6 ms·

I feel like I must have been corrupted by the internet or something if the tweet in question is considered "grossly offensive". It certainly isn't nice, but 18

I feel like I must have been corrupted by the internet or something if the tweet in question is considered "grossly offensive". It certainly isn't nice, but 18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here.

MadSudaca 5y ago
At first glance it may seem baffling, but if you see it from the “different culture different values” framework, you realize it’s just how people there want their society to conduct itself. It’s no different, from this perspective, to how baffling may seem cultures where burping loudly in the dinner table is not frowned upon, where people really value their personal space or not, and on and on.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  It's not baffling to me that people don't like people who act this way. I don't like such comments either. What's baffling to me is the punishment given for it. Using the given parallel, I'm not familiar with a case where such punishment was given to someone who burped loudly at their dinner table (or some other social faux pas). It seems currently and historically, such social norms and expectations have been primarily enforced through social shaming and avoidance, rarely government intervention. That's the baffling part to me.
  - MadSudaca 5y ago
    What about China’s supposedly social credit system? Maybe government intervention on such “trifling” matters is now possible thanks to IT systems, and we will come to see this as the norm, rather than the exception, as more and more people forcefully or willingly give up some of their liberties in order to have (or merely feel?) more security.
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      I'm aware of the existence of China's social credit system, but that's not exactly a system I'm keen on holding up as a something to strive for. This being in the UK, I feel we should look at UK historical norms, not China's.
      - MadSudaca 5y ago
        I get it’s UK and may be the most influential western country in the last 200-300 years. But time goes on, countries evolve and often they do so in unexpected ways. My argument is that, at some point we must detach a country from its past (whatever that means) and accept the direction its constituents are now wanting to take. Even if we personally don’t approve of said direction.
        ledauphin 5y ago
        I don't think "we" must do anything of the sort. It's important to continue to disagree with things, and articulate the reasons why, even if a majority of some other group supports them.
        seanhandley 5y ago
        > It's important to continue to disagree with things No, it isn't.
        decremental 5y ago
        Except it's not an evolution. There's nothing organic taking place. It's a concerted, top-down effort to manipulate and coerce populations into going along with things that are expressly against their own freedoms and interests by people who are by any standard their enemies.
        Radim 5y ago
        > a concerted, top-down effort to manipulate and coerce [others] into going along with things [I want]. How is that outside of evolution? Your definition of "organic" seems suspect.
- xxpor 5y ago
  I get the different values part, but even if I set aside the "as an American" free speech issues, 150 hours of community service seems WAY over what's necessary. That's nearly a month of full time work!
- syrrim 5y ago
  Similarly, some cultures today enjoy the practice of tossing homosexuals from rooves. Before you rush to condemn the practice, recall that they are from a different culture, with different values.
  - recuter 5y ago
    I'm sorry, but under the new rules you are now guilty of a hate crime for saying this.
- MiddleEndian 5y ago
  In the US, I may get kicked out of a dinner for aggressive burping, and Twitter may ban me (and has banned me lol) for whatever reason they want. But nobody's facing legal penalties for it.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  I am from such a "different culture", and I hate criminalization of speech. Unfortunately, it is a minor topic in our politics and thus the status quo is likely to stay that way, not to mention that the EU where we are members wouldn't probably let us decriminalize hate speech; the winds in Brussels blow in the other direction. The USA is protected by its Supreme Court and the fact that the Constitution is impossible to amend at this point, but if the younger cohort could vote for criminalization of unpopular speech, I suspect the proposition would actually win. Definitely so on many university campuses.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    I agree that they would. It's so disheartening to see how quickly people have been convinced to abandon a freedom people had to fight so hard in order to assert just decades earlier. The folks involved in the Free Speech Movement who have died already are certainly spinning in their graves, but those still alive have to just look at the kids today and wonder where we went wrong.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  It really depends on if you believe the majority can impose anything they want on a minority. Even if a majority of people in the UK want these rules, we can still argue whether a government has the right to enact that will of the people.
weego 5y ago
It's just standard 'edgy' anti-english diatribe from a Scot. It's really nothing I don't hear regularly either out in public or from friend-adjacent people here. It's bad taste and trashy but that's kind of it. The problem is exactly that it's not an unusual attitude to hear. The difference is who it was aimed at. So for me the real issue is that we're cherry picking when we apply a very vague and loosely applied law based on who said it to whom, and in my eyes it should be a valid case for the defense, and element of a judges decision for sentencing, of just how situational it is. Making 'an example' of someone is not a basis for a societally-positive criminal justice system.
- Apfel 5y ago
  This is definitely a Celtic Vs Rangers thing rather than an England/Scotland one. Unfortunately we in Glasgow are still dealing with this nonsense in 2022.
- nradov 5y ago
  The problem is exactly that the law shouldn't exist in the first place. Such laws violate the fundamental human right of free expression. Repeal the law and then you won't have to worry about uneven application.
  - judahmeek 5y ago
    There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to free expression. You would be better served by pointing out that governments tend to become more authoritarian over time & the harder citizens resist authoritarian creep, the longer they have before a bloody revolution is usually required.
    - hallway_monitor 5y ago
      I believe the use of the word fundamental here refers to the fact that free-speech underlies all other rights. If you don't have free speech then you don't really have any rights at all.
rglover 5y ago
This is exactly why "hate speech" laws are so dangerous. It gives carte blanche to the government to go after anyone who says anything any one person (or the government itself) might find offensive.
- oliwarner 5y ago
  And we have a judiciary who can —still, for the moment— make and break statue based on their rulings via appeals and the Supreme Court. The government does not have carte blanche any more than a government already does. The last 2 years has shown us they're pretty much a law unto themselves. I hope this case is appealled, and the law thoroughly weighed against human rights.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > And we have a judiciary who can —still, for the moment— make and break statue based on their rulings via appeals and the Supreme Court. One of the nice things about being able to ask for a trial by jury is that jury nullification can help ensure that laws aren't abused even when judges are perfectly willing to "make examples" of people
- iotku 5y ago
  Add the idea that has been floated over the years into making law enforcement officers a protected class as well and it's not a large leap to see how such seemingly well-intentioned things can be abused by the state.
  - hcnews 5y ago
    Isn't that the US model? And yes, it's a disaster.
- Beldin 5y ago
  > This is exactly why "hate speech" laws are so dangerous. If you think any single example of a law being applied in a manner that is technically defensible but (arguably) morally wrong should rule out an entire category of laws - you'd have no laws left. My guess is that most laws are occasionally abused. The trick is to distinguish between those laws that invite it and those that don't.
recuter 5y ago
Just wait until you find out about the "Hate Crime and Public Order Act" passed in Scotland.
baccaratclub 5y ago
[flagged]
causality0 5y ago
"Freedom to offend" is a core tenet of American freedom of speech. It is not at all present in the United Kingdom or for the most part continental Europe. You can be arrested for Tweeting something mean, for calling a police officer a rude name, for insulting a religious figure. Whether or not whatever it is the Europeans gained in exchange for giving up that right was worth it is up to you.
akhmatova 5y ago
18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here. This one of The Crown's protectors who is being disrespected. Now do you understand?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
__turbobrew__ 5y ago
Yea. Go onto certain 4chan boards and you inevitably see more offensive content within 30 seconds. I’m always surprised that people in the UK put up with so many of these authoritarian nanny state and “think of the children” laws.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  They have always been a subservient people who look up to authority figures -- their betters -- to take care of them and to tell them how they should go about their lives. And it's not "think of the children", it's "think of me".
  - heavenlyblue 5y ago
    Yeah, one would be surprised to realise how popular the Queen and the family is in the UK for exactly the same reason: somebody to look up to. British make fun of American celebrity culture, but then there’s that appreciation of nobility and the royal family.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  4chan is anonymous Fake name on Twitter is immediate red flag
tailspin2019 5y ago
I agree. This sentencing and the implications of it are far more offensive to me than the tweet. (Not taking away from the fact that the tweet is of course moronic and disgusting)

MadSudaca 5y ago

At first glance it may seem baffling, but if you see it from the “different culture different values” framework, you realize it’s just how people there want their society to conduct itself. It’s no different, from this perspective, to how baffling may seem cultures where burping loudly in the dinner table is not frowned upon, where people really value their personal space or not, and on and on.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
It's not baffling to me that people don't like people who act this way. I don't like such comments either. What's baffling to me is the punishment given for it. Using the given parallel, I'm not familiar with a case where such punishment was given to someone who burped loudly at their dinner table (or some other social faux pas). It seems currently and historically, such social norms and expectations have been primarily enforced through social shaming and avoidance, rarely government intervention. That's the baffling part to me.
- MadSudaca 5y ago
  What about China’s supposedly social credit system? Maybe government intervention on such “trifling” matters is now possible thanks to IT systems, and we will come to see this as the norm, rather than the exception, as more and more people forcefully or willingly give up some of their liberties in order to have (or merely feel?) more security.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    I'm aware of the existence of China's social credit system, but that's not exactly a system I'm keen on holding up as a something to strive for. This being in the UK, I feel we should look at UK historical norms, not China's.
    - MadSudaca 5y ago
      I get it’s UK and may be the most influential western country in the last 200-300 years. But time goes on, countries evolve and often they do so in unexpected ways. My argument is that, at some point we must detach a country from its past (whatever that means) and accept the direction its constituents are now wanting to take. Even if we personally don’t approve of said direction.
      - ledauphin 5y ago
        I don't think "we" must do anything of the sort. It's important to continue to disagree with things, and articulate the reasons why, even if a majority of some other group supports them.
        seanhandley 5y ago
        > It's important to continue to disagree with things No, it isn't.
      - decremental 5y ago
        Except it's not an evolution. There's nothing organic taking place. It's a concerted, top-down effort to manipulate and coerce populations into going along with things that are expressly against their own freedoms and interests by people who are by any standard their enemies.
        Radim 5y ago
        > a concerted, top-down effort to manipulate and coerce [others] into going along with things [I want]. How is that outside of evolution? Your definition of "organic" seems suspect.
xxpor 5y ago
I get the different values part, but even if I set aside the "as an American" free speech issues, 150 hours of community service seems WAY over what's necessary. That's nearly a month of full time work!
syrrim 5y ago
Similarly, some cultures today enjoy the practice of tossing homosexuals from rooves. Before you rush to condemn the practice, recall that they are from a different culture, with different values.
- recuter 5y ago
  I'm sorry, but under the new rules you are now guilty of a hate crime for saying this.
MiddleEndian 5y ago
In the US, I may get kicked out of a dinner for aggressive burping, and Twitter may ban me (and has banned me lol) for whatever reason they want. But nobody's facing legal penalties for it.
inglor_cz 5y ago
I am from such a "different culture", and I hate criminalization of speech. Unfortunately, it is a minor topic in our politics and thus the status quo is likely to stay that way, not to mention that the EU where we are members wouldn't probably let us decriminalize hate speech; the winds in Brussels blow in the other direction. The USA is protected by its Supreme Court and the fact that the Constitution is impossible to amend at this point, but if the younger cohort could vote for criminalization of unpopular speech, I suspect the proposition would actually win. Definitely so on many university campuses.
- autoexec 5y ago
  I agree that they would. It's so disheartening to see how quickly people have been convinced to abandon a freedom people had to fight so hard in order to assert just decades earlier. The folks involved in the Free Speech Movement who have died already are certainly spinning in their graves, but those still alive have to just look at the kids today and wonder where we went wrong.
cortesoft 5y ago
It really depends on if you believe the majority can impose anything they want on a minority. Even if a majority of people in the UK want these rules, we can still argue whether a government has the right to enact that will of the people.

weego 5y ago

It's just standard 'edgy' anti-english diatribe from a Scot. It's really nothing I don't hear regularly either out in public or from friend-adjacent people here. It's bad taste and trashy but that's kind of it. The problem is exactly that it's not an unusual attitude to hear. The difference is who it was aimed at. So for me the real issue is that we're cherry picking when we apply a very vague and loosely applied law based on who said it to whom, and in my eyes it should be a valid case for the defense, and element of a judges decision for sentencing, of just how situational it is. Making 'an example' of someone is not a basis for a societally-positive criminal justice system.

Apfel 5y ago
This is definitely a Celtic Vs Rangers thing rather than an England/Scotland one. Unfortunately we in Glasgow are still dealing with this nonsense in 2022.
nradov 5y ago
The problem is exactly that the law shouldn't exist in the first place. Such laws violate the fundamental human right of free expression. Repeal the law and then you won't have to worry about uneven application.
- judahmeek 5y ago
  There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to free expression. You would be better served by pointing out that governments tend to become more authoritarian over time & the harder citizens resist authoritarian creep, the longer they have before a bloody revolution is usually required.
  - hallway_monitor 5y ago
    I believe the use of the word fundamental here refers to the fact that free-speech underlies all other rights. If you don't have free speech then you don't really have any rights at all.

rglover 5y ago

This is exactly why "hate speech" laws are so dangerous. It gives carte blanche to the government to go after anyone who says anything any one person (or the government itself) might find offensive.

oliwarner 5y ago
And we have a judiciary who can —still, for the moment— make and break statue based on their rulings via appeals and the Supreme Court. The government does not have carte blanche any more than a government already does. The last 2 years has shown us they're pretty much a law unto themselves. I hope this case is appealled, and the law thoroughly weighed against human rights.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > And we have a judiciary who can —still, for the moment— make and break statue based on their rulings via appeals and the Supreme Court. One of the nice things about being able to ask for a trial by jury is that jury nullification can help ensure that laws aren't abused even when judges are perfectly willing to "make examples" of people
iotku 5y ago
Add the idea that has been floated over the years into making law enforcement officers a protected class as well and it's not a large leap to see how such seemingly well-intentioned things can be abused by the state.
- hcnews 5y ago
  Isn't that the US model? And yes, it's a disaster.
Beldin 5y ago
> This is exactly why "hate speech" laws are so dangerous. If you think any single example of a law being applied in a manner that is technically defensible but (arguably) morally wrong should rule out an entire category of laws - you'd have no laws left. My guess is that most laws are occasionally abused. The trick is to distinguish between those laws that invite it and those that don't.

recuter 5y ago

Just wait until you find out about the "Hate Crime and Public Order Act" passed in Scotland.

baccaratclub 5y ago

[flagged]

causality0 5y ago

"Freedom to offend" is a core tenet of American freedom of speech. It is not at all present in the United Kingdom or for the most part continental Europe. You can be arrested for Tweeting something mean, for calling a police officer a rude name, for insulting a religious figure. Whether or not whatever it is the Europeans gained in exchange for giving up that right was worth it is up to you.

akhmatova 5y ago

18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here. This one of The Crown's protectors who is being disrespected. Now do you understand?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

__turbobrew__ 5y ago

Yea. Go onto certain 4chan boards and you inevitably see more offensive content within 30 seconds. I’m always surprised that people in the UK put up with so many of these authoritarian nanny state and “think of the children” laws.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
They have always been a subservient people who look up to authority figures -- their betters -- to take care of them and to tell them how they should go about their lives. And it's not "think of the children", it's "think of me".
- heavenlyblue 5y ago
  Yeah, one would be surprised to realise how popular the Queen and the family is in the UK for exactly the same reason: somebody to look up to. British make fun of American celebrity culture, but then there’s that appreciation of nobility and the royal family.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
4chan is anonymous Fake name on Twitter is immediate red flag

tailspin2019 5y ago

I agree. This sentencing and the implications of it are far more offensive to me than the tweet. (Not taking away from the fact that the tweet is of course moronic and disgusting)