Nearly three months in prison for telling a joke in UK

Post Reply New Topic

I'm giving you an example of two different ways a person might choose to express themselves, just as you gave examples, I am entitled to as well. One is reasonable one is not (in my view). I'm simply explaining my position on the matter so you might better understand my position. People often say deliberately stupid antagonising things - you're defending their right to do so, I respect that. Myself, I don't really have the patience for it these days - people know wrong from right and if they don't.. they soon learn.

My examples were consistent with your argument, your first example has a different meaning than your second example, and thus they are not consistent with presenting the same arguments in different wording.

a slippery slope, indeed

Am I the only one who thinks this is *especially* grotesque given that it happened in the same country that brought us the Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park ?

And if simply posting offensive comments on Facebook (my dictionary doesn't even recognize that word... take *THAT*, NT's) earns one a prison sentence, then the UK will need to build a *lot* more prisons.

Ah right, ok.

I think my examples demonstrate two different ways of expressing a point of view. Of course they're not the same statement, that's my whole point.. let me explain.

Somebody desires to express an opinion about the Catholic church and child abuse. They decide to make a silly, baiting, generalised statement designed to provoke. They say that all priests are child rapists. They don't say that because they believe it's true, they say it because they want to attack the Catholic church and insult it.

The second person has a similar agenda - they're unhappy with what they see going on in the Catholic church and wish to criticize it. Rather than making a sweeping statement designed to insult, they take a calmer, more rational approach, identify the problem as a general issue.

It doesn't matter which statement is "true" or not, the motive behind each statement is the same - a desire to express criticism or disdain for an issue inside the Catholic church.

I think these examples are good because we see this all the time with internet trolls. People make sweeping generalised statements instead of taking the time to think about what they're saying and express a fair and balanced view. Does it matter which approach we take?

To sum up, I think I'm simply advocating responsibility with what we say (and do!). I think that with freedom comes responsibility.

I hope I've explained this well enough.

Define "grossly offend." Who decides what is considered being "grossly offended" by something? That's ret*d, because someone will get offended no matter what the hell you say. So basically, don't ever say anything so you don't get in trouble? No. I don't condone what he did, but we should all have the right to say whatever we want(well, maybe not yelling fire in a crowded building...).

I don't think any such legal action is right in these cases. There will (I would hope) be reaction, and the speaker should face such reaction, as long as it's non-violent. But I think where it's clear there's not a threat, the police should stay out of these matters.

Regarding Woods, I'm all for him facing a lot of social opprobrium, and a severe bollocking from anyone he might look up to. In this particular case, this is no gallows humour, or political stance, etc. This is someone trying to be offensive. 'But who decides what's offensive?' - well, Woods already did. It's why he said what he said, to be offensive.

They were, as far as I can tell, rather hackneyed variants of jokes of the kind that often pop up on Sickipedia:

"What's the difference between Mark Bridger and Santa Claus? Santa doesn't come in April."

I've heard similar variants of such jokes before.

Are you going to ban the likes of Frankie Boyle or Roy 'Chubby' Brown then? I haven't really much time for either of those two people as comedians or anything else, but I wouldn't want them to be banned. They've made some pretty off-colour statements about disabled people in the past - Frankie Boyle has especially - but I'm not going to suggest that he be censored. I read his autobiography once - it was complete drivel.



If you don't believe in people's freedom to cause offence, then free speech is absolutely meaningless. You can't even express your opinions if they find your ideas offensive and beyond the pale (to the point of deserving a violent reaction) from the get-go.

Safe, anodyne, mellow speech that is agreeable to 100% of the population isn't under threat - which is pretty much nothing at all. Pretty much everything else is.



It's all subjective rather than objective in these cases. Some people might agree with the sentiment, others will be bored, others might laugh, others might be offended and so on. That's free speech.



Try being a dissident against something against a repressive practice or totalitarian regime where free speech rights are denied. Look up how nearly impossible it is to argue for liberal democracy in Saudi Arabia, for instance. It's the uncomfortable ideas that these people find threatening. That's why pro-democracy activists get carted away and end up being tortured or murdered. Because they say things that the orthodoxy finds... offensive!

Should Salman Rushdie have been arrested and charged under Islamic blasphemy laws for releasing The Satanic Verses?
Should Lady Chatterley's Lover still be banned under obscenity laws?

And so on.



You're not in favour of freedom of speech, any more than the Taliban can claim that they are fighting for a free speech paradise.

I'm not in favour of total freedom of speech. I recognise that there are special prohibitions that need to be made but, in the majority of cases, free speech should prevail.

No, it's because the orthodoxy finds what they say dangerous, as democracy, properly understood, is. They'll say it's offensive (to the nation, to the House of Saud, to Islam, etc) but that's not why they beat down on it.

Much as I disagree with the legal action taken, there is no comparison. There is no danger in 'haha, child rape, haha'. They are not positing a radical political alternative, or pointing to systemic abuse. They're just being offensive.



So you're just as bad as the Taliban then. Wanting restrictions on free speech. Tch.

Exactly. I can provide more examples from Britain's own history - Britain's fight to ban slavery in its empire (slavery still exists, unofficially but thriving, in many African and Arab countries - look at the continuing Arab Islamist slavery of black Africans in the Sudan and of the fact that the Arabic word for black people also means slave), the abolition of the death penalty, or the campaign for the right of adult women to vote. These things were considered grossly offensive to many, many people in this country.



Spot on. If someone calls me a fat bastard in the street I can elect to take offence. I can equally elect to ignore the crude idiot who shouts such things at random passers-by. Partially, because half of what he says is actually true (I am fat), but I'm not illegitimate. Some people on here might call me a bastard, but that is opinion also.



Yup - as I keep saying, it's often not the way that something is said as what is being said that is offensive. The amount of times people can simply dismiss a long sequence of completely valid points because there might be one slight error, or a swearword, or it's a little bit intemperate (not to say vulgar) in how it's promoted in how it's said astounds me. It's an easy get-out, I guess.



Precisely.



The theory of creationism isn't a bad place to start with this. Also, most conspiracy theories are widely believed. Doesn't mean to say they aren't complete and utter cack.



Indeed.

From what I can tell, the mob weren't punished at all - no, in fact they arrested the chap "for his own safety" or something like that.

So, in other words, it's now more of a trespass to post something offensive online than to show up at a dude's house with hte intention to kick the s**t out of him? Does that mean that it's now a harsher punishment for calling David Cameron a "C-word" as opposed to punching him in the face?

Probably - which lead to this joke on Sickipedia:

What's worse than child abduction?

Jokes, apparently.

I don't know seems more like harassment than a 'joke' I think freedom of speech is great but harrasing people which seems to be the case here is not ok. Don't know that prison for 3 months is really going to help the kid, but jokes and harassment aren't quite the same thing.

When a child abducter gets, say, less than three months, they may have a point. Til then it's spoilt brat whining.

Another thought, what view does the law take of those people who are so offended by something they have the attention seeking urge to tell other people about it so they can get offended too? Surely that's worse? The person telling the joke, it could be argued (albeit weakly), was at least trying to make people laugh, whereas the other people have no other intention than trying to spread the offense taking. I suppose there are a lot of internet newbs who haven't yet learned to not feed the trolls.