Man Jailed for 3 months over Facebook Jokes

[razer17]

I think it is good...

It serves as a deterrent for other people who think that mediums like the internet can be used to cause others hurt and misfortune...

I don't mind trolling... but I do mind when the comments are seriously aimed to hurt other people when they are already upset... hell... aimed to hurt anybody is horrible!

It is inconsiderate and generally horrible... so I am glad someone has been made an example of...

Also... Private page? This is the internet... there is no such thing!

The law shouldn't be about making examples of people, that's not what it is for.

OT: As for the case, I think it's ridiculous. Yes, he was being a dick, but if this is a prisonable offense then the already incredibly limited prison space is going to be decreasing quickly. For a start, everyone on Sickipedia is off to jail. Then everyone that text their mate a Maddy McCann or 9/11 joke would be off to prison if someone chose to report it.

Being a dick should earn you the disdain of the people who know you. It shouldn't get you prison time. And I am distinguishing these remarks to something like inciting racial hatred or something similar.

Edit - I've made some tasteless jokes in my time, should I be worried about the secret police coming for me? What happened to freedom of speech?

 

[verdant monkai]

Ok he is a dick head and made mean jokes, this does not mean he should go to prison.

Freedom of speech is obviously dead in Britain, anyone who gets offended by this sort of thing should get real. It is not as if he is somehow harming the girls chances of reappearing by making jokes.

 

[Scipio1770]

Honestly, with all the fuss, I kind of want to hear this joke.

 

[Tenbob]

OT: As for the case, I think it's ridiculous. Yes, he was being a dick, but if this is a prisonable offense then the already incredibly limited prison space is going to be decreasing quickly. For a start, everyone on Sickipedia is off to jail. Then everyone that text their mate a Maddy McCann or 9/11 joke would be off to prison if someone chose to report it.

Being a dick should earn you the disdain of the people who know you. It shouldn't get you prison time. And I am distinguishing these remarks to something like inciting racial hatred or something similar.

Edit - I've made some tasteless jokes in my time, should I be worried about the secret police coming for me? What happened to freedom of speech?

There's a difference between sending a text message to a group of friends and broadcasting that same message to many more people, especially where "public conduct" is concerned. At home joking with friends? There's no crime there. If you send a text message that others send on? That's out of your control. I think the current stance on Social media is that nothing posted there is "Private" but with rare exceptions.

I don't know how many times I need to bash this drum, but there are limits to freedom of Speech written into UK law, when it becomes gross, indecent, offensive or causes public outrage, that's where the line is crossed.

Not saying that prosecuting someone for posting on Facebook/Twitter isn't silly, but I do think people need to be more aware of what they are putting on those sites as they are a public arena of sorts.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Well remember it was an angry WHITE mob.

If there is a mob of angry non-white Muslims angry at a denigrating depiction of their prophet, you can make a safe bet which side the police will side on.

It's not a matter of offence, it is a matter of WHO is offended.

 

[razer17]

OT: As for the case, I think it's ridiculous. Yes, he was being a dick, but if this is a prisonable offense then the already incredibly limited prison space is going to be decreasing quickly. For a start, everyone on Sickipedia is off to jail. Then everyone that text their mate a Maddy McCann or 9/11 joke would be off to prison if someone chose to report it.

Being a dick should earn you the disdain of the people who know you. It shouldn't get you prison time. And I am distinguishing these remarks to something like inciting racial hatred or something similar.

Edit - I've made some tasteless jokes in my time, should I be worried about the secret police coming for me? What happened to freedom of speech?

There's a difference between sending a text message to a group of friends and broadcasting that same message to many more people, especially where "public conduct" is concerned. At home joking with friends? There's no crime there. If you send a text message that others send on? That's out of your control. I think the current stance on Social media is that nothing posted there is "Private" but with rare exceptions.

I don't know how many times I need to bash this drum, but there are limits to freedom of Speech written into UK law, when it becomes gross, indecent, offensive or causes public outrage, that's where the line is crossed.

Not saying that prosecuting someone for posting on Facebook/Twitter isn't silly, but I do think people need to be more aware of what they are putting on those sites as they are a public arena of sorts.

I'm not denying that what he said might be illegal (although the legal boundaries are incredibly fuzzy, since what is offensive could change from judge to judge), but the fact that it IS illegal is ridiculous. I hope he wins on appeal like the Robin Hood airport joke guy.

 

[dancinginfernal]

Well this is a horribly biased and inaccurate article.

The man wasn't arrested for speaking out, he was arrested for his own safety considering a mob of fifty people came to his home and went after him.

I swear, people believe anything you tell them if it's negative.

 

[Treblaine]

I don't know how many times I need to bash this drum, but there are limits to freedom of Speech written into UK law, when it becomes gross, indecent, offensive or causes public outrage, that's where the line is crossed.

We all know the law and you should know as well as everyone else that the law is not an absolute morality, the can can be and has been wrong in the past, it has been down right wicked.

"when it becomes gross, indecent, offensive"

Gross, indecent and offensive are entirely dependent not on a legal interpretation but the variation of individuals. The courts become slave to the mob.

And applied fairly and judiciously then the police need to arrest a LOT of people for drawing pictures of Prophet Muhammed or merely criticising him. Same with people who have insulted the Pope as well.

 

[nohorsetown]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was just a post on his own private page / wall / stream / timeline / whatever facebook is doing these days, right? If so, he wasn't trying to incite anyone or terrorize anyone - he just made a bad joke. Apparently the joke is too foul for the article to report, so we should just take their word for it.

An angry mob showed up at his house.. to do what, exactly? Politely express their disapproval?

Yahtzee makes some pretty foul jokes. Borderlands makes some pretty foul jokes. A lot of good comedians do, too. And they're putting those jokes out there, advertising them, and profiting from them. Much worse than this kid. Let's round 'em up. Down with thoughtcrime!

Also: c'mon everyone, delete your facebook profiles already. It's garbage.

 

[Vivi22]

I don't know how many times I need to bash this drum, but there are limits to freedom of Speech written into UK law, when it becomes gross, indecent, offensive or causes public outrage, that's where the line is crossed.

I'm not sure why you're continuing to bang that drum so to speak. The fact that what he did is illegal isn't even really in question. But there being a law against it does not mean that law is just or right, which is at the heart of this discussion.

Not saying that prosecuting someone for posting on Facebook/Twitter isn't silly, but I do think people need to be more aware of what they are putting on those sites as they are a public arena of sorts.

Absolutely, people should be aware that what they post is not private and if nothing else every single person on their friends list can see it. Still doesn't mean the government should be in the business of legislating it.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Why did they arrest him and not the mob that attacked him?

I read in The Times they initially "took him into custody for his own protection" and when the mob continued to be a threat they promptly decided he was the criminal and charged him after they lured him to the station saying they were taking him there to protect him.

Thanks for the explanation of the events. But this is the part I don't get. Charged him with what? That's a very odd thing to leave out. But as far as I can tell, the article does not say.

British Police, supposedly the best in the world, though this reminds me of history class where we learned about racism in America's deep south how an angry mob would demand revenge on one individual who offended them.

That was prejudiced cruelty on a different scale but the comparison is apt. I'm from Florida. Most of it is pretty cosmopolitan now, so people forget it was the lynching capital of the South at one time. Maybe that's why seeing this guy charged with a crime doesn't sit well with me at all. The dangers are within my cultural memory.

As offensive as any comments are, I'd say threatening someone so much that they have to be protected by the police is far more offensive. It is the definition of "offence" not the nebulous one of "I hear someone somewhere in the world wasn't duly deferential to the depressing issue".

This is why I like how freedom of speech is done here in the States. It creates our own set of problems but in theory American free speech is aggressively and intentionally anti-democratic. It means if the KKK wants to hold a rally, we can't stop them. But I think it's worth it.

 

[Vivi22]

It creates our own set of problems but in theory American free speech is aggressively and intentionally anti-democratic.

First up, I agree with pretty much everything you say, but I'm not so convinced on this one. A democracy is essentially a system in which everyone has an equal say (either through an equal vote, ability to petition government, etc.) in government matters which affect their lives. Freedom of speech is therefore an integral part of a democracy because it protects the rights of everyone to have their say free from government censure or coercion. It's the literal foundation of a democracy and without it no one is really free or equal under the law.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

It creates our own set of problems but in theory American free speech is aggressively and intentionally anti-democratic.

First up, I agree with pretty much everything you say, but I'm not so convinced on this one. A democracy is essentially a system in which everyone has an equal say (either through an equal vote, ability to petition government, etc.) in government matters which affect their lives. Freedom of speech is therefore an integral part of a democracy because it protects the rights of everyone to have their say free from government censure or coercion. It's the literal foundation of a democracy and without it no one is really free or equal under the law.

I agree with you, really. I think our only point of disagreement is in how I am using the word "democratic".

I would say freedom of speech is essential to any self-government. But freedom of speech is an inherently anti-democratic concept. Remember that while we often refer to certain governments as "democracies", they are not intended to be that in the strictest and simplest sense. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. In a simple democracy, I can make your speech a crime simply by convincing half the voters it should be a crime. In America we have laws to prevent exactly that. In that sense, freedom of speech is anti-democratic.

That doesn't mean freedom of speech isn't essential to a healthy self-government. I'm not against freedom of speech, I'm very much for it.

 

[Vivi22]

I agree with you, really. I think our only point of disagreement is in how I am using the word "democratic".

I would say freedom of speech is essential to any self-government. But freedom of speech is an inherently anti-democratic concept. Remember that while we often refer to certain governments as "democracies", they are not intended to be that in the strictest and simplest sense. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. In a simple democracy, I can make your speech a crime simply by convincing half the voters it should be a crime. In America we have laws to prevent exactly that from happening. In that sense, freedom of speech is anti-democratic.

That doesn't mean freedom of speech isn't essential to a healthy self-government. I'm not against freedom of speech, I'm very much for it.

Okay, I see where you're going with it. Basically free speech is protected against tyranny by the majority (actually, that's kind of the point of the whole constitution). I suppose in that sense it's undemocratic since a vote by the majority can't override it, but like you said, that really is a good thing. Without it the democratic system of government wouldn't function very well. I thought after I posted that you may have meant something along those lines so it's cool to see we're on the same page.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Why are people talking about free-speech? It not what he said, it's that what he said nearly started a riot. 50 people turned up at his house due to anger at his post, things would have kicked off if he wasn't arrested for his own safety. This is why the guy is being charged, it stops being free speech when your deliberately inflammatory comments incite violence.

 

[Nerexor]

This is utterly ridiculous. Yes, it was a tasteless and horrible thing to say, but last I checked the laws of the land do not apply to crimes of "oh no you didn't!" This is an absurd and dangerous precedent to be set and is nothing less than censorship of personal discourse (no matter how crude) by the government.

I can see him being taken into custody for his own protection, because the article mentions that people had tracked him down to his home, but there is no possible way to justify a prison sentence over a crude post on Facebook.

 

[Treblaine]

Why did they arrest him and not the mob that attacked him?

I read in The Times they initially "took him into custody for his own protection" and when the mob continued to be a threat they promptly decided he was the criminal and charged him after they lured him to the station saying they were taking him there to protect him.

Thanks for the explanation of the events. But this is the part I don't get. Charged him with what? That's a very odd thing to leave out. But as far as I can tell, the article does not say.

British Police, supposedly the best in the world, though this reminds me of history class where we learned about racism in America's deep south how an angry mob would demand revenge on one individual who offended them.

That was prejudiced cruelty on a different scale but the comparison is apt. I'm from Florida. Most of it is pretty cosmopolitan now, so people forget it was the lynching capital of the South at one time. Maybe that's why seeing this guy charged with a crime doesn't sit well with me at all. The dangers are within my cultural memory.

As offensive as any comments are, I'd say threatening someone so much that they have to be protected by the police is far more offensive. It is the definition of "offence" not the nebulous one of "I hear someone somewhere in the world wasn't duly deferential to the depressing issue".

This is why I like how freedom of speech is done here in the States. It creates our own set of problems but in theory American free speech is aggressively and intentionally anti-democratic. It means if the KKK wants to hold a rally, we can't stop them. But I think it's worth it.

I don't think the KKK can be cited as an example against freedom of speech.

For example KKK gatherings are forced to NOT incite violence or else they will be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime.

You don't need special exceptions to freedom of speech, you just need to enforce other laws that protect people from being victimised by another. It doesn't matter how a mob boss orders an assassin to murder an informant, he's just as guilty whether he uses speech, gestures, written message, as long as his orders are made clear HE is as responsible for the murder as the assassin he got the do the job for him.

The thing is silencing groups by force doesn't remove them, only forces them underground. But on the surface prevented from doing direct harm, that's better. There is an issue of obscenity, but obscenity is entirely and issue of public or private, an elderly married couple don't have to worry about whether someone watching would like to see them bump uglies, it doesn't matter. The match with obscenity and Freedom of Speech is you cannot force people to watch obscene things and I don't mean "well just don't look or don't use public facilities that are supposed to be available for all". But obscene things are not banned outright, they are only banned in so much as you can't broadcast them everywhere, that they need to be sought out. And have no doubt KKK is a special type of obscenity, morally obscene rather than graphically obscene as old people sex might be.

I think Freedom Of Speech is a perfect example of how democratic it is BY THE VERY EXAMPLE of allowing KKK rallies: the system is not prejudiced.

Democracy ultimately trusts in the people to do the right thing, that even if you allow KKK rallies that alone will not turn the entire population to evil. That if both the KKK and the Civil Rights movement get their fair opportunity to say then the people will make the right choice... not by forcing their hand, not by censoring opinions.

And that HAS happened in America's south, After the Civil Rights movement were able to exercise their Freedom of Speech and make their case the PEOPLE drove the KKK out of power with their votes.

That is the happy ending the long and often tragic story of America's deep south, it didn't end with a totalitarian regime forcing change on an unwilling a heartless population, the Civil Rights movement won the moral argument and it won over evil not with more evil.

The fact that the KKK can assemble in America yet are not in power is something for Americans to be proud of: Freedom, Democracy and Morality prevailed - in the end - over oppression and evil.

I'm not saying there aren't any racist in America, but they were defeated in the best way they could be.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I don't think the KKK can be cited as an example against freedom of speech.

For example KKK gatherings are forced to NOT incite violence or else they will be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime.

You don't need special exceptions to freedom of speech, you just need to enforce other laws that protect people from being victimised by another. It doesn't matter how a mob boss orders an assassin to murder an informant, he's just as guilty whether he uses speech, gestures, written message, as long as his orders are made clear HE is as responsible for the murder as the assassin he got the do the job for him.

The thing is silencing groups by force doesn't remove them, only forces them underground. But on the surface prevented from doing direct harm, that's better. There is an issue of obscenity, but obscenity is entirely and issue of public or private, an elderly married couple don't have to worry about whether someone watching would like to see them bump uglies, it doesn't matter. The match with obscenity and Freedom of Speech is you cannot force people to watch obscene things and I don't mean "well just don't look or don't use public facilities that are supposed to be available for all". But obscene things are not banned outright, they are only banned in so much as you can't broadcast them everywhere, that they need to be sought out. And have no doubt KKK is a special type of obscenity, morally obscene rather than graphically obscene as old people sex might be.

I think Freedom Of Speech is a perfect example of how democratic it is BY THE VERY EXAMPLE of allowing KKK rallies: the system is not prejudiced.

Democracy ultimately trusts in the people to do the right thing, that even if you allow KKK rallies that alone will not turn the entire population to evil. That if both the KKK and the Civil Rights movement get their fair opportunity to say then the people will make the right choice... not by forcing their hand, not by censoring opinions.

And that HAS happened in America's south, After the Civil Rights movement were able to exercise their Freedom of Speech and make their case the PEOPLE drove the KKK out of power with their votes.

That is the happy ending the long and often tragic story of America's deep south, it didn't end with a totalitarian regime forcing change on an unwilling a heartless population, the Civil Rights movement won the moral argument and it won over evil not with more evil.

The fact that the KKK can assemble in America yet are not in power is something for Americans to be proud of: Freedom, Democracy and Morality prevailed - in the end - over oppression and evil.

I'm not saying there aren't any racist in America, but they were defeated in the best way they could be.

I may have said the wrong thing. I agree with everything you are saying. I'm not against free speech, I am it's strongest proponent. Say you are and we'll get in a fight.

All I meant was, in America, even the most vile content of speech is protected, and it should be. Obscenity aside, it's a weird case. Even the views of the KKK aren't "obscene" in a legal sense, as it pertains to American constitutional law. I just say that to avoid confusion. Inciting violence is a different matter. It is very tempting to prevent the views of the KKK from being expressed at all. But we don't, and we don't even send them to jail when an angry mob attacks them. There is usually some variation of the theme of censoring abhorrent speech being kicked around the Supreme Court, waiting to be rejected. The majority finds the speech abhorrent and wants it to be prevented, censored or punished. Typically the only people who need the protection of our First Amendment are those who the majority view as enemies. We all benefit from free speech, but that is exactly who really needs it, the minority.

"The fact that the KKK can assemble in America yet are not in power is something for Americans to be proud of: Freedom, Democracy and Morality prevailed - in the end - over oppression and evil."

Well put, that is what I was trying to say. They can assemble, and I don't like that. But free speech is worth it.

As for my use of the term "anti-democractic", I still think it is appropriate. Another way of saying "the system is not prejudiced" is "the system is not democratic". I am referring to "democracy" in it's basest and most simplistic form. If you took a vote of the population, they would probably vote not to allow KKK rallies to proceed. But we don't allow that vote to be taken. That is why I call free speech (and basically anything an American would call a "right") anti-democratic. Even if I am the only person in the world who doesn't think I belong in prison for the content of my speech, I still can't be put in jail. That is anti-democratic, and that's a good thing. I don't want a mob to decide my fate and western countries typically have laws to prevent exactly that.

That is not an endorsement of censorship or oligarchical rule. It is simply to state that free speech protects the minority from the majority.

Why are people talking about free-speech? It not what he said, it's that what he said nearly started a riot. 50 people turned up at his house due to anger at his post, things would have kicked off if he wasn't arrested for his own safety. This is why the guy is being charged, it stops being free speech when your deliberately inflammatory comments incite violence.

Deliberately inflammatory comments =/= inciting violence.