Slashdot Mirror
Jail Sentence For Popular YouTube Pranksters (bbc.com)
Turns out crossing a line, even for a prank by a YouTube star, can go bonkers. An anonymous reader cites a BBC report: Four members of the controversial Trollstation YouTube channel have been jailed in connection with fake robberies and kidnappings. The group were involved in a fake robbery at London's National Portrait Gallery and a fake kidnapping at Tate Britain in July 2015. The channel, with 718,000 subscribers, has built a reputation for filming staged pranks around the city. A fifth member was imprisoned in March following a bomb hoax.The Crown Prosecution Service's Robert Short said: "The hoaxes may have seemed harmless to them, but they caused genuine distress to a number of members of the public, who should be able to go about their daily business without being put in fear in this way. We hope these convictions send a strong message that unlawful activities such as these will not be tolerated in London."
I'm really surprised that, "It's just a prank bro!" hasn't been documented on-video as famous last words.
I guess I look at pranks on strangers as something that has to be limited enough that the person pranked will themselves laugh about it. It's one thing to prank your friends that you have an understanding with, but it's an entirely different matter to do something that affects otherwise-uninvolved third parties.
This is a case of, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
Back in "The Day," there was a real-life prank TV show called Candid Camera hosted by Allen Funt. It was lighthearted stuff, like putting a speaker in a mailbox and having an actor say "Hey buddy, got a quarter" to passers-by, but only when no one else was looking. Stuff you could walk away from and laugh about it.
I don't remember any pranks that were mean-spirited, and one of the show-runners said about Candid Camera: "We’ve always come at it from the idea that we believe people are wonderful and we’re out to confirm it. Our imitators and other shows, whether it’s Jamie Kennedy or Punk’d, often seem to come at it from the opposite perspective, which is that people are stupid, and we’re going to find ways to underscore that."
Here's hoping some jail sentences will help folks think about what they're doing. From the article: "For the charge at the National Portrait Gallery, Mr Jarvis was sentenced to 20 weeks, Mr Mensah and Mr Gomes to 18 weeks each, and Mr Ferizolli to 16 weeks. All four were also sentenced to eight weeks for the fake kidnapping at Tate Britain, to run concurrently. Trollstation member Danh Van Le was sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment in March for his involvement in the fake robbery, and also to 24 weeks for a separate bomb hoax."
Ummmm... no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No sig today...
How do you "prank" a theft from a portrait gallery? If they actually stole a portrait, then it's theft. It doesn't matter if they give it back and say "it's just a prank".
Actually, it does. From the Theft Act 1968:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
Therefore, with no intention to permanently deprive someone of the object, no theft has taken place.
From TFA though:
"All four pleaded guilty to two counts of using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of, or provoke unlawful violence for their involvement in the two hoaxes."
Bloody hell, half of the MPs in the country could be done for that if they didn't hide behind their parliamentary privilege. The above words could be easily applied to the Brexit referendum FUD being spouted on both sides.
No I haven't, because one of the biggest MTV prank shows is filmed in Texas. But oh yeah: everyone is afraid of your peashooter. I'm sure you will be protecting us all real soon now.
People are every day. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/...
If it isn't on fire, you are inciting property damages.
Technically, the only restriction on free speech is that which "would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action."
Note that the link takes you to the Wikipedia page for "Shouting fire in a crowded theater." As explained in the article, the entire saying came into being because of supreme court case Schenck v. United States, which was related to free speech but had absolutely nothing to do with shouting fire in a crowded theater. During the case, it was argued:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic"
But the strange thing is, that statement is not grounded in fact. Holmes was trying to say that there are reasonable limits on free speech, but he was pretty much talking out of his ass. While there have been a handful of cases where erroneously shouting "fire" in a crowded place resulted in panic, no one has ever been charged and convicted for doing so and it thus goes without saying that no one has tried to use a freedom of expression defence in such a case.
It is a saying that probably needs to die. It comes up so often as an example of a "limit on free speech", but it is ungrounded. While IANAL, from what I gather the only way someone could be charged for yelling fire in a crowded place is if he/she were actually intent on causing panic and destruction. Of course that wouldn't prevent the owner of the theatre from suing for loss of business (or perhaps some of the patrons if they can claim some form of damage), but that would be a civil case not a criminal one.
No, you confuse humor with prank.
A prank is a physical situation that you cannot immediately escape. It is about your immediate reaction, and typically involves violating boundaries. That is why it is something to be done with care.
A television sketch about a politician, on the other hand, may make that politician uncomfortable, but he is not immediately on the spot and has plenty of opportunity to react rationally. In fact, making him uncomfortable may be the only way to push him into re-thinking his ways. Or a satire about some organisation or public figure may exaggerate in order to make the point and create humor, again crossing the line into discomfort or even humiliation. But again it is targeted at the audience and the victim is not in the headlights with their immediate reaction being national news.
It's a big difference if you get put in a bad place, then calm down and later on are interviewed about it, compared to being put in a bad place and whatever your instinctive first reaction is will be archived for all eternity.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org