Twit jailed for tweet

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Taff, Mar 28, 2012.

  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Agreed - Neo Nazis, White Power etc march all the time. And good luck banning any extremists for their views

    Opinions are not the property of the state until said opinion is acted on IMO
     
  2. Hatamoto

    Hatamoto Beardy Man Kenobi Supporter

    He didn't even say anything about the footballer if I remember, just said he was dead :/ Tehn hurled abuse at a load of other people telling them to rape their dog and stuff. It's so standard youtube trolling. Can't believe they jailed him for it :|
     
  3. LilBunnyRabbit

    LilBunnyRabbit Old One

    I don't - that's why we have libel laws after all.

    And if you don't pick and choose the opinions that are acceptable, you're opening up a whole can of worms that can get messy.

    Big Brother censored and controlled your private life - publishing an opinion is not private, and does mean that you face consequences. Whether those are a libel case, a case for harassment or intimidation, or others, you have chosen to publish that nonsense in the first place.

    Why on earth should someone have the right to print an opinion (for example) that they think I should die in a horrific manner? Do I not have a right to live a life free from unjustified, pointless harassment? Is the right of someone harassing me, insulting me, to speak their poison more important than my own right to live my life?

    Like I said - try marching as a neo nazi in Germany.

    For that matter try it in England - we have laws about inciting violence and racial hatred here as well.

    If you are calling for harm to another person, why on earth should your voice be protected?

    Nothing to do with opinions being the property of the state or not. It's to do with one person's right to go about their life without insult or harassment, compared to the right of someone else to speak poison about them. Evidently most here believe that the right of someone to speak freely, no matter how unpleasantly, about another is more important than that of someone to live in peace.
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    That is the point though - you CAN march under certain banners. BNP, C18, NF et al are active in the UK, and frequently stand for election in the case of BNP & NF

    Whether you can in other countries is irrelevant - you could use the same extension about rights being infringed in other countries

    I am usually all over left wingers and liberals moaning about criminals being tretaed as criminals, but in this case I still see a douche being treated as a criminal
     
  5. LilBunnyRabbit

    LilBunnyRabbit Old One

    Under certain banners, yes.

    Yep, I could.

    But basically my issue is that the rights of the aggressor are being placed above the rights of the victim, to reduce the issue to black and white.

    One person's free speech does not give them the right to publicly call for the death of another person, whatever the reason may be. Yet it seems that there's a wide view here that the person making the verbal attack has rights which trump those of the person on the receiving end.

    What, exactly, makes this different to defending the rights of a person to give you a slap in the face (chosen specifically because it's painful, but not particularly harmful)? Yes, there's the sticks and stones argument, but that is frankly garbage which shouldn't even be allowed in the playground.
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    I get the point, really I do - but at the back of my head is a little twitch that is starting to see things like "defaming politicians", "inciting unrest", "potential terrorist" etc..sneaking into legislation

    Hateful or not the initial post said nothing that was actionable from a criminal perspective IMO - otherwise every "hang Bin Laden", "I hope George Bush dies" tweet could be swooped in on. I was not privvy to the subsequent texts the individual made, so that may sway my opinion, but this seems no different than the "dig up Marilyn Monroe's grave" fiasco
     
  7. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    There is a difference between libel, slander and expressing an opinion- you have to legally prove that the claim was false and that the perpetrator knew that it was false and made the claim with malicious intent.

    Its great to say when what you don't want people to say happens to agree with what the person in power doesn't want people to say, however, political parties and regimes change all the time and I doubt that you would be half so keen on that argument when your opinion no longer falls in line with those in power.

    Yes, bullying is a problem- both on the internet and in the school yard, but criminal charges are probably not the best way to handle it. No matter how you cut it, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject, Bunny. I have no desire to have anyone setting themselves out as the opinion police, that's just a road I am unwilling to go down.
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    You know everything is going to hell when I go all soft. It is a sign of ............




    Z-DAY APOCALYPSE!! PREPARE!!!
     
  9. Jabby Mcgee

    Jabby Mcgee Valued Member

    What I find troubling about this whole thing though is where does it stop? If you can be imprissoned or even arrested for that matter for typing something like that on twitter, what's to stop us imprisoning people who speak out against politicians, etc. "What's that you wrote? David Cameron is an idiot? Two months in the slammer it is for you, son!" It sets a very disturbing precident of oppressed speech.
     
  10. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    He was done under public order legislation.

    You're not allowed to be racist in public. Twitter counts as public, ergo a breach of the public order act.

    The sentence is harsh though. He'd have gotten off lighter if he'd punched Muamba in the face.
     
  11. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    There's no law against criticising politicians.

    If you tweeted a load of racist vitriol about David Cameron, then you're in breach of the law.
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Show me the racism in the first tweet
     
  13. Jabby Mcgee

    Jabby Mcgee Valued Member

    That's not what happenned though. it isn't against the law to be a racist, only to insight racial hatred. There's a difference, and I don't believe the guy in question was insighting anything
     
  14. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    No, it is against the section 4 of the Public Order Act to intentionally cause 'harassment , alarm or distress' or to cause 'fear or provocation of violence'. His tweets make him guilty of both. The Crime and Disorder Act made a racial basis for public order offences an aggravating factor, hence "Racially Aggravated Public Order Offences".
     
  15. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    He used an epithet beginning with W in reference to one user, he made repeated references to Muamba's race.

    Racially aggravated offences occur when:

    "At the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group;

    Or the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group."


    His tweets clearly fall into the former and quite possibly the latter category .
     
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    That was for the subsequent tweets
     
  17. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    He was charged for his conduct that day as a whole, not just for the one tweet.
     
  18. Jabby Mcgee

    Jabby Mcgee Valued Member

    This isn't what Stacey was imprissoned for though. He was imprissoned for inciting racial hatred, which admittedly does fall under the public order act, but not part 4 (it is in fact part 3A).
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    I get that, but his initially douchebaggy post fits no criminal criteria. His subsequent actions (or more accurately REACTIONS) seem to be what got him in trouble, and without knowing the specifics from the other side could have been in response to teh (deserved) flaming he would have recieved

    The dangerous logic that you are extending is that I can no longer use "eff" or "c-bomb" in any interractions online because they breach the P.O. act

    a slippery slope

    Also where is the boundary on the net? Should people in the UK be allowed to be extradited to the US (as recently occured) because an offence there occured? Should extradition orders be sought against denizens of web boards?

    It is a very, very slippy slope and I like it not either as a human being or as an LEO
     
  20. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    I've seen different charges on different news reports, now. Has anyone got an official source for the charge and for the conviction?
     

Share This Page