Warning for British forumers - joking online may cost you cost you 1000 pounds...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

So the only difference is scope of the audience?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Right. Being controversial is ok as long as you do it privately.

---

Apparently. I'm not entirely convinced that, say, a comedian would be arrested for doing jokes about April Jones though they'd likely get booed of the stage. So it may even be specific to Twitter, Facebook.

You realize that in most dictatorships now adays, you're also free to say what ever you want in private, right?

Sorry, did you think I was mounting some kind of defense of these insane laws? If so, what gave you that impression?

I'm just curious why there isn't a massive outrage any time this law gets invoked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

So the only difference is scope of the audience?

---

It's a UK-specific take on protecting a public commons so I guess it's not just the audience but also the specific thing that's being protected. Of course it's not like these people are shitting on public roads or rambling naked along them or anything and it's legitimate to ask whether or not a western government should ever protect a public anything from speech no matter what the nature of the speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm just curious why there isn't a massive outrage any time this law gets invoked.

---

A large and vocal portion of the people here express outrage at the posters of these comments, and haven't a clue about the dangers and precedents resulting from prosecution.

The most-read papers by far are the Sun and the Mail, the two papers which would typically lead calls for these online posters to be arrested.

Unfortunately, politicians are swayed by popular idiocy, and lean on legislators to bring about change.

Another one today ... :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

Facebook slur about soldier deaths: Azhar Ahmed sentenced

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...3279_ahmed.jpg

A man who posted an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers has been given a community order.

Azhar Ahmed, 20, of Fir Avenue, Ravensthorpe, West Yorkshire, was found guilty in September of sending a grossly offensive communication.

He said he did not think the message, which said "all soldiers should die and go to hell", was offensive.

Ahmed was also fined £300 at Huddersfield Magistrates' Court.

He will have to do 240 hours of community service over a two-year period.

Ahmed was charged after the mother of one of the soldiers read the comments and was so upset she called the police.

Comments removed

The six soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) in Lashkar Gah on 6 March, in the deadliest single attack on British forces in Afghanistan since 2001.

Sgt Nigel Coupe, 33, of 1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, was killed alongside Cpl Jake Hartley, 20, Pte Anthony Frampton, 20, Pte Christopher Kershaw, 19, Pte Daniel Wade, 20, and Pte Daniel Wilford, 21, all of 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment.

Ahmed's message was posted just two days later on 8 March.

Nicholas Barker, defending, said Ahmed was initially voicing "legitimate concerns" about the victims of war but went on to overstep the mark.

When he realised his comments were causing distress he removed them, Mr Barker added.

District Judge Jane Goodwin said the law should not stop legitimate political opinions being strongly voiced.

But she said the test was whether what was written was "beyond the pale of what's tolerable in our society".

She told Ahmed: "You posted the message in response to tributes and messages of sympathy. You knew at the time that this was an emotive and sensitive issue.

"With freedom of speech comes responsibility. On March 8 you failed to live up to that responsibility."

The sentence was met with cries of "disgusting" from protesters in the public gallery, some of whom walked out while the district judge was speaking.

One man was detained by police while leaving the court after shouting comments at the judge.

After the hearing, a man who had a conviction for sending a menacing electronic communication on Twitter overturned, criticised Ahmed's sentence saying it was a bad day "for freedom of speech".

Paul Chambers, who posted a message saying he would blow up an airport when it closed after heavy snow, tweeted: "Glad all that fighting wasn't for nothing."

He also commented on the jailing of a man who admitted posting an offensive comment on Facebook about missing five-year-old April Jones.

---

Of note;

District Judge Jane Goodwin said the law should not stop legitimate political opinions being strongly voiced.
But she said the test was whether what was written was "beyond the pale of what's tolerable in our society".

Oh dear ... :(

I wonder how long before there's a squad of police officers patrolling internet forums, and arresting anyone who says anything offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You realize that in most dictatorships now adays, you're also free to say what ever you want in private, right?

---

In most of modern dictatorships, you are free to say whatever you want, as long as it does not involve politics.

Or religion.

I wouldn't agree, by the way, that in most dictatorships you're free to say what you like in private.

How often do you hear of people being arrested for private conversations? It might be true in North Korea, and there might be some red lines elsewhere (criticizing the king), but the era of totalitarian police states is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Society has certain norms, and if you don't want to abide by them, you're free to live outside of society. I hear hermit huts are selling for cheap. You have the right to do what ever you want to yourself, but you do not have the right to force yourself upon others. Society has determined that, at the very least, children shouldn't be exposed to nudity. This guy decided that his values take precedence over society's values. That's fine, but he should be prepared to pay a price for those beliefs. Incidentally, if he was only concerned with being nude, I'm sure he could find plenty of places where he can be without getting arrested.

---

What's the difference?

There is no social norm against free speech. In fact, the opposite is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

How often do you hear of people being arrested for private conversations?

---

How often do you hear of people being stopped for traffic violations?

Timbuk2 demonstrated that he the thinks there is a social norm against it, while the judge he quoted explicitly referred to it.

So to you, if society has set a norm against offensive speech them what's the difference between these two threads?

Good argument.

But the difference is that free speech, even and especially when it goes against social norms, is critical to the health of our democracy, whereas wandering around naked is not. Basically, Free Speech > Social Norms > Right to Wander Around Butt Naked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Timbuk2 demonstrated that he the thinks there is a social norm against it, while the judge he quoted explicitly referred to it.

So to you, if society has set a norm against offensive speech them what's the difference between these two threads?

---

There's a difference between democracy and legality. If a society has social norms that forbid many behaviors that we consider to be human rights, then that it is a society that does not value democracy. Someone in that society shouldn't be surprised if they get jailed for violating its laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

There's a difference between democracy and legality. If a society has social norms that forbid many behaviors that we consider to be human rights, then that it is a society that does not value democracy. Someone in that society shouldn't be surprised if they get jailed for violating its laws.

---

Freedom of speech isn't absolute anywhere though (libel, slander come to mind, inciting violence is illegal in most places too), so the question is mostly where you (legally) draw the line, just as you would with how many clothes someone is supposed to wear. Now I think this law is ridiculous, but then again I'm not a British voter either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Freedom of speech isn't absolute anywhere though (libel, slander come to mind, inciting violence is illegal in most places too), so the question is mostly where you (legally) draw the line, just as you would with how many clothes someone is supposed to wear. Now I think this law is ridiculous, but then again I'm not a British voter either.

---

The line is clearly at the point where you cause measurable physical/financial harm and do so in combination with deceit. Once you start punishing other speech, you're in bad territory.

Clearly to you, perhaps. There are also plenty of plenty of places where, say, denying the Holocaust is illegal. And according to your courts psychological damages can be quite impressive, if I'm to believe some of your lawsuits, so I suppose being insulted or made fun of can do you harm. Not that I agree with any of this, but your argument assumes everyone has the same values as you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Clearly to you, perhaps. There are also plenty of plenty of places where, say, denying the Holocaust is illegal. And according to your courts psychological damages can be quite impressive, if I'm to believe some of your lawsuits, so I suppose being insulted or made fun of can do you harm. Not that I agree with any of this, but your argument assumes everyone has the same values as you have.

---

And I would argue that this is undemocratic/illiberal. But banning one narrow type of speech is still preferable to banning all controversial public speech, which seems to be the direction Britain is heading in.

And I would agree with you, but it's not like this is fundamentally different from the other thread. It's about where a (democratic) society places the bar.

My point is that it stops being a democratic society after a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And I would argue that this is undemocratic/illiberal. But banning one narrow type of speech is still preferable to banning all controversial public speech, which seems to be the direction Britain is heading in.

---

It's not just the type of speech; it's the “place” where the speech occurs. Wonder if Facebook can sue the British gummint for meddling

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-months.html

In case anyone thought the idiocy was restricted to posting on Facebook/Twitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-months.html

In case anyone thought the idiocy was restricted to posting on Facebook/Twitter.

---

The back would be illegal in a number of countries, though? Insulting an officer is generally not allowed. Anyway, it is a different law altogether.

Insulting a specific officer to his face is not allowed. Insulting the police definitely is. I don't see any specific threat there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-months.html

In case anyone thought the idiocy was restricted to posting on Facebook/Twitter.

---

In case anyone thought the street was less public than facebook, or that there was only one law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Insulting a specific officer to his face is not allowed. Insulting the police definitely is. I don't see any specific threat there.

---

While on duty, yes. Wearing it and showing it to a cop, on duty, would be insulting.

Heaven forfend that people we entrust to enforce the law and protect us have a thick skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Insulting a specific officer to his face is not allowed. Insulting the police definitely is. I don't see any specific threat there.

---

Wearing a t-shirt saying "one less pig" hours after 2 cops get murdered would be bad enough, but it also on the back arguably could be considered threatening "kill a cop 4 fun.co.uk"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Wearing a t-shirt saying "one less pig" hours after 2 cops get murdered would be bad enough, but it also on the back arguably could be considered threatening "kill a cop 4 fun.co.uk"?

---

Bad enough in what way? It's highly insulting, sure. You want to make insults illegal? And the second part is so vague that there's no way to constitute it as a specific threat.

Again there are universally laws regarding certain types of harrassment and the latter could arguably be considered incitement to violence anyway.

But no I don't want insults to be illegal. Currently grossly offensive insults ARE illegal though.

Harassment needs a specific victim, be directed at that victim, and be a whole pattern of behavior. Incitement to violence must be clear in terms of the target and in terms of the threat. There's absolutely no harassment case to be made him. The incitement to violence case would be on incredibly shake grounds.

I wonder how long before criticizing unions or Islamism becomes "grossly offensive". It already is in certain university campuses in Britain.

As soon as possible, hopefully. Then people might go "this is fucking stupid" and roll it back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I wonder how long before criticizing unions or Islamism becomes "grossly offensive". It already is in certain university campuses in Britain.

---

The latter already is. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

As soon as possible, hopefully. Then people might go "this is fucking stupid" and roll it back.

---

Unless asking for it to be rolled back is also considered grossly offensive. :bored:

We'll have to get meta and say that saying things are grossly offensive is grossly offensive.

I honestly think Britain is slowly headed in that direction. There's little if any public reaction to these ridiculous prosecutions. It's only a matter of time before the government (or some bureaucrats) decide that even stricter restrictions are called for.