UK Continues To Criminalize Bad Taste And Stupidity In Online Postings
from the can't-we-just-be-grown-up-about-this? dept
In the wake of the Twitter joke trial fiasco, which saw Paul Chambers dragged through the courts for two years before being acquitted, the UK's Director of Public Prosecutions announced that there should be an "informed debate" about the boundaries of free speech for social media. That really can't happen soon enough, as the UK continues to arrest and punish people for the crime of posting stupid and tasteless messages online. Here are some of the latest developments.
A man was arrested after creating a page on Facebook that appeared to praise the alleged murderer of two British policewomen. The UK student charged with writing a "grossly offensive" Facebook post about British soldiers killed in Afghanistan, has now been sentenced to 240 hours of community service, and to pay £300 (about $500) costs. He got off quite lightly compared to 19-year-old Matthew Woods, who has just been sent to prison for three months for making jokes about two young girls who are missing:
A teenager who posted explicit comments and jokes about April Jones on his Facebook page has been jailed for 12 weeks.
The Guardian article, quoted above, goes on to reproduce some of Woods' comments, which are exceptionally insensitive given the fact that the fate of both the young girls in question is still unknown -- an appalling situation for their respective parents. But it's hard not to get the feeling that the harsh punishment was imposed in part to assuage public anger:
Matthew Woods, 19, from Chorley, Lancashire, made comments about April and Madeleine McCann, the three-year-old who went missing during a family holiday in Portugal in 2007."The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offense, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive."
Indeed, the Guardian article includes the following disturbing fact:
Woods was arrested for his own safety after about 50 people descended on his home.
This is getting dangerously close to mob justice, with the courts responding to public outrage by imposing disproportionately severe punishments. What's particularly worrying is that such sentences are likely to feed public anger in future cases, rather than quell it: people will have a benchmark for how grossly offensive comments should be punished, and the courts may well feel obliged to bow to that implicit pressure.
That makes the Director of Public Prosecution's review of this whole area crucially important. Sadly, another feature in the Guardian suggests that the preferred solution of the UK government is self-censorship by social networks:
The director of public prosecutions is exploring whether Facebook and Twitter should take more responsibility for policing their networks for abuse and harassment in an attempt to reduce the number of cases coming to court.
As that makes clear, this is not really solving the problem by coming up with a sensible legal framework, merely sweeping it under the carpet so that fewer cases come to court. A better long-term solution would to accept that stupid people will always say offensive things, and that the best policy and punishment is to treat them with the contempt they deserve unless they clearly break laws other than those of good taste.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bad taste, free speech, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
April fools
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19910865
Freedom of speech laws are there to protect unpopular or offensive speech. If everyone was inoffensive and avoided saying anything unpopular there would be no need for free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: April fools
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another case today
This one is particularly interesting because it seems he was only arrested/prosecuted for wearing the shirt *after* the shootings, which seems rather unsatisfactory from a legal point of view. Of course it doesn't matter as he pleaded guilty, so there was no trial.
As for the social media stuff, yes the DPP has been meeting with lawyers (including some pretty awesome ones) and social media executives this week to "discuss" the issue (not that he can do much as he has no law-making powers), however note the lack of anyone actually from the Internet (or society in general) in that group... once again the ordinary person gets left out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another case today
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vice versa?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: April fools
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Ages
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vice versa?
I think public outrage makes a difference only when convenient to the Government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: April fools
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/justin-lee-collins-refuses-to-accept-1371471
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dark Ages
Er...actually, given their track record, you might just be able to do that.
Carry on. Try our wines and food while you're here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dark Ages
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Vice versa?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Vice versa?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Another case today
And yes, freedom of expression in the UK is definitely qualified by not being able to significantly annoy the police, the mainstream media, and certain conservative types...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Another case today
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: April fools
Massive multiplayer facepalm taken to the next level. Britain, unite!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@13
Jumping up and down with it and yelling obsenities would prolly not lead to prison but a few quick arrows to your head
aint it great how far we come and how civilized we really are now....lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @13
That just sounds like anyone working a PAYE job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stop posting stupid and tasteless messages online.
"Oh noes, freedom of speech" I hear you say? Your freedom is not limitless and stops when you're being retarded towards others, even if it was just a joke that showed how epicly stupid you are and totally deserved everything you got.
Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk, end of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vice versa?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vice versa?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Don't be an fairy and give as good as you get, it is your right to do so. As I said, if all speech was inoffensive, there would be no need for freedom of speech laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: April fools
In that specific case the judge was clearly corrupt in judgement and allowed prejudice to pervert justice.
That comment "All soldiers should die and go to hell" reflects a opinion upon those who choose murder as their profession, there are always two sides two wars but soldiers always do the killing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too bad for the Brits.
Oh you poor, repressed people!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @13
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
... and another case
Obviously this is a completely different situation, and set of principles, but still involves criminalising online speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I find your posting stupid and tasteless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Real solution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vice versa?
As in America England gets it wrong a lot of the time but it also gets it right a lot of the time and if it takes a protest by citizens for a judge to have another look at a sentence he has given or whether to take a case can only be good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe in the UK, but I'd argue that's wrong. Your freedom should only be restricted when you are harming or endangering the person or property of a nonconsenting other.
Hurt feelings don't count as "harm".
If you aren't free to be a total asshole, you aren't free. Likewise if you aren't free to call someone out on being a total asshole, you also aren't free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So what else is New Today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
She should have a constitution, but doesn't. Europe and America are decently clothed underneath, Britain, not.
Don't try to make one right now, though. In the current public atmosphere it would turn out trashy. Britain needs to lose a war or win a revolution to get a good one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @13
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: April fools
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Vice versa?
It's a pretty soft argument for applying physical coercion -- which is what arrest and imprisonment really are.
By using understatement, you have avoided getting into contact with the unpleasant realities underlying these cases -- on either side.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Protip: it didn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Vice versa?
'free speech' does NOT mean a person is only allowed to say what you -or the state- approves of...
to paraphrase chomsky: if you do not defend the right of your worst enemy to say the vilest things, then you are not for 'free speech'...
sorry, that is simply true; trying to wormtongue out of that is telling...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"A better long-term solution would to accept that stupid people will always say offensive things, and that the best policy and punishment is to treat them with the contempt they deserve unless they clearly break laws other than those of good taste."
fails to grasp the fundamental concept that if one does not have the legal right to make offensive comment then there is NO freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The sentence is basically saying that unless someone breaks an actual law, the only punishment meted out for offensive comments should be social ones, with the law not being involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
At least...
(Source: Telegraph)
[ link to this | view in thread ]