Current Affairs Should you be jailed for Social network comments ?

[Jon]

It's all getting ludicrously Big Brother.

For arguments sake, say I'm having a very bad day, just really cheesed off with stuff, and I hear some more drivel from the Tory party Conf, and (I don't mean this, by the way - I'm just using this to illustrate) I post on here that "Dave Cameron and his bunch of Tory W*nkers are all evil Satanic devils, and should be shot on sight", I could fully expect to have the long arm of the law take me down the station and stcik me behind bars for a few weeks.

If we're going to be jailed for crass, insenstive and/or 'offensive' 'jokes', where does it all end.

It's rather worrying, and quite 1984 ish IMO

[ChrisVillan]

It's not about where things are said, it's about what those things are. If you say something criminal on Twitter, Facebook, on TV, in the paper, whatever...expect the consequences.

But "criminal" should never be defined based on the extent to which a joke or comment twigs public hysteria.

[BOF]

Well I do find it quite infuriating when the vast majority of people are all for the curtailing of civil liberties in the interest of making themselves 'safer' and then are incredulous when stuff like this happens. You make your bed. Lie in it. It's a sorry case of 'told you so' where everyone (even those who can see what's going on) are affected too.

Obviously the above is a general point on society and not at anyone in particular.

[Jon]

The Guardian had a couple of the jokes in their article on it. I've not worked out how to do links on this yet but it's easily found.

Not that it particularly matters what was said in this case, but there you are. I've heard worse on here, down the pub, I heard worse in the office last week to be perfectly honest.

I'll expect plod will be marching the Guardian down the station for publishing such hideously offensive comments far more widely than the guy in the dock ever managed.

Thanks

Not very nice, it has to be said. It seems they've left the worst ones off, which is perhaps a good idea.

Tools like this sadly exist. I wonder if justice wouldn't have been better served by doing nothing in this instance, and letting nature (the baying mob) take it's course? Not that I'm in favour of mob rule etc, but go back 20 years or so, and this sort of thing might have been said down the pub, and he'd perhaps have got a swift punch or two for his efforts, and gone home licking his wounds.

Now his drivel has the oxygen of publicity, and eeejuts like this thrive on it.

[tonyh29]

It's all getting ludicrously Big Brother.

For arguments sake, say I'm having a very bad day, just really cheesed off with stuff, and I hear some more drivel from the Tory party Conf, and (I don't mean this, by the way - I'm just using this to illustrate) I post on here that "Dave Cameron and his bunch of Tory W*nkers are all evil Satanic devils, and should be shot on sight", I could fully expect to have the long arm of the law take me down the station and stcik me behind bars for a few weeks.

In that instance if it went to court wouldn't the prosecution have to prove that what you've written wasn't true

I wanted to read some more on this story and was searching about it on google news .. interestingly it came up with another instance

Azhar Ahmed's remarks included "all soldiers should DIE and go to HELL" - and his comments were described as "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory" by a district judge.

Matthew woods appears to have been jailed under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it an offence to send a "message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" using a "public electronic communications network"

Woods posted his in a moment of drunken stupidity ( so the defence claim ) and then people read it and reported it

Ahmed appears to have posted his to point out other deaths in Afghan were being ignored ..his message was reported by a relative of one of the victims

There doesn't appear to be a lot of difference between the two cases , so it suggests that judges ruling on these cases need a clearer directive so that we have consistency

FWIW , I agree with the judge who didn't jail Ahmed ..but then again neither of them should have been before a judge to start with imo

[snowychap]

... it suggests that judges ruling on these cases need a clearer directive so that we have consistency...

Starmer is supposedly trying to address the issue.

Joshua Rozenburg in the Grauniad:

Director of public prosecutions to draft guidelines about prosecution for offensive, indecent, or obscene comments online

Should Matthew Woods have been sentenced to 12 weeks in prison for making "grossly offensive" remarks about the missing five-year-old girl April Jones on his Facebook page? While Woods, 19, was pleading guilty to the offence in Chorley magistrates' court on Monday -- and while Mark Bridger, 46, was appearing before Aberystwyth magistrates charged with April's murder -- the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, was sitting round a table with a group of journalists discussing whether people like Woods should face charges in the first place.

Starmer made it clear that he had to enforce the law as it was; he couldn't grant immunities. On the other hand, the Crown Prosecution Service, which he heads, couldn't prosecute everyone who sent an offensive tweet or email. So the DPP is in the process of drawing up draft guidelines, which he hopes to circulate for public comment next month.

Before that, he is discussing the possible scope of those guidelines in meetings with journalists, lawyers, academics, regulators and key stakeholders.

Starmer disclosed his plans last month when announcing that he would not be prosecuting the semi-professional footballer Daniel Thomas for posting a homophobic message on Twitter about the Olympic divers Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield.

The fundamental question Starmer has to decide is how to balance freedom of expression against the restrictions on free speech laid down by parliament.

Woods was convicted under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it an offence to send a "message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" using a "public electronic communications network". The maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment.

His defence lawyer told the court: "In one moment of drunken stupidity he places himself as public enemy number two – behind only the person who carried out this crime." But should Woods have faced charges at all?

Before considering just how offensive a message had to be to qualify as "grossly" offensive, the journalists sitting round Starmer's table urged him to set a high threshold for bringing prosecutions under section 127. As the DPP's own officials had noted, it was not the job of the criminal law to protect the public against remarks that were in bad taste or opinions that were controversial. 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".

On the other hand, Starmer thought a message might be more likely to lead to a prosecution if it was part of a campaign of harassment against an individual or individuals; if it was a credible threat to the life of the recipient or the recipient's family; or if it was an incitement to hatred on grounds of gender, race, religion, disability or sexual orientation. Someone who retweeted a message -- particularly if that gave it a much larger circulation -- might also face prosecution.

There was some lively discussion about the factors that should make a prosecution less likely. What if the message was meant as a joke, as Woods had apparently claimed his Facebook comments were? That should surely not be a get-out-of-jail card, although we seem to give stand-up comedians and political satire programmes much greater latitude on grounds of racist jokes and bad language. What if a message was not intended to become public or the author did not expect it to be seen by the person he was writing about? That should be no defence if a message was posted on Twitter -- users ought to know by now that a tweet is more like a broadcast than a email -- though it might protect emails themselves.

And should the CPS take account of the degree of distress caused to recipients or their families? It was suggested that prosecutors should be wary of attaching too much weight to subjective factors -- although it might be difficult to prove a case without the victim's co-operation.

These were no more than points for discussion and may not appear in this form when the draft guidelines are published. But they give some idea of thinking within the CPS. Prosecutors have to exercise their discretion in every charge they bring and it is not always easy to decide where the public interest lies.

Should Starmer be influenced by the substantial prison sentence passed on people like Woods -- approaching the maximum, given the one-third discount for an immediate plea of guilty? Or by the strength of public feeling? Woods was apparently arrested for his own safety after about 50 people encircled his home.

Less so, I would argue. 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.

And what of the hapless Woods? He can hardly appeal against conviction, given that he pleaded guilty on the strength of perfectly sound legal advice. On the other hand, an appeal against sentence may stand some prospect of success. It certainly ought to.

[BOF]

I look forward to the rational common-sense approach that will no doubt be adopted.

[snowychap]

I look forward to the rational common-sense approach that will no doubt be adopted.

You old cynic.

[CI]

If the joke had been about Jimmy Saville is that ok ?

[Daniel]

But then you get people like this.

It all seems so backwards.

[legov]

I have to ask, how often does shit like this (people prosecuted for saying offensive things) happen in Britain?

[Chindie]

The Facebook/Twitter thing has only really become 'a thing' in the last year, and it's had a few higher profile cases. It's been whipped up by the media in this country, particularly the Sun, campaigning against 'sick trolls'.

It's not so much that it's happening often that matters - it's that it's happened at all.

[BOF]

That it's happening at all is the main problem, but the amount of times matters too, because that makes it the norm. It will become standard to squeel on someone and standard to prosecute them and it won't even be questioned as being maybe the wrong thing to do.

[coda]

The first large case I remember was that bloke who joked (on Twitter?) that he was going to blow up an airport. He was eventually found innocent but I think the trial messed up his career and relationship. You'd think that might have set a precedent but it seems if your judge is sufficiently outraged you may get three months in prison.

[mjmooney]

It's worth taking a look at exactly what Ahmad said to earn his conviction. Two days after six British soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device in March he wrote on Facebook:

“People gassin [venting off] 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 harmless familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE F*****N SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soliders grave & wish him hell because that where he is going.”

It's neither pleasant, nor eloquent. But criminal? There are plenty of people up and down the country – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – who are deeply uncomfortable about Britain's foreign policy and its military operations in predominantly Islamic countries. They have a right to be heard and speak out. We might not like what they have to say – or even how they say it – but we shouldn't be shutting them down.

Independent

I'm broadly in agreement with the above. He's a not very articulate angry young man, with strong feelings about the issue. Somewhere in that posting, there is a point worthy of discussion, but it was a burst of rage.

Everybody who is saying that the Muslims kicking off about blasphemy should grow the **** up (including me) should take the same line with the foaming-at-the-mouth brigade who want this lad thrown in jail.

[Chindie]

The first large case I remember was that bloke who joked (on Twitter?) that he was going to blow up an airport. He was eventually found innocent but I think the trial messed up his career and relationship. You'd think that might have set a precedent but it seems if your judge is sufficiently outraged you may get three months in prison.

That one was slightly different. It was as ludicrous - it was **** obvious he said it in exasperated jest - but at least you could say there was some precedent of a decent law there, a threat being made, basically (despite the fact it wasn't, really).

The stuff we're seeing more of is someone getting in the dock because they said something some people don't like. Is that not completely insane?

[legov]

It is completely insane.

Jeez, can't believe this actually happens in Britain - no matter how frequently it takes place.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Oh it's all going to the dogs. Bugger it, fetch the whiskey, pop on some Zeppelin and await the inevitable knock on your door as the Rozzers turn up and charge you under the Doing What We Don't Like Act.

[leviramsey]

Semi-related, but there are some choice quotes in this Popehat blog (Popehat being one of the most awesome free speech blogs on the web)

I am neither a booster nor a detractor of badgers, the 2000 Rose Bowl notwithstanding. I am, however, a booster of free speech, and a detractor of bullies. Therefore, today I tell the following to the government of the United Kingdom, with all respect that is due: back the feck off or we'll put a boot up your arse.

I'm inspired to utter such unpleasantries because an official agency of the United Kingdom is attempting, to the best of its weak-chinned ability, to threaten an American webhost for hosting a UK site.

The American site is NearlyFreeSpeech.net, a webhost; the UK site is "Stop the Cull," now found at www.badger-killers.com. "Stop the Cull" is firmly opposed to a proposed culling of badgers in England; the culling is apparently being promoted as a method of reducing disease in cattle. "Stop the Cull" believes the culling is inhumane and not based on sound science.

Here's the problem: Stop the Cull engages not only in pure petitioning behavior, like publishing the names and office contact information of UK politicians who support the cull. It also uses tactics that many see, not unreasonably, as intended to threaten or even endanger their opponents and their families. See, Stop the Cull publishes the home addresses of its opponents, including but not limited to politicians supporting the cull. In a country where violence and threats from animal rights activists are increasingly prevalent, this is a cause for concern for those named and their families. Given the UK's limits on gun ownership and self-defense, the preferable outcome — a few citizens blowing the heads off a few animal rights activists in the course of defending themselves, pour encourager les autres — is not the likely result.

Publishing home addresses of political opponents rarely has anything to do with the marketplace of ideas. As I have argued before, though sometimes an address is relevant to a story, in politics it's usually a tool of intimidation and harassment — an attempt to silence debate, not encourage it. That's not to say it's outside the protection of the First Amendment here in the United States — that's a discussion for another post.

The UK government doesn't like the implied threats of violence against its officials and its citizens and their families. I am sympathetic to that sentiment, if not to the methods they are willing to use as a result. However, the UK government also doesn't like Stop the Cull from publishing the names and office contact information of government officials. In other words, the UK government doesn't like Stop the Cull providing information to allow UK citizens to petition their government, a privilege inherent in civilized society.

The government of the UK has attempted to censor Stop the Cull in several ways documented at NearlyFreeSpeech.Net's blog. First, as anyone familiar with the recent UK fetish for prior restraint of speech, the government persuaded a compliant judge to issue a remarkably broad injunction. [Note: I have hosted the documents posted at NearlyFreeSpeech.net here, to make it more difficult for the UK government to censor them, should it find a way to hinder NearlyFreeSpeech.Net.] That injunction prohibits the defendants from publishing, either themselves or through others, the personal or work contact information of anyone involved with the organization or implementation of the cull, specifically including government ministers. In other words, the injunction prohibits saying that Minister Smith of the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs may be written to at specified Department headquarters address or email address or called at a specified Department number. The way I read the injunction, it prohibits linking to a government web site with that information. The injunction further warns:

Any other person who knows of this Order and does anything which helps or permits the Defendant to breach this Order or who otherwise undermines or frustrates the effectiveness of this Order or any of the said undertakings may also be found guilty of contempt of Court and may be sent to prison or fined or their assets may be seized.

So. Stop the Cull edited their website hosted in the UK, but put up a mirror site hosted by NearlyFreeSpeech.Net. Here's where the cross-Atlantic bullying comes in. NearlyFreeSpeech.Net received a threatening letter from the Treasury Solicitor's Department. No particular government employee was brave enough to identify himself or herself in it. Much of the letter is taken up by disclaimers that the folks at TSol — as they call themselves — really support free speech. This is a rhetorical device; it has approximately the same function as the phrase "with all due respect," as used, for instance, in the sentence "with all due respect, TSol, you are ineffectual thugs, devoted to indefensible ends and failures at achieving them, as one would expect, given that your fathers' seed was weaker than last week's tea and your mothers routinely awoke in unfamiliar bins." Anyway, in addition to chatting about how much they lurv free speech, TSol threatens. TSol makes some very persuasive points about why Stop the Cull is engaging in conduct that may threaten individuals, and about how most of us wouldn't like having our personal contact information being published by activists seeking to threaten or inspire violence. The problem is familiar to anyone who has heard me say that vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of thuggery — TSol ambiguously conflates publication of home addresses, on the one hand, with publication of the names and government offices of government figures, on the other hand. By its threats, TSol attempts to make them equivalent. They are not. Government officials are public servants. Making their office contact information secret is not the mark of a democracy. Can such information be abused? Certainly. That's not a justification for insulating them from the people's right to petition them at the place they do the people's business.

TSol seems to recognize that it has little legal basis to threaten a site in the United States:

Clearly, the publication of personal contact information in the knowledge (or constructive knowledge) that such publication may lead to harassment of others, is illegal. We do not wish, however, to cite the relevant law in these circumstances.

This is known as the "Canadian girlfriend" school of legal argumentation. Nevertheless:

However, should you choose not to assist us in this matter, we reserve the right to seek an enforcement order. This may result in significant costs, which Defra would seek to recover from you. We note from other correspondence which we have seen that you have ‘limited resources’ and we do not favour this action, given that it may put the very future of your organisation at risk.

Additionally, if you choose not to co-operate, this may become a criminal matter and we will contact the relevant authorities within your jurisdiction. As stated, this is not our preferred action, but without your co-operation and in light of the seriousness of the matter, we may have no other option.

Here is the heart of the threat — comply with a court order that forbids both publication of personal data and the identities and official contact information of government officials, or we will seek to bankrupt and jail you, even though you are in another country with its own legal norms.

From their delightful response, it seems that NearlyFreeSpeech.Net will not be backing down. TSol will have trouble censoring or retaliating against American web sites in any court of the United States. They might get court orders and arrest warrants in the UK, which they will have trouble enforcing here: I think extradition is highly unlikely, and Americans have started to enact laws to limit enforcement of UK judgments in the United States, as is necessary in light of the UK's abject failure to protect freedom of expression. But if I worked for NearlyFreeSpeech.Net, I wouldn't be vacationing in the UK any time soon.

Now that I think of it, even though I don't work for NearlyFreeSpeech.Net, I won't be visiting the UK any time soon. That's because if TSol persists in its threats against NearlyFreeSpeech.Net, I'm going to publish the government official names and office contact information that TSol is seeking to suppress. You should think about doing the same. If TSol actually begins any legal proceeding against any American person or entity for publishing the names or office contact information of any UK government official, I'm going to work until that information is published on a hundred web sites. If TSol succeeds in obtaining any order against any American site or individual, I'm going to work until that information is published on a thousand web sites. Moreover, I respectfully offer our services in finding pro bono legal assistance for NearlyFreeSpeech.net.

TSol will fail. They can't sue or arrest or threaten us all.

I'm not going to publish home addresses and similar contact information, even though TSol is seeking to suppress it, because (1) it's not necessary to make the point, and (2) publication of the home addresses and similar information of political adversaries is intimidation designed to suppress dissent. Why stand up for Stop the Cull at all, if their tactics are contemptible? Freedom of expression requires it. It doesn't matter that Stop the Cull uses tactics calculated to terrify people into being silent or retreating. The Phelps clan wouldn't support any speech but their own, nor would the Nazis at Skokie, but we protect their rights anyway, so that all of our rights are safer.

Back down, TSol. You'll lose this one. As to the individuals threatened and intimidated by Stop the Cull's publication of home address, I have a recommendation: reform UK law to expand the right to self-defense. Badgers might not need culling. Eco-terrorists, on the other hand . . . .

[CI]

We are seeing a big clampdown on our rights & freedom from this case to Julian Assange

All very disturbing