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.'"
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?
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.
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!
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...
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.
I'm offended by people who are easily offended.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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."
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.
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.
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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