12 weeks in Jail for offensive web posts about poor April Jones

dj jarvis

tails_naf wrote: »

CCTV is for your security (though they can also record sound on each street corner) you say .

I'm sure 'for your own good' or a variation on them was used by every police state there ever was!

oh they can

new thing they are working on in the UK is this ,
do you know the cats eyes on the motorways and a roads in the uk?
well , they are mounting ANPR software to mini cams fitted into the cats eyes
why you might ask ?
revenue generation and intelligence collection , revenue from speeding fines along with no tax and insurance , they will be able to time your average speed and tell if your speeding for that road - BAM - 60 quid fine

they are also hooking the same system into the city mounted CCTV systems ,
along with your " smart " phone they can track you , so you are tracked in work , traveling to work , and online at home :eek:

to me it looks like the UK get a massive hard on for these kind of gadgets , thing is

it could have saved this kid possibly

MagicSean

Can't see the problem here. He made disgusting comments at a sensitive time on a public forum. His words resulted in a large scale breach of the peace. He has to take responsability for that. Free speech has it's limits.

IvySlayer

MagicSean wrote: »

Can't see the problem here. He made disgusting comments at a sensitive time on a public forum. His words resulted in a large scale breach of the peace. He has to take responsability for that. Free speech has it's limits.

What about the mob? I'm pretty sure 50 people marching to someones house can be defined as breaching the peace.

My name is URL

FrogMarch wrote: »

Did he get what he deserved? Maybe. Is this a grave miscarriage of justice and a frightening precedent to the curtailment of freedom of speech? Definitely. So much so actually, that I don't even believe the story. I don't think any of this happened. Suspect it was engineered by the media. Again, I'll grab my tinfoil hat.

He didn't get what he deserved, at all. Punishments are supposed to reflect the seriousness of the crime and the effect it has on their victims. His crime was that of distaste and causing offense. Offense is not comparable to being subjected to actual harm.

People that cause actual harm to others escape prison sentences every day in the UK.

Who exactly is he supposed to have harmed with his comments? He wasn't arrested because a family member of April's made a complaint. He was arrested because a gang of 50 angry people (who did actually want to cause harm) arrived at his mother's home looking for him.

Maybe he deserved to be arrested and punished to some degree (I don't believe he did, personally), he could have been made to do community service or partake in a training scheme, but three months in jail is of no benefit to society, the supposed victims of his crime or to the guy himself. It's a stupid knee-jerk reaction to something dictated wholly by an uninvolved and rabble roused public.

Happyman42

None of the quick to take offence brigade have mentioned who the final arbitrator, of what can and cannot be said, should be. Or how you can properly and fairly implement this form of censorship.

Run_to_da_hills

MagicSean wrote: »

Can't see the problem here. He made disgusting comments at a sensitive time on a public forum. His words resulted in a large scale breach of the peace. He has to take responsability for that. Free speech has it's limits.

There is also the softer approach like banning him from the internet for a period of time. This already applies to certain certain offenders in the UK and something that we will see a lot more of once personal online e_ signatures are imposed.

TommyKnocker

My 2 cents

There is apparently a law in UK making it a crime to transmit electronically or otherwise material which is considered offensive.

Material is considered offensive not on how the creator meant it, but how it is perceived, just like say sexual harrassment.

Guy "jokingly" comments to girl about size of her boobs. Girl takes offence and reports guy for sexual harassment. Guy charged with sexual harrassment.

Doesn't matter that he says he meant it as a joke. It is how the remark was perceived that counts.

There is a punishment associated with this crime.

The guy committed said offence and was punished, simple as. Sure he was given the maximum possible to be made an example of and yes it possibly is a little harsh. But I am sure that his comments caused additional pain and suffering to anybody close to this young child (who are already suffering) who happened across his "jokes". Sorry but it is hard to have much sympathy for him tbh.

As the saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime, and I don't think a fine is a big enough deterrent and community service was out as his picture was all over the press, so he could have been lynched during his community service if the mob found out where he was, so jail it is. He will most likley serve less than a third of this sentence, and if it makes him (and others) engage his/their brain(s) before posting such crap in the future, well job done IMHO.

FrogMarch

steve9859 wrote: »

Nope...I don't think it is. Trolling, abuse, or instances that go further such as incitement to hatred....

Yes, but this guy was guilty of trolling and, to a degree, abuse. Although abuse is a very subjective term. As many have already said, where do we draw the line? What I find offensive, may not be offensive to you. What you find offensive, may not be offensive to me. It all depends on your opinions, your emotional conditioning, your spiritual or religious beliefs amongst many other factors. How can you possibly legislate for that subjectively? Anyway, I'm mostly paraphrasing Steve Hughes. He put it better than I ever could.

As for incitement to hatred - that's a very different thing and it is a crime as far as I'm aware. This guy wasn't guilty of that.

steve9859 wrote: »

they are all things that people are too often prepared to defend as 'freedom of speech'....nonsense IMO

It's not nonsense. People should be entitled to freedom of speech. Even if that makes them sick weirdos, as long as they're not actually causing irreparable damage or inciting hatred or violence, then people can say what they want. In fact, I find people who say otherwise offensive. But hey, they're entitled to say it.

steve9859 wrote: »

And phrases like 'frightening precedent' are ridiculously melodramatic....

I don't find it melodramatic. Some kid's just been jailed (apparently) for being a complete f**king idiot. If being an idiot was a criminal offense at 19 years old, I'd probably have done some hard time by now. Not that I was ever as much of an idiot as this f**king idiot. But I still don't think he deserved to be jailed.

steve9859 wrote: »

Setting behavioral boundaries for the Internet is the right thing to do

No. It's not. It's fascism. People can think and say whatever they want, no matter how distasteful, provided they're not a threat to people or society.

FrogMarch

My name is URL wrote: »

He didn't get what he deserved, at all. Punishments are supposed to reflect the seriousness of the crime and the effect it has on their victims. His crime was that of distaste and causing offense. Offense is not comparable to being subjected to actual harm.

Yeah, I agree with you FWIW. He didn't, legally, deserve jail time. Morally maybe but that's not what the law is there for. I was just (badly) making a more general point.

MagicSean

IvySlayer wrote: »

What about the mob? I'm pretty sure 50 people marching to someones house can be defined as breaching the peace.

And it was his behaviour that caused that breach. They too should also be held accountable for their actions.

My name is URL wrote: »

He didn't get what he deserved, at all. Punishments are supposed to reflect the seriousness of the crime and the effect it has on their victims. His crime was that of distaste and causing offense. Offense is not comparable to being subjected to actual harm.

People that cause actual harm to others escape prison sentences every day in the UK.

Who exactly is he supposed to have harmed with his comments? He wasn't arrested because a family member of April's made a complaint. He was arrested because a gang of 50 angry people (who did actually want to cause harm) arrived at his mother's home looking for him.

Maybe he deserved to be arrested and punished to some degree (I don't believe he did, personally), he could have been made to do community service or partake in a training scheme, but three months in jail is of no benefit to society, the supposed victims of his crime or to the guy himself. It's a stupid knee-jerk reaction to something dictated wholly by an uninvolved and rabble roused public.

i disagree. Aprils story was international. It was a very emotional and sensitive subject. His words will have hurt a lot of people. He caused upset to a lot of people, including the judge perhaps. Maybe he was made an example of but nothing happened which he did not bring on himself.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is also the softer approach like banning him from the internet for a period of time. This already applies to certain certain offenders in the UK and something that we will see a lot more of once personal online e_ signatures are imposed.

That would stop him doing it again but not punish him.

FrogMarch

TommyKnocker wrote: »

There is apparently a law in UK making it a crime to transmit electronically or otherwise material which is considered offensive.

Material is considered offensive not on how the creator meant it, but how it is perceived, just like say sexual harrassment.

Guy "jokingly" comments to girl about size of her boobs. Girl takes offence and reports guy for sexual harassment. Guy charged with sexual harrassment.

Doesn't matter that he says he meant it as a joke. It is how the remark was perceived that counts.

There is a punishment associated with this crime.

Truly horrifying.

FrogMarch

From Twitter... should Frankie Boyle be jailed?


frankieboyle
Jimmy Savile did an incredible amount of charity work towards the end of his life, just to be sure he could shag Madeleine McCann in heaven.
01/10/2012 11:15

twowheelsonly

ibarelycare wrote: »

What was he jailed for? What law did he break? This is absolutely ridiculous.

Melion wrote: »

How the hell can someone get jailed for that? What in the name of christ was he charged with?

sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive.

A similar law exists in this country by the way..

Sparks43 wrote: »

If Public opinion decides sentences then the whole judicial system is worthless


Try people by Law not Opinion

He was tried by the law.. See above.

My name is URL wrote: »

He didn't get what he deserved, at all. Punishments are supposed to reflect the seriousness of the crime and the effect it has on their victims. His crime was that of distaste and causing offense. Offense is not comparable to being subjected to actual harm.

People that cause actual harm to others escape prison sentences every day in the UK.

Who exactly .....

That's a matter of opinion surely?? Depends on the 'depth' of the offense and how personal it is. I might laugh at the jokes, you might have a little giggle, but how do you think that Aprils family and friends would feel? I know that if I were directly involved I'd probably want to strangle the little scrote!

FrogMarch wrote: »

Yes, but this guy was guilty of trolling and, to a degree, abuse. Although abuse is a very subjective term. As many have already said, where do we draw the line? What I find offensive, may not be offensive to you. What you find offensive, may not be offensive to me. It all depends on your opinions, your emotional conditioning, your spiritual or religious beliefs amongst many other factors. How can you possibly legislate for that subjectively? Anyway, I'm mostly paraphrasing Steve Hughes. He put it better than I ever could.

As for incitement to hatred - that's a very different thing and it is a crime as far as I'm aware. This guy wasn't guilty of that.



It's not nonsense. People should be entitled to freedom of speech. Even if that makes them sick weirdos, as long as they're not actually causing irreparable damage or inciting hatred or violence, then people can say what they want. In fact, I find people who say otherwise offensive. But hey, they're entitled to say it.

To a limited degree only though IMO. For instance, the charter here says attack the post and not the poster, and rightly so. Otherwise I can call anybody on here a w****** or whatever just because I don't like their opinion or a thread gets heated. Then all hell breaks lose and the whole site eventually falls down. Therefore there has to be some rules and some sense of decency, just as the same has to apply to society in general. Free speech is a myth in most cases. There has to be limits depending on circumstances.

I don't find it melodramatic. Some kid's just been jailed (apparently) for being a complete f**king idiot. If being an idiot was a criminal offense at 19 years old, I'd probably have done some hard time by now. Not that I was ever as much of an idiot as this f**king idiot. But I still don't think he deserved to be jailed.



No. It's not. It's fascism. People can think and say whatever they want, no matter how distasteful, provided they're not a threat to people or society.

Just random quotes from across the thread but getting the general gist of things.

As a matter of interest, how many of those that think free speech should be allowed unpunishable on the internet also think that cyber bullying is ok?

This whole thing might bring some people to think of who they might be offending or hurting before they type, which would be no bad thing IMO.

TommyKnocker

FrogMarch wrote: »

From Twitter... should Frankie Boyle be jailed?


frankieboyle
Jimmy Savile did an incredible amount of charity work towards the end of his life, just to be sure he could shag Madeleine McCann in heaven.
01/10/2012 11:15

Maybe Frankie will end up in prision if Maddies parents and relatives reported this muppet for these "jokes" and I for one would not weep for the clown.

His joke would have been just as unfunny if it went "Jimmy Savile did an incredible amount of charity work towards the end of his life, just to be sure he could shag Madeleine McCann young kids in heaven."

He can still get his dig in at JS (the alledged perpatrator) without dragging Maddie (the victim) into it and possibly causing more emotional hurt/distress to Maddies family.

twowheelsonly

FrogMarch wrote: »

From Twitter... should Frankie Boyle be jailed?


frankieboyle
Jimmy Savile did an incredible amount of charity work towards the end of his life, just to be sure he could shag Madeleine McCann in heaven.
01/10/2012 11:15

Personally can't stand the bloke but each to their own.

I think rather than be jailed he should be fined a decent whack every time he tweets - joke or no joke!!

All of his jokes are offensive - take away the offensive ones and he's left with nothing. However, you generally have to pay to go to see him or chose to do so of your own volition. Likewise, you can chose to follow him on twitter and you know what to expect. That's entirely different to 'offending public decency' if it's aimed at a particular group of people, in his case his fans.

My name is URL

MagicSean wrote: »

i disagree. Aprils story was international. It was a very emotional and sensitive subject. His words will have hurt a lot of people. He caused upset to a lot of people, including the judge perhaps. Maybe he was made an example of but nothing happened which he did not bring on himself.

Who did his words hurt? You're working off supposition here. He wasn't jailed because anyone in particular claimed to have been hurt or harmed in any way by his comments.

The fact that the story was international and emotional for some people is moot. Lots of people get emotional and sensitive over many different things. If the legal yardstick is going to be based on how many people are emotionally attached to or sensitive about something then we're royally fcuked.

You say that free speech has its limits.. well what exactly are they? How many offended nambys does it take for something to be viewed as criminal in nature?

Free speech does extend to causing people to feel offended. This has already been established in European law.

The Court's supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a "democratic society". Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. It is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society".

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57499

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handyside_v_United_Kingdom

People may have been offended by what he said, but he wasn't harassing or causing harm to any individual.

FrogMarch

TommyKnocker wrote: »

Maybe Frankie will end up in prision if Maddies parents and relatives reported this muppet for these "jokes" and I for one would not weep for the clown.

His joke would have been just as unfunny if it went "Jimmy Savile did an incredible amount of charity work towards the end of his life, just to be sure he could shag Madeleine McCannyoung kids in heaven."

He can still get his dig in at JS without dragging Maddie into it and possibly causing emotional hurt to Maddies family.

Okay. So do you think causing emotional hurt to someone should carry a custodial sentence? I'm genuinely curious about this. Because, if emotional abuse becomes a criminal offense, it will change society beyond recognition.

For example, reality shows where people are criticised and publicly humiliated would need to be outlawed. People who emotionally abuse their partners or spouses would be criminals. Of course emotional abuse would need to be defined (the man/woman who is cold towards his/her wife/husband, the woman/man who refuses to be physically intimate with their boyfriend/girlfriend, the idiot on the internet who says hurtful and disgusting things about the victim of a completely different crime, etc, etc, etc)

You want to legislate for hurtful idiots, trolls and emotional abusers? Okay, I'm game for that. I actually nearly would be. But unfortunately we'll never live in such a utopian society.

token101

50 people? I wonder how many of them were genuinely aggrieved and how many were just scum looking to do someone else harm? Have they been charged for attempted assault, breach of the peace or general thuggery? Getting 12 weeks in prison for a joke is a ****ing disgrace. I hope our crowd have some cop on and don't start following along this bull**** line and pandering to the permanently outraged. Convictions will be handed out by the Daily Mail next.

alphabeat

ibarelycare wrote: »

Good point, well made :rolleyes:

hey , i do what i can , thanks for the support :cool:

Spunge

maddie jokes are always well received here, i bet some of those same people who thanked those jokes are glad this guy went to jail. gotta love AH

FrogMarch

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Personally can't stand the bloke but each to their own.

Personally I think he's hilarious. Or at least I used to before he got a stale. Then again, I'm not easily offended. His jokes about rape and stuff made me laugh because they were funny and well delivered. Do I think rape is funny? No, of course I don't. Do I think jokes about rape are funny? Yes, sometimes. That's the difference between having a sense of humour and being a painful, politically correct bore. I can tell the difference between a rapist and someone telling a joke about rape (no matter how offensive the crime of rape actually is).

In our Americanised, overly-PC society, many people will tell you you're as bad as a rapist for laughing at a harmless rape joke. Frankly, I love watching these emotionally unstable morons express their outrage. Because that's what they are. Morons, unstable and completely out of touch with reality and even their own humanity. Not being able differentiate between real life crime and humour must be indicative of some kind of emotional instability.

As for the case in hand. The guy is an idiot. He's not Frankie Boyle. He's not funny. He was just offensive and unfunny. But that's it. I doubt he's a danger to society. WTF is he doing in jail?

TommyKnocker

FrogMarch wrote: »

Okay. So do you think causing emotional hurt to someone should carry a custodial sentence? I'm genuinely curious about this. Because, if emotional abuse becomes a criminal offense, it will change society beyond recognition.

Kids are being driven to commit suicide because of stuff their peers write about them online. This is cyber bullying/emotional abuse

Do I think it should carry a custodial sentence? Damn sure I do.

For the record, I would not class one partner being cold towards the other or witholding intimacy as emotional abuse, but more the signs of an unhealthy relationship.

The crap that Justin Lee Collins was convicted of putting his girlfriend through was emotional abuse, and IMHO he was rightly charged for this.

In your opinion was he hard done by? Maybe he was only "Joking"

MagicSean

My name is URL wrote: »

Who did his words hurt? You're working off supposition here. He wasn't jailed because anyone in particular claimed to have been hurt or harmed in any way by his comments.

The fact that the story was international and emotional for some people is moot. Lots of people get emotional and sensitive over many different things. If the legal yardstick is going to be based on how many people are emotionally attached to or sensitive about something then we're royally fcuked.

You say that free speech has its limits.. well what exactly are they? How many offended nambys does it take for something to be viewed as criminal in nature?

Free speech does extend to causing people to feel offended. This has already been established in European law.



http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57499

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handyside_v_United_Kingdom

People may have been offended by what he said, but he wasn't harassing or causing harm to any individual.

How about her family? Or all those people out looking for her?

He wasn't jailed because he upset someone. He was jailed because his actions resulted in a breach of the peace. That is one of the limits placed on free speech. Ireland is even stricter. See section 7 of the Public Order Act.

FrogMarch

TommyKnocker wrote: »

Kids are being driven to commit suicide because of stuff their peers write about them online. This is cyber bullying/emotional abuse

Do I think it should carry a custodial sentence? Damn sure I do.

Fair enough.

TommyKnocker wrote: »

For the record, I would not class one partner being cold towards the other or witholding intimacy as emotional abuse, but more the signs of an unhealthy relationship.

Wrong. What if one person is a good, decent person and the other just refuses intimacy because of, say, in-built malevolence or an insidious personality disorder?

The point is, and the same goes for you above point about teenage bullying, that it's very hard to define and legislate for emotional abuse.

TommyKnocker wrote: »

The crap that Justin Lee Collins was convicted of putting his girlfriend through was emotional abuse, and IMHO he was rightly jailed for this.

Don't know about that case. Will have to look it up.

TommyKnocker wrote: »

In your opinion was he hard done by? Maybe he was only "Joking"

Do you think he deserved to be put in jail for being an offensive and disgusting idiot?

dj jarvis

FrogMarch wrote: »

Personally I think he's hilarious. Or at least I used to before he got a stale. Then again, I'm not easily offended. His jokes about rape and stuff made me laugh because they were funny and well delivered. Do I think rape is funny? No, of course I don't. Do I think jokes about rape are funny? Yes, sometimes. That's the difference between having a sense of humour and being a painful, politically correct bore. I can tell the difference between a rapist and someone telling a joke about rape (no matter how offensive the crime of rape actually is).

In our Americanised, overly-PC society, many people will tell you you're as bad as a rapist for laughing at a harmless rape joke. Frankly, I love watching these emotionally unstable morons express their outrage. Because that's what they are. Morons, unstable and completely out of touch with reality and even their own humanity. Not being able differentiate between real life crime and humour must be indicative of some kind of emotional instability.

As for the case in hand. The guy is an idiot. He's not Frankie Boyle. He's not funny. He was just offensive and unfunny. But that's it. I doubt he's a danger to society. WTF is he doing in jail?

becasue sky news and the daily mail said he should - and the judge duly obliged - That is how it works in the UK - trail by media

reminds me of the murder case where the landlord was arrested but was found innocent - but the media hung this guy out to dry - they loved it , sweaty land lord kills tenant - they LOVE trying to make a example of people

PC CDROM

Stark

At least he'll have plenty of prison rape jokes to add to his repertoire when he gets out.

FrogMarch

Stark wrote: »

At least he'll have plenty of prison rape jokes to add to his repertoire when he gets out.

Yeah. Or maybe he'll be so unstable by the time he leaves jail that he'll actually rape someone. Or murder someone. Or whatever. :rolleyes:

Mickeroo

TommyKnocker wrote: »

Kids are being driven to commit suicide because of stuff their peers write about them online. This is cyber bullying/emotional abuse

Do I think it should carry a custodial sentence? Damn sure I do.

For the record, I would not class one partner being cold towards the other or witholding intimacy as emotional abuse, but more the signs of an unhealthy relationship.

The crap that Justin Lee Collins was convicted of putting his girlfriend through was emotional abuse, and IMHO he was rightly jailed for this.

In your opinion was he hard done by? Maybe he was only "Joking"

Saying something you actually mean and telling a joke are completely different. I think Frogmarch put it partiularly well above, it's being smart enough to see the difference between someone trying (failing in the case of this lad) to be funny and someone actually saying something they actually mean or condone.

Go read the oatmeal, cyanide & happiness or watch an episode of south park. THey're bloddy hilarious(imo obviously, not everyone's cup of tea tbf) but I don't think for a second the writers of any of them condone a lot of the stuff they're joking about.

FrogMarch

Mickeroo wrote: »

Go read the oatmeal, cyanide & happiness or watch an episode of south park. THey're bloddy hilarious(imo obviously, not everyone's cup of tea tbf) but I don't think for a second the writers of any of them condone a lot of the stuff they're joking about.

This is precisely it. None of us have a right to tell people how to think, what to joke about or what's off limits in terms of our own sense of humour. There are laws in place to prevent incitement to hatred and violence and, quite obviously, there are laws which are in place to prevent actual crime. But to tell people they can't talk about it, trivialize it or try and be humorous about certain topics is an out and out attack on freedom of speech.

Most people who cross the line between humour and decency are generally ostracised and thought of as complete idiots. That's punishment enough considering they haven't actually damaged society.