18 ms·
Man found guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ tweet
- t8y 5y agoI don't get how the UK has the tabloid culture while having a completely deranged legal system. Wouldn't anyone who has been in one be able to sue? Why does the USA have so much less(Obviously it has some) when their free speech laws are much tighter?
- hahajk 5y agoWhy does the caption of the picture say "Captain Tom: Man guilty of 'offensive' Tweets"? He's the target of the tweet not the one guilty of it, correct?
- atdrummond 5y agoCorrect - I'd assume sites are more worried about what A/B tested title delivers the most clicks than whether they're using the most accurate/comprehensible title.
- bqmjjx0kac 5y agoI had a very hard time comprehending the first few paragraphs after starting with the photo!
- kisamoto 5y agoI would imagine it's to stir a bit of an emotional response. Captain Tom is revered by plenty in the UK so by prefixing your title with his name you're likely to get more click-throughs.
- young_unixer 5y ago
- vxNsr 5y agoThe thing I didn’t understand is that the NHS is a gov institution, why are people donating any money to it at all? Do ppl volunteer money to Social Security? Or Medicare?
- scarby2 5y agogovernment institution/national treasure/religion/cult. it's kinda like Americans donate money to schools, despite the fact that they are supposed to be properly funded by the government. The NHS is basically on the brink of collapse at the best of times both due to chronic underfunding and chronic inefficiency. Also i realize it's not at all uncommon for Americans to donate to hospitals either.
- vxNsr 5y agoPeople donate to their local schools, their local hospitals, but no one donates to the DoE or the CDC or the FDA.
- lupire 5y agoThe UK is smaller than some states.
- boeingUH60 5y agoTikTok donated $15 million to the CDC in 2020, when the pandemic was in full effect https://www.cdcfoundation.org/blog/public-health-week-tiktok-donates-15-million-support-frontline-public-health-workers-coronavirus https://www.cdcfoundation.org/blog/public-health-week-tiktok...
- vxNsr 5y agoThis was more about buying political favor than giving money to the CDC
- bennyelv 5y agoAs British citizen this confuses me too. If the NHS needs more money, we all need to pay more taxes to pay for it. Donating money to a government department is just weird.
- DanBC 5y agoIt's a bit complicated. People tend not to give money to "The NHS", but to their local hospitals. So his money hasn't gone to "The NHS", it went to the charitable funding posts of lots of these provider organisations. If you're asking why those provider orgs don't have the money they need the answer is simple: we've had ten years of governments that thing the NHS should do more for less.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago[Scotland]
- dboreham 5y agoThe stv.tv part would have been a clue.
- EdwardDiego 5y agoOnly a clue if you're already aware of STV as a Scottish tv station. Let's break it down. 1) .tv is Tuvalu. 2) STV is a voting system.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago2) STV is a sexually transmitted votes. A life, if you prefer. /s
- npteljes 5y agoSTV is Stranglethorn Valley for me.
- xanaxagoras 5y agoNot to me
- yucky 5y ago.tv = Scotland?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- PeterisP 5y agoFor me the initial random association was that STV might mean Singapore TV. The clarification about Scotland is useful, certainly STV.tv is not sufficient to assume Scotland out of all the other possible places even if you know that it's a TV station.
- ratsmack 5y agoIt is a sad state of affairs when we're litigating offending tweets.
- duxup 5y agoI think a threat of violence or something could be worthwhile. But “grossly offensive”, man that’s absurd.
- capableweb 5y agoAbsolutely, we should not hold back in punishing people who are threatening violence against others, or otherwise try to get other people to commit acts of violence. But that someone tweeting “the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn” is guilty of anything besides being lame, is beyond what I can understand. It seems like this is about something more than just being "grossly offensive", did this somehow make someone in the military upset or something? Surely it can't be illegal to be offensive now can it? > The 72-year-old [Janet Hunter Jess], whose family served in the armed forces, said: “To see someone wishing British soldiers dead, it still hurts me. It still hurts me that anybody would disrespect someone that had given their live for the country.” > Ms Jeffrey, 51, stated: “First of all, the gentleman in question had done so much to raise awareness and funds for the NHS in England and became a bit of a national hero at the time, but then the fact it referred to British soldiers as well. It seems indeed this is more about that people in the military, or related to those with people in the military, was offended by the tweet. I wonder if the irony around that this fellow fought in the second world war for freedom of speech for everyone is hitting any of these people offended at the tweet.
- version_five 5y agoThe judges explanation makes the ruling sound even more ridiculous This is a man who had become known as a national hero, who stood for the resilience of the people of a country struggling with a pandemic and the services trying to protect them.
- jackvalentine 5y ago
- booleandilemma 5y ago“burn auld fella buuuuurn” Was he found guilty of excessive “u” usage as well? We should probably be conserving vowels during a pandemic.
- rubyist5eva 5y agooffensive speech is the only free speech
- version_five 5y agoMaybe your comment was misunderstood. This is absolutely correct, freedom of speech is not freedom to say things that make everyone happy
- umvi 5y agoThere is no equivalent to the first amendment in the United Kingdom, hence, a person being jailed for a tweet
- Jon_Lowtek 5y agothere is the Human Rights Act in the UK, but it includes rather vague limits to the freedom of expression like "protection of morals" among others.
- raxxorrax 5y agoFreedom of speech is a principle that nothing to do with laws at all at first. It is always an essential component of scientific inquiry for example. It is not optional here. There is also the freedom of association, so you do not have to associate with people whose opinion you don't like. Many countries have laws that disallow you to disturb the public order. These are old laws that aren't based on any principle aside authority, vanity and perhaps a little practicability in some situations. They should be improved. Blasphemy is illegal in my country. This law was not applied for decades and is therefore more or less invalid. It just hasn't been deprecated because laws do so very slowly without much incentives for public officials. So basically blasphemy is legal now. I would argue with the inception of the net and internet comments, offensive speech is legal too.
- dane-pgp 5y agoOr, to put it another way: The principle of "freedom of speech" only exists to protect offensive speech, because speech that no one found offensive wouldn't need protection.
- donkarma 5y agogood to know you're not allowed to say mean things on the Internet in the UK
- Gigachad 5y agoFeel free to run around london with a knife or push people on to the tracks at stations though. The police are busy dealing with real crime like upsetting tweets.
- bufferoverflow 5y agoYou are, as long as it aligns with the party line.
- bb123 5y agoMeanwhile the police are solving the lowest number of crimes on record: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/burglars-go-unpunished-with-only-5-of-cases-solved-sk0p0wjmv https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/burglars-go-unpunished-wi... Less than 5% of burglaries are being solved, and some places less than 1 in 30 crimes reach court. Perhaps policing mean tweets is not the best use of our limited law enforcement resources?
- version_five 5y agoI don't know, making up easy to clear crimes and then solving them seems to be a pretty common MO. If they want to up their stats they are likely to do more of this.
- capableweb 5y agoWe've already fucked up the idea behind metrics in the SaaS world and now every company is chasing just making people active on their platform instead of solving real problem, why not replicate the same success in the afk world? Low amount of solved crimes? Make it illegal to be offensive on Twitter and suddenly lots of crimes gets solved. If you use the wrong metric then people will game it. Now watch governments do the same.
- monkeybutton 5y agoThe stats aren't going to juke themselves!
- bb88 5y agoTo be fair, I thought SaaS metrics learned this from government, not the other way around.
- wisemang 5y agoThis didn’t start with SaaS. I know the Reply All podcast has fallen out of favor but give this episode a listen: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2hx34/ https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2hx34/
- junon 5y agoReminds me of Count Dankula, the guy who dressed his dog up like hitler and got arrested for it.
- tombert 5y agoI thought he taught a dog to do a Nazi salute whenever someone said "gas the Jews", so I think slightly worse than just dressing it up. I still think it's ridiculous he got in trouble for it though.
- throw_m239339 5y ago> I thought he taught a dog to do a Nazi salute whenever someone said "gas the Jews", so I think slightly worse than just dressing it up. It was a(n amateurish) skit. The Monty Python did worse, did he need an authorization for that or something? This is getting ridiculous and the trial was a farce itself, with real life consequences. Neither should have a record of any kind of doing what they did. Praise the first Amendment, the kind of liberalism European governments strangely aren't in a hurry to copy...
- bitwize 5y agoPopehat's Law of Goats applies.
- collegeburner 5y agoIt's not a "law", it's often misused as a cheap way to attack things that are obvious satire. Like here, being edgy (even in bad taste) does not make someone an actual nazi. Of course even if they were an actual nazi that should still be protected.
- oh_sigh 5y agoPoetically, the only other dog that I know of which learned the Nazi salute was absolutely despised by the Nazis, and they went out of their way to try to find the dog, using a lot of resources that could have been more efficiently used gassing innocent families. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/world/europe/12nazi.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/world/europe/12nazi.html
- tus666 5y ago
- version_five 5y agoYou can have an illiberal democracy. Democracy is about the will of the people, which can be very especially illiberal, because in a majority rules situation the minority's view doesn't matter. Liberal democracies have strong constitutions or similar norms that prevent tyrannies of the majority.
- LegitShady 5y agoIf the will of the people can be silenced for being offensive to those in power, there can be no valid democracy because there are people who literally cannot present their opinion to see it fairly represented. How many times do we see tyrants 'elected' with 100% of the vote in 'democracies'? Do they count as democracies?
- friedturkey 5y agoI don’t think any country that charges people for such lamely crass jokes as this can reasonably criticize North Korea for their lack of free speech. The only difference is the severity of the consequence, for now.
- kingcharles 5y agoMany Western nations condemn nations for things they themselves have a bad record on. USA condemns Middle-Eastern states for child marriage, yet has states with no minimum age for marriage.
- kjeetgill 5y agoThat ... Seems pretty drastic. I think it's silly to find the guy guilty too, but the degrees aren't nothing. > The only difference is the severity of the consequence, for now. So the only difference is most all of it.
- FpUser 5y ago>"I think it's silly to find the guy guilty too" Not just that. They will also sentence him. Sorry it is not silly, it is a crime in my eyes to deprive human from freedom for the things like that. Sure it is not NK. And it will probable never be. But turning into some China like version of social credit system is definitely a possibility with the way things are going. So what would be our arguments then - we do not burn people alive?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kaashif 5y agoThe saddest thing to me is that most people in the UK don't care about this. The only free speech that actually needs protection is offensive speech, and no group of people or political party would go near any of this stuff. The only chance any of this stuff could be reformed is off the back of a party with a huge majority ramming it through without much discussion or input from the public. Which is to say it could happen, but it won't be any kind of vote winner or manifesto promise. And it wouldn't be very democratic.
- StanislavPetrov 5y agoThis is the inevitable result of rejecting the principle of free speech.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kingcharles 5y ago
- boomboomsubban 5y ago>To see someone wishing British soldiers dead, it still hurts me. While I wish for no one's death, being hurt that someone hates professional killers is ridiculous. The hero worship of soldiers needs to end.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jterrys 5y agoReminds me of that "War is a Racket" essay that was posted here a few days ago: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html A trillion dollars wasted in a World War lined the pockets of a few thousand people, that at the end, urged the government to intervene because 'the allies' were about to lose the war and wouldn't be able to repay their loans.
- tasha0663 5y ago> Smedley Darlington Butler You could grow a mustache just from saying that out loud.
- boomboomsubban 5y agoBut not a Hitler stache, Butler did not support fascists. (He also only seemed to have a mustache as a teenager)
- prawn 5y agoThere's a scene in the Australian show Mr Inbetween where the main character, a hitman, is being interviewed by someone writing a "true crime" book. She asks him if he feels remorse, if he has concern for those left behind by the hits: typically, the wives and children of the criminals he eliminates. The show to that point has made clear that his grievances are only with criminals/abusers/bullies. He mentions that the interviewer knows his army history and he observes that no one asks about the families of people he's killed while a soldier. He was instead awarded medals for such behaviour.
- DarkmSparks 5y agoIt's actually funny - that they think finding someone "guilty" of being offensive does anything other than bring the entire court system into disrepute. Sorry you couldn't feed your kids last Christmas, we just _had_ to spend all your taxes on judges and solicitors to put people in prison if they do something grossly offensive - like fart in public.
- magicjosh 5y agoCheck out all the witnesses they brought in. What a waste of life force.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- magicjosh 5y ago"the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn"
- singularity2001 5y agoIn Germany you are not even allowed to print "Soldiers are murderers" on your T-shirt, which makes me angry every time I think about it. How about "historically and statistically soldiers have a tendency to be rapists, torturers and manslaughterers"?
- vintermann 5y ago" 1. Assuming that under a just war theory, a just war can AT MOST be just for one of the warring sides 2. big armies aren't any more likely to fight just wars than small armies We can conclude that if you're a soldier in a war, there's a better than even chance that it is unjust, and deserters are on average more honorable than soldiers." Admittedly less catchy.
- krick 5y agoWhat I find the most remarkable about this thing is that if you dismiss the spelling and the overall style of it, it is kind of valid political statement that some people could totally relate to. Which is to prove once more, that modern Britain or USA or whatever else is essentially no different from the demonized images of "totalitarian Russia" or Third Reich, NK... — pick your favorite. And it's pretty much always been like that, sometimes a bit colder, sometimes a bit hotter.
- mlyle 5y ago> that modern Britain or USA or whatever else is essentially no different from the demonized images of "totalitarian Russia" or Third Reich, NK.. Uh, there's a matter of degree. In the US, that'd be protected political speech. The most one could expect is scorn. The UK may have a lesser speech protection than the US, but still a much broader set of political speech is allowed than in Russia or NK.
- mxkopy 5y agoProbably a hot take, but I think this is a good thing. The line between political censorship and censorship in general is not as fine as everyone seems to think. For example, many people who aren't okay with political censorship are okay with the government censoring porn for underage children. How are we going to deter assholish behavior from people who are out of their parents' and probably have no friends? I don't think jail time is the right answer, but at that point the government is the only real entity with the ability/right to correct their behavior.
- xanaxagoras 5y agoI don't think it's society's job to engineer the non-violent and non-criminal behavior of its members but one thing that comes to mind to try: working to build a society that's worth their constructive participation rather than one where speaking their minds lands them in custody. Not to mention your position is incredibly myopic. If the government defines offense then what you're suggesting is basically a system where offense is conjured up to censor on behalf of the party that currently enjoys power. This may target your enemies today, but your friends tomorrow.
- mxkopy 5y agoAny society of sufficient size will attract trolls who don't care about the worth of the society. I think politics and government are intertwined as a matter of history, not as a matter of inevitable fact. Political rivals can disagree and use systems to disenfranchise one another, but they can also agree on some norms of decency (in an ideal world these would align with their constituents, but as a matter of history they tend to be the norms of some established elite). If you want to call my position myopic, look at Jan 6th and what the lack of censorship had done then. There is plenty of harm caused by deliberately not censoring some things, as it gives a chance for malicious groups to grow. What I think is myopic is the overall attitude "censorship bad, free speech good." It's incredibly individualistic and could only exist in the experiment that is the U.S. Also: the line between nonviolent and violent behavior is, as all other lines, fairly blurry. Do we censor attempts to incite riots under free speech? If so, why do we not also censor statements that promote a culture of hating society?
- FpUser 5y agoThat's a start. Give them a bit of time and they'll start prosecuting people for "offensive" comments about government. Fucking kangaroo court.
- Terry_Roll 5y agoI find it really offensive how people who served as a govt employee gets lauded by the state and media. Its just stealth nationalism and then they wonder why the far right get emboldened? I find the desperation in this what-uppity to be appalling and contemptuous because ego boosting medals, media recognition is worse than a decent wage.
- 1MachineElf 5y agoI wonder what penalties will be levied during sentencing.
- newsbinator 5y agoThe punishment should fit the crime: people should write grossly offensive tweets about the guilty party for a week or so.
- selfhifive 5y agoAnd trash his job.
- femiagbabiaka 5y agoMore than a bit ironic that this happened the day after the anniversary of bloody sunday.
- boomboomsubban 5y agoThe man who tweeted is named Joseph Kelly, there's a fairly good chance his dislike of British soldiers is connected to things like Bloody Sunday.
- bradwood 5y agoIndeed. It's nothing to do with Germans and Nazis. This guy's is probably some kind of militant Catholic/IRA type.
- throwaway22032 5y agoIf I actually used Twitter I'd have to do it with some sort of addon that just randomly posted absurd tweets. Maybe I'd distribute it. If we're all in prison, none of us are in prison, is that how it works?
- krick 5y agoI really doubt this is a valid philosophical concept. Of course, almost anything can be correct as long as you redefine the word "prison" accordingly, but still, being prohibited of leaving your cell/home/visiting a grocery store w/o a QR-code/saying things on the internet are objective realities, regardless of them applying only to you or to everyone else as well. So, yeah, I guess it does work like that, but only as long as other people changing their definition of a "prison" is enough for you to feel free again.
- throwaway22032 5y agoIf everyone posts "offensive" tweets then there is no basis for singling out an individual to jail them. I'm not literally arguing that if the entire population are physically in prison then they are free.
- jenscow 5y agoSure, it's not a very nice thing to say. However, if this tweet is the one that makes you "grossly offended", then you've lived a very sheltered life, and should perhaps limit your internet usage. I suspect the majority of people involved in this case would agree, however none of them wanted to admit the emperor is wearing no clothes.
- collegeburner 5y agoThe problem is not that people are offended. It's that offense is a crime.
- raxxorrax 5y agoI believe the person who made the offensive tweet is living a sheltered life. Nevertheless it should not lead to persecution.
- baskethead 5y agoI'm unfamiliar with UK Law... Is this actually a court of law or was this done through the Sheriff's department? The concept of Free Speech is very quickly being eroded around the world. Ira Glasser, head of the ACLU throughout the 80s until the early 2000s, was on Bill Maher last Friday. He said that when citizens don't defend Freedom of Speech, then you basically rely on the government to tell you what you're allowed to say, and that's extremely dangerous. Then you get things like this, where people are convicted of tweeting and censorship. That said, I don't know if the UK has protections for free speech the way the US does. As a Canadian I know that the freedom of speech is not held in high regard as the US, so maybe that comes from its UK heritage.
- atdrummond 5y agoIt would help in the US if the ACLU still primarily focused on freedom of speech and other historically core civil rights cases. They've massively expanded their purview.
- scsilver 5y agoCan you give some concrete examples?
- atdrummond 5y agoI'm happy to discuss over e-mail if you want but I feel like my specific thoughts here might cause an unnecessary and vitriolic side argument. (For what it is worth, I've been supporting, involved with and a donator to the ACLU since I was 15. I'm not a detractor of the organisation or their history.)
- denotational 5y ago> I'm unfamiliar with UK Law... Is this actually a court of law or was this done through the Sheriff's department? Interestingly there isn't really such a thing as UK Law; there is the Law of England and Wales, the Law of Northern Ireland, and Scots Law, the final one being applicable here. These three systems are markedly different, and for criminal cases there is not even a shared supreme court for the three jurisdictions. In Scots Law the term "Sheriff" has a different meaning to how the term is used in US law enforcement. It refers to the Sheriff Court [0], a Sheriff being a judge. > That said, I don't know if the UK has protections for free speech the way the US does. It doesn't. [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff_court
- pessimizer 5y agoBritain doesn't even have vague principles of free speech (or association for that matter.) The recent Rachel Riley case is an insane example, but it happens every day. ----- > Riley initially posted a screenshot of a January 2019 tweet by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones about an attack on the former British National party leader Nick Griffin, which said: “I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.” She added “good advice”, with emojis of a red rose and an egg. > Later, Murray tweeted: “Today Jeremy Corbyn went to his local mosque for Visit My Mosque Day, and was attacked by a Brexiteer. Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi. This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever.” > Riley said she was being sarcastic in her tweet, did not call Corbyn a Nazi, and told the judge that Murray’s tweet caused serious harm to her reputation. ----- Riley was awarded £10,000.
- vxNsr 5y agoThis doesn’t seem like it has anything to do with free speech, you can’t slander someone, it seems Murray attempted to slander Riley, she claims he succeeded in some regards.
- atdrummond 5y agoGiven the amount of people who venue shop such cases in the UK, I would buy an argument that speech has been curtailed due to how much easier it is to win such judgements there - even when it is often unclear how the party claiming harm was actually damaged.
- pessimizer 5y agoI disagree. Riley's tweet was clear and expressed her views accurately and sincerely, and Murray's tweet was sincere and a reasonable interpretation of Riley's tweet, which it directly referenced. Riley wasn't slandering Corbyn by cheekily calling him a Nazi - although part of her defense was explaining how Corbyn is actually an antisemite (which would be irrelevant or even counterproductive in a case accusing Murray of maliciously lying.) It's her honest belief. Murray honestly believes that Riley is stupid, and that Riley was showing her agreement with a physical attack on Corbyn. This can be a questionable interpretation if you realize that Riley probably hates Owen Jones, too, but it's certainly reasonable. Besides that, everyone had access to the Riley tweet, and could decide for themselves. It's an unbelievably low standard for liability. ----- > There are three major defenses against a defamation suit. The first is “privilege,” which typically protects journalists when they quote otherwise defamatory statements made by officials in parliament or the courts to allow for full reporting of issues of public interest. The second is “truth,” which protects the person being sued if they can show that what they said was true. And the third is “honest opinion,” which applies if an opinion was expressed and that opinion was held reasonably and expressed honestly rather than out of malice or to harm someone’s reputation. > Murray’s lawyers believed they could defend their client using not just one but two of the defenses: truth and honest opinion. Was Murray not justified in inferring that Riley was equating Corbyn to a Nazi when she implied that the two cases were similar, especially in the context of Riley’s earlier statements? Was Riley’s comment not agreeing with Jones’s approval of a previous attack and suggesting it was deserved this time too? And was Murray’s view not expressed honestly and with the intention chiefly to defend Corbyn’s reputation rather than harm Riley’s? (Calling someone “stupid” in a heated exchange on Twitter is not usually considered defamatory, otherwise we’d have many tens of thousands of people facing enormous fines.) https://www.mintpressnews.com/rachel-riley-libel-defamation-ruling-judicial-attack-political-speech/279419/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/rachel-riley-libel-defamation-...
- tasha0663 5y ago> One person who saw the tweet, Janet Hunter Jess, told the court of her hurt at the message. > The 72-year-old, whose family served in the armed forces... That's just surreal. Bringing in little old ladies to testify that your tweet hurt their feelings. I really wanted this to be fake, but other outlets are running the same story. Madness.
- aeternum 5y agoIt also creates a crazy spiral of potential hurt. Like what if the tweet author had a relative that was killed by a British soldier? Would that have justified the tweet because now the hurt is somehow more equal? How do we measure relative hurt?
- throwawayboise 5y agoI'm mildly surprised a 72-year-old is so thin-skinned.
- kjkjadksj 5y agoYou must not know very many 72 year olds. Show up to your next city council meeting where they discuss a bike lane or a homeless shelter and bring a bag of popcorn.
- emilfihlman 5y agoThe UK is a dystopia, using 1984 as a manual.
- _8j50 5y agoUnpopular opinion: this should sort of be more common in the US as well. Intent is what matters, if your intent is to express a sincerely held belief in good faith there should be no law against that. But if the purpose and demonstrable intent of your speech is to cause offense, harm or bully someone harm someones reputation or any other harmful intended effect against others, it should be appropriately criminalized. For example: If you say "Joe is a liar" and then you are heard saying "I said that to ruin his reputation" it should be criminal. You did not express your belief or view, you merely used speech to cause harm. I am looking you "freedom from religion". Outside of the legal realm, there needs to be a conversation about intent. A lot of socio-political issues can be toned down a lot if you consider the intent and perspective of the other side. For example, a pro-choice person sincerely believes a fetus is not a human yet and a pro-life person sincerely believes it is a human, with thay in mind they are not baby killers or misogynyst oppressors respectively. They both hold sincerely held contradictory views about conception. Regardless what side you are on, consider some or many on the other side do not have malicious intent and are not your enemies but fellow citizens on the same side.
- throw_m239339 5y ago> Unpopular opinion: this should sort of be more common in the US as well. In US the constitution protects citizen speech...from the governemnt. UK doesn't have a constitution. Your opinion is objectively against the US constitution.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> UK doesn't have a constitution. The UK has a constitution, but it isn't a single written document, or even entirely written: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...
- _8j50 5y agoYes it is against the first amendment, hence unpopular. Amendments can be repealed and modified.
- 5y ago
- Zpalmtree 5y agoBritain is a joke
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mbfg 5y agoit may be grossly offensive, but charging him with a crime is ridiculous.
- peteradio 5y agoThis sounds like the headline of an Onion article. I laughed as I read it.
- theknocker 5y ago
- teewuane 5y agoIs this the onion?
- IanDrake 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- weatherlite 5y agoSo only comedians and animated TV shows are allowed to be offensive?
- thatsnotmepls 5y agoI mean, not even comedians are safe: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/camargo-v-bastos/ https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/camargo...
- jamil7 5y agoNo comedians are also not allowed to be offensive anymore.
- galacticaactual 5y ago
- Jerry2 5y ago>So only comedians and animated TV shows are allowed to be offensive? I heard some comedians say that they don't perform in Canada because of the same type of anti-free-speech laws. Maybe some Canadians can chime in but there are cases of comedians getting charged with hate speech laws.
- lariati 5y agoI am an American but I know Mike Ward won his case but it had to go to the Supreme Court for a split decision. He was supposed to pay $42,000 in damages. The joke was in French and super distasteful about a disabled kid. I think as Americans we forget most don't have 1st amendment rights. I know Canada though is going to pass some crazy online hate speech laws this year and take all this to another level.
- rejor121 5y agoGods. The thought police truly has arrived. Society will burn eventually because of this, when someone can throw me in front of a judge for typing something “offensive” on the internet. Just dumb.
- aqaq2 5y ago
- aasasd 5y ago> One person who saw the tweet, Janet Hunter Jess, told the court of her hurt at the message. Another person who saw the tweet, Luzier Jeffery, Kelly’s neighbour at the time, said she was “shocked” when she saw the message. I see Brits are pining for the empire so hard that they went straight back to Victorian sensibilities.
- tim333 5y agoIf we go to court every time a couple of people are hurt and shocked by a tweet the court system is going to be a bit overloaded.
- alignItems 5y agoThe reactionary, populist, view is that we must defend free speech at all costs. This is not actually the constitutional law in the USA, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This quote from a SCOTUS ruling summarises it really well [1]: “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
- justbaker 5y agoThis is not a US case btw. Freedom of speech is (nearly) black and white. We cannot feel free to express our speech even if others find it offensive. If we do restrict it, that is not freedom.
- michaelmrose 5y agoYou would do well to read the other cases concerning offensive speech that have passed over the near 80 years since that case. Fighting words now requires qualifications like "produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil" and “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” In subsequent cases even literally burning a cross on your lawn wasn't deemed "fighting words" The doctrine is very nearly hallow. So hallow that should I yell in your face I'm going to get you alignItems! I shall have to add right now with the candlestick so it should qualify! https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/959/fighting-words https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/959/fighting-wo...
- thakoppno 5y agoI’ve been thinking a lot about this issue lately and can’t really figure out what the legal standard is. Has anyone in the US recently been convicted of a crime that is purely speech?
- dukeofdoom 5y agoWe had an interesting freedom of speech case in Canada last year. Basically a judge ordered a Pastor to read a speech he prepared for him, anytime he wanted to speak out against the mandates. This was v. condition of his sentence: "The final term of his probation order will be that when he is exercising his right of free speech and speaking against AHS Health Orders and AHS health recommendations, in a public gathering or public forum (including electronic social media); he must indicate in his communications the following: I am also aware that the views I am expressing to you on this occasion may not be views held by the majority of medical experts in Alberta. While I may disagree with them, I am obliged to inform you that the majority of medical experts favour social distancing, mask wearing, and avoiding large crowds to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Most medical experts also support participation in a vaccination program unless for a valid religious or medical reason you cannot be vaccinated. Vaccinations have been shown statistically to save lives and to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms."
- LegitShady 5y agoI believe this was reversed but it did stand for a bit. The judge involved should be made to be re-educated or removed from office, though. The entire thing felt like an abuse of his power.
- dukeofdoom 5y agoI found it bizarre, because it was like a twitter fact check in real life ordered by judge. Couldn't believe a judge would order something like that. Seemed more than a little absurd and dystopian. In a sort of artistic, foreshadowing in a book kind of way; I find the parallel of having to wear a mask and your speech being muffled by it, and being muted to a degree, a symbol of the current situation. Others are noticing this parallel too. Maybe in some dark, comedic future our phones will sound out disclaimers when they hear us contravene the official narrative in some way.
- JetAlone 5y ago"My user is speaking right now from an emotional place of mentally unwell conceited contrarianism, and believes information from dubious sources that constitute an infectious, disgusting threat to societal integrity. Would you like a readout of the state endorsed positions?"
- spinach 5y agoOther ridiculous "crimes" Harry Miller: Legal victory after alleged transphobic tweets https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-59727118 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-59727118 Disabled Woman Arrested, Interrogated Over Domestic Violence Stickers https://www.reduxx.org/post/disabled-woman-arrested-interrogated-over-domestic-violence-stickers https://www.reduxx.org/post/disabled-woman-arrested-interrog...
- mariojv 5y agoWow. I guess this is why they put the First Amendment first. How is what is "offensive" even defined, legally? Is it entirely up to the jury's interpretation, or are there characteristics that the jury is required to say that the speech has? They hint at this when they describe protected classes, but I don't know much about UK law.
- Seattle3503 5y agoWhat if one of Jimmy Savile's victims had tweeted something similar before his crimes were known? He was well liked for a long time. Could they have been prosecuted?
- Madmallard 5y agoPeople need to understand that life is going to be way too hard for you if you can't ignore what comes out of people's mouths.
- imperialdrive 5y agoThink about the world you wish to live in. Sometimes examples need to be made. Learning lessons can lift us all a little higher. I trust the man found guilty will land on a peaceful path.
- Madmallard 5y agoYeah, I'm not interested in a world like China where people making an anti-establishment comment on twitter get removed from society. This type of situation and result is a jump in that direction.
- mrobot 5y agoIn the United States, Capitol Police also polices mean tweets. There are videos of people being confronted at their homes by California Highway Patrol, acting for capitol police, after they sent out mean tweets about some politician. Not charged with a crime, but almost weirder in a way. Edit: story is here: https://badnews.substack.com/p/capitol-police-sent-cops-to-a-guys https://badnews.substack.com/p/capitol-police-sent-cops-to-a...
- joshuamorton 5y agoNot mean tweets, but threats. And the laws around threats against politicians are...weird.
- ashwagary 5y agoI remember a Republican senator sent the FBI to a person's home (to threaten him) because of his negative tweets about a public company's finances and its CEO, who was the senator's friend. https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-johnny-isakson-called-fbi-on-behalf-of-mimedx-group-11545934861 https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-johnny-isakson-called-fbi-o... That CEO is now in jail because the tweets were 100% accurate but the Senator was never punished.
- eloisius 5y agoIf you’re going to troll on Twitter as a UK citizen, please do us all a favor and suffix all your tweets with “in RuneScape” so that we can laugh when you go to jail for suggesting offensive beliefs in a virtual fantasy world.
- kisamoto 5y agoI'd like to start by saying that it's a sad state of affairs. I don't agree with what he said but the fact that he was found guilty is unreasonable and sets a horrible precedent moving forward. The article states that he was convicted under the Communications Act whose Wikipedia page[1] lists some other "notable prosecutions" - worth checking to know the other times where the UK government has overstepped themselves. The Scottish Crown Prosecution Service has some guidelines[2] for prosecuting the "offensive content". In my eyes this tweet does not fulfil the criteria (although this may be covered under "national tragedy"so I hope he can appeal. From the COPFS document: Prosecutors should only consider action in this category of cases where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication goes beyond being: • Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or • Satirical, iconoclastic or rude; or • The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it; or • An exchange of communication that forms part of a democratic debate In some instances the context in which the comments are made will weigh in favour of prosecutors being so satisfied, for instance where comments are made following a particular incident, national tragedy or catastrophic event. Such instances will most likely be readily apparent to prosecutors however it may be that particular instructions are issued to prosecutors in response to such incidents where the situation demands it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003 [2] https://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/Documents/Prosecution_Policy_Guidance/Book_of_Regulations/Final%20version%2026%2011%2014.pdf https://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/Documents/Prosecution_Policy...
- DoItToMe81 5y agoI wonder when things like this will begin to be used on those who spread awareness of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Zenst 5y agoThe way to perspective this is that your own farther has just died and somebody said that. How would you respond? So "grossly offensive" seems about right when you put context like that into play of thought.
- irthomasthomas 5y agoBritain is crazy. I met some chaps once doing indi court reporting, since there is no more local news, and no one reporting on small courts. One day a pedophile was prosecuted for thousands of illegal photos. The criminal got a suspended sentence, so if he behaves for a year, he gets to skip jail. The indi reporter, remembering that behind those photos where real children being abused, saw red, and tweeted about how he would love to restore justice if he ever met the pedo in the street. The tweet earned him a few weeks in prison. This is extremely common today. A tragi-commic episode is the Tony The Tiger porno guy. A guy viewed a porno he received by email, I think, featuring a man in a tiger outfit (furries?). He was charged with some indecency crime. ( Sorry, Gwern, but your deepfake pedo porn idea would not work here, since it is a crime to even depict virtual acts which are banned under the decency law. You can't cosplay pedophilia or bestiality.) Then there was the Scottish fella who was prosecuted for hate crime, after teaching his girlfriends pug to do a sieg hiel. The video, “M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi” went viral, and the boyfriend was charged and fined. I won't link it, in case it becomes a crime to share this stuff. “My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is, and so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi.” I only mentioned some of the most famous cases off the top of my head. There are hundreds more. The problem is, for all the hate crimes like this that become famous, thousands more go unreported, and unpunished. Fortunately, the law society hopes to correct this, and is lobbying to remove the 'private dwelling' exception from hate speech laws. Making it a crime to mock goths and punks at the breakfast table. https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/04/stirring-up-divisions-in-private-homes-could-become-hate-crime-13535681/ https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/04/stirring-up-divisions-in-priv...
- kofejnik 5y agoThis is horrifying. Because this is _exactly_ how opposition is persecuted in Russia (among other ways ofc).
- AcerbicZero 5y agoIt’s sad to see teachable moments go to waste and it’s even worse to see an authoritarian government clamping down harder.
- threshold 5y agoThis is why I could never live or do business in the UK. The people and their government are primitive and don’t understand what freedom means. If you study parliament it quickly becomes clear that the UK operates under a dictatorship and the license of democracy it claims for it’s citizens is fraudulent. Witch hunts over tweets and attacks on common cryptography only prove that further. We need to start correcting UK citizens when they claim to be free and remind them the ‘special exceptions’ they allowed their government to include totally and obviously undermine and break their freedom. And this man. Like the rest of his generation he was out with a machine gun in the fields. He’s beyond criticism? Because he’s old? Because he walked in his garden for charity? Because he was on the English side and all English soldiers get a pass, wink wink? He probably blew 30 young soldiers brains out on tour.
- 0xdeadb00f 5y agoI hope these fellas buuuuuurn