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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And yet who predicted it? The police state comments were always directed at how heavily monitored the British people were, not at how little free speech meant to your government.

---

Too lazy to Google, but I do recall seeing predictions that they would find a way to criminalize trolling long before it happened. I think that's actually a legitimate goal where 'trolling' is actually outright harassment. What we actually have is a dumb law written and interpreted but people who simply don't understand the technologies or sociology involved, what we've ended up with is laws that criminalize being a dick on the Internet, rather than simply translating exist anti-harassment laws to the online environment.

Scholar and gentleman Nick Griffin has posted the following to Twitter in response to a gay couple winning their case against a Christian bed and breakfast owner who refused them a bed on the grounds of despicable made up lies and bullshit her deeply held personal convictions:

"So, Messrs Black and Morgan at [address], A British justice team will come up to Huntington & give you a..."

So, given that we've had arrested and gaol time for posting stupid jokes on Twitter, unpleasant things on Facebook and wearing an offensive t-shirt, how will the police react to a thinly veiled threat by a MEP? But on Twitter.

It was her deeply held religious convictions, but that may just be splitting hairs. She would also disallow unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a bedroom in her B&B ...

The police, as I understand it, will pursue this as incitement to violence. And I have no issue with that, a law has ( or seems, on the face of it, to have ) been contravened, a law which is separate to the silly Malicious Communications Act.

I'm not putting this in the same pot as the jokes and unpleasant comments or T-shirt, which fall foul of the silly Act and nothing else.

The lovely Mr Griffin has had his Twitter account suspended pending further stuff.

Actually he never threatened violence there was a second tweet apparently that finished the message along the lines of "... protest". Would possibly be classed as harassment though?

If free speech means anything then people like that scumbag need to have it.

The line was '... bit of drama', which is far more ambiguous: it could refer to intimidation rather than physical violence, or vandalism or simply to protest. I agree that free speech is relevant in this case, but given the silly things we've prosecuted in the past it will just be interesting how the police react to this far more serious case which was carried out by someone who is liable to have access to better PR people and legal representation than random facebook idiots.

Interesting claim by Griffin today that people have a "right to discriminate" - novel spin on human rights.

People do have a right to discriminate; governments do not.

In this country, people don't. At least employers and public venues etc don't.

I believe the same is the case in your nation too.

Yes, because of government overreach.

The governments reached that way for decades, in which nations is there a codified right for individuals to discriminate?

Governments have done plenty of objectionable things for decades.

So what you're really saying is you think it should be a right, but its not one recognised by anybody anywhere?

I.E. There are no liberal governments left in the world.

http://twitter.com/ComfortablySmug/s...253952/photo/1

"I'm so sorry I got caught trolling."

Man tricks media into reporting that the NYSE is flooded, among other lies. Is it comparable to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Is it protected speech?

Pretty close. It could go either way I think.

Candidate tricks media into covering an important campaign speech about the economy, wherein he outright lies about Jeep moving production to China. Is it comparable to yelling "FIRED" in a theater crowded with anxious auto workers? Is it protected speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Pretty close. It could go either way I think.

---

Shouldn't the media have figured it out first? And as they reported it...shouldn't they be the ones in deep doo doo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Shouldn't the media have figured it out first? And as they reported it...shouldn't they be the ones in deep doo doo?

---

They didn't intentionally mislead. The guy did.

Media misled by proxy, when they didn't follow-up and do their fact-checking. That's worse than some prick with an ego problem posting on Twitter.

Not from a legal angle, which is the angle we're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Not from a legal angle, which is the angle we're talking about.

---

The Fourth Estate has legal protections regarding free speech, but that doesn't apply to disseminating falsehoods posing as facts. They have a duty to fact-check that supercedes "average citizen" minimum standards. Twitter isn't really part of our "Press"....

I'm not even sure that the Twitter prick's posts were picked up by news agencies, and portrayed as "fact". Minx's post was the first I'd heard of it (the NYSE being flooded).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

http://twitter.com/ComfortablySmug/s...253952/photo/1

"I'm so sorry I got caught trolling."

Man tricks media into reporting that the NYSE is flooded, among other lies. Is it comparable to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Is it protected speech?

---

A guy who posts a non-stop stream of bullshit on Twitter (and isn't pretending to be posting the truth or clarifying his information sources) can't be held liable. The reporters who are recycling his garbage without doing any checks of their own are the real idiots here.

And it's shameful that one of the bloggers who was too lazy to double-check the stuff he was seeing on Twitter instead spent time and effort outing the guy behind the account and costing him his job and reputation: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jackstuef/th...rricane-sandys

I have major beefs with the journalistic obsession with Twitter, and this only adds fuel to the fuming fires of bullshit.

But now that we know who the guy is: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10...otionally.html :bulb:

:haha: OMG :picard:

This really concerns me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

Stuart Rodger sentenced for shouting at David Cameron

A man who shouted "no public sector cuts" at David Cameron during a speech in Glasgow has been ordered to carry out 100 hours of community service.

Stuart Rodger, 23, hid in a toilet at the Grand Central Hotel before bursting into a room where the prime minister was addressing Conservatives.

He was tackled by aides before being led away by Special Branch.

---

The public are no longer allowed to voice their disagreements with politicians?

I'm guessing there's more to the story than reported/its the third line he's in trouble for, shouting is allowed. Trespass and forcing your way in never has been. I'm reminded of the guy who got arrested for doing something similar to Murdoch.

The headline certainly states he was sentenced for shouting. The article doesn't give more detail than that.

Regardless, I seem to remember that transgressions of this sort were dealt with in the past by a ticking off by the police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

The headline certainly states he was sentenced for shouting. The article doesn't give more detail than that.

Regardless, I seem to remember that transgressions of this sort were dealt with in the past by a ticking off by the police.

---

Quote:

---

During an appearance at Glasgow Sheriff Court, the former Lib-Dem political activist admitted behaving in a threatening or abusive manner by violating a security cordon, shouting and failing to desist, attempting to approach Mr Cameron and causing fear and alarm.

---

He does however say that there wasn't much of a cordon. In this case it may indeed have been more of a case of "we know what you did last time so don't even try."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

The headline certainly states he was sentenced for shouting. The article doesn't give more detail than that.

Regardless, I seem to remember that transgressions of this sort were dealt with in the past by a ticking off by the police.

---

Full article now:

Quote:

---

Stuart Rodger sentenced for shouting at David Cameron
A man who shouted "no public sector cuts" at David Cameron during a speech in Glasgow has been ordered to carry out 100 hours of community service.
Stuart Rodger, 23, hid in a toilet at the Grand Central Hotel before bursting into a room where the prime minister was addressing Conservatives.
He was tackled by aides before being led away by Special Branch.
Rodger, from Fife, was previously fined £200 for hitting Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg with blue paint in Glasgow.
During an appearance at Glasgow Sheriff Court, the former Lib-Dem political activist admitted behaving in a threatening or abusive manner by violating a security cordon, shouting and failing to desist, attempting to approach Mr Cameron and causing fear and alarm.
He was handed a community payback order with the condition he has to carry out 100 hours of community service.
Security cordon
This was reduced from 150 because of his guilty plea.
Procurator fiscal depute John Slowey told the court Rodger hid in a toilet prior to making his entrance on 31 July.
It was heard he shouted "No ifs, not buts, no public sector cuts."
Mr Rodger's lawyer said the "security cordon" he got past was someone asking if he had a pass, and Mr Rodger had only gone a few metres into the room.
Rodger was previously fined £200 after breaching the peace by hitting Mr Clegg with blue paint during a visit to Glasgow earlier this year.

---

Passing security cordon's has always been an issue. For someone with a prior conviction to do it again the penalty normally increases.

Hmm yes it does seem like he did more than just shout.

Also, didn't the guy who "shouted" at Murdoch also try to throw a pie at him?