7 ms·

I’m guessing this[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial

mjburgess 1y ago
There are a couple of cases like this, including one about some racist remarks in liverpool -- both were overturned on appeal. > Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which would ultimately quash the conviction. These are absolutely trivial cases to assume that somehow the UK has suspended the free expression rights of its citizens. These amount to over-reach by the lowest courts (staffed by volunteer judges, fyi) which were corrected. That's about as good as justice is in practice. (It's also an unaddressed issue on exactly what social media is -- people tend to assume its some private conversation, but its at least as plausible to treat it as a acts of publishing to a public environment. When those actions constitue attacks on people, the UK/Europe have typically regarded public attacks as having fewer free expression protections). Neverthless, these cases are used by the far right online to disguise what has been action taken by the UK gov against far right quasi-terrorist groups engaged in mass violence. The UK gov is not persecuting people for free expression, they have taken action against people using social media to organise murder. One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.
- SnazzyUncle 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bombcar 1y ago
    It's also ignoring that the entire process of being charged with a crime is punishment itself - even if never convicted, even if overturned on appeal. If you've never been involved in court proceedings it will come as a surprise.
    - mjburgess 1y ago
      OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them? If you choose the first one, then you're preventing the investigation of mass riots, conspiracy to murder, mass disruption of public infrastructure -- and so on. All which have happened in the last 9mo, and gone through the courts. BUT you do have the advantage that police wont, once in a blue moon, turn up to someone's house and investigae them for a bit of nonesense that disappears within a day or at most a month when a real judge has looked at the case. If you choose two, then you can still offer guidance to local police forces to be more careful in assessing complaints -- guidance which has almost certainly been given, since the gov arent happy theyre being distracted with this BS. Now ask yourself: who at the moment really wants option number 1?
      - SnazzyUncle 1y ago
        > OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them? Yes. I do. I want them to put resources into catch the criminals in my area that have been stealing motor vehicles instead as that actually affect me and my community. Not policing social media.
        mjburgess 1y ago
        The criminals in your area are probably plotting those thefts on whatsapp. I dont know what century you think this is, if you're sincere about catching criminals you would want even more intrusion into online spaces.
        bombcar 1y ago
        Why is everyone assuming the police should be policing pre-crime?
        mjburgess 1y ago
  - mjburgess 1y ago
    > Are you really going to defend the conviction of a teenage girl quoting Snoop Dogg lyrics on facebook? Can you link me to the evidence you have for this person having been convicted? Because she wasnt, the case was immediately over turned on appeal and the lower court volunteer judge basically reprimanded. Do you have any evidence for any of these things you believe? Have you looked into any of them? Who told you about them? How do you know about a teenager in liverpool that upset a police officer? Why is that something you know about? Do you not find that odd? Isn't it strange that you "know" she was "convicted" but have no actual idea what happened? Just reflect a moment on what the major actions of the UK gov. involving social media have been over the last year, and which of those have resulted in actual convinctions. HINT: ones involving plots to murder people by the far right. Hmm... who exactly has been talking about all these "free speech" cases? Coincidence?
    - SnazzyUncle 1y ago
      > Can you link me to the evidence you have for this person having been convicted? Because she wasnt, the case was immediately over turned on appeal and the lower court volunteer judge basically reprimanded. I am aware of this and I deliberately used this as bait, quite predictably you defended what took place. You must have missed the bit where the police literally go looking for offensive words on social media. They literally have software that flags up speech. It matters not that later on it was "corrected". The reason it was "corrected" I suspect was because of the amount of pressure put on politicians after it was featured in the media. * There should not be entire police departments dedicated to prosecuting things said on social media. * There should not be software that flags up the fact that you said naughty words. * This should not have never even got to court in the first place. > Just reflect a moment on what the major actions of the UK gov. involving social media have been over the last year, and which of those have resulted in actual convinctions. HINT: ones involving plots to murder people by the far right. Argh yes the terrifying "far right". The fact is that the government point at scary people like the Islamic Extremists (I am old enough to remember that), the neo-nazis, homo-phobes and other generally nasty people to sell these awful laws and then they are (mis)used against normal people. > Hmm... who exactly has been talking about all these "free speech" cases? Coincidence? Why does it matter? If Adolf Hitler/Francisco Franco/Mussolini/Stalin/<insert despot> rose from the dead tomorrow and was making valid criticisms of the various laws in the UK that stifle speech that doesn't mean that they are incorrect about those facts. It would make them hypocrites, but not incorrect.
- pc86 1y ago
  Is your argument really that as long as the conviction is eventually overturned, no harm no foul it's just a "trivial case" so everyone should just pretend it never happened? Really?
  - mjburgess 1y ago
    It's trivial with respect to the question of whether political free expression in the UK is somehow under threat, yes. A handful of weird cases of extremely mild police overreach, corrected by a court -- hardly add up to anything. Every legal system in the world has such cases, in almost every other, they are much more extreme. In the UK, no one is paying for legal cases they win, unlike in the US where "free speech" is obtainable only if you can pay for your defence. I mean in the UK we aren't used to using the court system to obtain our rights, but this is basically the american system. It's extraordinary to hear americans express concern that a handful of people in the UK had to use the standard court procedure to have their rights enforced, which they did. Would the UK be better if these cases did not happen? Sure. But there's no legal system, almost by definition, that isnt going to have these cases. That's what courts exist to do -- to prevent executive overreach. The question is why are a handful of people, whose rights were enforced by the courts, being used as political agitprop against the UK? The answer is pretty obvious. It's a deliberate project of the far right to create popular resentement towards democractic governments in the west, at the time these governemnts are arresting rioters for attempting to murder immigrants. This isnt hard to see. These stories are spread by a very narrow range of extremely famous propagandists with a very obvious agenda. None of them mention that these cases were all thrown out on appeal. Nor that there's a tiny number of them. Nor that all the ones that result in conviction are basically domestic terrorism
    - pc86 1y ago
      Can you see how even the fact that police will knock on your door for a social media post will by definition have a chilling effect on free expression? Will low wage hourly workers in the UK feel secure in voicing their dissatisfaction with their child's school knowing that, while they might be convicted of a crime for doing so, it will probably get overturned on appeal even though they'll lose their job in the interim; or, will they just shut up and go along with whatever they're unhappy about?
timcobb 1y ago
Nit: is this political? Looks like the issue with the "joke" was violence/terrorism. A political statement would be like > David Cameron is a twit Not > I'm going to blow up the airport Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  >Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still Lots of "idiocy" is explicitly illegal. Being dumb isn't an excuse to commit a crime. Literal children in the US get in trouble (legally, as in, sent to juvie) for bomb threats all the time. Making a bad judgement call, like "surely everyone will understand I'm just joking about my threat to literally murder people" often has legal ramifications.
  - timcobb 1y ago
    Sure, I agree, but why take this person out of society for something like this when you can fine them or make them so community service? Certainly that's a deterrent?

mjburgess 1y ago

There are a couple of cases like this, including one about some racist remarks in liverpool -- both were overturned on appeal. > Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which would ultimately quash the conviction. These are absolutely trivial cases to assume that somehow the UK has suspended the free expression rights of its citizens. These amount to over-reach by the lowest courts (staffed by volunteer judges, fyi) which were corrected. That's about as good as justice is in practice. (It's also an unaddressed issue on exactly what social media is -- people tend to assume its some private conversation, but its at least as plausible to treat it as a acts of publishing to a public environment. When those actions constitue attacks on people, the UK/Europe have typically regarded public attacks as having fewer free expression protections). Neverthless, these cases are used by the far right online to disguise what has been action taken by the UK gov against far right quasi-terrorist groups engaged in mass violence. The UK gov is not persecuting people for free expression, they have taken action against people using social media to organise murder. One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.

SnazzyUncle 1y ago
[flagged]
- bombcar 1y ago
  It's also ignoring that the entire process of being charged with a crime is punishment itself - even if never convicted, even if overturned on appeal. If you've never been involved in court proceedings it will come as a surprise.
  - mjburgess 1y ago
    OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them? If you choose the first one, then you're preventing the investigation of mass riots, conspiracy to murder, mass disruption of public infrastructure -- and so on. All which have happened in the last 9mo, and gone through the courts. BUT you do have the advantage that police wont, once in a blue moon, turn up to someone's house and investigae them for a bit of nonesense that disappears within a day or at most a month when a real judge has looked at the case. If you choose two, then you can still offer guidance to local police forces to be more careful in assessing complaints -- guidance which has almost certainly been given, since the gov arent happy theyre being distracted with this BS. Now ask yourself: who at the moment really wants option number 1?
    - SnazzyUncle 1y ago
      > OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them? Yes. I do. I want them to put resources into catch the criminals in my area that have been stealing motor vehicles instead as that actually affect me and my community. Not policing social media.
      - mjburgess 1y ago
        The criminals in your area are probably plotting those thefts on whatsapp. I dont know what century you think this is, if you're sincere about catching criminals you would want even more intrusion into online spaces.
        bombcar 1y ago
        Why is everyone assuming the police should be policing pre-crime?
        mjburgess 1y ago
- mjburgess 1y ago
  > Are you really going to defend the conviction of a teenage girl quoting Snoop Dogg lyrics on facebook? Can you link me to the evidence you have for this person having been convicted? Because she wasnt, the case was immediately over turned on appeal and the lower court volunteer judge basically reprimanded. Do you have any evidence for any of these things you believe? Have you looked into any of them? Who told you about them? How do you know about a teenager in liverpool that upset a police officer? Why is that something you know about? Do you not find that odd? Isn't it strange that you "know" she was "convicted" but have no actual idea what happened? Just reflect a moment on what the major actions of the UK gov. involving social media have been over the last year, and which of those have resulted in actual convinctions. HINT: ones involving plots to murder people by the far right. Hmm... who exactly has been talking about all these "free speech" cases? Coincidence?
  - SnazzyUncle 1y ago
    > Can you link me to the evidence you have for this person having been convicted? Because she wasnt, the case was immediately over turned on appeal and the lower court volunteer judge basically reprimanded. I am aware of this and I deliberately used this as bait, quite predictably you defended what took place. You must have missed the bit where the police literally go looking for offensive words on social media. They literally have software that flags up speech. It matters not that later on it was "corrected". The reason it was "corrected" I suspect was because of the amount of pressure put on politicians after it was featured in the media. * There should not be entire police departments dedicated to prosecuting things said on social media. * There should not be software that flags up the fact that you said naughty words. * This should not have never even got to court in the first place. > Just reflect a moment on what the major actions of the UK gov. involving social media have been over the last year, and which of those have resulted in actual convinctions. HINT: ones involving plots to murder people by the far right. Argh yes the terrifying "far right". The fact is that the government point at scary people like the Islamic Extremists (I am old enough to remember that), the neo-nazis, homo-phobes and other generally nasty people to sell these awful laws and then they are (mis)used against normal people. > Hmm... who exactly has been talking about all these "free speech" cases? Coincidence? Why does it matter? If Adolf Hitler/Francisco Franco/Mussolini/Stalin/<insert despot> rose from the dead tomorrow and was making valid criticisms of the various laws in the UK that stifle speech that doesn't mean that they are incorrect about those facts. It would make them hypocrites, but not incorrect.
pc86 1y ago
Is your argument really that as long as the conviction is eventually overturned, no harm no foul it's just a "trivial case" so everyone should just pretend it never happened? Really?
- mjburgess 1y ago
  It's trivial with respect to the question of whether political free expression in the UK is somehow under threat, yes. A handful of weird cases of extremely mild police overreach, corrected by a court -- hardly add up to anything. Every legal system in the world has such cases, in almost every other, they are much more extreme. In the UK, no one is paying for legal cases they win, unlike in the US where "free speech" is obtainable only if you can pay for your defence. I mean in the UK we aren't used to using the court system to obtain our rights, but this is basically the american system. It's extraordinary to hear americans express concern that a handful of people in the UK had to use the standard court procedure to have their rights enforced, which they did. Would the UK be better if these cases did not happen? Sure. But there's no legal system, almost by definition, that isnt going to have these cases. That's what courts exist to do -- to prevent executive overreach. The question is why are a handful of people, whose rights were enforced by the courts, being used as political agitprop against the UK? The answer is pretty obvious. It's a deliberate project of the far right to create popular resentement towards democractic governments in the west, at the time these governemnts are arresting rioters for attempting to murder immigrants. This isnt hard to see. These stories are spread by a very narrow range of extremely famous propagandists with a very obvious agenda. None of them mention that these cases were all thrown out on appeal. Nor that there's a tiny number of them. Nor that all the ones that result in conviction are basically domestic terrorism
  - pc86 1y ago
    Can you see how even the fact that police will knock on your door for a social media post will by definition have a chilling effect on free expression? Will low wage hourly workers in the UK feel secure in voicing their dissatisfaction with their child's school knowing that, while they might be convicted of a crime for doing so, it will probably get overturned on appeal even though they'll lose their job in the interim; or, will they just shut up and go along with whatever they're unhappy about?

timcobb 1y ago

Nit: is this political? Looks like the issue with the "joke" was violence/terrorism. A political statement would be like > David Cameron is a twit Not > I'm going to blow up the airport Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still

mrguyorama 1y ago
>Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still Lots of "idiocy" is explicitly illegal. Being dumb isn't an excuse to commit a crime. Literal children in the US get in trouble (legally, as in, sent to juvie) for bomb threats all the time. Making a bad judgement call, like "surely everyone will understand I'm just joking about my threat to literally murder people" often has legal ramifications.
- timcobb 1y ago
  Sure, I agree, but why take this person out of society for something like this when you can fine them or make them so community service? Certainly that's a deterrent?