nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Student gets 250 hours community service over Tweet

IvaBigWun2

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

Deyka Ayan Hassan, 21, meant the comment to be a jokey criticism of the design of the t-shirt worn by supporters of the forces charity
She was arrested at home after admitting to police she had tweeted 'to be honest, if you wear a Help for Heroes t-shirt you deserve to be beheaded'
Ordered to do 250 hours of unpaid work by magistrates today, having admitted a charge of sending a malicious electronic message

Could this ever happen in Ireland?

Full article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337635/Lee-Rigby-murder-Student-tweeted-people-wearing-Help-Heroes-shirt-deserve-beheaded-sentenced-community-service.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Amirani

SpaceTime wrote: »

She appears to have gotten some serious abuse on Twitter for her comments. That's how freedom of speech works! You say something, other people respond.

The state doesn't jump into the middle of it to censor everything.

It appears they do judging by the outcome.

Jester252

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.

Amirani

Jester252 wrote: »

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.

Your post incites anger in me. Does that make it against the law? You should probably go turn yourself in.

sheesh

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

Jester252

NiallSparky wrote: »

Your post incites anger in me. Does that make it against the law? You should probably go turn yourself in.

I suggest you look up hate speach laws.

Amirani

Jester252 wrote: »

I suggest you look up hate speach laws.

You already told us her crime though and the legality of it? What more does the law say?

It is my opinion that you have committed the same crime, and that's all this is about, opinions?

Jester252

NiallSparky wrote: »

You already told us her crime though and the legality of it? What more does the law say?

It is my opinion that you have committed the same crime, and that's all this is about, opinions?

If you looked up hate crime laws. You'll know what she did wrong.

[Deleted User]

Jester252 wrote: »

If you looked up hate crime laws. You'll know what she did wrong.

Since you supposedly know do you want to fill him in or what?

biko

She's kinda cute. Will make a good fourth wife for some lucky warrior.

[Deleted User]

What exactly is wrong with saying that? Free speech just a fading memory in some countries? And what does "inciting anger" even mean?

Is it any different to me saying right now online, "Any one with a swastika tattoo deserves to get beheaded."?

Amirani

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with saying that? Free speech just a fading memory in some countries? And what does "inciting anger" even mean?

Is it any different to me saying right now online, "Any one with a swastika tattoo deserves to get beheaded."?

Absolutely agreed. I've seen more hateful comments online many times. The poor British Army needs protecting though.

holystungun9

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.

humbert

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.

The world changes slowly and what is normal changes along with it but there are a lot of new laws being brought in, particularly in the UK and America, that should never be view as normal.

Dostoevsky

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.

R P McMurphy

Jester252 wrote: »

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.

Maybe you should think before you post

Gummy Panda

In Ireland, does the incitement to hatred act cover social media?

COYVB

Jester252 wrote: »

free speach only exists in the USA

LOL!

Jester252

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.

stoneill

People need to learn the difference between intent and impact.
She is an English and Politics student and couldn't foresee how her tweet would be received?

Feathers

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.

hatrickpatrick

All this censorship crap is just going to lead to an explosion in the use of programs like Tor and i2p. The internet doesn't want to be regulated, and if such evasion tactics become commonplace it's going to be real headache for government trying to deal with genuinely deserving cases of criminality. If I were them I'd lay off on attacking ordinary folk for Twitter chatter or they will unwittingly push the internet into an era in which it will be very difficult for them to do anything about anything that happens on it.

camel jockey

I don't see any reason why she shouldn't have been beheaded.

camel jockey

humbert wrote: »

She was not inciting hatred.

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

Imagine the outrage if someone said muslins should be beheaded.

humbert

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!!".

kowloon

If the authorities there ever discover the comments section on Youtube they'll have to start shipping people to Australia again.

camel jockey

humbert wrote: »

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!!".

Could you really? No doubt you believe that muslins can do no wrong.

Legs.Eleven

Dostoevsky wrote: »

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.

And this is not even an exaggeration of the truth. It's fooked up beyond belief. Scary. Bone chilling, in fact.

SpaceTime

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

And this is not even an exaggeration of the truth. It's fooked up beyond belief. Scary. Bone chilling, in fact.

I suspect that you may need to remove the sarcasm and satire filters plug-ins from your browser.

Overheal

kowloon wrote: »

If the authorities there ever discover the comments section on Youtube they'll have to start shipping people to Australia again.

this wouldnt have even caught their attention except she went to the police herself over various online threats. kinda serves her right, but I also hope they followed up on some of the threats also as malicious speech is not any excuse to threaten to rape someone.

Czarcasm

Overheal wrote: »

this wouldnt have even caught their attention except she went to the police herself over various online threats. kinda serves her right, but I also hope they followed up on some of the threats also as malicious speech is not any excuse to threaten to rape someone.

There's the thing though - The online threats to rape her were just as much malicious speech as her calling for people to be beheaded.

This issue was discussed in the "Trivial things that annoy you" thread based on this very same case not so long ago but the search function on the touch site is terrible so I can't find specific mention of it.