Free Speech and Social Media (esp. in the U.K.)

Procrastastudy · 08-10-2012 5:37pm

gvn wrote: »

The story continues ...

Matthew Woods has been jailed (read here and here) for 12 weeks for posting distasteful jokes about the missing April Jones and Madeleine McCann. The jokes were adaptations of generic jokes which he found online. There's no doubt that such jokes are highly disrespectful and distasteful, but, having said that, should making such jokes, and making them available online on his Facebook page, be a criminal offence punishable with 12 weeks in jail?

I don't think so. If I'm being honest, such imprisonments scare me.

Well you know my views - although I would have thought a nice big fine in the shape of a donation to a Children's charity and a ban from using the Internet / Facebook for a number of years would have been a more proportionate and effective response.

[Deleted User] · 08-10-2012 6:03pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Well you know my views - although I would have thought a nice big fine in the shape of a donation to a Children's charity and a ban from using the Internet / Facebook for a number of years would have been a more proportionate and effective response.

What troubles me is not just what's happening now (individuals being imprisoned for causing offence online), but also the possibility that such legislation might be introduced to cover other areas — it's not difficult to imagine that such legislation might eventually be broadened to cover more traditional media, such as television, radio, film, and, possibly, live performance.

Take, for instance, a controversial comedian such as Frankie Boyle. If he offends a large number of people with a joke on a television show (which he has done in the past) should he be prosecuted and imprisoned? What's the difference between a person offending a large number of people via, say, Facebook, and a comedian offending a large number of people via a television show? Comparing the basic facts of both scenarios I can see very little distinction. Would you be in favour of extending such laws to cover more than the internet — to television and film, for example?

Procrastastudy · 08-10-2012 6:12pm

gvn wrote: »

What troubles me is not just what's happening now (individuals being imprisoned for causing offence online), but also the possibility that such legislation might be introduced to cover other areas — it's not difficult to imagine that such legislation might eventually be broadened to cover more traditional media, such as television, radio, film, and, possibly, live performance.

Take, for instance, a controversial comedian such as Frankie Boyle. If he offends a large number of people with a joke on a television show (which he has done in the past) should he be prosecuted and imprisoned? What's the difference between a person offending a large number of people via, say, Facebook, and a comedian offending a large number of people via a television show? Comparing the basic facts of both scenarios I can see very little distinction. Would you be in favour of extending such laws to cover more than the internet — to television and film, for example?

Funny you should mention Frankie Boyle - I was thinking something similar. The difference is of course that Facebook and Twitter are covered by different laws, as I have eluded I think thats a good thing. Extension of those laws to TV and Books etc - actually although I may have not been clear on this point I would not be in favour of such strict laws as there should be with social media. Books/Non-Social Media internet even less so than TV. Thats not to say I would say there should be no restrictions.

We have to be careful here in that there is a difference between causing offense and outraging public values which is what I, personally, take issues with. Frankly Madeline McCann jokes are fair game - April Jones jokes are taking it too far, in my view. Making jokes about April Jones was going to have a patently obvious affect, and it did, a mob turned up. Should I be subject to the same penalty if I emailed a April Jones joke to my mates vs. posted it to a public forum like facebook? No.

ShooterSF · 09-10-2012 2:44am

So if you say something thats likely to cause a mob of people to go out and break the law or act violent you should be held responsible?

Peregrinus · 09-10-2012 4:15am

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if you say something thats likely to cause a mob of people to go out and break the law or act violent you should be held responsible?

Well, sometimes, yes. Hitler, after all, never killed a Jew in his life, so far as we know, but the things he wrote and said led others to kill millions. Are we saying that he can't be held responsible for that?

Obviously there's a difference between, at the one extreme, issuing a direct order to someone over whom you have authority to go out and kill some Jews and, at the other, making vaguely antisemitic comments which serve to reinforce and bolster the kind of climate in which such things happen. Nevertheless at some point along that spectrum we have to say that, yes, people ought to be held not just morally but legally accountable for the consequences of what they say.

And furthermore we can draw a number of lines. The line which we draw for the purposes of a murder conviction need not be the same as the line which we draw for the purposes of determining whether you have a responsibility to compensate for damage done by people inspired by what you said, which in turn may be different from the line we use for deciding when the community has a legitimate interest in censoring your speech.

Procrastastudy · 09-10-2012 7:07am

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if you say something thats likely to cause a mob of people to go out and break the law or act violent you should be held responsible?

I suspect incitement to riot would still be on the books even if we did have unfettered free speech.

Peregrinus · 09-10-2012 9:02am

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I suspect incitement to riot would still be on the books even if we did have unfettered free speech.

Surely if incitement to riot was still on the books (and enforced) then we wouldn't, in fact, have unfettered free speech?

ShooterSF · 09-10-2012 12:14pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, sometimes, yes. Hitler, after all, never killed a Jew in his life, so far as we know, but the things he wrote and said led others to kill millions. Are we saying that he can't be held responsible for that?

Obviously there's a difference between, at the one extreme, issuing a direct order to someone over whom you have authority to go out and kill some Jews and, at the other, making vaguely antisemitic comments which serve to reinforce and bolster the kind of climate in which such things happen. Nevertheless at some point along that spectrum we have to say that, yes, people ought to be held not just morally but legally accountable for the consequences of what they say.

We don't have to say it, especially not when people are expressing their opinion no matter how sick or wrong it is. Hitler deserved punishment solely for his actions as the leader of Germany and it's armies in which he killed millions of innocent people not for expressing his opinion. Otherwise we're not far off thought crime and likewise we shouldn't put laws in place to stop the masses from acting like idiots because someone persuades them to agree with sick thoughts or ideas.

And furthermore we can draw a number of lines. The line which we draw for the purposes of a murder conviction need not be the same as the line which we draw for the purposes of determining whether you have a responsibility to compensate for damage done by people inspired by what you said, which in turn may be different from the line we use for deciding when the community has a legitimate interest in censoring your speech.

Agreed but that line should not be drawn anywhere near voicing personal opinion or merely offensive commentary. Fraud and outright lies seem a much better place to draw it and yet people are still wary of drawing the line even there. Look at psychic claims, homoeopathic claims etc.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I suspect incitement to riot would still be on the books even if we did have unfettered free speech.

It wouldn't be anywhere near unfettered free speech. You would be bringing us right back into the dark ages where mob rule often superseded freedom of expression and unpopular opinions such as the earth being round or not at the centre of the universe could see you punished because you would be inciting a riot.

Curiously what was you opinion of the Denmark cartoons about Mohammed or the Draw Mohammed Day that followed? People can be offended by the silliest of things.

And how is incitement to riot any different than an argument I was subjected to recently in the pub where discussing a rape victim one person claimed she had been dressed sluttish and walked down a dangerous street alone so she had to take most of the blame? He's doing the same thing in blaming one person for causing another to break the law just swap out speaking your mind for dressing provocatively and turning up in a mob looking to assault someone with rape.

[Deleted User] · 09-10-2012 12:55pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Funny you should mention Frankie Boyle - I was thinking something similar. The difference is of course that Facebook and Twitter are covered by different laws, as I have eluded I think thats a good thing. Extension of those laws to TV and Books etc - actually although I may have not been clear on this point I would not be in favour of such strict laws as there should be with social media. Books/Non-Social Media internet even less so than TV. Thats not to say I would say there should be no restrictions.

I agree with you that such laws shouldn't be extended to other media. Having said that, is there really a tangible distinction between, say, publishing a book that is deemed to be offensive, and publishing comments on some social medium, such as Matthew Woods' comments, that are likewise offensive? On what basis do you draw a distinction between different media to avoid inconsistency?

We have to be careful here in that there is a difference between causing offense and outraging public values which is what I, personally, take issues with. Frankly Madeline McCann jokes are fair game - April Jones jokes are taking it too far, in my view. Making jokes about April Jones was going to have a patently obvious affect, and it did, a mob turned up. Should I be subject to the same penalty if I emailed a April Jones joke to my mates vs. posted it to a public forum like facebook? No.

I agree — joking about April, so soon after her disappearance and death, is taking it too far. For doing so, Woods should have received criticism — not imprisonment.

What would you describe as the difference between causing offence and outraging public values/morality? I understand that, legally, the two are separate. As far as I can see it, outraging public morality is a subset of causing offence, so if one disagrees with the causation of offence being punishable by law, then by necessity one would disagree with outraging public morality being an actionable offence. I can see no important distinction between the two beyond semantics.

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if you say something thats likely to cause a mob of people to go out and break the law or act violent you should be held responsible?

I'm undecided on this issue. Ideally, I'd like the state to have little (or no) part in deciding what is and what is not deemed to be free speech. Practically, though, when it comes to incitement of violence, it can be useful to have it as an offence.

If an authoritative politician, say, or a powerful celebrity, requested his fans and followers to riot and cause havoc, should he not be held responsible on some level? Yes, the rioters should be punished, but shouldn't he, as the root cause of their rioting, be held accountable to some degree? Allowing such incitement to violence to persist would, I imagine, be damaging to society as a whole, as it would allow influential individuals to bring about, via proxy, violence.

[Deleted User] · 09-10-2012 2:53pm

An article was published by The Guardian this morning discussing this very issue. In it, the Journalist concludes with:

People who cause needless hurt and offence to bereaved families and their supporters should be censured, shunned and shamed. Prosecution and possible imprisonment should be reserved for those who make credible threats to kill or maim others, putting their victims in genuine fear for their safety.

I find the above totally reasonable.

The article also mentions an ECHR ruling from 1976:

The European court of human rights decided as long ago as 1976 that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions "that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population".

Is Woods' sentence, for expressing mere jokes, not in direct opposition to the above?

ShooterSF · 09-10-2012 2:57pm

On thinking about the idea I still don't agree, mostly. Though I'm leaning towards making some minor exceptions. Firstly, I can't assume everyone on this planet has the same ease of access to information and education as you or I and so my point of view that if I can see past such arguments they can too seems erroneous. If you are brainwashed as a child to think one way, refused access to other points of view and then told to act on what you were taught I can't hold you responsible but rather those that manipulated your life. I still hold people in the developed world (for want of a better term) responsible for their own actions and the idea that he told me to do it, unless accompanied by real threats, a pathetic excuse.
Secondly and this is right into grey territory I can imagine some scenarios where imminent action is best and in those scenarios lying and inciting people does seem punishably (is that a word?) wrong. For example if someone rushes into a room of people telling them that someone is on their way to kill someone else a scenario of instant intervention is created and doesn't provide time for people to examine the true facts of the issue. Lying here like shouting fire in a theatre creates a scenario where the best course of action is to do before checking the facts and it that case I can accept the idea.

Still though for the most part I just don't accept that people are not responsible for being persuaded to do things. It's a personal responsibility issue as much as a freedom of speech one.

ShooterSF · 09-10-2012 3:01pm

gvn wrote: »

An article was published by The Guardian this morning discussing this very issue. In it, the Journalist concludes with:

"People who cause needless hurt and offence to bereaved families and their supporters should be censured, shunned and shamed. Prosecution and possible imprisonment should be reserved for those who make credible threats to kill or maim others, putting their victims in genuine fear for their safety.
"

I find the above totally reasonable.

Would you argue against the westboro baptist church's picketing for funerals. I think it's disgusting but I don't think it should be censored.

[Deleted User] · 09-10-2012 3:25pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Still though for the most part I just don't accept that people are not responsible for being persuaded to do things. It's a personal responsibility issue as much as a freedom of speech one.

I agree.

Individuals should be held personally responsible for their actions, regardless of their motivations or inspirations — in the vast majority of cases, at least. Where is the distinction drawn between genuine incitement to violence, and a remark being used as an excuse by some to be violent?

For example. If a person creates a website which states "all people of ethnicity X must be killed," and someone kills a person of ethnicity X and cites the website as inspiration, is the creator of the website responsible to any degree, or is the perpetrator of the crime just using the site as an excuse? I think a lot of instances of incitement to violence can be argued along this line: it's often an excuse, and not an actual cause.

I'm still not settled on the issue. Perhaps some good arguments for or against strict incitement laws will emerge from this thread.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Would you argue against the westboro baptist church's picketing for funerals. I think it's disgusting but I don't think it should be censored.

I agree; I'd defend their right to picket in such a manner. Censoring, prosecuting and imprisoning the picketers wouldn't achieve anything but temporary, artificially-created silence. Let the public see the Church's actions and criticise, shun and admonish its members. I think this is a one case where it's patently clear that allowing them to picket and show their disgusting nature to the public is more beneficial than simply locking them up in prison. Such criticism will always be more powerful than forced-silence and imprisonment; the same is true for Matthew Woods' distasteful jokes — though his actions are orders of magnitude less disgusting than the actions of Westboro Bapist Church.

ShooterSF · 09-10-2012 3:35pm

While I'm keen to post in more detail I do have boring old work to deal with so will get to it later but I just wanted to point out that I mentioned the WBC because I almost agree with the guardian except for the call to censor and partly for your reasoning above. To allow people to put their own bigotry on display.

[Deleted User] · 09-10-2012 3:45pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

While I'm keen to post in more detail I do have boring old work to deal with so will get to it later but I just wanted to point out that I mentioned the WBC because I almost agree with the guardian except for the call to censor and partly for your reasoning above. To allow people to put their own bigotry on display.

I think you may have confused a couple of words! The Guardian says to "censure" (i.e. to express harsh criticism or disapproval), not to censor (i.e. forbid from public distribution), those who cause needless hurt to families. I suspect you agree with this position.

Blisterman · 09-10-2012 4:24pm

This case in particular is getting dangerously close to the thought police.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828

A guy posted on Facebook "all soldiers should die and go to hell", which, agree with it or not, is his opinion/belief.

If "soldier" was replaced with Paeodophile, Taliban, Nazi, IRA etc, there would never be a problem.

It's easy to defend free speech, when you're defending comments you agree with. The real test is how you react when people make comments which offend you or challenge your beliefs.

Procrastastudy · 09-10-2012 4:42pm

@gvn the distinction is a simple one, in my view at least, and not that novel. When one published a book, makes comment down the pub or indeed stands in the on Grafton Street and shouts something they are reaching a limited, and potentially interested group of people. When one posts on the likes of Facebook or broadcasts via Radio or Television they have the potential to reach many, many more people and therefore, again in my view, the restrictions should be greater.

As to the distinction between causing offense and outraging public morals etc - I am not sure of the legal definition. The likelihood is it's not a fixed set of goal posts. There needs to be that distinction, it needs to be sufficiently narrow and I take it on faith at this point that it is. While we are on the legalities of things we do have to bear in mind all this is going on in another jurisdiction and the population of that jurisdiction may very well, on the whole, support the legislation.

[Deleted User] · 09-10-2012 7:23pm

Blisterman wrote: »

This case in particular is getting dangerously close to the thought police.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828

A guy posted on Facebook "all soldiers should die and go to hell", which, agree with it or not, is his opinion/belief.

If "soldier" was replaced with Paeodophile, Taliban, Nazi, IRA etc, there would never be a problem.

It's easy to defend free speech, when you're defending comments you agree with. The real test is how you react when people make comments which offend you or challenge your beliefs.

That's incredible. Where did he post the comment, do you know? On his own page, or on some remembrance page for the soldiers? Not that it makes a difference, but if it was the latter I can understand why there would be such an overreaction.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

@gvn the distinction is a simple one, in my view at least, and not that novel. When one published a book, makes comment down the pub or indeed stands in the on Grafton Street and shouts something they are reaching a limited, and potentially interested group of people. When one posts on the likes of Facebook or broadcasts via Radio or Television they have the potential to reach many, many more people and therefore, again in my view, the restrictions should be greater.

I'd have thought publishing a book would be in a similar (greater, in fact) league to posting a comment on Facebook or Twitter, and not at all like commenting on an issue down at the pub or shouting your views to the public on Grafton Street. If you believe such restrictions should apply to Facebook and other social media, then I think it's logically inconsistent to believe books should be exempt from similar restrictions.

As to the distinction between causing offense and outraging public morals etc - I am not sure of the legal definition. The likelihood is it's not a fixed set of goal posts. There needs to be that distinction, it needs to be sufficiently narrow and I take it on faith at this point that it is.

Why the need for a distinction between causing gross offence and outraging public morality?

While we are on the legalities of things we do have to bear in mind all this is going on in another jurisdiction and the population of that jurisdiction may very well, on the whole, support the legislation.

Of course. That the laws do not apply to us doesn't make a difference, though; the discussion is still an interesting one nonetheless.

Procrastastudy · 09-10-2012 7:31pm

gvn wrote: »

I'd have thought publishing a book would be in a similar (greater, in fact) league to posting a comment on Facebook or Twitter, and not at all like commenting on an issue down at the pub or shouting your views to the public on Grafton Street. If you believe such restrictions should apply to Facebook and other social media, then I think it's logically inconsistent to believe books should be exempt from similar restrictions.

I have to disagree with you here. Social media is much more akin to a broadcast than a book. Even a very controversial book will be lucky to see the circulation a knob joke will on Facebook.

gvn wrote: »

Why the need for a distinction between causing gross offence and outraging public morality?

Putting legalities aside for a moment. In my view the outrage needs to be such that it would cause gross offense (e.g. not just Frankie Boyle levels) or upset to a majority (lets say 70%) of people and serve little or no purpose other than that.

gvn wrote: »

Of course. That the laws do not apply to us doesn't make a difference, though; the discussion is still an interesting one nonetheless.

Don't get me wrong, an exceptionally interesting and enjoyable conversation to be sure!

Blisterman · 09-10-2012 7:52pm

gvn wrote: »

That's incredible. Where did he post the comment, do you know? On his own page, or on some remembrance page for the soldiers? Not that it makes a difference, but if it was the latter I can understand why there would be such an overreaction.

From what I can hear, it was his own page, posted when news of soldiers being killed was in the media.

The full post, as opposed to the selectively quoted post was

"People gassin about the deaths of Soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.

"The women who have been raped. The children who have been sliced up!

"Your enemy's were the Taliban not innocent harmful familys.

"All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE F****N SCUM!

"Gotta problem. Go cry at your soldiers grave and wish him hell because that's where he is going."

ShooterSF · 10-10-2012 1:58am

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I have to disagree with you here. Social media is much more akin to a broadcast than a book. Even a very controversial book will be lucky to see the circulation a knob joke will on Facebook.

That's insane. The only reason anyone but the people who read his posts on facebook saw it was the reaction of a group of people determined to let the world know. The same can happen of any book. And that's before you take into consideration publishers all too keen to court controversy.

One of the benefits of free speech is demonstrated above in the soldier comment. If people like that can speak freely they may make others question their own opinions on issues such as "collateral damage", civilian casualties and the like that they might not do otherwise. Like a holocaust denier might lead you to research and learn about the holocaust rather than just assume it was true. They are a constant reinforcement of critical thinking and a reminder that just because we agree with the majority doesn't mean we should ever forget to question why. Was it just accepted because everyone else said do or can I state the facts myself.

On the incitement issue I'm simply asking people to believe that others have in them the capability to reason at the same level you expect of an 8 year old. If two kids are playing in your lawn and one puts a brick through your window and you proceed to question why he did it, he responds that the other kid told him to do it do you say "If they told you to jump off a bridge would you?" or do you say "Fair point. They are a persuasive bugger I'll punish them"?

Another point comes up while I was thinking today. How many here would support the censorship of the bible? It demands that people who collect sticks on the sabbath be put to death. Surely that's incitement to violence. Islamic religious texts demand apostates be killed shall we censor them too? Or is it just the easy targets like the kid on facebook?

Oh and gvn yes I read that as censor whoops

Procrastastudy · 10-10-2012 7:23am

ShooterSF wrote: »

That's insane. The only reason anyone but the people who read his posts on facebook saw it was the reaction of a group of people determined to let the world know. The same can happen of any book. And that's before you take into consideration publishers all too keen to court controversy.

Most of your post doesn't make a lot of sense to me I'm afraid. To simplify my point.

Books reach X number of people and take effort to read. Furthermore, generally to be taken seriously a book would need to be more than one line long. Books also need to be requested somehow, either bought or in the case of a website require you to visit it.

TV, Radio, Social media all only require the consumer to be passive. They reach X times 100 people, are delivered to you and can be as short as a few lines. We've, and all of the western world, have always had restrictions of broadcasting. The UK have chosen to put similar restrictions on social media, which, personally, I agree with.

You are never going to have unfettered free speech. The Constitution itself prohibits it in several places. We specifically protect the right to a good name and the Freedom of expression is qualified. Legislation to 'balance arms' in relation to Social Media is not some whacky out there concept that the majority of people would take issue with.

ShooterSF · 10-10-2012 11:56am

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Most of your post doesn't make a lot of sense to me I'm afraid. To simplify my point.

Books reach X number of people and take effort to read. Furthermore, generally to be taken seriously a book would need to be more than one line long. Books also need to be requested somehow, either bought or in the case of a website require you to visit it.

TV, Radio, Social media all only require the consumer to be passive. They reach X times 100 people, are delivered to you and can be as short as a few lines. We've, and all of the western world, have always had restrictions of broadcasting. The UK have chosen to put similar restrictions on social media, which, personally, I agree with.

You are never going to have unfettered free speech. The Constitution itself prohibits it in several places. We specifically protect the right to a good name and the Freedom of expression is qualified. Legislation to 'balance arms' in relation to Social Media is not some whacky out there concept that the majority of people would take issue with.

I'm afraid I also find your posts nonsensical. Social media is just that, a way to communicate with friends and family in the case of facebook almost in a pub setting. Unlike someone publishing a book the guy on facebook probably only expected his comments to reach those that are connected to him on it. Probably a few hundred. Had he come out with a book titled "The 500 best missing children jokes" I'd actually be more critical not less.

Again no one here seems to be making a claim for unfettered free speech but again you miss the entire point of free speech which is not to silence minority opinions. Something your 70% idea or constant use of the word majority to defend your claims completely does away with.

As for people being entitled to a good name I simply don't draw the line at attempted humour, satire or criticism but rather lies and fraud. So I do see restrictions I just don't agree with the level of them. The notion that the majority are always right is demonstrably wrong, so too is the notion that the majority only get offended by reasonably offensive ideas and also the idea that someone can tell you to do something and strangely, as if you have your own mind, be refused.

Again, your views on free speech would match up nicely with those around the time people in the minority were punished for offending the ideas of the majority, ideas like how flat the earth was and how in the centre of the universe it was. And again I take it you will ignore my points on religious texts inciting violence, I guess because they're believers are a majority and it's actually stick gatherers and people who claim not to hold the same beliefs that are inciting the violence that would be brought on them? You can hardly claim the books themselves only reach 100s.

Procrastastudy · 10-10-2012 5:09pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'm afraid I also find your posts nonsensical. Social media is just that, a way to communicate with friends and family in the case of facebook almost in a pub setting. Unlike someone publishing a book the guy on facebook probably only expected his comments to reach those that are connected to him on it. Probably a few hundred. Had he come out with a book titled "The 500 best missing children jokes" I'd actually be more critical not less.

Again no one here seems to be making a claim for unfettered free speech but again you miss the entire point of free speech which is not to silence minority opinions. Something your 70% idea or constant use of the word majority to defend your claims completely does away with.

As for people being entitled to a good name I simply don't draw the line at attempted humour, satire or criticism but rather lies and fraud. So I do see restrictions I just don't agree with the level of them. The notion that the majority are always right is demonstrably wrong, so too is the notion that the majority only get offended by reasonably offensive ideas and also the idea that someone can tell you to do something and strangely, as if you have your own mind, be refused.

Again, your views on free speech would match up nicely with those around the time people in the minority were punished for offending the ideas of the majority, ideas like how flat the earth was and how in the centre of the universe it was. And again I take it you will ignore my points on religious texts inciting violence, I guess because they're believers are a majority and it's actually stick gatherers and people who claim not to hold the same beliefs that are inciting the violence that would be brought on them? You can hardly claim the books themselves only reach 100s.

My comment was directed at one of your posts in particular not all your posts. The one I quote above actually seems to make a bit more sense ans when I have time I will try and address your points. Starting a post with 'Thats insane' does cause one to perhaps prejudge the rest of it as perhaps emotion over substance however.

I would also remind you that although I am absolutely sure you feel your view is right it does not appear to be the majority view in the UK, if one is to take the aims of the legislative process at face value. As for incitement to violence, although I agree directed and serious incitements to violence should be regulated I'm afraid I just don't give religious texts enough credence to consider them any more of a threat that a work of fiction. Perhaps I have not explained that well I'll give an example:

KILL ALL GINGERS!

I don't expect censure for the above. If I was to re-arrange the letters on the last word I wouldn't be looking for that to attact a penaalty on the basis of it enciting hatered - it's clearly a nonsensical rambling. However I could understand a penalty based on outraging public morals.

(Sorry about the spelling on my little laptop!)

ShooterSF · 11-10-2012 12:32am

Procrastastudy wrote: »

My comment was directed at one of your posts in particular not all your posts. The one I quote above actually seems to make a bit more sense ans when I have time I will try and address your points. Starting a post with 'Thats insane' does cause one to perhaps prejudge the rest of it as perhaps emotion over substance however.

I'm not saying you're insane but merely the idea that me posting a comment on facebook is more likely to reach a larger audience than if I had a book published on the same point. Sorry if insane was a bit ott. Perhaps I should have said "wrong imo".

I would also remind you that although I am absolutely sure you feel your view is right it does not appear to be the majority view in the UK, if one is to take the aims of the legislative process at face value.

It's not lost on me and I'm glad to see it's not lost on you either that I'm in a minority arguing that the minority needs the verbalising of it's opinions and ideas protected as much as the majority does. That's kind of why I'd fight for free speech.

As for incitement to violence, although I agree directed and serious incitements to violence should be regulated I'm afraid I just don't give religious texts enough credence to consider them any more of a threat that a work of fiction.

Tell that to islamic nations who still kill apostates based on the demands of said materials. Seems to be doing a grand job inciting violence.

Perhaps I have not explained that well I'll give an example:

KILL ALL GINGERS!

I don't expect censure for the above. If I was to re-arrange the letters on the last word I wouldn't be looking for that to attact a penaalty on the basis of it enciting hatered - it's clearly a nonsensical rambling. However I could understand a penalty based on outraging public morals.

(Sorry about the spelling on my little laptop!)

Outraging public morals? Could you expand on that? Maybe I could be the chairman of the national committee for public morals, I was fittingly born in 1984.

I assume you mean the morals of the majority which would mean you would be making it clear that the majority are to be afforded more rights than the minority. Rights such as the right not to be offended? I just can't wrap my head around how you can justify such inequality if that's what you are suggesting and I'm not claiming your the only person who does so. I don't think I can come round to that line of thinking.

Procrastastudy · 11-10-2012 7:07am

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'm not saying you're insane but merely the idea that me posting a comment on facebook is more likely to reach a larger audience than if I had a book published on the same point. Sorry if insane was a bit ott. Perhaps I should have said "wrong imo".

You and I disagree here then. The legal position in the UK is similar to what I have described. Whether they used the same logic to arrive there I couldn;t tell you. I assume that they did.

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's not lost on me and I'm glad to see it's not lost on you either that I'm in a minority arguing that the minority needs the verbalising of it's opinions and ideas protected as much as the majority does. That's kind of why I'd fight for free speech.

I'm not opposed to curtailing the minority view. I would be quite happy to see the KKK or Abu Hamza banned from communicating with the outside world. That said I'm also fro specifically protecting speech under certain circumstances as well.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Tell that to islamic nations who still kill apostates based on the demands of said materials. Seems to be doing a grand job inciting violence.

I've dealt with other nations in other posts. Sweeping generalisations help no one.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Outraging public morals? Could you expand on that? Maybe I could be the chairman of the national committee for public morals, I was fittingly born in 1984.

I assume you mean the morals of the majority which would mean you would be making it clear that the majority are to be afforded more rights than the minority. Rights such as the right not to be offended? I just can't wrap my head around how you can justify such inequality if that's what you are suggesting and I'm not claiming your the only person who does so. I don't think I can come round to that line of thinking.

That's your right of course. It's been the position in Ireland since 1937 and while other more informed posters than I have pointed out where it has caused issues in the past, I don't seem to have any problems laying my hands on just about any piece of literature I could possibly want today.

[Deleted User] · 11-10-2012 1:23pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I have to disagree with you here. Social media is much more akin to a broadcast than a book. Even a very controversial book will be lucky to see the circulation a knob joke will on Facebook.

ShooterSF has pointed this out to your already, but I feel it's worth pointing out again. If the media hadn't made a big deal over Woods' jokes (or the other individual who made the comment that all soldiers should die) then no one, bar his friends on Facebook, would have seen his comments. It was the media who brought the wider public's attention to his remarks; it only became a "broadcast" when the media turned it into one.

As an aside, if the majority of a state's population decided that, say, disrespecting Christianity — i.e. even speaking against it — should be a criminal offence, would you have any objection to their decision?

Procrastastudy · 11-10-2012 6:54pm

gvn wrote: »

ShooterSF has pointed this out to your already, but I feel it's worth pointing out again. If the media hadn't made a big deal over Woods' jokes (or the other individual who made the comment that all soldiers should die) then no one, bar his friends on Facebook, would have seen his comments. It was the media who brought the wider public's attention to his remarks; it only became a "broadcast" when the media turned it into one.

As an aside, if the majority of a state's population decided that, say, disrespecting Christianity — i.e. even speaking against it — should be a criminal offence, would you have any objection to their decision?

Facebook isn't as clear cut as you two are describing. It is possible to have public groups and controversial material can easily go viral. However I realise the points you are making but disagree.

To your next point; it's very difficult to deal with these issues in the abstract even when there is a constitutional and legislative framework in place. To remove that and creates an additional level creates, in my view, and absurd argument. I will try and answer you question like this: Do I object to Ireland's blasphemy laws? Yes - they are outdated and frankly daft. Do I support them being on the statute book, given the democratic process? Yes.

[Deleted User] · 12-11-2012 5:07pm

A 19-year old British man was arrested yesterday after he posted a picture of a burning poppy on his Facebook page.

The Guardian wrote:

A teenager arrested on Remembrance Sunday on suspicion of posting a picture of a burning poppy on Facebook is being questioned by police.

The 19-year-old was held after the image of a poppy being set ablaze by a lighter was reportedly posted online with the caption: "How about that you squadey *****".

Police said the man, from Canterbury, Kent, was detained on suspicion of an offence under the Malicious Communications Act after officers were contacted at about 4pm on Sunday.

Continue reading.

However crazy the other incidents outlined in this thread are, this arrest eclipses them all with its utter ridiculousness. Speak out against Remembrance Day via Facebook and you get arrested and possibly charged. For once, I can't see any person attempting to justify the actions of the police, and, hopefully, the sheer craziness of this will bring to light how absurd such laws are in the eyes of the public. If not, I fear I will be updating this thread with yet more ludicrous stories over the coming months.

Procrastastudy · 12-11-2012 7:36pm

Nope still on the side of the Police on this on I'm afraid GVN.

Ireland is not the UK and the UK is not Ireland. You folks had the good sense to enshrine certain rights in a Constitution. The UK has no such written Constitution and has a populous that are generally happy with the legislature they way it is.

I welcome the criticism and hope the situation changes but as it stands at the moment that law is the law. Many Brits would find the ban on abortion here madness of the very highest calibre but it has to be borne in mind we are different nations.

Burning a poppy on remembrance or armistice day is there to do one thing and one thing alone - insight a reaction and offend people. If you want to protest that's fine but the UK and US lay down quite strict rules on this. Kudos to Ireand for not following suit - but again Ireland is not the UK.

Free Speech and Social Media (esp. in the U.K.)

Comments