Man Jailed for 3 months over Facebook Jokes

[Treblaine]

A person may speak freely publicly, as long as they do not break any other laws.

No shit. The law says not to break the law.

Or is it that if someone am accused of ANY crime... then their Freedom Of Speech is void??!? That is the one time when they need it MOST to defend their case!

You could liken it to saying the same thing, but over a megaphone in the streets

No. More like speaking quietly amongst friends and some outside agent copies what you've said and repeats it publicly. Remember, facebook is extremely obscure and deceptive about what is public and what is private, this is like a joke amongst your friends being published by one of your traitorous friend selling the story to a tabloid.

The family and friends of the bereaved WOULD NEVER EVEN HAVE KNOWN OF THESE COMMENTS had people not made a huge fuss about them. They were made hundreds of miles away from where the crime was committed.

How different is this REALLY from the whole "drawings of Muhammed" anger? We tell the Muslims far away that they need to be tolerant of freedom of speech even if it offends them to the very core of their existence... but clearly our courts are hypocrites.

Frankly "inciting hatred" should be prosecuted under conspiracy laws, as a violent riot or other "direct action" is a crime if you are inciting it then you are guilty of conspiracy whether you do it in a private back room or at an open rally, one is only worse than the other by the breadth of the conspiracy.

And if you can't get them for conspiracy because they are shouting in the street for with no one agreeing with them, then you can get them for disturbing the peace.

So agree or disagree you can get them for the EFFECT of their words directly leading to crimes, not the words themselves. Like how if a mob boss verbally ask an assassin to kill an informant, that is not protected by freedom of speech.

 

[WoW Killer]

Jailtime isn't the worst consequence of posting offensive comments on Facebook. These days employers will check stuff like that out before offering you a job. Posting anything on the internet with your real name attached is something you need to be really careful about, and that's something the Facebook generation hasn't cottoned on to yet. It doesn't help that Facebook's privacy policies lean towards the ambiguous.

So while I don't think such comments should ever justify a criminal sentence, if it teaches people a little bit of sense then so be it.

 

[xDarc]

Thank god I live in 'merica and not the UK.

I understand where people who want to put these chavs and street urchins behind bars for their minor offenses are coming from; UK youth are literally a lost generation it would seem and leading to your nation's doom...

But becoming oppressive and enforcing good taste and respect by law is only going to work against you.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

I fucking KNEW this was from the UK! Remember, we tried to arrest someone else for joking about blowing up some airport for the poor service.

Although I have no idea what he said, I honestly don't care. You can't have freedom of speech if someone is arrested simply because he hurt other peoples feelings.
So what if it upset people? Don't they know what that little 'x' sign in the corner of the page is for?

Seriously, who the hell calls the police based on a Facebook post??

 

[Zombiefish]

Now I want to know what the joke was...

As many others have said, someone getting jail time for a joke is flat wrong. It doesn't matter how bad the joke was.

Ive posted the joke already on an earlier page of this topic.
He did make other comments on his facebook page however this was the particular joke that one of his friends print screened and posted to a 'find april' facebook page and therefore the one that led to his arrest.

I dont wanna repeat the joke as technically i can be arrested for doing so

 

[AngloDoom]

Frankie Boyle, as many people have pointed out, has made much worse jokes than this on national television in a way that practically ensures those involved will, at least, hear the joke.

Frankie Boyle, in case you hadn't noticed, doesn't get to on national television anymore.

that was over a joke on mock the week about the queen being so old she had cobwebs in her fanny...

if you go see him live now he tries to come up with a joke that will ensure his permanent retirement from mainstream "show-bushiness".

Of course, but he was removed from that job by producers and and not police officers. Frankie Boyle, at least to my knowledge, didn't come under fire from the law for his jokes.
It's the difference between leaving a party because no-one wants you there and being forcibly removed - surely, Frankie's jokes on national television were even more public than on one person's Facebook page, so you'd expect and equal if not greater punishment.

That's what I don't get in all of this, the seeming lack of standardised punishment.

 

[Sebass]

It's not prosecuting people for bad humour, it's prosecution people for breaking the law, specifically the 2003 Communication Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)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.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he-

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

Wow, this law actually exists and it's is fucking stupid.

"grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"

Completely subjective.

"Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service"

Even worse. You can say whatever the fuck you want if you're on national TV but say the same thing on your own personal facebook profile and you get charged.

 

[Tenbob]

No. More like speaking quietly amongst friends and some outside agent copies what you've said and repeats it publicly. Remember, facebook is extremely obscure and deceptive about what is public and what is private, this is like a joke amongst your friends being published by one of your traitorous friend selling the story to a tabloid.

The family and friends of the bereaved WOULD NEVER EVEN HAVE KNOWN OF THESE COMMENTS had people not made a huge fuss about them. They were made hundreds of miles away from where the crime was committed.

How different is this REALLY from the whole "drawings of Muhammed" anger? We tell the Muslims far away that they need to be tolerant of freedom of speech even if it offends them to the very core of their existence... but clearly our courts are hypocrites.

Frankly "inciting hatred" should be prosecuted under conspiracy laws, as a violent riot or other "direct action" is a crime if you are inciting it then you are guilty of conspiracy whether you do it in a private back room or at an open rally, one is only worse than the other by the breadth of the conspiracy.

And if you can't get them for conspiracy because they are shouting in the street for with no one agreeing with them, then you can get them for disturbing the peace.

Again, it depends on information we don't have. If the guy has 300 people that are able to see everything he posts, that's not speaking quietly with friends, that's actually a very open and public communication which is where this grey area comes in. The BBC article doesn't give us the information which is something that would have been considered in court.

I repeat- the UK (And a large part of Europe) does not enshrine freedom of speech anywhere near as much as the USA does- it is valued, but there are limits between "Freedom of Speech" and speech that may incite or disturb the peace. As much as I hate using Wikipedia as a source, you can see it as much here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

 

[Vivi22]

I repeat- the UK (And a large part of Europe) does not enshrine freedom of speech anywhere near as much as the USA does- it is valued, but there are limits between "Freedom of Speech" and speech that may incite or disturb the peace. As much as I hate using Wikipedia as a source, you can see it as much here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

And that's kind of the problem here though because laws like this shouldn't exist. Unless speech could be reasonably believed to lead to actual physical harm (such as making a threat) it shouldn't be restricted by government ever. In fact, I'd flat out argue that any government which restricts speech doesn't value free speech at all, even if they might want people to believe otherwise.

 

[Smeatza]

I say we turn this thread into an April Jones jokes thread.
Let's see how many of us get arrested.

I'll give you a hint - none, because the British police are that lazy they'll only go after people who have already provided their full name, a photograph and probably don't have good solicitors.

Don't believe me? then why is Kenneth Tong not in jail?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/09/kenneth-tong-tweets-gary-barlow-baby-stillborn_n_1759341.html
I'll tell you why, because he has money.

I love black/dark humour and to think I might be arrested and thrown in jail for that is sickening.

 

[Treblaine]

No. More like speaking quietly amongst friends and some outside agent copies what you've said and repeats it publicly. Remember, facebook is extremely obscure and deceptive about what is public and what is private, this is like a joke amongst your friends being published by one of your traitorous friend selling the story to a tabloid.

The family and friends of the bereaved WOULD NEVER EVEN HAVE KNOWN OF THESE COMMENTS had people not made a huge fuss about them. They were made hundreds of miles away from where the crime was committed.

How different is this REALLY from the whole "drawings of Muhammed" anger? We tell the Muslims far away that they need to be tolerant of freedom of speech even if it offends them to the very core of their existence... but clearly our courts are hypocrites.

Frankly "inciting hatred" should be prosecuted under conspiracy laws, as a violent riot or other "direct action" is a crime if you are inciting it then you are guilty of conspiracy whether you do it in a private back room or at an open rally, one is only worse than the other by the breadth of the conspiracy.

And if you can't get them for conspiracy because they are shouting in the street for with no one agreeing with them, then you can get them for disturbing the peace.

Again, it depends on information we don't have. If the guy has 300 people that are able to see everything he posts, that's not speaking quietly with friends, that's actually a very open and public communication which is where this grey area comes in. The BBC article doesn't give us the information which is something that would have been considered in court.

I repeat- the UK (And a large part of Europe) does not enshrine freedom of speech anywhere near as much as the USA does- it is valued, but there are limits between "Freedom of Speech" and speech that may incite or disturb the peace. As much as I hate using Wikipedia as a source, you can see it as much here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

But does he even know how many could read what he posted? Facebook quietly and confusingly change public-ness of it's network always, many of its "private" chats are deliberately public. Remember, just because people can come in and listen doesn't mean it is forced into the faces of hundreds of people. That's not a broadcast or shouting in the streets, that's like writing a letter correspondence and leaving the letters in a public place that anyone can read them.

But the UK talked so much of Freedom of Speech when defending the publication of that is offensive to other cultures.

Is Freedom of Speech in Europe nothing but code-word for "Establishment Supported Speech"?

 

[DarkishFriend]

I believe the joke he was arrested for was 'whats the difference between mark ( the father) and santa? Mark comes in April (the kid)

I'm going straight to hell, that made me laugh so hard I spit my drink up.

 

[Friendly Lich]

This is truly terrifying, liberty is dying in its birth place.

 

[randomsix]

Censorship is banning steak because a baby can't chew it. Good show, England.

 

[MrBenSampson]

So Woods says something non-threatening on the internet and then an agry mob went to his house because they were offended, possibly with the desire to cause harm to Woods, and Woods was the one who was charged? Reguardless of how many people are offended, it should not be illegal to offend people.

I wonder what would have happened if that "Innocence of Muslims" video was made in the UK.

 

[Khazoth]

The words of Jean-Luc Picard would be applicable here no matter what he said. When you draw a line in the sand of what is and is not okay to say, then you've set a very dangerous precedent. Sooner or later the line will move, and move, and move, and in the end what will be left that will be okay to say? I leave the video itself here below. I personally don't even care what he said, I don't know what it was but unless he's the dragonborn he didn't hurt anything other then sensibilities.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70

 

[Tenbob]

So Woods says something non-threatening on the internet and then an agry mob went to his house because they were offended, possibly with the desire to cause harm to Woods, and Woods was the one who was charged? Reguardless of how many people are offended, it should not be illegal to offend people.

I wonder what would have happened if that "Innocence of Muslims" video was made in the UK.

That's the thing, though, the people might have been there to cause harm to Woods, but neither destruction of property nor harm (or even threats) to Woods occurred. Even if the fifty had INTENT to cause harm or destruction, there'd need to be witnesses stepping forward to say as much. Either that or a Facebook fan page announcing the lynching of the guy. Also, don't overlook the fact that the comments had been reported to the police also. Again, a lack of information in the article is inconclusive as to the level of outrage caused by the comments, but there you go.

Woods, who is unemployed, was arrested for his own safety on Saturday night and remanded in custody ahead of his appearance in court.

Chorley magistrates heard members of the public were so upset about his posts they reported them to the police.

About 50 people went to his home. He was arrested at a separate address.