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.
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.
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!
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."
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.