re:WTF UK? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Ignorance and/or poor education? People, corporations, politicians trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator?

      So you're saying that the various people in say...san fran which is a mecha of sjw's are ignorant and/or have bad education? These aren't folks with a lack of education, many if not all are university grads. I believe the problem stems from a lack of real world experience.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    54. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And hence more people will get to know just what a twat he is....works for me even if it doesn't get further than him being arrested.

    55. Re:WTF UK? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I know exactly what it wants to be, what it is now isn't what it actually is. Social justice as it is, as it's portrayed, is feels over law, feels over reason, feels over fact. Take any case where people are "protesting" something, and you quickly find they're ignorant of the real issues. That they're morally outraged because it appeals to their emotions, they don't reason it out, they don't think it through. Then again, these are the same people who tried to ban GTAV, they're now akin to Jack Thompson as well.

      The sjw's against gamergate have their own pedophile problem these days, perhaps they should expunge their ranks. Or perhaps pick a new movement, after all with Dan Olsen posting CP and them running around trying to cover for them it seems that the entire segment has some serious problems.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    56. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You claim you know what it means, then immediately demonstrate that you don't. Here's a hint: the term is older than your grandparents.

    57. Re:WTF UK? by Bill+Dog · · Score: 1

      You can take away my political speech as long as you leave my nudity alone!

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
    58. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summary: Everything you see happening, pay no attention to it, it's really just the opposite.

      One of the least imaginative tactics of the left.

    59. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Luis Suarez was essentially forced out of England for using the word negrito while speaking Spanish because it happened to sound like nigger. (While John Terry was given a sentence of half the time for using the word nigger in English.)

      He seems more of a cannibal than an human.

    60. Re:WTF UK? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ignorance and/or poor education? People, corporations, politicians trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator?

      So you're saying that the various people in say...san fran which is a mecha of sjw's are ignorant and/or have bad education? These aren't folks with a lack of education, many if not all are university grads. I believe the problem stems from a lack of real world experience.

      You and I actually agree... There's book learning and learning. Having a degree doesn't make one educated in all, or even many, things. One can know a lot about one or several things and not really know much at all. For the enlightened, this means: The more I know, the more I realize what I don't know. Sadly, many people are not that enlightened and many take what they hear on outlets like Fox News (to name *one* egregious source - don't get bent out of shape Fox News fanbois) as gospel w/o any further serious thought or research.

      Most people on the planet range from ignorant to very ignorant (in the non-derogatory sense of simply not knowing) including myself.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    61. Re:WTF UK? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Right because we all know that your view is the only correct one. How about this hint: I'm old enough that my grandparents are dead already.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    62. Re:WTF UK? by westlake · · Score: 1

      the prevailing opinion remains, that any speech should be allowed and countered only with one's own speech.

      That is simply not true.

      Free Speech in the states has never been interpreted as a right to libel. To shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

      The roots of free speech in American law lie deep in the desire for open and civilized debate over public affairs without fear of governmental interference and reprisals. But there can be no debate if the other side is free to shout you down, take control of the mike, drive you off the stage, threaten your life, your family.

    63. Re:WTF UK? by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Crazy arse porn rules.

      Yes, it does.

      Wait, did you mean they have extra laws about exotic pornography? Uhh, never mind what I just said.

    64. Re:WTF UK? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Also you seem to be deliberately mixing up actions by private bodies (the FA) with judicial court actions. Private bodies can do whatever they damn well please, within reason - there is a zero tolerance approach to racism in English football, hence the action against Suarez and Balotelli.

      Its funny how western society likes to set itself up as a prime example of a tolerant, caring society and yet they keep trotting out the 'zero tolerance' line for practically everything that someone might find offensive.

      Its ridiculous. Either its a tolerant society or it isn't. You can't have 'zero tolerance' for whatever its the latest fad to dislike and still be a tolerant society, it doesn't make sense.

      You may as well say 'Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance' as to say 'The West is a caring, tolerant society', they equally confusing uses of the words...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    65. Re:WTF UK? by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Funny how they fail to get the behaviour part, isn't it? Most of the things that'd get you an ASBO in the UK would get you at least a misdemeanor conviction in the US.

      Unless you're black, in which case they shoot you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    66. Re:WTF UK? by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      What if you have Tourette's Syndrome and yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater?

      What if you did that and had Tourette's Syndrome before it was understood to be a neurological disorder?

    67. Re:WTF UK? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      If we had social justice in the US we would need to get a whole lot of rope. Easy example : The torture of prisoners of war by the US gives every other nation the right to use torture on our own troops when they are captured. How can we object when we clearly tortured some inmates to death? Every soldier in the US should be on baby Bush's door step demanding justice with a rope in hand.

    68. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is in fact very mild compare to atrocities of US regime. For example in Indiana, annoyance law in public places was applicable until very recently to someone alcohol intoxicated driven home by a sober friend. Both could be arrested if stopped by a cop, with a good chances to get raped while in jail, loose an opportunity to gain a lawful employment forever due to public record to basically become bums. There is little surprise that americans tend to opt not to consume alcohol in public places.

    69. Re:WTF UK? by GoddersUK · · Score: 2

      Free Speech in the states has never been interpreted as a right ... to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

      OK, where to start? Firstly it's to "falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"; secondly it wasn't law, it was part of a judges opinion; thirdly that opinion was given while suppressing a very clear cut case of protected political speech; fourthly that precedent has been overturned by later judgements; fifthly the judge who wrote that accepted that it's wrong and, sixthly, in many cases shouting fire in a crowded theatre, even falsely, is protected speech. Please stop using that quote.

      https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

    70. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe I have to point this out, but the term "SJW" predates GamerGate. And, yes, SJWs are absolutely against free speech. They recently convinced Patreon to change their terms of service to ban free speech. (Seriously, the new terms say something to the effect that Patreon isn't a platform for free speech.) SJWs try and get people fired for using the wrong pronoun or for doing things like pointing out that all lives matter and that not all men are rapists. (Seriously. I'm not joking. If you do something they dislike, they will doxx you, find your employer, and harass them into firing you. Over words posted on Twitter. Again: NOT JOKING. This has happened multiple times.)

      The reason they're called SJ Warriors is because they seem to wrap themselves up in this "crusader" mindset where they're fighting against the forces of darkness. Through the Internet, and never in real life.

      You'll never find an SJW in a protest or writing letters to politicians or actually doing anything to change the world. Instead they'll just do things like email bomb sites like Patreon and try and get people they disagree with banned from Twitter.

      Do something constructive? Holding an honest discussion with people they disagree with? Not in the SJW playbook. That's why we mock them, and have been for years.

    71. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Take any case where people are "protesting" something, and you quickly find they're ignorant of the real issues.
      > That they're morally outraged because it appeals to their emotions, they don't reason it out, they don't think it through

      There is such umami of irony in that statement coming from someone who clearly doesn't understand the goals of the people that that gamergaters have targeted. It is so delicious to see someone who has clearly decided to take a side pretend that their own veneer of ignorance of qualifies as an impartial evaluation.

    72. Re:WTF UK? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      You can yell fire. The point is that you cannot falsely yell fire. If you do you will be held liable for the consequences thereof (people being trampled to death as they were fleeing the fire).

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    73. Re:WTF UK? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Despite all of the BS that people like to claim that Fox as gospel, they're more authoritative on news then MSNBC. Remember it was last year that the news vs commentary bit came out from Pew research, and showed that nearly 85% of all programing on MSNBC was opinion/commentary, with 15% being factual reporting. Compare that to Fox, it was 55% commentary/opinion and 45% factual reporting.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    74. Re:WTF UK? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Look out your window. See those people going around shooting cops, and wanting to kill them? That's your social justice.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    75. Re:WTF UK? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Canada did respond by banning Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" as hate speech.

    76. Re:WTF UK? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Surely those trampling people to death should be held responsible, not someone who yells "Fire!" and has every expectation that people act like civilized individuals and walk out orderly.

      If not, there would be a lot of trampling to death whenever there are unannounced fire drills.

    77. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free speech is a left wing thing, ie liberals. Not a right wing thing.

    78. Re:WTF UK? by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing this out - the Slashdot "BUT FREE SPEECH" circlejerk drives me nuts.

    79. Re:WTF UK? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And yet the contents of the tweet made it into the Slashdot summary, quoting from the Huffington Post article. It's no doubt now been posted by other news outlets. How many people do you think would have seen some idiot's tweet, verses the number that will now see it quoted in the news?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    80. Re:WTF UK? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      We aren't punishing him for swearing, we are punishing him because his actions have a negative effect on people around him. Just like playing music, having sex, talking etc etc etc. All are fine when they dont affect other members of society in a negative manner, and again all have cases brought because of them.

      I dont see why people around him should have to put up with his swearing.

    81. Re:WTF UK? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Well, true, up to a point.

      On the other hand, how would an American have looked at the same issue, if just after the 9/11 attack, somebody had joked about 'and they say Muslims don't do any good, hur hur'? The tosser who posted the 'joke' about the accident in Glasgow is not going to jail or get a fine, which is what 'freedom of speech' promises - nobody promised that you have a right to use a site, hosted by another party, to post your idiocy.

    82. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Balotelli's reposted image was actually racist, and Jews would take offense at being called money grabbers. He's as daft as a brush, clearly no intent was there, but the FA are more concerned with marshalling social media cockups that fixing the rot and corruption within the game.

    83. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole world saw what Terry said, dozens of times of TV replays. If you claim you can't see it, you're a liar. It wasn't the first complaint against the Chelsea captain either. Presumably you're a plastic chav.

    84. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's what the USA calls indecent.
      Try making a good porno about fisting and you're going to find out how free you really are.

    85. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if he doesn't stop swearing, putting him in jail and throwing away the key is appropriate and justified.. Wow. Just wow. I bet you'd feel right at home in the third Reich. Just remember to stay in line with the party all the time, bro.

    86. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite likely.
      His tweet was posted on /adv/ on 4chan with the demand that action be taken by anonymous.
      Probably was posted on /b/ as well.

    87. Re:WTF UK? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US is a paragon of free speech â" not because there is no room for improvement, but because all (certainly most) other societies are worse in this regard.

      European countries consider themselves more free than the US, it's just that they have a different concept of what freedom is.

      In Europe freedom is seen as a two sided coin. You have negative freedom, that is freedom from interference and limits on your behaviour. That includes freedom of speech. Then you have positive freedom, the freedom to participate in society and to prosper. That includes things like the right to vote, the right to a family life, and the right to education.

      In the US you can protest loudly outside someone's home day and night. Some people go and protest at the funerals of soldiers, and good natured bikers have to come and form a line to keep them away. In Europe that kind of thing would clash with a person's freedom to have a private life, i.e. to privately grieve for their loved on at the funeral.

      We also see the right to a private life clashing with US company's desire to profile everyone and use their personal data for commercial gain, which Europeans consider to be a massive loss of freedom but Americans consider to be a corporation exercising its free speech rights.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    88. Re: WTF UK? by Threni · · Score: 1

      If you can't counter an argument there's probably no point broadcasting the fact.

    89. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The charge for life in prison for swearing too much would never make it past the court surely. I mean it wouldn't stick.

    90. Re:WTF UK? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      It seems you would rather live in an anarchy than a structured society...

    91. Re: WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well since the UK birthed the US it's only natural to compare the differences between the two countries. I mean, the American colonies declared independence over these very issues we're discussing.

    92. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arresting this young man is only going to give his comment more attention and spread it further.

      Sure, but the point of arresting him was not primarily to silence him. It was to send a message: if you make harsh fun of people who just died in a freak accident - you might get some jail time (with all the disadvantages that go with 'having some jail time'). He won't be able to have a vacation in the U.S. for example - no visas for anyone who has been inside...

      His tasteless joke got out - the damage was already done. So now he gets to be an example of what the law can do.

    93. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US is a paragon of free speech — not because there is no room for improvement, but because all (certainly most) other societies are worse in this regard.

      I am not so sure. Europe may have some bans on hate-speech, but see how narrow they are.

      Americans, on the other hand, tend to censor based on words alone - some words are apparently bad independent of context. The word "fuck" has many offensive uses - but also others. Could you even use it in a TV-debate about language? Americans has invented very odd concepts like "the F-word" or "the C-word" because apparently "cunt" or "fuck" is bad on their own. Which is strange. Here, you can certainly use words like "cunt" on TV - if you aren't using it to harass someone.

      Or take this posting - anyone considering "unsafe for work" because of certain words? Regardless of how they were used as "examples"?

    94. Re: WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually not that simple. Freedom of speech is codified in the constitution. Only an amendment could alter it, and that requires a two thirds majority in both the house and senate. Completely reversing it would be highly unlikely. They can, and are, eroding it.

    95. Re:WTF UK? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    96. Re:WTF UK? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I had not. But is that relevant?
      I doubt the harm increases with the amount of readers.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    97. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I challange your reading skills. The tweet and the account of the gay are deleted meanwhile.

      I challenge your writing skills, AFAIK his sexuality isn't an issue.

      As for the the tweet and the account being deleted. I don't think it's much of an issue either https://twitter.com/martindaub...

    98. Re:WTF UK? by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      I agree mostly with your opinion, however the context is a bit different.
      Salman Rushdie wrote that book in '89. At that time muslim fundamentalism and their treats was a rather foreign concept for the West, as is North Korea. Of the kind "that only happens ''over there' ".
      12 years and some planes crashing into the WTC later, shit just got real. So these types of threats are being taken seriously.

    99. Re:WTF UK? by mi · · Score: 0

      You have negative freedom, that is freedom from interference and limits on your behavior

      And that's the only freedom there can be...

      Then you have positive freedom, the freedom to participate in society and to prosper.

      You are confused. The freedoms to participate in society and to prosper are the same as those from interference and limits. One does not have a right to prosperity and/or happiness, but only to a pursuit of them — America's founding fathers noted this right in the Declaration of Independence (before the war was won and the Constitution written).

      In Europe that kind of thing would clash with a person's freedom to have a private life, i.e. to privately grieve for their loved on at the funeral.

      This makes no sense — you can not have a right to privacy in a public place. Those crazy Democrats "thanking god" for dead American soldiers may be an extreme case, but if you devise a law to shut them up, will it not also apply to weddings and birthdays, which are bound to take place on the same block, where other folks are grieving?

      We also see the right to a private life

      I fail to see, how you can demand privacy while in public — and that includes your making connections to other people's servers.

      US company's desire to profile everyone and use their personal data for commercial gain, which Europeans consider to be a massive loss of freedom but Americans consider to be a corporation exercising its free speech rights.

      No, actually, one's right to record and remember whatever he has once observed has nothing to do with free speech. I, once again, fail to see, how you can possibly demand somebody forgets about you without opening yourself up to the same demands from others. Do you want your ex- to be able to force you to undergo a memory-alteration procedure — to make you forget, how she looks naked?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    100. Re:WTF UK? by mi · · Score: 1

      So these types of threats are being taken seriously.

      What was that about surrendering essential freedoms to gain temporary security?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    101. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, if you can't be bothered to do any research, I don't know why I bother talking to you. Even as unreliable as Wikipedia can be, it traces the roots of the social justice movement to the 1840s. People fighting for social justice is what got the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified. They were the members of the Civil Rights movement. They worked to end child labor. They worked to cut down institutionalized discrimination around the world and grant civil rights, including free speech, to everyone.

      It is ridiculous on the face of it to claim that people who are part of the social justice movement are opposed to free speech. They not only rely on it, they have 100+ year documented history of fighting for it.

      If you think Social Justice has anything to do with video games, you are just as clueless as most of those folks calling themselves SJWs. The world doesn't revolve around your chosen form of entertainment. There are real people trying to help each other out there. You pollute the terminology used to describe them because you are offended that someone was offended by some gamer crap? What is wrong with you?

    102. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-read my comment above. I do not claim that the term SJW originates with gamergate. I do claim that many of the people who self-identify as SJWs since gamergate don't know what the SJ part of that title actually means.

      People who actually fight for Social Justice can't be against free speech, as that is one of the core mechanisms that they use to operate and one of the core freedoms they work to protect.

      I'm not sure why you enjoy mocking the people who ended Apartheid and Jim Crow, but it is a free country and you have a right to do that. I'm sure the predecessors of the people you mock would actually be glad to know that you are free to do so. Have fun.

    103. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free speech is a left wing thing, ie liberals. Not a right wing thing.

      Free speech is a freedom and liberty thing, ergo not a liberal thing. The right wing has more love of freedom in its little finger than the Democratic Party has in all of their racist, slavery-loving frames.

    104. Re:WTF UK? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Mario Balotelli, a black football player with a Jewish mother is suspended a game and fined 25k pounds for posting an anti-racist picture about a multicultural Super Mario.

      Twas a niggardly reaction indeed. :(

      Not that I care if this gets modded badly, but just in case: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    105. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why you enjoy mocking the people who ended Apartheid and Jim Crow

      Those people aren't SJWs. We mock the people who think that by whining on Twitter and posting vitriolic comments on Tumblr blogs that they're somehow marching in the same footsteps as those who did lead the Civil Rights Movement.

      SJWs will never attend a physical protest. They'll never put themselves in danger. All they'll do is write emails and harass people via the Internet.

      But you're absolutely right, the SJWs don't know what social justice is. They're fighting for the right to "identify" as a race that they aren't (really, "transracialism" is a thing) or "identify" as a species that they aren't. (Again, really, some SJWs on Tumblr will tell you that they're fighting for the right to be "recognized" as the dog that they really are inside.) All I'm saying is that this crowd of idiots existed prior to GamerGate, and were mocked prior to GamerGate, they just have a new target for their stupidity.

    106. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for clearing that up. Yes, the idiots have been around for a while. It annoys me that they self-identify as caring about social justice and that others (apparently not including you) then attack anyone working for social justice because of these fools.

    107. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "social justice warriors" trying to ban media, video games they disagree with, speech they disagree with, and censor content.

      Who, where, when? Most who are decried as SJWs have no interest in banning anything, just a wish to be allowed to comment on the media without fanboys getting so upset that they start issuing death threats. Can we have some examples besides the only one that comes to mind(think of the children vs GTA5 in certain chains, not a general ban, not censorship)

    108. Re:WTF UK? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I'm all for freedom of speech, but the UN doesn't care about anything more than taking over the world and promoting terrorism.

    109. Re:WTF UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the English "ruling classes". The proles (the 95%+ rest of us) are relatively normal, compared to them.

    110. Re:WTF UK? by msi · · Score: 1

      Luis Suarez left Liverpool because he kept biting people. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/f...

  2. Good? by daveime · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Especially in Glasgow of all places, if you said this to someones face, you'd get your heed caved in. What makes the Internet so special that it absolves idiots from responsibility for their words?

    It's a simple enough rule of thumb, if you wouldn't say it in real life to someones face, then don't say it online behind a shield of anonymity.

    1. Re:Good? by shadowknot · · Score: 2

      Does that mean that you should be arrested for saying something unpleasant? What if you don't consider what you're saying to be worthy of arrest but society (whatever that is) does and the costume-wearing class comes a-knocking? I suspect you'd change your tune.

    2. Re:Good? by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Like real life, the internet should be a place where people can speak their minds without a bunch of pantywaists shutting down their free speech rights out of insecurity. Of course, in the west, we have a growing problem where these people are gaining political power and using it to censor speech they don't like. No one should be arrested for a fucking internet post...at least not in a free country.

    3. Re:Good? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      So you think you have the right to say anything you like, even if you intend it to be harmful? Or do you have the right to do anything harmful, so long as the harm isn't both physical and permanent?

    4. Re:Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they have access to the force necessary to shut down your speech then they aren't pantywaists.

      Just because you disagree with them does not have any bearing on anything else about them other than you disagree with them.

      Unless you are just preaching to like minded individuals you won't reach anyone by insulting those you disagree with.

    5. Re:Good? by shadowknot · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about intending harm, that's all you. A direct, credible threat of violence is a very different thing than an off-color joke. The OP suggested that people should get their "head caved in" for saying something disagreeable. The point I was attempting to make is that just because someone is offended by something you say that doesn't mean that they should be criminalized.

    6. Re:Good? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that you should be arrested for saying something unpleasant?

      I didn't say anything about intending harm, that's all you.

      Oh, so "intending harm" isn't "unpleasant"? Sounds like you said something so general as to be wrong, and when I called you on it, you changed what you said. That's the great thing, I can look back and see that you implied that saying "something unpleasant" shouldn't be arrestable. But never is there a "I misspoke, I meant..." statement, but asserting that I mis-read your plain and direct statement.

      The OP suggested that people should get their "head caved in" for saying something disagreeable.

      I didn't read it that way. I read it as you should expect to get your head caved in, not that you "should" have that result and it's justified, but that you should expect it.

      Funny how those who read the worst, speak the worst, and think it's always everyone else's fault for communicating poorly.

      Go read the OP again. Did he say it was justified to get your head caved in, or that you should expect it? Did you imply that someone shouldn't be arrested for saying something "unpleasant"? Is a direct death threat of credible violence "unpleasant"?

      The point I was attempting to make is that just because someone is offended by something you say that doesn't mean that they should be criminalized.

      I'd assert that's not what you said, even if it was what you were attempting, and that's what I was pointing out.

    7. Re:Good? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Remember that Glasgow is also the place where if you botch a terror act on an airport you get a kicking from some guy whose cigarette break you disturbed. Even though you're already on fire.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    8. Re:Good? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's one thing walking into a memorial service in Glasgow and telling a joke on this, but I'm happy to tell jokes on this topic to my friends.

      Jokes should never be censored.

    9. Re:Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to be killed. We need a war. A civil war. A bloody revolution.

    10. Re:Good? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      For that of comment said to someone's face in Scotland you wouldn't get arrested. You'd wake up in a hospital if you are lucky.

      There's nothing wrong with defending free speech. However, as all the Americans (who know deep in their heart that "free speech" is not a right that they have in practice) will tell you, speech isn't free of consequences. If that kind of speech leads to some time in a cell, or to loss of teeth, or to a face being smashed in, nobody in Scotland will feel one bit bad about it.

    11. Re:Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are free to post what you like, but you are not free from the consequences. The man was clearly drunk. He'll be charged for some minor infraction, he's not in jail, and he'll get a nominal fine as if trying to cause trouble in the street late at light - at worst. So give the drama a break, fuckwit.

  3. And how long will it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    before UK politicians interpret political criticism as "offensive" and jail people for making such statements?

    A society that is not mature enough or secure enough to ignore such insensitive and stupid statements, is a society that has lost it's ability to critically analyze itself and change when needed. The punishment is worse than the crime.

    1. Re:And how long will it be... by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      'Murica

      Wait what?

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  4. Stay Classy, /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, the response might have been a bit OTT, but the reasons were sound... show a bit of compassion and don't go all Streisand maybe?

    1. Re:Stay Classy, /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the reasons were sound

      We all cope in different ways. Whether or not that is what this person was doing is irrelevant. I don't want to end up incarcerated because my particular method of coping with loss is deemed "inappropriate".

    2. Re:Stay Classy, /. by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      We're not classful, we're stateless.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    3. Re:Stay Classy, /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, the response might have been a bit OTT, but the reasons were sound...

      In that case, I find your comment both offensive and a threat to my safety.
      Now march yourself off to jail and turn yourself in for my sound reason for your incarceration.

      In jail yet? Or are you just another hypocrite who doesn't follow or believe in anything that comes out of your mouth?

    4. Re:Stay Classy, /. by dissy · · Score: 1

      We're not classful, we're stateless.

      Personally I haven't made it to stateless yet. People still address me as CDIR, but your point still remains.

    5. Re:Stay Classy, /. by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      but the reasons were sound

      No, they weren't.

    6. Re:Stay Classy, /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "inappropriate"

      What a wonderfully fluid term and a beautiful bait.

      Troll Score: 10/10.

  5. USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We have our problems, but at least we still have some of the best freedom of speech protection in the world. I'd hate to live in a country where I could't make a joke, even if it were in poor taste.

    1. Re:USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have our problems, but at least we still have some of the best freedom of speech protection in the world.

      You're only allowed what your corporate leaders allow you.

    2. Re:USA by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Clearly you haven't spent much time in American airports.

    3. Re:USA by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was going through security once, and the TSA agent made a bomb joke to me. I said back "I have a witty retort to that, but if I said it, you might arrest me." He looked very confused, then was a but apologetic about making a joke that I was barred by law from making.

    4. Re:USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell us another fish tale.

    5. Re:USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO!!! You were not barred from making it, in FACT, the First Amendment gives you the right to say whatever the fuck you want.
      What really happened was, you fell completely chickenshit prey to power, and buried your voice inside you.
      That's the reason America is going to shit. Shame.

    6. Re:USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That cocksucking slut the Queen is a shell of her former self because the fuckin badass Americans kicked her THE FUCK OUT in 1776 and never looked back, and even 175yr later she was still sucking American cock as pay for that little BAILOUT deal they gave her in WWII. Your little queenie bitch is sooo fucking 0wn3d dude, same for that fag you call a PM.

    7. Re:USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The queen has a stanky pussy.

    8. Re:USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, first off you clearly are lying.
      Second, you can make all the bomb jokes you want. And the airlines, being private entities, can kick your ass off the plane. Flying on a private companies airplane is not a right.
      Where are you from bro? Expat British living in dubai maybe?

    9. Re:USA by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      US citizen in the US at the time. Do you not know what TSA is?

    10. Re:USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's how you handle that in the future.

      Take what he said seriously. Freak out. Get vocal to warn the people around you if necessary. Call the police and tell them what he/she said. Tell the police that you are scared and worried that this person is going to do something. Don't tell them that you thought it was a joke. After all, it might not be. You aren't a law enforcement professional and are not qualified to make that determination. Let the police determine that once they have arrived and detained the TSA agent.

      Remember: You *must* take what they say just as seriously as they take what you say. If you can't joke about it, don't let them joke about it.

  6. Its all about the timing... by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The irony here is the timing. As poor taste as the comment was if you fast forward a year and let a comedian say the same thing or let Eminem rap about it and it'll be just fine. I guess I'm glad freedom of speech is still protected here in the States... unless you want to assault someone while also making rude comments in which case then its called a hate crime.

  7. Someone needs some perspective ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Was the tweet offensive? Yes.
    Did it warrant an arrest? If it did, then every late-night TV host and stand-up comic would be in jail.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. This tweet was barely offensive at all compared to what I see the right-wing theocratic American authoritarians that call themselves "conservatives" tweet all day and all night, and is more in line with late night comedy.

      Arresting someone for being an minor-league asshole is a bit much, and in America we don't even do it to the major-league assholes like the hate-radio clowns.

      In some ways we really are the land of the free, if you squint your eyes just right, and completely ignore the drug war.

    2. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Was the tweet offensive? Yes.

      Not to me, it wasn't. That's the nature of the thing: It's utterly subjective.

    3. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? He did not offend YOU?

      Correct.

      Here's what I quoted: "Was the tweet offensive? Yes. " Offense is subjective, so saying that the tweet was offensive makes no sense; you need to say that it's offensive in your own opinion. Subjectivity is something lawmakers and courts don't seem to understand, so don't pretend this isn't a problem.

      So you don't feel that the victims got insulted/offended?

      What an intelligent way to interpret a post saying that offense is subjective!

      but I guess you are a kind of autist

      I guess that would make you an Internet psychologist who erroneously diagnoses people with mental illnesses when they say things you don't like.

    4. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was not offensive. It was a selection of words combined to form a sentence. You CHOSE to take offence. That makes you part of the problem.

    5. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      What an intelligent way to interpret a post saying that offense is subjective!

      So you feel that the victims got insulted/offended?

      So: what is your problem? Hu? You feel neither?

      Wow! For starters: the laws are not about 'feeling offended'. They are about 'objective' misspeech. Hint: most constitutions have the habit to give articles in the beginning precedense over those comming later. So if there is the question if a certain topic is either allowed under article 4 or not allowed under article 1 then article 1 usually wins.

      The free speech 'amendment' in the US constitution is a _fucking_ amendment ... that litterally means: addition. In other words it was not even there in the first place, and there are plenty of 'other rules' in the USA's constitution that have a 'higher value'.

      Comming now to your retarded name: all what we discuss here has nothing to do with censorship at all. Perhaps you should start reading what a 'censor' is and how 'censoring' works ... because you are insulting everyone who either sufferd during the period of WWII or during the eastern communist periods under real censorship!

      My diagnostic might be errornous ... perhaps you are not an autist. Nevertheless you have serious mental problems if you prefer to take site for the culprit here (who was not even arested but seeked protection by the police, *facepalm* )

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      So you feel that the victims got insulted/offended?

      If they claim they did, then I don't see why I wouldn't believe them. In any case, this is irrelevant and why you bring it up, I don't know.

      Wow! For starters: the laws are not about 'feeling offended'. They are about 'objective' misspeech.

      Which boils down to subjective nonsense all the same, even if people like to pretend it's objective.

      The free speech 'amendment' in the US constitution is a _fucking_ amendment ... that litterally means: addition.

      You have absolutely zero clue as to how the US constitution works, and it shows. Any powers not explicitly given to the government, it did *not* have. Some of the founding fathers objected to these amendments because they feared that people would get the idea that the constitution is merely a list of rights that The People have, and any rights not listed are ones they don't have. They tried to clarify, but apparently that's not enough for some people.

      and there are plenty of 'other rules' in the USA's constitution that have a 'higher value'.

      What are you even referring to?

      Comming now to your retarded name

      My account name is irrelevant, and you're an idiot for bringing it up. How does "angel'o'sphere" relate to the topic? It doesn't. You could apply your stupid logic to just about any account name here.

    7. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the tweet offensive? Yes.

      Did it warrant an arrest? If it did, then every late-night TV host and stand-up comic would be in jail.

      Actually a good test to this would be to tweet or post on social media statements made by comedians or hosts on broadcasted television and radio - verbatim. If you incur the wrath of the police then you can have those other published figures also charged and arrested by police. Bonus points if you pick the most incendiary statements they've made just to show the largest amount of hypocrisy.

      This could even be a strong way of showing the ludicrousness of the selective application of law in UK.

      Good Luck Brits.

    8. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm not in the need to have more than a simple graps about the US constitution (and my impression is, my grasp covers more than your 'knowledge') as I'm not arguing about it.
      You however are constantly arguing about a topic happening in another country which has its own constitution. Perhaps you should try to graps the legal concepts of that country a little bit instead of 'censoring' that countries 'right of free speech' to craf and apply 'its own laws'.

      Regarding my nick, that is super simple ... my real name is Angelo ... that was actually easy to guess and unlike you I don't make new nicks for random topics to proclaim my idiotic self centered world views.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about?

    10. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The 'fuck' I talk about is the 'fakt' that you don't know the simplest thing about any constitution.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Someone needs some perspective ... by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Man, you must be studying under cold fjord. Please, teach me more about the US constitution!

  8. Tree of liberty by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, as they say, the tree of liberty needs to occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It appears that their tree is in need of some watering.

    Besides that, top gear's Stephen Fry:
    “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

    And from Salman Rushdie:
    “Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.

    If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.

    I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.

    To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Tree of liberty by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      I think the first quote is attributed to Jeremy Clarkson (of Top Gear) but otherwise is an acceptable opinion on the subject.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:Tree of liberty by jmcvetta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm offended by people who are easily offended.

    3. Re:Tree of liberty by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was Stephen Fry but he's not on Top Gear. Jeremy Clarkson is on Top Gear and he's very fond of offending people.

    4. Re:Tree of liberty by qeveren · · Score: 1

      He was a guest on Top Gear, that counts right?

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    5. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im offended by people who are offended by people who are easily offended.

      But seriously, where DOES it end. If the person who sent the offending tweet was mentally challenged, would they have still arrested them? Then they mentioned that people who responded to the tweet with threats could be arrested as well...WTF. The next time some asshat tells me I am going to hell, where demons will torture me, and fire will burn me for all eternity AND I deserve to be in hell because I dont "believe" in some dude with long hair that says he is the "son of god"".. can I have them arrested? That' kinda shit is way worse then this dudes comments....

      -KI


      Note: posting as AC cause I moderated in here already.

    6. Re:Tree of liberty by Cyfun · · Score: 1

      >Besides that, top gear's Stephen Fry

      He was a guest on Top Gear once. Is that what you mean?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
    7. Re:Tree of liberty by hooiberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lots of people are offended by lots of things, because we live in a culture that gives offended people rights over the offender. Remove those rights and the problem will be gone.

    8. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.

      This is true. However, a lot of dickwads think this gives them free license to be as obnoxious and disagreeable as all hell because muh freddums.

      We are supposed to legislate and censor ourselves in order not to go out of our way to offend people because offending people is the mark of an immature mind. If, in the course of you presenting am honest opinion, people are offended without it being your intention to cause offense, that is a different matter altogether. Deliberately saying things you know will hurt people or saying them in a way designed to push as many buttons as possible is just you being a cunt.

    9. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a bloody revolution is needed in England.
      The SJW leftists need to be murdered. One murder for every "Anti social" order they've enforced.

      There needs to be blood. They need to be culled. They are riding high as they imprison their idealogical enemies.

    10. Re:Tree of liberty by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Yes, a bloody revolution is needed in England. The SJW leftists need to be murdered. One murder for every "Anti social" order they've enforced.

      There needs to be blood. They need to be culled.

      So your solution to people who go way over the line in one direction is to go way over the line in another direction. How's that working for you so far?

      They are riding high as they imprison their idealogical enemies.

      [citation needed].

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So your solution to people who go way over the line in one direction is to go way over the line in another direction. How's that working for you so far?

      On average, it works great.

      They are riding high as they imprison their idealogical enemies.

      [citation needed].

      Here's a good start: http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/24/1821208/uk-man-arrested-over-offensive-tweet

    12. Re:Tree of liberty by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually European human rights do give people some right not to be offended in certain, very limited circumstances. For example, someone who has just been bereaved has a right to a certain amount of peace, e.g. not having people standing outside their homes screaming abuse all day. See, in Europe there are both positive and negative freedoms, i.e. your right to scream abuse vs. everyone else's right not to listen to it in their own homes.

      Arresting someone for posting something on Twitter is way, way, way beyond what little protection people have though. The victim's families are not forced to read these tweets, and in fact it's somewhat doubtful if they would ever have heard about them if the police hadn't turned it into a media circus by being their usual moronic selves.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Tree of liberty by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The writing style looks more like Fry.

      Clarkson, in a bookshop?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Tree of liberty by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They are riding high as they imprison their idealogical enemies.

      [citation needed].

      Here's a good start: http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/12/24/1821208/uk-man-arrested-over-offensive-tweet

      He's not in prison.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    15. Re:Tree of liberty by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sigh, why are you all complaining?

      Obviously a lot of people in this thread are offended by laws in other countries, and their application.

      The german constitutions first paragraph(amendment?) Says: the dignity of the human being is untouchable.

      The guy who made the post insulted the dead and dying and injured to be 'garbage'. That is obviously an attack on their dignity

      I believe people comming from a country where black people get shot left and right for nothing (and the culprits obviously have a letter of marque to do so) should have other problems than complaining about other countries view on human dignity and how that might restrict free speach.

      Hint: the offending twitter tweet is quoted in the OP, so get a damn clue!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:Tree of liberty by mortonda · · Score: 1

      You must find yourself offensive....

    17. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1, Insightful

      However, a lot of dickwads think this gives them free license to be as obnoxious and disagreeable as all hell because muh freddums.

      It does. Your offense is your problem.

      We are supposed to legislate and censor ourselves in order not to go out of our way to offend people

      I disagree. Many people are too easily offended, and there is no reason to tone things down for the inferior ones among us.

      because offending people is the mark of an immature mind.

      What is and is not "immature" is subjective, but don't let that stop you from treating it as if it's a fact.

      Deliberately saying things you know will hurt people

      There is plenty of speech that people know will offend someone, and yet it is their honest opinion.

      is just you being a cunt.

      What's far, far worse are authoritarian pieces of garbage who violate people's fundamental right to free speech.

    18. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Sigh, why are you all complaining?

      Because it's a violation of people's free speech, and giving people the right to not be offended is absolutely absurd in every possible way, given that offense is a personal problem, and that it's completely subjective. People who disagree would be better off moving to North Korea.

    19. Re:Tree of liberty by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      when did Stephen fry join top gear?

    20. Re:Tree of liberty by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If you did not read bejond the line you quoted you did mot get my point.

      The rest of your post is wrong. There was no arrest and there was no violation of free speech (because the tweat was not directed against the rulers/politicians/government but citizens ... go damn read your constitution!)

      And for some reason you seem to feel offended, so read the rest of my post, you answered to.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      The rest of your post is wrong. There was no arrest

      I said that it's a violation of people's free speech. And nonsense, anyway.

      There was no arrest and there was no violation of free speech (because the tweat was not directed against the rulers/politicians/government but citizens ... go damn read your constitution!)

      Where in the US constitution (where I live) does it say that people only have freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing government? It doesn't. Why don't *you* read it, you ignorant fool? Unless you thought I lived elsewhere, but in that case, don't make random assumptions about where I live.

      Any such country would be an authoritarian hellhole, as people should be free to voice their opinions, even if those opinions are offensive. Indeed, popular opinions don't even truly need as much protection; it's the unpopular ones that people want to censor.

      And for some reason you seem to feel offended

      You're a bad psychic.

    22. Re:Tree of liberty by jmcvetta · · Score: 2

      And how!

    23. Re:Tree of liberty by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I screwed up, working from memory.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    24. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two are easily confused.

    25. Re:Tree of liberty by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Having read your entire post, I'll say that I would have boiled down your post to what Free Censorship did. Well, I wouldn't mention North Korea.

      "An attack on their dignity" - Mentioning the color blue is an attack on my dignity, you must never do that. Tying a noose is a reference to lynchings, even when you're a young boy from the north without a clue to that bit in history. Mentioning infidelity is an attack on the dignity of a politician.

      Your dignity is a bit like the US 'right to seek happiness'. It doesn't mean that you can't be insulted.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    26. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush added a Department of Homeland Security to fight the WOT. I can imagine a future Democrat president some day adding a Department of Inclusiveness, for fighting a War on Divisiveness. (Where "divisiveness", like "terror", could mean almost anything.)

      So keep rating some speech as worse than others and you may eventually get your way.

    27. Re: Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume by offensive you mean they have the balls to both voice and stand by their opinions?

      Damn them for not complying with others PC world views! What is wrong with them!

      Or put another way.. You have your opinions they have their. Suppress theirs and damn well expect your to be suppressed..

    28. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the context in which you say that you're offended. Take me, I'm not socially savvy so I have offended almost everyone that has ever spent a lot of time with me and I haven't had any intention of doing so and - usually - I haven't realized it or even noticed that they're offended by something. Only when people speak out do I understand what I've done and sometimes feel terrible about it. And any time I have the chance to think (i.e. when writing a message), I try to think "if somebody said X to me, how would I interpret it?" X of course being an attempt to put myself in the situation of the recipient even though differences in our circumstances might make the comparison not work (families are a really tough one for me since mine is highly unusual in a very negative way - and I'm the most "normal" one in it). I have mechanically perfected manners and etiquette but for anything but the most superficial interactions, there are no fixed rules. Thus at least I think it can be appropriate to sometimes say that you're offended if it's likely that the person offending you didn't actually intend to. I certainly don't think "being offended" is a carte blanche to restrict free speech and there are professional victims out there who try to control the behaviour of others by imposing feelings of guilt onto them by being constantly offended by everything but from personal experience, I know that people can offend other unintentionally and be blissfully unaware of it and in those cases saying it certainly has meaning.

    29. Re:Tree of liberty by ultranova · · Score: 0

      Well, as they say, the tree of liberty needs to occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It appears that their tree is in need of some watering.

      Neither the US nor the UK have tyrants. They have officials who were elected by popular vote. So unless you were planning immolating yourself in front of Buckingham Palace as a protest for your country's policies, the quote is not really appropriate.

      Democracies reflect their citizens. You don't have to like that reflection, but if you don't, breaking the mirror only adds more disfigurements from the flying shards.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:Tree of liberty by eth1 · · Score: 1

      And from Salman Rushdie:
      “Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.

      If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.

      My favorite way to deal with people that claim a right to not be offended is to point out that I find them taking offense at whatever stupid thing they're on about very offensive, so by their own logic, they must stop being offended because they're violating my rights. :P

    31. Re:Tree of liberty by ne0n · · Score: 1

      I find the queen and her arbitrary, controlling bitchy ways to be quite offensive. It's probably that smarmy, shit-eating "sit on my face" look that she's always got on.

      Can I file suit against Her Ugliness or all those nasty spawn of hers?

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    32. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be an interesting beginning to a novel..

      Not saying it'd be a good novel. But it would be an interesting start of one.

    33. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Many people are too easily offended, and there is no reason to tone things down for the inferior ones among us.

      Are blacks inferior to whites if they're offended by being called nigger? Or "coloured" as if non-coloured white is somehow the norm and they're abnormal?

      What's far, far worse are authoritarian pieces of garbage who violate people's fundamental right to free speech.

      I for one don't advocate limiting free speech. Ever. However, saying that someone being offended by some speech is only their problem is just selfish. A good society asks itself why people offend others and of course also why something is offensive. In an ideal world, it wouldn't happen and at least I think we should always strive to improve our society. Why are muslims so easily offended? And do we offend them because they're intolerant of nonbelievers or is it persecution? In my opinion, they're intolerant and should grow a thicker skin so I participated in Draw Mohammed Day myself but I consider the word nigger an entirely different matter. The word carries a history of actual persecution and subjugation so if some still deem it fit to be used as a racial slur it shows that our society hasn't fully evolved from that shameful era. And unlike a religion which you choose to practice and consequently be sensitive about particular things (such as drawing the paedophile prophet), you can neither accept nor reject the race you're born. A practitioner of any religion that goes around preaching nonsense and trying to convert me chooses to do that and chooses to be offended when I tell them to fuck off. However, race is not something you can choose to show or not to show. You might try to laugh off racial slurs but doesn't that mean that you support a society in which it's ok to offend you for your race?

    34. Re: Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Cameron is Conservative.

    35. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 0

      Are blacks inferior to whites if they're offended by being called nigger?

      You speak as if only blacks are offended by such things; that is false. There are oversensitive people of all races.

      However, saying that someone being offended by some speech is only their problem is just selfish.

      It is their problem. How they react to the speech is completely their problem.

      but I consider the word nigger an entirely different matter.

      Well, I don't. Language evolves, people can have certain intentions, and there is context to consider. It is silly to declare that *any* word is inherently bad (and bad is subjective).

      but doesn't that mean that you support a society in which it's ok to offend you for your race?

      I think that people should grow thicker skins, yes.

    36. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down.

      Clearly, you aren't a muslim.

    37. Re:Tree of liberty by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      So unless you were planning immolating yourself in front of Buckingham Palace as a protest for your country's policies, the quote is not really appropriate.

      That would be an awfully odd place for me to do it, I'd be concerned that my message would be lost by doing it in a foreign country.

      As for liberty/tyranny, it's always a balance that has to be constantly fought for. There's plenty of wannabe tyrants in the USA, UK, and pretty much every other country(including actual tyrants).

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    38. Re:Tree of liberty by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      Don't feel too bad, that guy kind of looks like Stephen Fry. But not Hugh Laurie.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    39. Re:Tree of liberty by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The American Bill of Rights only restricted Congress from limiting speech, eventually the 14th amendment was used to expand that to all governments. For people back then, there was duels, tar and feathering and lynching for those who made offensive speech.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    40. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You speak as if only blacks are offended by such things; that is false. There are oversensitive people of all races.

      Define oversensitive. I brought up an example which I guess most would argue is offensive but I'm not using it as an argumentum ad populum. Only as an example.

      but I consider the word nigger an entirely different matter.

      Well, I don't. Language evolves, people can have certain intentions, and there is context to consider. It is silly to declare that *any* word is inherently bad (and bad is subjective).

      So in your opinion there's no difference between saying that a a muslim is intolerant or calling a black man a nigger? Neither is any worse than the other?

      Clearly, your English is highly idiosyncratic. If you that strongly argue that people should become so immune to language that nothing offends anyone, what's the point in free speech if you want speech to loose most of its meaning? Unless you're sadistic and want people to have problems, that is what you're arguing. Or is the next step in your programme for humanity that we should become emotionless robots?

      but doesn't that mean that you support a society in which it's ok to offend you for your race?

      I think that people should grow thicker skins, yes.

      Well, it's pretty funny logic that you have. You want people to desire to be offended. Apart from in some bizarre form of masochism, it is not possible to be offended and want to be offended. That is not the same as supporting a society in which people have the right to offend you.

    41. Re:Tree of liberty by Rakhar · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it is Stephen Fry, and since I recognize it I'm guessing it's from an episode of QI. I've seen him in plenty of things, but that seems like something that would come up there.

    42. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What was his lap time?

    43. Re:Tree of liberty by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      Please, Please, please, I beg you.

      File that suit!!!

      republic.org

      although doing so may get you arrested. :(
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    44. Re:Tree of liberty by Skylinux · · Score: 1

      I like offending people, because I think people who get offended should be offended. --LT

      --
      Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    45. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Define oversensitive.

      It's completely subjective, and you likely already have a general idea of what I mean.

      So in your opinion there's no difference between saying that a a muslim is intolerant or calling a black man a nigger?

      In my opinion, you should take into account someone's intent and the context of the situation, not just say that the word "nigger" is always bad. It can, in fact, be used in ways that are completely not racist at all.

      Whether those two things are different is completely dependent on the communicator's intent, and the context of the situation. You act like it is black-and-white, but it isn't.

      what's the point in free speech if you want speech to loose most of its meaning?

      Speech does not lose its meaning merely because people don't become offended. What a complete non sequitur. Although I have heard people argue similar things before, so this line of reasoning will not convince me.

      Well, it's pretty funny logic that you have. You want people to desire to be offended.

      What?

      That is not the same as supporting a society in which people have the right to offend you.

      I support such a society 100%.

    46. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      The American Bill of Rights only restricted Congress from limiting speech, eventually the 14th amendment was used to expand that to all governments.

      What does that have to do with what I said? He made an incorrect statement about the US constitution, so I corrected him.

    47. Re:Tree of liberty by Niko. · · Score: 2

      1:54, wet.

    48. Re:Tree of liberty by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Mentioning the colour blue is not an attack on your dignity.
      If you were a muslim, calling you a pig eater, would be.
      Or as a christian calling you a satans lover or as a negro calling you a nigger ... or pissing on your grave or your corpse, or even manhandling your corpse. or as in this case talking lowly about the victims of an accident.

      Your level of moral must be very low not to grasp that simple millenia old concept,

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    49. Re:Tree of liberty by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It had all to do what you said as answer to my comment.
      The constitution (hence the name) legislates the rights of the government versus its citizens and the rights of the citizens versus the government (that is true for every constitution of the world).

      And you tried to proclaim now several times that this is not the case.

      In other words a law that restricts me from insulting your dead body, is not against the 'free speech artice/amendment' of your or any other constitution.

      I suggest you for funk sake ask a lawyer if YOU are allowed in YOUR country to insult the corpses of the dead.

      I guess I could google that for you ... but the fun talking with was over when you started insulting me and getting emotional about stuff that is simply speaking: not of your business.

      Hint: in the USA every few days a white cop kills a (usually unarmed) black guy and he does not even get prodecuted (would not care if he is found 'not guilty' if they at least would prosecute him) ... there are still areas in the world where children are starving ... the USA have either not ratified or not even signed the 'international human rights bill' ... there is plenty of stuff to get upset about, but a moron who tweats about dead corpses does certainly not belong to them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    50. Re:Tree of liberty by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Erm, you can mot read, I guess?
      My statements about the USA constitution were correct, as you parent and the quote you make here clearly shows!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    51. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Your ability to form a coherent argument and stay on-topic is as bad as your understanding of the US constitution.

      In other words a law that restricts me from insulting your dead body, is not against the 'free speech artice/amendment' of your or any other constitution.

      Simply incorrect. Try again. Or don't, because your comments are a waste of space.

    52. Re:Tree of liberty by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It is simply not incorrect.
      But arguing with you makes no sense ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    53. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      First amendment of the US constitution: "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."

      The 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to other parts of the government. I'm not sure how you could read that and determine that a law against insulting someone's "dignity" or dead bodies would not be unconstitutional.

    54. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define oversensitive.

      It's completely subjective, and you likely already have a general idea of what I mean.

      Yup. You want everyone to approve of your extreme level of insensitivity. Quite selfish, I must say.

      So in your opinion there's no difference between saying that a a muslim is intolerant or calling a black man a nigger?

      In my opinion, you should take into account someone's intent and the context of the situation, not just say that the word "nigger" is always bad. It can, in fact, be used in ways that are completely not racist at all.

      Whether those two things are different is completely dependent on the communicator's intent, and the context of the situation. You act like it is black-and-white, but it isn't.

      Did you completely miss the preceding words calling someone (a nigger)?

      what's the point in free speech if you want speech to loose most of its meaning?

      Speech does not lose its meaning merely because people don't become offended. What a complete non sequitur. Although I have heard people argue similar things before, so this line of reasoning will not convince me.

      Well, what meaning do offensive statements by your logic have if they're not offensive? Normal people have e.g. neutral, flattering and derogatory terms for things. In your world, there's no distinction between saying that someone is black or saying that that person is a nigger. Hence, there's a loss of meaning.

      Well, it's pretty funny logic that you have. You want people to desire to be offended.

      What?

      Just highlighting your illogical position. Not surprising that you don't understand because you wouldn't hold such a position, if you did.

      That is not the same as supporting a society in which people have the right to offend you.

      I support such a society 100%.

      No. You hold an illogical position or don't understand half of what you're saying yourself. It is not possible to at the same time be insulted and perfectly fine with something insulting being said to you. If you're fine with it, it's not insulting. If it's insulting, you're not fine with it. What you don't grasp is the distinction between being fine with the right of others to insult you and not being fine with such insulting of you.

      I suspect that you're regurgitating the arguments of someone smarter than you but haven't understood them so you're unable to do it logically and consistently.

    55. Re:Tree of liberty by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The constitution (hence the name) legislates the rights of the government versus its citizens and the rights of the citizens versus the government

      Exactly.

      And any law enacted that restricts citizens' speech (whether it is directed against government, or other citizens, or something else entirely), is enacted by the government. By Congress, specifically.

      And the Constitution specifically prohibits the government to enact such laws.

      Seriously, you're arguing against the literal meaning of the amendment. Even ignoring the centuries of precedence on the subject (which convincingly say that you're wrong - have a look at Brandenburg v. Ohio), even just the text itself makes it blatantly clear: Congress shall make no law. Don't embarrass yourself.

    56. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Yup. You want everyone to approve of your extreme level of insensitivity. Quite selfish, I must say.

      That is incorrect, as my own level of "insensitivity" is irrelevant. You are obviously not paying attention to the conversation.

      Did you completely miss the preceding words calling someone (a nigger)?

      No.

      Well, what meaning do offensive statements by your logic have if they're not offensive?

      Because the definitions of those words still exist regardless of whether or not they're offensive.

      In your world, there's no distinction between saying that someone is black or saying that that person is a nigger.

      In my world, context and intent matters. That may change the meaning, and it often helps to know those things so you can know what the other person is like. Someone calling someone a "nigger" because they don't like black people is a racist, while someone using the word for, say, parody purposes, probably isn't.

      Just highlighting your illogical position.

      Your lack of understanding of basic logic does not make my opinion illogical.

      No. You hold an illogical position or don't understand half of what you're saying yourself.

      It's just that you don't understand basic logic. Do you seriously have trouble understanding such a simple thing? I do not support punishing people for offending others, *if* someone gets offended. I would *rather* people not be what I call "oversensitive," but if they are, people shouldn't be punished just because they offended these people.

      If you don't understand that, you're a braindead moron. There is no contradiction here.

      What you don't grasp is the distinction between being fine with the right of others to insult you and not being fine with such insulting of you.

      It's just that you don't grasp what the conversation is about. You're a complete and utter moron, similar to the numerous other arrogant ACs that show up randomly and make ridiculous arguments and don't actually read the posts they're responding to.

    57. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      If you merely disagreed with my opinion that people are oversensitive or something, that would be one thing. But instead, you act as most Random Arrogant ACs do and decide to point out fake contradictions in the arguments you think I'm making for 'points', and try to guess beliefs I haven't voiced.

    58. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can give me a link to whatever site/blog/vlog you've adopted your "beliefs" from, I can explain them for you here and address them. Otherwise, it's pointless for me to continue since you're unable to express them coherently yourself.

    59. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      If you can give me a link to whatever site/blog/vlog you've adopted your "beliefs" from

      None. Why don't you give me a link to whatever site/blog/vlog you've adopted your "beliefs" from?

      Otherwise, it's pointless for me to continue since you're unable to express them coherently yourself.

      No, it's just that your reading comprehension is awful, and your ability to form a logical argument is awful. It's your problem.

    60. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's just that your reading comprehension is awful, and your ability to form a logical argument is awful. It's your problem.

      At least you made me laugh by being so predictable. Everything in your world is somebody else's problem and not yours.

    61. Re:Tree of liberty by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      At least you made me laugh by being so predictable. Everything in your world is somebody else's problem and not yours.

      I hope you realize that that could just as easily be applied to you. Setting aside the fact that I don't know what "your world" is, and you don't know what mine is (as much as you'd like to pretend), of course. Have you ever thought of becoming cold fjord's underling?

    62. Re:Tree of liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they're both thoroughly offensive besserwisser cunts with zero tolerance for people who have different opinions than they do.

      That description fits you better than it does them.

  9. UK vs Free Speech by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

    The UK is really reigning in on the content of speech. That's worrying enough for their citizens, but also troubling for how they may impact the rest of the world. What caught my eye is he turned himself in. Was he getting death threats? Or does it say something a bit scary about the UK that someone would tweet an offensive joke, erase it, and then turn themselves into the police?

    1. Re:UK vs Free Speech by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      The UK is really reigning in on the content of speech.

      It's "reining in", like the reins of a horse..

      Not "reigning in", and not "raining in" either.

      What next - they're - there - their?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:UK vs Free Speech by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      What caught my eye is he turned himself in. Was he getting death threats? Or does it say something a bit scary about the UK that someone would tweet an offensive joke, erase it, and then turn themselves into the police?

      I would have turned myself in too.

      Nobody likes being woken up at 5 AM by a bunch of police thugs breaking down their door, manhandling them, and confiscating all their computers for evidence.

    3. Re:UK vs Free Speech by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      they're - there - their

      Thanks, I feel better now.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:UK vs Free Speech by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Well it is a monarchy, so... maybe it was intentional?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re:UK vs Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What caught my eye is he turned himself in. Was he getting death threats? Or does it say something a bit scary about the UK that someone would tweet an offensive joke, erase it, and then turn themselves into the police?

      I would have turned myself in too.

      Nobody likes being woken up at 5 AM by a bunch of police thugs breaking down their door, manhandling them, and confiscating all their computers for evidence.

      All over someone's opinion on Twitter of all things, I thought this country was the UK, not the people's republic of China which would seem to be the case here!

    6. Re:UK vs Free Speech by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I got my .sig from you. I am wondering where you got it from

      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    7. Re:UK vs Free Speech by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1
      I'm honored! I came up with it from this thread (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/12/1251213/man-arrested-for-photo-of-burning-poppy-on-facebook) in response to:

      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

      .

  10. It's so important.. by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    .. to know how people feel.

    We, as members of society, need information when we choose who to befriend, who to do business with, and who to avoid. If people are not free to express themselves, we cannot make good choices.

    If you're the type to avoid humor in bad taste, and you find this person offensive, you should be fighting this. Otherwise, at some point, you may find yourself emotionally attached to someone who feels this way, only to find out after the fact. When people bare their soul in a public forum, without fear of repercussion, you can observe and make decisions on how you want to interact with them in private. You can decide ahead of time.

    If speaking one's mind is potentially illegal, much important information becomes unavailable as people will be unwilling to speak their minds. You cannot know someone is a racist, or someone is opposed to religious influence, or someone is against liberal governance, or someone has a problem with war. You can't know if they're neo-nazis, and you can't know if they believe politicians should be hanged for war crimes.

    You may enter into relationships with these people only to find out much later that they feel a certain way.

    The more deeply offended you are by speech, the more you should fight for it to be open and free.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:It's so important.. by malkavian · · Score: 1

      It's not people finding him tasteless that caused this.. It's the guy who wrote it turning himself into the cops under the law that's there to protect from cyber bullying and trolling.. Sounds like he did it to protect himself from equally (or more) tasteless and irresponsible trolling.. All silliness that's got out of hand..

  11. First they came... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1, Redundant

    First they came for the rude and annoying, and I did not speak out—
    Then they came for the offensive and off-color, and I did not speak out—
    Then they came for the opinionated and observational, and I did not speak out—
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak (or Tweet) for me.

    Apologies to Martin Niemöller

    And, seriously, UK, WTF? It's unlawful to simply be rude?

    Thank God your Empire is over.
    (He said, understanding the full irony of speaking as a citizen of the United States.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:First they came... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Same as the US. Obscene is illegal. Obscene is illegal because it's offensive. So "rude" is illegal in the US, same as the UK. But it's funny to see all the Americans assert they have more rights than those in the UK, when the rights are roughly equal, but exercised slightly differently.

    2. Re:First they came... by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      The courts in the US often ignore the actual constitution in favor of granting the government more power. That's where that "obscenity" nonsense came from.

      So yes, in practice, the US isn't as good as it could be when it comes to free speech.

    3. Re:First they came... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Note that obscene speech is NOT illegal in the USA. Absent a threat, speech is not, in and of itself, illegal at all....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:First they came... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Same as the US. Obscene is illegal. Obscene is illegal because it's offensive. So "rude" is illegal in the US, same as the UK. But it's funny to see all the Americans assert they have more rights than those in the UK, when the rights are roughly equal, but exercised slightly differently.

      What this guy tweeted would, in no way, be illegal in the US. It's not obscene (no swearing, nudity, or violence); it's not threatening or even, I would argue, "offensive" (in the general sense); it's just rude and insensitive. Obviously, some with thinner skins may disagree, but it certainly should not be an arrestable act anywhere.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:First they came... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      http://www.tampabay.com/news/c...

      Reality proves you wrong. If obscene speech was NOT illegal, then Paul Little wouldn't have been convicted of obscenity.

      OR are you arguing that reality is wrong because it contradicts your opinion?

    6. Re:First they came... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As I said. Neither place has "freedom of speech" we just declare the US superior because we claim the qualities we make illegal are more justified in making speech illegal. When obscenity is illegal in the US, then we have no moral high-ground from which to lecture, not that it would stop us from lecturing anyway.

    7. Re:First they came... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No, reality proves you're confused.

      that was a court ruling on "extreme porn", not on anyone speaking. Right or wrong, porn in the United States and its legality is often seperate matter than "free speech".

    8. Re:First they came... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The court ruled that the porn was "speech" and held that the obscenity laws were valid enough to convict.

    9. Re:First they came... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nope, more complex than that in USA. for example, condomless porn not protected either, even if there was that old ruling that "porn is speech".

    10. Re:First they came... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Reality proves you wrong. If obscene speech was NOT illegal, then Paul Little wouldn't have been convicted of obscenity.

      OR are you arguing that reality is wrong because it contradicts your opinion?

      Cherry picking a specific example to establish your case is an interesting strategy.

      If I pointed out a case such as Redrup v NY in which obscenity convictions were overturned by the US supreme court then where does that leave us?

    11. Re:First they came... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, very complex. You don't have the freedom of speech, but believe you do, because you believe in the excuses given for why you don't have freedom of speech. That does make a mess.

    12. Re:First they came... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If one and only one person is convicted, it's "illegal", no matter how many people get away with it. If it's so clear from the supreme court that obscenity is legal, why did Paul Little spend 2 years in jail/prison?

    13. Re:First they came... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obscene is not illegal dichcheese

    14. Re:First they came... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      If one and only one person is convicted, it's "illegal", no matter how many people get away with it.

      Are you saying if one court says "x" is illegal and another court disagrees saying same "x" is legal.... illegal determinations are automatically preferred winning out by default?

      What are you saying? I don't understand.

      If it's so clear from the supreme court that obscenity is legal, why did Paul Little spend 2 years in jail/prison?

      The law is so complex and open to human interpretation it is not always feasible to know what is or is not legal a-priori. Lawyers and judges can and often do legitimately disagree. Hence ability for even relatively pedestrian cases to get pushed all the way to the supreme court for final determination.

      Unfortunately not every determination of guilt or legality is correct.

    15. Re:First they came... by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech exists to protect the most disgusting, offensive, disturbing, and unpopular speech. It does not exist to protect speech that is not objectionable, as such speech does not need protection in the first place. Production of video constitutes a form of speech; content is irrelevant. The concept of "obscenity" does not exist in the First Amendment and its existence anywhere in the body of statutory and case law as an excuse to penalize people for unpopular speech runs strongly against the entire purpose of the First Amendment.

    16. Re:First they came... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Are you saying if one court says "x" is illegal and another court disagrees saying same "x" is legal.... illegal determinations are automatically preferred winning out by default?

      What are you saying? I don't understand.

      I'm saying there is no such thing as "legal". It's illegal or it's not. If it's illegal, then it's illegal. In your question, two courts finding differently, that requires two people convicted of the same thing. That makes it illegal.

      Unfortunately not every determination of guilt or legality is correct.

      Hence why I lean on the side of "if you can be convicted of it, it's illegal, regardless of how the Supreme Court will rule about it after you've spent 10 years in prison".

  12. The UK is a police state. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Any of you who haven't yet twigged to this, don't bother to try to refute
    my claim. You are idiots and I do not engage in debate with your sort.

                                                                                                              - George Bernard Shaw, dead but still paying attention

  13. Political Correctness Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Old Blighty is a shadow of her former self. I remember back in the 80s when England was a great place to live and work. Now, not so much. The political correctness is ridiculous and needs to end. Hopefully UKIP will get enough power in the next few elections and bring sanity back to the UK.

    - Let's start with the effing muslims. They are not British. They have no effing right to demand anything special like halal foods in schools. Fuck off.
    - The police cannot kick in doors of suspects that are effing muslims, because it might offend them and their families. Fuck off, go back to Turdistan.
    - End the stupid UK Internet filter. It's a joke to route around no one with a modicum of skills will be bothered with it.
    - People have a right to Tweet and Facebook anything as long as it's not threatening. Demeaning, sure, taking the piss? Sure.

    I miss the old England when England was run by the Brits. Labour and the Dems are killing the UK. End the political correctness -- it's a fucking disease.

    1. Re:Political Correctness Disease by west · · Score: 1

      - Let's start with the effing muslims. They are not British.

      Three points for single-handedly making the anti-censorship side almost as unpalatable as the government's actions.

    2. Re:Political Correctness Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please. You're either British not only by birth but also by mentality or you're not. Full stop. The effing muslims have created a PC situation in the UK what with their effing religious laws, halal demands, you name it. No. Go home. This is England. England is a shell of her former self.

    3. Re:Political Correctness Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same in the US. They complain about everything but the free handouts.

    4. Re:Political Correctness Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word is fucking, as in "you're a swivel-eyed fucking loon".

    5. Re:Political Correctness Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I heard the lorry was bin laden.
      Just as offensive?

  14. Only to merkins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the rest of the world, you're over 30 from the top, kid.

  15. Re:Tell you what by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    We Americans see the British as our cultural brethren, owing to the long intertwined history of our two nations. As England goes, so too shall America go. Thus we mourn for the Brits' loss of the freedoms that inspired our own. So too do we fear that our own regime may follow the UK down the path to open tyranny.

  16. Misdirection by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not like the police have anything else to investigate, like, perhaps anything from institutionalized paedophilia to common burglaries, is it?

    This is all about taking people's attention away from the documented failings of the police.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Misdirection by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      It's not like the police have anything else to investigate, like, perhaps anything from institutionalized paedophilia to common burglaries, is it?

      This is all about taking people's attention away from the documented failings of the police.

      It occurs to me that modern policing in the west is more focused on the 'criminals' who advertise and document their own presence and activities. This makes it enormously easier for the police to make it look as if they are actually doing something (as opposed to just making work up and inventing entire crimes just for the purpose of theatre).

      Any crime thats remotely hard to detect is virtually ignored in favour of the 'big ticket' items like 'hate speech'.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  17. really? by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    Even tough it's an insensitive tweet, it is ridiculous if he's actually arrested for that... What the hell happened to 'free' speech?

    1. Re:really? by malkavian · · Score: 1

      What are the cops to do when someone turns themself in (as the guy did from the article)?

    2. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the cops to do when someone turns themself in (as the guy did from the article)?

      Tell him to go elsewhere because he does not need to be charged. If his life has been threatened then those doing so have committed an offence and should be arrested instead.

  18. No you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    All you want is everyone to do things your way.

    Free Speech *must* include the definition of *US* free speech. What isn't counted Free Speech in the USA must not be counted Free Speech elsewhere. What is US secrets must remain secret, but others don't get to do that. People moving to the USA control are freedom fighters, those fighting against are terrorists.

    Your rules.

    That's what you want.

    1. Re:No you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you want is everyone to do things your way.

      Free Speech *must* include the definition of *US* free speech. What isn't counted Free Speech in the USA must not be counted Free Speech elsewhere. What is US secrets must remain secret, but others don't get to do that. People moving to the USA control are freedom fighters, those fighting against are terrorists.

      Your rules.

      That's what you want.

      What is this gibberish?

    2. Re:No you don't by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure it's a troll. But not positive. Someone get me a picture of Fry squinting.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    3. Re:No you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you want is everyone to do things your way.

      Free Speech *must* include the definition of *US* free speech. What isn't counted Free Speech in the USA must not be counted Free Speech elsewhere. What is US secrets must remain secret, but others don't get to do that. People moving to the USA control are freedom fighters, those fighting against are terrorists.

      Your rules.

      That's what you want.

      But the UK etc are not much better. That's certainly been the case with Think of the Children. Many cultures - even in Europe - had quite different ideas about children before the English speaking countries went on the offensive.

  19. Statehood for England by srobert · · Score: 5, Funny

    If England is ever going to be accepted as a state they'll have to learn to respect the first amendment rights of citizens. Oh, and while we're at it, they should be citizens not subjects. Drop the monarch.

    1. Re:Statehood for England by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 2

      First amend what? This is the UK here!

      Anyway, the US amendments can be amended at any time, or totally removed. The clue is in the name, "amendment".

    2. Re:Statehood for England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and while we're at it, they should be citizens not subjects. Drop the monarch.

      Your illusion is incorrect. In the US, citizenship does not guarantee voting rights. Eventually everyone who is not part of, or a willing servant to, the elite will be guilty of a felony and will lose their voting rights. Without those rights, you are effectively reduced to serfdom anyway; the difference between an oligarchy and monarchy is semantics.

    3. Re:Statehood for England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England

      first amendment rights

      Better check your ignorance engine, bro.

    4. Re:Statehood for England by srobert · · Score: 1

      Well my comment was sort of tongue-in-cheek. I just realized the actual event was in Scotland. Well, they could apply for statehood too I suppose.
      Yes, amendments can be amended. But the 1st has been holding up nicely since 1791. We reserve the right to say offensive things because speech that isn't offensive to anyone doesn't need protection.

      Lately, we seem to be having trouble keeping our 4th amendment. Some of us were hoping the world would notice and point it out, in the same way that you'd point out that your friend had a nasty bit of spinach in his teeth.

    5. Re:Statehood for England by accessbob · · Score: 1

      You kind of lost the moral high ground a long time ago.

      Difficult to lecture people on free speech when your government spends its time torturing people to get them to talk.

      That's not an argument in favour of censorship, just highlighting what happens when you have double-standards: people don't listen to you any more.

    6. Re:Statehood for England by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Anyway, the US amendments can be amended at any time, or totally removed. The clue is in the name, "amendment".

      Yeppers.

      Of course, it requires the vote of 2/3 of the House of Representatives, plus 2/3 of the Senate. Then it requires 38 States to approve the change.

      Good luck on getting 2/3 of Congress to approve of toilet paper, much less repealing the First Amendment.

      And we're likelier to see another Civil War than we are to see 38 States approve such a thing.....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Statehood for England by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That's the idea. It's made to be difficult so it can only happen under dire circumstances, and with widespread support.

      In practice it's usually simpler to subvert the constitution than alter if. The law says the government cannot ban X, then don't ban X... but just pass enough regulations and restrictions upon X that it becomes impossibly expensive, impractical or unavailable.

    8. Re:Statehood for England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Here you can say most things, actually, though we're a bit complex (confused, maybe) about 'offensiveness'.

      Whereas in the US, free speech is something white people have, and at political events the state even gives them specially designated zones where they can use it, away from terrible frustrations such as cameras or journalists. Black people can have freedom of speech too, but the entrance exam involves surviving to adulthood without running afoul of a racist police and justice system that even criminalises school misconduct.

      And if Kim Jong-Il doesn't like something, they pre-emptively stop doing it.

    9. Re:Statehood for England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and while we're at it, they should be citizens not subjects. Drop the monarch.

      We're not subjects in any practical sense of the word. We don't swear allegiance to the crown (or a flag), we don't have to do what the sovereign tells us to (not that she would do anything as crass as give anyone an order) and we don't have to give any of the inbred layabouts any respect whatsoever. Come to think of it, if the recent visit to NYC is any indication, Americans care a damn sight more about the royal family than any Brit does.

      There's one thing that having a monarch is useful for: being a figurehead. For a minimal outlay* we get a politically neutral representative to send out on state visits, one that practically oozes respectability and who doesn't change every few years. Tell me, how do you think the American public felt about GWB, Clinton or even Obama being their representative to the world?

      The next time you think about spouting off about the millions of Britons effectively enslaved by some old bint with a flowerpot on her head, consider the fact that we tamed and declawed our monarchy centuries ago. The only powers the crown has are to give a few speeches each year, some ceremonial duties in government and taking the place of "The People" in "The People vs. X" court cases.

      *It might actually be a net profit, but I can't be bothered to check

    10. Re:Statehood for England by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the world does not know more about your amendments than you know about the german or french constitution.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Statehood for England by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If England is ever going to be accepted as a state they'll have to learn to respect the first amendment rights of citizens.

      Do you even realise how f***ing bloody stupid that claim is?

      You are making two mistakes here that only a bloody imbecile could make: You assume that England has any interest to be accepted as a state, when everybody in England is just fine with the United Kingdom being accepted by everyone. Second, that England would have the slightest interest in any amendment to the US constitution.

    12. Re:Statehood for England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they cannot be removed, at least not by Congress.

      Congress by and of itself cannot add or remove an amendment. They can propose a change, then the proposal is sent to the states for ratification.

      It requires the consensus of 3 fourths of the States governors to ratify the change. (if my math is correct, 38 states since we cannot get a half of a state's governor's vote).

      http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

    13. Re: Statehood for England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and while we're at it, they should be citizens not subjects. Drop the monarch.

      Your opinions might hold more weight if you displayed some knowledge of what you speak. The term "British subject" has been virtually obsolete since 1948. The only people who still have that status are a very small number of people born in what is now the Republic of Ireland before 1949 who petitioned for their British status to be restored after Ireland officially became a republic in 1949, and similarly some people born in British India pre-1947 who failed to become Indian or Pakistani citizens in 1947. Everybody else has the status "British citizen", as it quite clearly says in my passport.

      Most of us prefer to have a figurehead monarch than have yet another superfluous politician with delusions of grandeur, who we'd still have to maintain in the style of a head of state anyway.

    14. Re:Statehood for England by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Of course, that's also a complete violation of the spirit of the constitution, but courts would only pay attention to *that* if it would result in the government having more power. A shame that our courts too often side with the government.

    15. Re:Statehood for England by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Well, they need to learn about the tu quoque fallacy, then. And they should also realize that not everyone in the US agrees with what the government is doing. Holding a single individual (who may disagree with the government's actions) accountable for the actions of the government is just silly.

    16. Re:Statehood for England by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Not entirely surprising. The courts are part of the government. The intention is to separate the powers of government into three branches so that each can serve as a check of the others. It works a lot of the time, but not always - even judges are somewhat dependent upon political favor to advance their careers. In practice it often results in a lot of underhanded political games - remember the time that pizza was legally declared a fruit, so that schools could more easily comply with nutritional standards? Or the use of overlapping exclusion zones to banish sex offenders from entire cities? Or pretty much anything related to abortion?

    17. Re:Statehood for England by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that states themselves can initiate an amendment (through convention). Then you basically just need 3/4 of the states - first to submit the amendment, and then to ratify it.

      Here's a fun fact: because of the disparity in state size and population, it's actually possible for the Constitution to be amended with less than 50% of electorate in favor, so long as they are all in smaller states (if you take the list of states and sort by population, you'll see that the top 1/4 adds up to more than 50%).

  20. Obligitory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the lorry needs to pick up more trash.

  21. Explanation for us non-UKians? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    Is Glasgow filled with some sort of protected class? Lot of Africans, or Muslims? Was the joke meant to be racist? Or just anti-life?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Explanation for us non-UKians? by hooiberg · · Score: 0

      So it seems. The only group you can freely insult are white males that are christian/atheist. And nothing happens, except to the white males who object. Do this to any other subgroup of society and the shit hits the fan.

    2. Re:Explanation for us non-UKians? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The dead are also a protected class. At least for a time. It's a temporary status, until they are completly faded from living memory plus one generation. That's why it's forbidden to insult the dead of WWI, but perfectly OK to insult the dead of any war older than that.

    3. Re:Explanation for us non-UKians? by wosmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is Glasgow filled with some sort of protected class? Lot of Africans, or Muslims? Was the joke meant to be racist?

      No more than any other major city. Anecdotally I'd say far less so than the south of the UK, but I don't have numbers to hand, so take that as opinion rather than fact.

      Or just anti-life?

      Basically, this. It could be construed as "classist", as Glasgow's primary reputation is being something of a rough city (or a tough/hard city from a local's point of view). - however the irony isn't lost on me that Sunderland (where the 'tweeter' resides) isn't exactly god's kingdom either. An argument could also be made that Scots themselves are a minority, having only ~10% of England's population. (Easy to miss, the accident occurred in Scotland but the accused is in the north of England).

      But mostly, he just seems to be a dick. And that's much less protected here than it is in the US.

      This is one of the biggest differences between the US & UK legal cultures. While basically similar systems (they share the same "common law" roots), they're exercised entirely differently. The US deals very much with absolutes, and the letter of the law. Most of your primary rights are the right to dissent - and understandably so, since it's what your nation was built upon. To this end you have free speech, press, assembly, firearms, etc. That is, the right to have a dissenting opinion, to share/publish this opinion, to vote on it, to protest, etc. All the way up to having enough guns around that the govt should be wary of the people - although personally I'd argue this one's now a futile effort given the govt clearly won that arms race ...

      But I digress; In the UK the law is very much more intent based. So we don't have free speech as an absolute - we judge each on its merits. So political speech, satire, etc are essentially protected speech - very much in line with the intent of your first amendment - but public disorder, breech of the peace, hate speech, etc, very much less so - which runs contrary to the letter of your first amendment.

      This one falls into an odd gray area though. We have no obligation to provide a platform for free speech. So while this wouldn't have been seen has malicious if shared as a joke between friends, it falls foul of the Malicious Communications Act, which allows for something like;

      Section 1 of the Act covers the sending to another of any letters, electronic communications, photographs and recordings that are indecent, grossly offensive or which convey a threat (which may be false), provided there is an intention on the part of the sender to cause distress or anxiety to the person who receives them.
      The offence refers to the sending, delivering or transmitting, there is no requirement for the communication to reach (or be read by) the person who is intended to read it.

      ( http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/c... )

      So this is where we end up with situations which can appear absurd. Someone makes a complaint to the police. The police satisfy themselves that there's reasonable grounds that such a communication has been sent. But it's not up to the police to judge the intent ("provided there is an intention on the part of the sender ..."). This ends up in essentially a three-step process, where the police may find sufficient rounds to make an arrest, then the CPS ("Crown Prosecution Service", roughly a public prosecutor or attorney general) may find sufficient grounds to press charges, and then a judge/court may find an actual offence.

      So far, only the first of these steps has happened.

    4. Re: Explanation for us non-UKians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, you can't criticize Christians either, especially not this time of year. The War on Christmas is widely opposed and even daring to say Happy Holidays is an act of terror.

      Atheists are a fair target though, the God-hating fags that they are. Feel free to tear them a new one.

    5. Re:Explanation for us non-UKians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a winner in the "intimations of reverse racism" contest!

    6. Re:Explanation for us non-UKians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a certain "good-natured" rivalry between England and Scotland.

      Scots, scousers, cockneys, geordies .... there are lots of different "local groups" in the UK, with their own accents and traditions.

      Making fun of one of the rival groups is everyday humor.

  22. Where can I Sign Up by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    For more of these tweets?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Where can I Sign Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The seige in australia two weeks ago was in a chocolate shop. I've been telling people since day one that I was going to visit the chocolate shop and see if I could get some chocolate bullets or a death by chocolate.

      You know that dead silence, where you can hear a pin drop, that's all I've got so far. This is australia, another week and I'll be hailed as a comic genius. It's all about timing.

  23. Let's use the F word. Call it what it is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it's FASCISM. The natural consequence of irrational political correctness.

  24. Violent revolution needed in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their thought/speech police and political establishment need to meet the guillotine.

  25. Orwell by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  26. Wrong SJW fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bill of rights are a recognition of rights existing outside of any law.
    They cannot be removed by ammendment.

    If they are, the powers that attempted that must suffer torture-murders.

  27. BURN ENGLAND DOWN. KILL ALL THEIR JUDGES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BURN ENGLAND DOWN. KILL ALL THEIR JUDGES
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...

    Swearing man 'risks life in prison' after 176 convictions
    George Lancelot mugshot George Lancelot has 176 public disorder convictions

    A man with 176 convictions for repeated foul-mouthed outbursts risks spending the rest of his life in prison.

    George Lancelot, 61, was jailed for 20 months on Thursday at Exeter Crown Court for breaching an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) banning him from swearing and drinking in public.

    His latest offence was committed hours after he was released from prison.

    As Lancelot was led from the dock on Thursday he shouted: "I'd get less for burglary." He then swore at the court.

    Judge Phillip Wassall told Lancelot, of Higher Warberry Road, Torquay: "I am told there is unlikely to be any psychiatric disposition to help you.

    "Unless you deal with this you could spend the rest of your life in prison."

    Kevin Hopper, defending, said the court should order mental health treatment.

    "He (Lancelot) cannot comply with the ASBO because he is mentally ill," said Mr Hopper.

    "He faces a life term but I don't know what to suggest."

    Andrew Neilson, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: "We should not be filling our jails with people who have mental health needs, let alone someone who appears to pose no actual threat to the public."

  28. Offense: by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No one has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a collective, or a group, or a society, or a community; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (collective, society, community) may not offend another; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another. And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not. Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. Law that bans something based upon the idea that some group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

    Conversely, when people are truly harmed (not just offended) without their informed consent (and legitimate defense is not the cause), then the matter is one that should arguably be considered for law. Otherwise, no.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Offense: by newcastlejon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other words offence is taken, not given.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:Offense: by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Offense can surely be given. But trying to magically legislate it away is a horrific, cowardly, hubris-ridden mistake. Offense arises because of difference in opinion and grasp of fact, intentional or not.

      Because of this, it can and will always arise, no matter how narrow you choke down the channel of discourse, unless or until all have the same opinions and grasp of facts, which, one hopes, will never, ever come about.

      The most productive course is to try not to give offense, and if received, to assess it and take value (warning, insight, stance, new information) from it if possible — otherwise, let it go.

      Restricting opinion by legal means is one of the worst ideas ever. Offense is not a legitimate mitigating factor for censorship and repression. When enacted into law as justification for anything, what it tells us is that we need new legislators, because the ones we have demonstrated fundamental incompetence.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Offense: by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Believe me, I can give you something offensive.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Offense: by ne0n · · Score: 1

      Well THAT is fucking offensive, the way you said "codifying" it sounded like "codpiece". Elizabeth II wants to bash your codpiece with her size 6 tasseled slipper for giving non-verbal offence.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    5. Re:Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find the entire UK Government offensive, arrest them all, and off with their heads I say!!!

    6. Re:Offense: by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      UK laws, significant core difference to the US. Citizens do not bring charges, they are a witness, it is the state that bring charges for crimes. So the citizen only reports the crime. You also have to be careful with difference between facts and opinions. You are free to express you opinion no matter how nasty but it must be expressed as an opinion. However you are not allowed to make false statements of fact. You can target and challenge organisations and deride them however you can not target and challenge their members and deride them. So hate speech, make a false derogatory statement of fact targeted at individuals. Not hate speech, render an opinion about an organisation no matter how derogatory. Quite simply freedom of speech is the right to express an opinion and not the right to lie, if fact there are a whole range that expressly forbid lying in a whole range of circumstance not least of which is perjury or just like what happened in a very recent US grand jury, an intent to submit witnesses who you knew to be lying to the grand jury as if those witnesses were telling the truth and to the press and the public at large, in fact the whole world got to see first hand the corruption in US injustice system.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Offense: by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Well said. I wish I had mod points to mod you up.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    8. Re:Offense: by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are free to express you opinion no matter how nasty but it must be expressed as an opinion.

      In the UK, this is simply and completely not true, and the entire point of the news story. The UK "Communications Act 2003", section 127 (1) states (and I directly quote):

      A person is guilty of an offence if he—
      (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
      (b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

      So yes, sending an offensive message in the UK is a crime, no matter if the message is true or not.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    9. Re:Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Words are given. Intent to offend may be given. Offense is taken, not given. You can choose to not be offended just as well as to be offended.

    10. Re:Offense: by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      More interestingly they have not bothered to define what is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or who classifies it as such, so the legislation as a whole seems to be faulty. So it is really hard to tell what they meant by it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re: Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anonymity on the Internet allows May to say things they would not dare face to face. The freedom to say or print anything you feel like varies for place to place. The freedom to degrade and insult is not considered a universal right.

    12. Re:Offense: by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Hansard proceedings are now online. I wonder if this gives us grounds to sue all of the MPs that voted for this particular bit of legislation.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re: Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously, the King James Bible is the final arbiter in such matters.

    14. Re:Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The most productive course is to try not to give offense,

      But as an athiest, my very existence is 'offensive' to muslims.

      Are you suggesting that I should commit suicide to appease the Muslims?

      Go Fuck Yourself.

    15. Re:Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I consider all those laws grossly offensive, so now they are illegal to be transmitted over any electronic communications network?

    16. Re: Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm grossly offended by religion.. Now get off the interwebs!

    17. Re:Offense: by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      But - as is the case with the infamous 'updated CDA' from the USA - nobody bothers to actually define the very fuzzy words 'offensive', 'indecent' and 'obscene' which means that you basically can get arrested and punished for saying ANYTHING as it just has to be offensive, indecent or obscene to someone, and you have no way of knowing in advance if you are breaking the law or not. This is exactly why the updates to the CDA has been struck down repeatedly.

      It is sad that a supposedly civilized country like the UK has such laws that people can violate without knowing it.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    18. Re:Offense: by blackest_k · · Score: 0

      There were 6 people killed one woman saw both her parents and her daughter killed in front of her eyes. Think about it. How would you feel if you were that woman. I think most people can feel some empathy. Its christmas today pick any three of the people around you to be killed in front of your eyes, doesn't feel very good does it.

      You might not like the law it could be used for censorship and repression, but its not in this case is it? in fact its the complete opposite you are aware of what that little shit said and your probably not even in the UK.

      He is unlikely to go to jail maybe not even fined but he has been publicly shown to be the worthless scrap of humanity that he is.

      Some things are just not done, and are socially unacceptable this is one of them. When it comes to censorship and repression how about Edward Snowdon does his case count as an example?

           

    19. Re:Offense: by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2

      It may be "socially unacceptable", but that doesn't mean it should be illegal; it didn't harm anybody.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    20. Re: Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like the law, and I don't like your excusing it on the basis of what somebody might think of something someone said. There's a difference between offensive and illegal. Some things, as you say, are just not done. One of those things is putting people in jail for words they say.

      Grow up a bit, ok? And if you're offended by that, I'm not in the UK and never plan to be.

    21. Re: Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to miss the point.

    22. Re:Offense: by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Offense arises because of difference

      ... further qualification is unnecessary.

      As the UKIPper next to me in the operations department here amply demonstrates. Difference is to be abolished - all differences from the One True Person - him.

      Needless to say, by disagreeing, I mark myself as an un-person.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    23. Re:Offense: by AMITAYUS · · Score: 1

      Glad to see some sane thinking out there.

    24. Re:Offense: by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Some things are just not done, and are socially unacceptable this is one of them.

      Socially unacceptable is one thing. And the appropriate response from you when faced with something you identify as such is also social: adjust your respect, relationship(s) and commentary according to the social cues you are given.

      Relying on coercion and/or violence exerted by your government so you can assure that the general social environment is only populated by speech you approve of is something else entirely. It reeks of abject failure on your part, and on the part of your legislators. Such government-based active repression is one of the very few things that is more despicable than intentionally offensive speech presented without even a suggestion of humor.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    25. Re:Offense: by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Needless to say, by disagreeing, I mark myself as an un-person.

      Needless, pointless, and untrue. Someone else may so choose to regard you; you, however, are not that at all, and anyone who takes the attitude that you are, as you put it, an "unperson", is solely responsible for that attitude. You're still you, just as worthy as ever.

      Consider the source, soldier on. Defy invalid social norms.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    26. Re:Offense: by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Well THAT is fucking offensive, the way you said "codifying" it sounded like "codpiece".

      Yes? Well then...

      Baldric... Bring me... The Black Russian!

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    27. Re:Offense: by doccus · · Score: 1

      It may be "socially unacceptable", but that doesn't mean it should be illegal; it didn't harm anybody.

      Everything should be illegal.. then they can just pick and choose the crime they think you violated, should they want you behind bars. Oh.. wait.. everything already is...

    28. Re:Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Restricting opinion by legal means is one of the worst ideas ever.

      It's part of the team attitude in politic, we must win, it's the "big game" and our team is the righteous. I thought governments job was to keep the peace and maximize freedom, silly me.

    29. Re: Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's a bullshit law. Fucking police state.

    30. Re:Offense: by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      As with all legislation, just like contracts, you never know how, good or bad or how they will exactly be interpreted, until they are tested in court. The fun thing about trying to sue them of course is what you are entitled to do under the discovery process. The corporations have no qualms about suing government and try all sorts of things on all of the time. It is about time the electorate did exactly the same thing, form temporary political activism groups and class action sue corporations and the government for all sorts of things. Pretty cheap to try on and by spreading out the cost and using as much volunteer labour as possible, likely reasonable cheap in the long run compared to what they will have to spend.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    31. Re:Offense: by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      It's a bit of a strange country the UK, Google ASBO for a set of rather far reaching laws, that don't need a crime to be committed.

      One thing that is a fairly major difference is bail, depending on the crime, it can be just a ticket maybe followed up by a time to appear in court, or maybe taken to a police station for a few hours and then bailed to appear at a magistrates court sometime later which can be months as crimes go up in seriousness you might get held overnight and appear before a magistrate to be bailed or remanded in custody.

      There are no bail bonds in the UK either your safe to be let out (possibly with a tag or a curfew) or your not. It takes a lot to be kept in jail before trial. Even if you will be in jail eventually when sentenced, which maybe a year away. If you behave yourself before your trial, ideally taking positive steps in your life then you maybe even get a suspended sentence or even a conditional discharge.

      So it's highly unlikely that in this case he will have been kept overnight in cells let alone been chucked in to prison on remand.

      Under an American system, i guess it would depend if he has enough money to pay a bail bonds man or not. There are plenty of offenses he could have been charged with even before asbo's there was the good old breach of the peace.

      Insulting Glaswegians in such circumstances would probably do it. He's liable to end up in hospital at some point, after some rough justice anyway, unless things calm down. The Police may be doing him a favor by charging him.

    32. Re:Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to wonder if Monty Python's Flying Circus would've been classified as a crime under the terms of this ludicrous law. We, the US, totally lost our shit after Sept. 11th 2001, but the UK had been dealing in a kack-handed fashion with Northern Ireland for years until the Good Friday agreement; and then after Sept. 11th, they completely lost whatever shit they had left and Blair's government started shoveling crap like this through Parliament. I would like to think the US is finding our shit again finally, but if this is an example, they may not find their shit again even if they trip over it. For a country that gave us the Magna Carta, our common law, and reasons for a revolution, it's a sad place to end up. The Magna Carta will turn 800 next year, but like the old habeas corpus writ (also gutted by the UK), there may not be much left of it to celebrate.

      PS: I am not an anonymous coward, I am Vukota the Enforcer of Justice; just tired of looking for the password book.

    33. Re:Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also just learned that they've amended that Act to clamp down on what kind of porn they can make over there. The nation that banned consensual BDSM acts has now also made it illegal to watch it. Repressive legislation, the return of the repressed. Beyond sad. (Link to story about the No-Spankies-for-You! amendment--)

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-porn-legislation-what-is-now-banned-under-new-government-laws-9898541.html

      Signed,
      Vukota the Enforcer of Spankies

    34. Re: Offense: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consensual BDSM is not illegal. Adults can do what they please to each other. What changed was the certification of sexual acts on film for the R18 certificate, meaning they can be sold in sex shops. It's not even illegal to film and distribute these internationally. But if you want to sell legally in the UK certain acts will not be permitted.

    35. Re: Offense: by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Consensual BDSM is not illegal. Adults can do what they please to each other. What changed was the certification of sexual acts on film for the R18 certificate, meaning they can be sold in sex shops. It's not even illegal to film and distribute these internationally. But if you want to sell legally in the UK certain acts will not be permitted.

  29. Re:Tell you what by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

    No one is exempt from criticism. Not the UK, and not the US.

  30. Re:Tell you what by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    As England goes, so too shall America go.

    Funnily enough, we see it the other way round.

    We never really had McCarthyism but I'm sure we'll get our version of the Patriot Act soon enough.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  31. Offence by Livius · · Score: 1

    Lots of people offend me, but I recognize that I can't stop them from being offensive.

    Though I do get a disproportionate joy from making them confront their own hypocrisies.

  32. JEWS took away our free speech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-Britain.php

    Is that good enough for you? Cue the white knights defending the Jewish parasites who are destroying our countries from within...

  33. Jews took away your free speech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/11/jews-multiculturalism-and-the-war-on-free-speech-a-too-case-file/

    Cue the brainwashed 'useful idiots' who will leap to the defence of the very scum who have taken over our countries, and are destroying them from within...

  34. Even more offensive than the comment is his arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a total affront to the right to free speech, and I find the arrest of this individual even more offensive than his comments. I do hope those who arrested this dickhead will also be prosecuted for acting like Nazis. Trying to censor the distasteful comments of someone is certainly not the solution. People will make their own decision about the views expressed by someone. Obviously, in this case, the views of the majority are not going to be very favourable. This really stinks of totalitarianism. I am deeply ashamed to be British today, both on account of the fascist behaviour of the UK authorities, and the ravings of this man.

  35. Speech Police by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    He added some of the responses to the tweet - including insults and threats - could also be an offence under the same act.

    That sounds vaguely threatening. I think he should arrest himself.

  36. Angry Bin Lorry Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tweet seriously offended all the bin lorry drivers at the area by suggesting that they don't do their job properly. Suggesting that somebody doesn't their job is indeed a serious offense.

  37. PC covers what we are afraid might be TRUE by hessian · · Score: 1

    People will not let you criticize the Emperor (democracy, multiculturalism, welfare, consumerism) because to do so is to suggest that all of us are wasting our time on a civilization that is heading toward collapse.

    #GamerGate, #metalgate and many other scandals show us that anything related to inequality, whether racial or sexual or sexual preference, causes government and media to immediately explode and go after you, as will lots of Useful Idiots (UIs... sorry, SJWs) out there who want to crucify you.

    All because they are afraid the criticism might be true and, if it is, the stakes are MUCH higher than anyone has thought.

  38. What the UK needs now is by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    the Sex Pistols. God you are a miserable fucking country.

  39. Nothing more offensive than "P.C. Speech" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason there's nothing worse than that is that Political Correctness grants singular assholes the right to condemn and control the majority of the people in the country.

    A 99.9% straight township cannot hold a Daddy - Daughter dance for Valentines day because one lesbian couple found it offensive - I say fuck 'em - majority rules.

    A 90% Christian community cannot have a "Christmas Concert" in their community schools because one or two Jewish or Muslim folks complain - again, I say, fuck 'em - majority rules.

    I could go on, but you get the point - The minority outsider just needs to learn to bite their tongue and let the majority do their thing.

    (this has absolutely nothing to do with racism or religious persecution, unless it is to disallow the one-offs from persecuting the majority)

  40. The US IS Better by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    As far as freedom of speech goes the US is better off than the UK. Some Americans still understand that being offended is a defect of the listener and not the speaker. In America we have the right to be mortified and embarrassed beyond all sanity. After all, just why should we be concerned with what others think or say about us? Are we so weak that we can not function without standing in some social group? Being independant really does mean not having to be concerned with the beliefs of others and we have no obligation to avoid insulting people.

  41. Was it worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... for the free health care?

  42. so long UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One more reason not to try and keep them in the EU.
    Don't let the door hit you in the -ah- lower back.

  43. Pot, Kettle, irony by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    > But as an athiest, my very existence is 'offensive' to muslims.

    I'm an atheist as well. And I am aware that some Muslims proactively take offense because of my lack of belief.

    However, you should be aware that of the five pillars of Islam, none say or imply one word about "hating atheists." That's just crap out of the Koran, which is a mish-mosh of uncorrelated and unordered quotes. Only fanatics take the violent sections of the Koran seriously. Not that there aren't enough fanatics to go around, of course.

    > Are you suggesting that I should commit suicide to appease the Muslims?

    Not in the least. I wasn't suggesting anyone should commit suicide, or in any way alter who or what they are. These are not things that give offense. You have not chosen to be atheist in order to give offense, have you? I presume you're atheist because you find that to be a comfortable state of mind, one that correlates well with what you observe of the world around you. Nothing to do with giving offense at all. I'm not wrong, am I? If I am, please let me know... that's a whole 'nuther bag of wolverines.

    Simply being (existing as) atheist is not giving offense. That is the same as the case where someone is simply "being atheist" or "being Christian" or "being Muslim" or "being a rock collector."

    When such provokes an "offended" response, we are merely seeing examples of the common practice by muddy thinkers of taking offense for any, or no, sane reason...

    > Go Fuck Yourself ...Just as you have here. Brilliant to have so cleverly put yourself in exactly the same unreasonable club with those nasty, hateful, offended Islamists, isn't it? :)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Pot, Kettle, irony by operagost · · Score: 1

      If the main text of a religion isn't a reliable guidebook to that religion, how can we determine if anything is?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Pot, Kettle, irony by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      If the main text of a religion isn't a reliable guidebook to that religion, how can we determine if anything is?

      Obviously, we can't.

      What made you think we could?

      All major (and most minor) religions present huge diversity. Within Christianity, the bible is taken as everything from vague metaphor to the "inerrant word of God." The Koran for Islam, the same. Buddhist practice ranges from meditative to non, from vegetarian to non, from rigidly scientific to the most laughable crystal-gazing nonsense you've ever heard of. New agers.... that's a basket so broad I don't even have a clue as to what it really means, although I have to say, I've rarely come away from someone's description of their new age ideas thinking "wow, that made sense." OK, actually, never. But I figure it could happen. :)

      In addition to actual sect differences, there are practitioner differences, and they range all the way from non-believers who are there for the social aspect, to rigid adherents to every jot and tittle in every book (and some, like the Catholics, have quite a few books.)

      For my part, I figure, if I want to know what someone thinks, just ask them. Unless I have specific relevant evidence, I don't assume people fit into standardized boxes. I have found that to very rarely be true.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  44. Joke Is Bad Taste ... by SemperOSS · · Score: 1

    ... very bad taste, indeed, but it was a sad day when Britain voted for a "Taste Police".

    --
    I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
  45. Offense taken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I take offense at the news that someone can be arrested for making an offensive tweet. Somebody please arrest those responsible for causing this offensive information to come to light; namely, those who thought it was a good idea to arrest someone for making an offensive tweet.