Over-reaction to fifteen y/o's admittedly nauseating comments

dxhound2005 · 12-05-2014 12:24AM

Smidge wrote: »

To be fair, being offensive isn't against the law though.

Sending a grossly offensive message on a communications network is a crime in the UK.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#an12

If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. The test for "grossly offensive" was stated by the House of Lords in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 to be whether the message would cause gross offence to those to whom it relates (in that case ethnic minorities), who need not be the recipients. The case also said that it is justifiable under ECHR Art 10(2) to prosecute somebody who has used the public telecommunications system to leave racist messages.

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. This offence is part of the fixed penalty scheme.

Mr Pseudonym · 12-05-2014 12:25AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How should we on After Hours go about seeking to correct the flaw?

I was referring to Society.

And what sort of responses did you expect when you decided to air this on a public forum, something you think is wrong for media organisations to do?

That is the most trite of arguments. It has been publicised, and I'm commenting on the manner in which it was and whether it was appropriate.

Saying the police shouldn't get involved ignores that fact that they have to investigate whether the crime of publishing a grossly offensive communication has been committed.

I'm sympathetic to that argument.

ringadingding · 12-05-2014 12:26AM

Can somebody give some context to the " smilers bed" bit ?

Smidge · 12-05-2014 12:27AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Sending a grossly offensive message on a communications network is a crime in the UK.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#an12

If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. The test for "grossly offensive" was stated by the House of Lords in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 to be whether the message would cause gross offence to those to whom it relates (in that case ethnic minorities), who need not be the recipients. The case also said that it is justifiable under ECHR Art 10(2) to prosecute somebody who has used the public telecommunications system to leave racist messages.

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. This offence is part of the fixed penalty scheme.

Well then I stand corrected.
But it makes you wonder about comedians and the like who say grossly offensive things via media(tv etc)on a regular basis and are not held accountable for it.

Mr Pseudonym · 12-05-2014 12:28AM

anncoates wrote: »

That's why casual sectarianism has to be opposed at every stage to break that cycle.

Where does it end and start in a society like the north? What they said is symptomatic of a wider malaise in wider society in the north.

I agree wholeheartedly. But I'm uncomfortable that, more than their actions, the two tweeters, themselves, have been vilified.

Mr Pseudonym · 12-05-2014 12:29AM

Smidge wrote: »

Well then I stand corrected.
But it makes you wonder about comedians and the like who say grossly offensive things via media(tv etc)on a regular basis and are not held accountable for it.

The likes of Frankie Boyle have been critical of such laws.

anncoates · 12-05-2014 12:29AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

IThe BBC isn't actually covering it, although if it was two GAA players mocking the death of a child, I'm sure they'd have a field day.

Conjectural , politically motivated tub thumping, tbh.

Smidge · 12-05-2014 12:31AM

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

The likes of Frankie Boyle have been critical of such laws.

While I'm no fan of his he was actually who I was thinking of.
He has made some horrendous "jokes" over the years.
Have the police ever been involved?

anncoates · 12-05-2014 12:37AM

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly. But I'm uncomfortable that, more than their actions, the two tweeters, themselves, have been vilified.

Wouldn't be a fan of Internet mob action either but unfortunately they themselves took it to the net first.

While I agree with the club taking action, I personally wouldn't agree with police action.

Mr Pseudonym · 12-05-2014 12:41AM

anncoates wrote: »

Wouldn't be a fan of Internet mob action either but unfortunately they themselves took it to the net first.

While I agree with the club taking action, I personally wouldn't agree with police action.

I know that the distinction doesn't apply as far as the law is concerned, but they didn't "take it to the net"; they posted it to their few hundred followers, from where it was disseminated.

NIMAN · 12-05-2014 12:43AM

Youngsters have been saying sick stuff for years, unfortunately for them they are saying it on the internet now, and once on there, it can never be retracted.

Teenagers will always be teenagers.

But nowadays there is a massive audience out there just waiting to be offended. And a lot of things offend them.

anncoates · 12-05-2014 12:44AM

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I know that the distinction doesn't apply as far as the law is concerned, but they didn't "take it to the net"; they posted it to their few hundred followers, from where it was disseminated.

Given the ease of potential dissemination, it's a defacto public comment.

Shakespeare's Sister · 12-05-2014 12:45AM

NIMAN wrote: »

Youngsters have been saying sick stuff for years, unfortunately for them they are saying it on the internet now, and once on there, it can never be retracted.

Teenagers will always be teenagers.

Yeh if they regret this in years to come (which they probably will) it's on record; thank feck there was no social media when I was a dopey teenager.

Mr Pseudonym · 12-05-2014 12:46AM

anncoates wrote: »

Given the ease of potential dissemination, it's a defacto public comment.

Ofc. I wonder should not social media education be more substantially included in SPH Education in school.

anncoates · 12-05-2014 12:49AM

Maybe they will regret it and maybe they won't. If everybody magically became beacons of tolerance in the north at the age of 16, we'd have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.

Have no Idea If they're just dumb kids or future bigots. Not sure how anybody else can be so sure unless they know them.

12-05-2014 12:54AM

Magaggie wrote: »

Yeh if they regret this in years to come (which they probably will) it's on record; thank feck there was no social media when I was a dopey teenager.

Hm, I don't think most of us were calling 5 years who died of cancer ***** when we were that age though

Mr. McGreg · 12-05-2014 01:04AM

They get no sympathy from me, if you're 15 you're not a child and they know what they said. Portadown should be releasing that first lad from their youth team and the minimum he should get is a suspension from playing football for a few years, teach them a lesson at least. Vile comments, if they said them out loud somewhere they'd probably be decked.

Mr Pseudonym · 12-05-2014 01:11AM

ringadingding wrote: »

Can somebody give some context to the " smilers bed" bit ?

I was also wondering about that. Does anyone know if "Under Smiler's bed" is some sectarian allusion?

Cantremember · 12-05-2014 04:19AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Twitter = who cares.
TBH, if you had put Twitter in the thread title I'd have skipped it too. It appears to only exist for people to annoy themselves. Has anything useful ever been Tweeted?

I thought I saw a puddy tat?

padd b1975 · 12-05-2014 07:01AM

Interestingly dismissive attitude towards Twitter on here compared to the OTT theatrical outrage towards a tweet about homosexuality from RTE.

Good old After Hours!

It's the subjective moral compass of this country lol.

Canis Lupus · 12-05-2014 07:52AM

riffmongous wrote: »

Hm, I don't think most of us were calling 5 years who died of cancer ***** when we were that age though

FWIW I said plenty of offensive and crass stuff at that age. It's easily said and just as easily forgotten about. Things that don't mean anything at that age really. Nowdays, unfortunately for everyone involved, kids have social media to immortalize their 'wise' words.

djerk · 12-05-2014 08:02AM

caught wind of this reading the paper before work yesterday but had no idea what the lads said til i read this post.. tbh ive never ever heard anyone speak with such a lack of any kind of moral sensibility.

fair enough, weve all done and said stupid things we didnt mean when we were teenagers.. but dancing on a 5yrs old grave, at least for most of us, wasnt one of them.

cretins exist.. always have, always will.. now they just happen to have a microphone.

efb · 12-05-2014 08:09AM

People seem to think they should be allowed to say whatever they want on the internet without any challenge.

No. You can't.

efb · 12-05-2014 08:11AM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Interestingly dismissive attitude towards Twitter on here compared to the OTT theatrical outrage towards a tweet about homosexuality from RTE.

Good old After Hours!

It's the subjective moral compass of this country lol.

Is it the same people Paddyb? Or are generalisations just easier to mould???

rockbeast · 12-05-2014 08:15AM

People don't always mean what they say.

Leave the kid alone.

rockbeast · 12-05-2014 08:17AM

efb wrote: »

People seem to think they should be allowed to say whatever they want on the internet without any challenge.

No. You can't.

Yes, you should be allowed to say whatever you want. In fact, you are

efb · 12-05-2014 08:19AM

rockbeast wrote: »

Yes, you should be allowed to say whatever you want. In fact, you are

Without challenge I said

rockbeast · 12-05-2014 08:22AM

efb wrote: »

Without challenge I said

Millions Versus 1 spotty 15 year old is hardly a "challenge", in fairness.

It's an assault.

efb · 12-05-2014 08:25AM

rockbeast wrote: »

Millions Versus 1 spotty 15 year old is hardly a "challenge", in fairness.

It's an assault.

Millions...

Hyperbole much?

Frank Lee Midere · 12-05-2014 08:28AM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Interestingly dismissive attitude towards Twitter on here compared to the OTT theatrical outrage towards a tweet about homosexuality from RTE.

Good old After Hours!

It's the subjective moral compass of this country lol.

Yeah. Also people posting on the Internet giving out about other people on the Internet.

Over-reaction to fifteen y/o's admittedly nauseating comments

Comments