Nearly three months in prison for telling a joke in UK

Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

12 Oct 2012, 8:27 pm

TM wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

But you must make a rule on it. Free speech is not--and cannot be--absolute. So we must have rules about what kinds of speech are restricted.

And since we cannot predict every kind of statement that a person might make, we have to entrust this kind of decision making to the courts.

It's very simple, some expressions (threats etc) can be established fairly objectively, "grossely offensive" cannot. For instance, I find most posts by our resident feminist leftists to be a lot more offensive than any of the jokes the guy in the OP posted.

Well yes, because they're saying mean things about you.

Good grief. Nice shark jumping.

revertigo
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 37

12 Oct 2012, 9:25 pm

My theory is that you shall have the right to the freedom of speech, once that speech is not used to harass, threaten or lie about others.
Simple and effective.

In Ireland blasphemy is ilegal (without real definition of what blasphemy is) and the government considered taking a comedian to court for a skit about Jesus. Now I do not agree with this at all for very obvious reasons. They have yet to enforce the law to my knowledge but in a country where the catholic church rules and there is yet to be seperation between church and state the law is a very dangerous one.

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

12 Oct 2012, 10:39 pm

g2 wrote:

Wow. I kind of like things the way they are on this side of the Atlantic, freedom of speech and the press and all. Of course, it doesn't extend to public schools. Try correcting a teacher when they're wrong, and you may find that out.

Something tells me we had similar childhoods... :wall:

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

12 Oct 2012, 10:51 pm

Hopper wrote:

TM wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

Well yes, because they're saying mean things about you.

Good grief. Nice shark jumping.

No, because the argumentation itself is so pointless it leaves me with a permanent facepalm expression. As I told you earlier, it's a matter of "God of the gaps" logic, "Look, the statistic says that there is a gap here!!". Combined with conspiracy level theories "That damn patriarchy!"

How can I put this, when what you end up doing is making a guy like me who is normally quite easy going and supportive, utterly hate and despise your ideology, then you are not a good advocate for it and should stop trying to promote it.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

13 Oct 2012, 12:14 am

TM wrote:

Hopper wrote:

TM wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

Well yes, because they're saying mean things about you.

Good grief. Nice shark jumping.

then again we only have your word and self perception as proof of you being an "easy going guy",

self perception is ironaically one of the points no human is truly good at, at most we are aware that we cant objectively know.

that said there have been "feminists" on here i found quite offensive, just as there have been actual male chauvinists, to use either extreme to judge a whole groups is frankly beyond ridicoulous.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

AspieRogue

13 Oct 2012, 12:36 am

visagrunt wrote:

Well, for better or for worse, Parliament has decided that using a public electronic communications network to send a grossly offensive message is a crime. I don't think that there is any question that he sent the messages, nor that the messages were grossly offensive (by any reasonable, objective standard). So the question becomes, "is this an area where Parliament ought to have legislated?"

As a first principle we must remember that free expression is not an absolute right. There are a long list of exceptions that are pretty much universally recognized as reasonable limits on free expression:

-Incitement to violence
-libel, slander and defamation
-"fighting words" or offensive speech
-threats
-expression owned by others
-child pornography

There is also a list of exceptions to free expression that are more controversial:

-obscenity
-hate speech

If a person knows, or ought properly to know, that the expression that the person is making is likely to result in violence, then that person is properly restricted. Now, in this case, it appears clear that these postings led directly to the appearance of the mob at his door. Was this a foreseeable result? That's a question for the court, and we are little likely to have the evidence in front of us to make that judgement.

Here in the United States, freedom of speech IS more or less an absolute right, with a few notable exceptions:

-Child Pornography
-Obscenity(these laws are eroding for adult pornography)
-Threats of bodily harm
-Copyright restrictions(unfortunately)

However, "hate speech" and "fighting words/offensive speech" most certainly are protected by the first amendment. And unfortunately, so is incitement to commit suicide/emotional violence. I very much want to put an end to Youtube censorship of music videos and movie clips based on copyright laws but that's a topic for another thread. Slander/libel are not criminal offenses but someone who feels they've been a victim of libel or slander can certainly file a lawsuit.

foxfield
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 276
Location: UK

13 Oct 2012, 4:41 am

Other posters have already mentioned some dangers of anti-free speech laws. I would like to point out another

The internet is being used by people to break free speech laws to a huge and unprecedented level whether it be through breach of copyright, obscenity, or hate speech.

This gives any government the perfect justification to monitor and collect data about the internet usage of ordinary people. The guy in the example was stupid enough to post his jokes under his real name on facebook, but i wonder how long will it be before we start hearing stories of people being prosecuted for posting things on supposedly anonymous places (such as internet forums)?

Now imagine what a malicious authority could do with your browsing history. That really is a terryfying concept. I'm sure I dont have to point out the obvious parallels to 1984.

This is why newspaper stories like this really really scare me.

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

13 Oct 2012, 6:19 am

TM wrote:

Hopper wrote:

TM wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

Well yes, because they're saying mean things about you.

Good grief. Nice shark jumping.

Only it's not God of the gaps. You yourself will have a variety of explanations of behaviour or life outcomes or what have you. It'd be a rare human who didn't, even if they tacitly accept the prevailing opinion. Patriarchy is not a consipracy enacted by a few (or even many) individuals. It is first a heirarchy of ideas and behaviours and social codes etc and then the individuals who enact and perpetuate them as it priveliges them. As I said on the Men's Rights thread - take a few minutes to do a simple thought experiement, and flip the genders in the social/economic/political system. Where men are, women are and where women are, men are. Be honest with yourself. If you are absolutely fine with this scenario, well done.

And obviously you think well of yourself. And I wouldn't expect you to think well of me or what I say - if you take more offense at an argument you don't understand than at someone joking about the kidnap and murder (and possible rape) of a five year old girl with cerebral palsy, I wouldn't want you to think well of me or anything I say.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

13 Oct 2012, 9:25 am

TM wrote:

It's not at all simple. Look at the weasel words you have to resort to: "etc," and "fairly objectively."

Parliament must enact legislation that will be broadly applicable, yet meaningful to the individual. The court must then apply that legislation to the instant case in front of it.

If the preservation of free speech and the preservation of public peace were, "very simple," then we would not have hundreds of years of jurisprudence on the subject.

_________________
--James

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Oct 2012, 1:22 pm

Tensu wrote:

g2 wrote:

Something tells me we had similar childhoods... :wall:

Oh I actually had something like this happen, only I ended up coming out on top. Helps when the teacher was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (teacher gave me a 0 on the essay portion of an exam because I used a word processor). I got sent back to the class with a note from the Vice Principal informing said teacher he was in violation of Federal Law.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Oct 2012, 1:30 pm

Curlywurly wrote:

It's definitely a waste of resources sending them to prison. Some sort of fine or community service would be far more effective.

Why should there be a legal sanction against insults and other offensive remarks.

As long as they do not lead to a lynching, riot or insurrection, no felony has occurred.

If one suffers economic damage because of offensive remarks one should sue for libel or slander. These are torts, not felonies.

ruveyn

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 10:07 am

Curlywurly wrote:

..... but I'm of the view that freedom of speech doesn't include the right to grossly offend. We can say what we want to say in a way that avoids doing that.

The only kind of speech (or print or other media) that should not be legally protected is:

1. Threats to another person or group of people.
2. "fighting words" that have the immediate effect of whipping up a lynch mob, inciting a riot, producing panic or fomenting an insurrection against duly established legal authority.

A has the right to hurt B's feelings. If B doesn't like it then B can ignore it or develop a thicker skin.

Having said that, we also have tort law which compensate people for financial damage (or its equivalent) because of false speech or false writing (or broadcast). Libel and Slander laws are necessary to keep people from destroying the reputations of other people falsely. A true statement is NEVER a libel or slander. Ever.

ruveyn

icyfire4w5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 621

15 Oct 2012, 8:22 am

1. I pity the guy in the news article. Even though I find his remarks disgusting, I think that the court should have let him go scot-free because if you arrest anybody who has ever posted offensive remarks online, hey, maybe your own family members or friends might be arrested too. Given the same remark, some people will be offended while others won't, that's why I admire the United States for having the First Amendment.
2. On an unrelated note, there was once a guy who was expelled from his school because he posted the following remarks online regarding a-country-that-shall-not-be-named-here. (I have changed many details to protect the guy's identity if possible.)

In this tropical country, people are so eager to escape from the heat that they switch on the aircon at full blast. They wear thick cardigans in air-conditioned offices while complaining, "So cold! So cold!" I wonder why they stubbornly refuse to increase the aircon's temperature if they find their environment too cold.

In this country, foreigners' school fees are subsidized only if they sign a contract promising that they will work in this country for a minimum of three years after graduation. This sounds good on paper but it sounds like a slave contract to me.

In this country, its people have combined bits and pieces from many languages into one bastardized language. How interesting!

In this country, if anybody describes you as "large", it is a polite way of saying that you are fat.

In this country, its people say "toil" instead of "work". I'm sick of people who ask me, "Where do you toil?" White-collared workers don't toil; they work.

In this country, I had a shock when I overheard diners ordering "gonggong" and "lala". I later learnt that "gonggong" meant sea snails and "lala" meant clams. Lol.

In this country, people have the tendency to pronounce "three" as "tree". One, two, TREE!

In this country, people say "three o' clock and two strokes" when they mean "3.10pm". What is "two strokes" supposed to mean?

In this country, I once asked a stranger, "Where's the subway?" He gave me directions to the nearest Subway outlet. He probably assumed that I had a craving for sandwiches.

In this country, why do some women give birth to one kid after another? Have they ever heard of birth control methods?

Dear S&M lovers, even though this country does cane criminals, please don't commit any crime in an attempt to get yourself caned. The first stroke tears your skin, the second stroke rips your flesh, the third stroke reveals your bones... You might not necessarily survive the fourth stroke.

Oh, even a simple dish of sliced fish soup in this country has countless combinations. You want fish head or fish slices? You want thick noodles or thin noodles? You want milk or not? When I order chicken rice, the stallholder always ask, "Would you like chicken breast, drumstick or thigh? Would you like me to debone the chicken?" You see, ordering food in this country has always been a complicated procedure.

Curlywurly
Blue Jay

Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 80
Location: England

15 Oct 2012, 8:38 am

ruveyn wrote:

Curlywurly wrote:

..... but I'm of the view that freedom of speech doesn't include the right to grossly offend. We can say what we want to say in a way that avoids doing that.

I've been thinking about this subject over the weekend. In this case, no legal action should be taken I agree. But the larger topic of cyber bullying and harassment is something I personally have real issue with, so my views on this matter in this thread have been clouded by that. I think doing stuff like this comes close to harassment / bullying, but I guess it isn't on the same level. What this guy did is the internet equivalent of taking a megaphone and standing in a high street and telling sick jokes. So I just think he's actually incredibly stupid. It should be an issue for Facebook to moderate, but obviously that's practically impossible due to the number of users.

So yes, I agree freedom of speech includes the right to make sick jokes, but directly targeting individuals is not ok, and that kinda s**t deserves consequences. So as much as this guy is an arse, he wasn't doing that and shouldn't be in prison.

AspieRogue

15 Oct 2012, 3:55 pm

visagrunt wrote:

TM wrote:

There are many people who want to end free speech but NOT just for the preservation peace! They want to end it to silence opposition as well as to protect their reputations while engaging in activities that benefit them at the expense of others......including society as a whole. So spare me that legalese bullsh*t will ya? You're getting predictable in your knee-jerk defense of the law no matter where or what. I know it makes you feel powerful but it's still asinine and really doesn't help you at all here.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

15 Oct 2012, 3:55 pm

I've only done a quick read of this thread, but I didn't notice anyone commenting on this little bit from the link in the OP, quote:

Quote:

He also wrote comments of a sexually explicit nature about the five-year-old who went missing last week from near her home in Machynlleth, mid Wales.

When you start getting into kiddie porn, even verbally, your rights to 'free speech' start flying out the window.

Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Nearly three months in prison for telling a joke in UK Post Reply New Topic

Nearly three months in prison for telling a joke in UK