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.'"

Comments

WTF UK?

[Stargoat]

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?

Re:WTF UK?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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?

Re:WTF UK?

[shadowknot]

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.

Re:WTF UK?

[malkavian]

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.

Re:WTF UK?

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

Someone needs some perspective ...

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:Tree of liberty

[jmcvetta]

I'm offended by people who are easily offended.

Misdirection

[whoever57]

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.

Statehood for England

[srobert]

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.

Offense:

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Offense:

[newcastlejon]

In other words offence is taken, not given.

Re:Offense:

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Offense:

[Baloroth]

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.