4 ms·

What concerns me especially in Britain is the amount of times the police are getting involved in what appear to be free speech cases. In Britain 2 police offic

by bobsy 14y ago

What concerns me especially in Britain is the amount of times the police are getting involved in what appear to be free speech cases. In Britain 2 police officers were killed. The same day a guy wrote on his t-shirt something to the effect of "kill pigs for fun hahahaah." This is a stupid thing to do. I would have thought the police might confiscate his t-shirt. Nope, that wouldn't have been sufficient. He got 4 months in prison. After any major crime you hear that someone has been arrested because they have set up a fan page or wrote some stupid comments online praising the person who did it. I would have thought Facebook moderation would be sufficient. Most recently.. a girl went missing. Some muppet on Facebook wrote how he "woke up" next to her. Not all of his comments were posted but these appear to be on his Facebook wall. He wasn't trolling the family or abusing memorial pages. He is now spending 3 months in prison... You then have the frustrated traveler who said he would blow an air port "sky high". He was arrested, found guilty and fined. It took a year or two to finally win an appeal. I am not defending these people. They have done stupid things. Some should be warned by police. However, there appears to be a crackdown going on quietly if you cause even the slightest offense. As a citizen of a western country this worries my greatly.

nicholassmith 14y ago
I agree, there's been a significant rise in cases being prosecuted over stupid, hurtful comments. They're often trolls, or parroting sickipedia, but that's no reason to arrest them, not even a little bit.
aes256 14y ago
In addition to the cases you mention, in the past month alone we have also had a man given a community sentence for posting that British soldiers in Afghanistan "should die and go to hell", and a man arrested for creating a Facebook group praising the alleged killer of the two police officers in Greater Manchester. These all come under the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits any "message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" It's stupid puritanistic legislation and it needs to be repealed.
- meaty 14y ago
  Some more nooses to hang ourselves with here: http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/law/malcomm.htm http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/law/malcomm.htm Most of this legislation came in under "think of the children" type laws to prevent critical discussion of the warmongering taking place in the last couple of decades (since just before the Gulf War). It's not puritanism, as at least that had some moral basis. This is plain totalitarianism under a fascist banner. The associated forms of indoctrination and the inevitable propaganda makes people think they should be offended when they see this as "it must be bad", resulting in the cycle continuing. Most people aren't offended by this sort of thing - they are afraid to have a potentially different opinion and therefore conform. Editing to add: in my youth I called a policeman a "fascist cunt" and was told off. I was a) a couple of decades early and b) punished appropriately.
  - aes256 14y ago
    > It's not puritanism, as at least that had some moral basis. This is plain totalitarianism under a fascist banner. The associated forms of indoctrination and the inevitable propaganda makes people think they should be offended when they see this as "it must be bad", resulting in the cycle continuing. I'm fairly certain it is puritanism. Generally speaking it's the result of people thinking it is an appropriate role of law to enforce morality in society, rather than simply to prevent harm. The older generations, who by and large decide on the legislation, are out of touch with the younger generations who have been brought up in a broadly secular, liberal social landscape, wherein people are less prudish, popular culture is far more sexualised and provocative, etc. Young people can't quite get their heads around the arbitrary restrictions on their actions — why they are not allowed to say certain words, why they cannot use certain drugs, etc. — and you can't blame them. Dogmatism is everywhere. > Editing to add: in my youth I called a policeman a "fascist cunt" and was told off. I was a) a couple of decades early and b) punished appropriately. It depends on the officer and the context, but today that would probably secure you a Section 5 arrest.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Parent's point was that Puritanism concerned itself with morality, whereas this modern law is strictly a tool of oppression with no moral component at all (except insofar as morality is made equivalent to religion, and the State is made into an idol).
subsystem 14y ago
Jenny Holzer said it best http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/exhibitions/radicalism/holzer.shtml http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/exhibitions/radicalism/holzer.s...
atmz 14y ago
This. Making trolling/writing offensive comments on other people's walls a crime is arguable (I disagree, but I understand the rationale. Writing things on your own wall, however, with no intention to offend or troll, and then getting arrested is ridiculous. The same logic applies to wearing an offensive shirt as opposed to shouting abuse. The worst part about this is the media coverage almost universally treating this as normal and expected -- which, in a sense, is even worse than explicitly arguing for it -- and neglecting to go into specifics about whether someone posted something on their own wall or not, which is really relevant.
gfunk911 14y ago
I DO defend these people. Free speech is free speech I accept the "fire in a theater" exception. Otherwise I don't care what people said, I defend their right to say it.
ucee054 14y ago
I believe Battle of Britain veteran John Catt was arrested under "anti-terror" laws for protesting the Iraq war. He's now a designated "Extremist" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/11/john-catt-protesting-civil-liberties http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/11/john-cat... I can imagine the day when anyone who says "Palestinians are people too" gets locked up under Nazism charges. MISTYPED ("was locked up"->"was arrested")
adrianhoward 14y ago
Of course in the UK we don't have a right to free speech. It's defined by the gaps between laws that limit speech in some contexts. In theory we do have Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that has so many riders that it's not of huge use. Most of the set of current prosecutions in the UK are happening under section 127 of the Communication Act of 2003 - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#an11 http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#.... There's a nice dissection of the reasons behind the problems with this bit of legalisation over here http://blogscript.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/section-127-communications-act-2003.html http://blogscript.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/section-127-communi... The legislation almost certainly won't last in it's current state. The CPS are already running round tables to discuss the problems http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/10/points-for-discussion-for-social-media-roundtables.html http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/10/points-for-discussion-for-soc... and the case-law with won appeals by folk like the airport guy will help too.
cstross 14y ago
The case of t-shirt guy (Barry Thew) is much worse than "4 months for wearing an offensive t-shirt". Turns out he has a history. a) He's a psychiatric patient, on anti-psychotic meds with a history of compulsory in-patient detention, b) His son died in police custody 3 years ago. He also has a series of criminal convictions, most recently for cultivating cannabis, but I'd like to note that there's a really strong association between schizophrenia and self-medication with cannabis. (I'm told -- this is purely anecdotal, but comes first hand from a dignosed schizophrenic -- that it makes the voices shut up for a while.) The judge tossed out the mental health argument advanced by the defense. Moreover this case was a public order case, a minor one, but came up before a judge in a crown court (usually the province of serious offenses such as robbery and murder), who imposed a much heavier sentence than would normally be the case for a public order conviction. (Public order offenses are frequently dealt with by a spot fine or, at worst, brought up before a magistrate who has much more limited sentencing powers. It may be that Threw's status -- he was also found to be in breach of a probation order because he was found to be in possession of cannabis -- accounts for that, but: WTF? Four months for possession of cannabis, and another four months for wearing a loud t-shirt in a built-up area? What are we coming to?) Thew is pretty obviously a petty criminal and what, on the internet, we'd term a troll. But his treatment by the state in this case is odious and heavy-handed, and raises disturbing implications. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jailed-tshirt-police http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jail...
- illuminate 14y ago
  "I'd like to note that there's a really strong association between schizophrenia and self-medication with cannabis. (I'm told -- this is purely anecdotal, but comes first hand from a dignosed schizophrenic -- that it makes the voices shut up for a while.)" There's a strong correlation between self medication of ~all~ variety and schizophrenia. The reason being (or so I hear) is that the most effective psychiatric drugs to treat schizophrenia tend to have very unpleasant side effects. Cannabis is an interesting case because it's been observed in some cases to exacerbate schizophrenic conditions. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-woman-in-606/Content?oid=14524160 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-woman-in-606/Content?...
- 14y ago
nickpinkston 14y ago
Actually - I've never understood your sentiments, or at least the need to say, "I don't support these people". I actually feel like I do support the people in your listed cases - dark humor has a welcome place in our society - if only to make light of the inevitability of our own impending death. If you make a good joke of a recent killing - I'll admit that I'll probably get a laugh out of it. I'm not ashamed at all of this. I'm betting a lot of the HN community feels the same way. Will they admit that? That - I'm not sure of.
- stfu 14y ago
  I am certainly willing to admit that I enjoy dark humor. But then again I am also willing to out myself as a regular 4chan user. In my opinion this form of dark humor/ridiculing is even necessary. It keeps society "sane", as it counter balances those sacred cows, and brings more relativism into the perspective.
  - nickpinkston 14y ago
    Fully with you - slaughter sacred cows with a sharp wit ;-)

by bobsy 14y ago

nicholassmith 14y ago

I agree, there's been a significant rise in cases being prosecuted over stupid, hurtful comments. They're often trolls, or parroting sickipedia, but that's no reason to arrest them, not even a little bit.

aes256 14y ago

In addition to the cases you mention, in the past month alone we have also had a man given a community sentence for posting that British soldiers in Afghanistan "should die and go to hell", and a man arrested for creating a Facebook group praising the alleged killer of the two police officers in Greater Manchester. These all come under the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits any "message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" It's stupid puritanistic legislation and it needs to be repealed.

meaty 14y ago
Some more nooses to hang ourselves with here: http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/law/malcomm.htm http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/law/malcomm.htm Most of this legislation came in under "think of the children" type laws to prevent critical discussion of the warmongering taking place in the last couple of decades (since just before the Gulf War). It's not puritanism, as at least that had some moral basis. This is plain totalitarianism under a fascist banner. The associated forms of indoctrination and the inevitable propaganda makes people think they should be offended when they see this as "it must be bad", resulting in the cycle continuing. Most people aren't offended by this sort of thing - they are afraid to have a potentially different opinion and therefore conform. Editing to add: in my youth I called a policeman a "fascist cunt" and was told off. I was a) a couple of decades early and b) punished appropriately.
- aes256 14y ago
  > It's not puritanism, as at least that had some moral basis. This is plain totalitarianism under a fascist banner. The associated forms of indoctrination and the inevitable propaganda makes people think they should be offended when they see this as "it must be bad", resulting in the cycle continuing. I'm fairly certain it is puritanism. Generally speaking it's the result of people thinking it is an appropriate role of law to enforce morality in society, rather than simply to prevent harm. The older generations, who by and large decide on the legislation, are out of touch with the younger generations who have been brought up in a broadly secular, liberal social landscape, wherein people are less prudish, popular culture is far more sexualised and provocative, etc. Young people can't quite get their heads around the arbitrary restrictions on their actions — why they are not allowed to say certain words, why they cannot use certain drugs, etc. — and you can't blame them. Dogmatism is everywhere. > Editing to add: in my youth I called a policeman a "fascist cunt" and was told off. I was a) a couple of decades early and b) punished appropriately. It depends on the officer and the context, but today that would probably secure you a Section 5 arrest.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Parent's point was that Puritanism concerned itself with morality, whereas this modern law is strictly a tool of oppression with no moral component at all (except insofar as morality is made equivalent to religion, and the State is made into an idol).

subsystem 14y ago

Jenny Holzer said it best http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/exhibitions/radicalism/holzer.shtml http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/exhibitions/radicalism/holzer.s...

atmz 14y ago

This. Making trolling/writing offensive comments on other people's walls a crime is arguable (I disagree, but I understand the rationale. Writing things on your own wall, however, with no intention to offend or troll, and then getting arrested is ridiculous. The same logic applies to wearing an offensive shirt as opposed to shouting abuse. The worst part about this is the media coverage almost universally treating this as normal and expected -- which, in a sense, is even worse than explicitly arguing for it -- and neglecting to go into specifics about whether someone posted something on their own wall or not, which is really relevant.

gfunk911 14y ago

I DO defend these people. Free speech is free speech I accept the "fire in a theater" exception. Otherwise I don't care what people said, I defend their right to say it.

ucee054 14y ago

I believe Battle of Britain veteran John Catt was arrested under "anti-terror" laws for protesting the Iraq war. He's now a designated "Extremist" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/11/john-catt-protesting-civil-liberties http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/11/john-cat... I can imagine the day when anyone who says "Palestinians are people too" gets locked up under Nazism charges. MISTYPED ("was locked up"->"was arrested")

adrianhoward 14y ago

Of course in the UK we don't have a right to free speech. It's defined by the gaps between laws that limit speech in some contexts. In theory we do have Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that has so many riders that it's not of huge use. Most of the set of current prosecutions in the UK are happening under section 127 of the Communication Act of 2003 - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#an11 http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#.... There's a nice dissection of the reasons behind the problems with this bit of legalisation over here http://blogscript.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/section-127-communications-act-2003.html http://blogscript.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/section-127-communi... The legislation almost certainly won't last in it's current state. The CPS are already running round tables to discuss the problems http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/10/points-for-discussion-for-social-media-roundtables.html http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/10/points-for-discussion-for-soc... and the case-law with won appeals by folk like the airport guy will help too.

cstross 14y ago

The case of t-shirt guy (Barry Thew) is much worse than "4 months for wearing an offensive t-shirt". Turns out he has a history. a) He's a psychiatric patient, on anti-psychotic meds with a history of compulsory in-patient detention, b) His son died in police custody 3 years ago. He also has a series of criminal convictions, most recently for cultivating cannabis, but I'd like to note that there's a really strong association between schizophrenia and self-medication with cannabis. (I'm told -- this is purely anecdotal, but comes first hand from a dignosed schizophrenic -- that it makes the voices shut up for a while.) The judge tossed out the mental health argument advanced by the defense. Moreover this case was a public order case, a minor one, but came up before a judge in a crown court (usually the province of serious offenses such as robbery and murder), who imposed a much heavier sentence than would normally be the case for a public order conviction. (Public order offenses are frequently dealt with by a spot fine or, at worst, brought up before a magistrate who has much more limited sentencing powers. It may be that Threw's status -- he was also found to be in breach of a probation order because he was found to be in possession of cannabis -- accounts for that, but: WTF? Four months for possession of cannabis, and another four months for wearing a loud t-shirt in a built-up area? What are we coming to?) Thew is pretty obviously a petty criminal and what, on the internet, we'd term a troll. But his treatment by the state in this case is odious and heavy-handed, and raises disturbing implications. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jailed-tshirt-police http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jail...

illuminate 14y ago
"I'd like to note that there's a really strong association between schizophrenia and self-medication with cannabis. (I'm told -- this is purely anecdotal, but comes first hand from a dignosed schizophrenic -- that it makes the voices shut up for a while.)" There's a strong correlation between self medication of ~all~ variety and schizophrenia. The reason being (or so I hear) is that the most effective psychiatric drugs to treat schizophrenia tend to have very unpleasant side effects. Cannabis is an interesting case because it's been observed in some cases to exacerbate schizophrenic conditions. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-woman-in-606/Content?oid=14524160 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-woman-in-606/Content?...
14y ago

nickpinkston 14y ago

Actually - I've never understood your sentiments, or at least the need to say, "I don't support these people". I actually feel like I do support the people in your listed cases - dark humor has a welcome place in our society - if only to make light of the inevitability of our own impending death. If you make a good joke of a recent killing - I'll admit that I'll probably get a laugh out of it. I'm not ashamed at all of this. I'm betting a lot of the HN community feels the same way. Will they admit that? That - I'm not sure of.

stfu 14y ago
I am certainly willing to admit that I enjoy dark humor. But then again I am also willing to out myself as a regular 4chan user. In my opinion this form of dark humor/ridiculing is even necessary. It keeps society "sane", as it counter balances those sacred cows, and brings more relativism into the perspective.
- nickpinkston 14y ago
  Fully with you - slaughter sacred cows with a sharp wit ;-)