Student gets 250 hours community service over Tweet

Maybe she will think before she tweets again. Just a reminder free speach only exists in the USA. Her stupid comment did nothing but incite anger which is against the law.

say something offensive and get community service! franky boyle must be
sh**ting himself!

Late Student wrote: »

We need tougher laws on online defamation IMO

Stick 'em all in the prison forum. Boards could make a tidy little profit.

IvaBigWun2 wrote: »

A UK Student who tweeted that people wearing Help for Heroes shirt 'deserve to be beheaded' has been sentenced to community service

Proper order. For centuries all these British heroes have been going around the world selflessly civilising the natives and even going to the trouble of looking after their lands and wealth out of concern for the natives. That anybody could question whether they were/are actually heroes, or are just robbing murdering bastards and thugs in the uniform of a foreign occupying force is just not tolerable.

Heroes, every last one of them. Forget this, and pay the consequences.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

humbert wrote: »

It's not the magnitude of the sentence it's the disturbing fact that she has been charged for expressing an opinion. She was not inciting hatred. That malicious electronic message legislation is really and truly Orwellian.

Agree with this. The current laws we have were written with post & telephone in mind and then expanded to cover 'electronic' communication — social media in general is a completely different medium.

The delivery is more akin to broadcasting, & while that can mean that you've a wider reach, it also means that the impact on an individual is more diluted — it's not equivalent to targetting someone & sending them malicious post or telephone calls.

At the same time, traditional broadcasting has checks & balances in place to make sure anything that would contravene the law isn't aired — e.g. running things through a legal team, or the 6 second delay even on live broadcasts.

People use social media to talk in their own tone of voice, & think that they're talking to an audience who understands that tone of voice. It's easy to say they should be more educated in the law, but I think the problem here is that the law hasn't yet caught up with the medium.

camel jockey wrote: »

:rolleyes: You're having a laugh here, right?

Imagine the outrage if someone said muslins should be beheaded.

You could argue that she was expressing hatred but she was not inciting hatred. Though I suspect you just misread my post in your haste to post, "what if dey said it about d fordiners1!!".