Should you be jailed for making a joke on facebook?

[BenG549]

A teenager who posted explicit comments and jokes about April Jones on his Facebook page has been jailed for 12 weeks.

"Woods was arrested for his own safety after about 50 people descended on his home. He pleaded guilty at Chorley magistrates court to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive. The chairman of the bench, Bill Hudson, said Woods's comments were so "abhorrent" he deserved the longest sentence the court could hand down.

Hudson added: "The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, 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."

The court was told Woods's Facebook page was available to a large number of people."

- Extract from the Guardian website.

Surely this is ridiculous?

Surely this cannot now act as precedent for future cases?

What is the world coming to when you can't make inappropriate jokes to your friends on facebook?

... Discuss.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I mean what else can you say other than this is ridiculous? It is just a bunch of butt hurt individuals who take jokes over face book way too seriously. It is a very sad day when humans are riled up by jokes to that extent over some 5 - year old girl. It is truly sad.

 

[BenG549]

I mean what else can you say other than this is ridiculous? It is just a bunch of butt hurt individuals who take jokes over face book way too seriously. It is a very sad day when humans are riled up by jokes to that extent over some 5 - year old girl. It is truly sad.

I totally agree! To be honest as soon as I posted this I thought "This might have been pointless because surely no one will agree the he should be in jail"

But oh well its up now, I'll think ill just use it to let people vent on the subject and if an interesting discussion worms its way out of the woodwork then we can roll with it.

Could be interesting to see what the not to distant future holds for the internet age.

Another recent example of legislation not being able to keep up with technology!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I can't remember if it was BBC or C4 but one o them recently did a special report on a recent police crackdown on trolls and Internet harrassment. It was pretty good because they did tackle sickos like people who would go onto RIP memorial pages and make fun of grieving family. However one commenter did point out that sometimes the situation isn't black and white, like if someone makes a harrassing comment on their own page.

 

[George Jones]

I totally agree! To be honest as soon as I posted this I thought "This might have been pointless because surely no one will agree the he should be in jail"

Either I have misunderstood WannabeNewton`s post, or you have misunderstood it.

 

[Evo]

A teenager who posted explicit comments and jokes about April Jones on his Facebook page has been jailed for 12 weeks.

"Woods was arrested for his own safety after about 50 people descended on his home. He pleaded guilty at Chorley magistrates court to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive. The chairman of the bench, Bill Hudson, said Woods's comments were so "abhorrent" he deserved the longest sentence the court could hand down.

Hudson added: "The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, 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."

The court was told Woods's Facebook page was available to a large number of people."

- Extract from the Guardian website.

Surely this is ridiculous?

Surely this cannot now act as precedent for future cases?

What is the world coming to when you can't make inappropriate jokes to your friends on facebook?

... Discuss.

You forgot to post the link to the article, so I don't know what it said. Can you post it please? There is no way a person can have an opinion without knowing all of the facts.

Just FYI, for copyright reasons, whenever you quote something that is copyrighted, you should always link to the original source.

 

[BenG549]

Either I have misunderstood WannabeNewton`s post, or you have misunderstood it.

Hmmm maybe WannabeNewton can clear this up but I read that as effectively saying people far too often choose to be offended when it's far easier to consider that one persons opinion or ill judgement is not a reason to take personal offence. Which I would agree with.

If one chooses to subscribe to a persons facebook page and chooses to read things they post then imprisoning them for saying something you dis agree with is ludicrous.

Ben.

 

[BenG549]

Here is a link to the article I read, it's brief but the point is pretty clear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-woods-jailed

 

[WannabeNewton]

Oh lord those comments are genius. I got a laugh out of those. And yes Ben I was saying those people who threatened\arrested him were in the wrong not him; I find it quite appalling.

 

[Evo]

The kid is obviously a moron, and Facebook should have deleted the posts and banned them.

I don't know what kind of hate speech is allowed in the UK, so I can't comment on whether what the jerk wrote was illegal.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The kid is obviously a moron, and Facebook should have deleted the posts and banned them.

I don't know what kind of hate speech is allowed in the UK, so I can't comment on whether what the jerk wrote was illegal.

Oh come on evo don't tell me you didn't get a giggle out of the ginger joke =D.

 

[alan2]

Depends entirely on your ideological bent. Americans like to lock people up to punish them. Other places take the attitude that only those who are are a threat to others should be jailed. Some countries punish anyone that they perceive to be a threat to those in power.

 

[Evo]

Oh come on evo don't tell me you didn't get a giggle out of the ginger joke =D.

No. Kidnapping with the probable rape, torture, and murder that goes with it of a child is never a laughing matter.

I don't think jail is appropriate, but as I said, I don't know what is considered hate or indecent speech there that is illegal. I think a few hundred hours of community service would have been more appropriate.

 

[George Jones]

Oh lord those comments are genius. I got a laugh out of those. And yes Ben I was saying those people who threatened\arrested him were in the wrong not him; I find it quite appalling.

So no sarcasm was intended in

It is a very sad day when humans are riled up by jokes to that extent over some 5 - year old girl. It is truly sad.

Wow. Because I have a daughter who just turned six, maybe I am biased.

The kid is obviously a moron, and Facebook should have deleted the posts and banned them.

I don't know what kind of hate speech is allowed in the UK, so I can't comment on whether what the jerk wrote was illegal.

Yes, it depends on the laws in the UK, but this could well be illegal hate speech. The internet should not be the Wild West where "anything goes".

 

[rootX]

The kid is obviously a moron, and Facebook should have deleted the posts and banned them.

I don't know what kind of hate speech is allowed in the UK, so I can't comment on whether what the jerk wrote was illegal.

UK seem very strict and bit odd on hate speech from the BBC UK news I have come across in past. They have banned few people North Americans over hate speeches and put charges against quite a few people over hate speeches and anti-social behaviors.

Going to OP, it depends on country. You need to think before you speak anywhere outside the US.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Personally I think that if the comments were on their own Facebook page and did not involve tagging anyone related to the incident in them then it should not be against the law. However this doesn't necessarily apply if they have set their page for public viewing.

In the UK as I understand it something posted on the Internet where it can be publicly viewed is under the same libel, hate speech, harrassment etc laws as if it was printed in a newspaper.

 

[BenG549]

No. Kidnapping with the probable rape, torture, and murder that goes with it of a child is never a laughing matter.

I don't think jail is appropriate, but as I said, I don't know what is considered hate or indecent speech there that is illegal. I think a few hundred hours of community service would have been more appropriate.

I totally agree that it is not a laughing matter and when the news segment I watched is repeated I will take note of the relevant UK laws and legislation that were discussed in order to aid a more informed discussion.

However on face value alone it seems absurd. If I were to be rude and offensive in a physics forums discussion I would likely be slapped with several warnings and banned, if I were rude and offensive in a pub/club/shop I would told to leave... If I'm rude and offensive on facebook, I might go to jail?

I seem to remember a clause being mentioned in a current version of the Public order act (although I will post something a little more concrete shortly) that describes how one should not knowingly offend or insult another person and this was "copied and pasted" into the internet arena to deal with cases such as this... I will however do a bit of research and I'll try and find a link to something a little more... hmm... reliable.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't see how you can persecute someone for posting non - threatening comments on his\her own facebook page.

 

[George Jones]

I were rude and offensive in a pub/club/shop I would told to leave

This depends on the comments, and on the laws of the country in which the comments were made. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galliano

 

[BenG549]

Yes, it depends on the laws in the UK, but this could well be illegal hate speech. The internet should not be the Wild West where "anything goes".

I agree to a certain extent, however I feel that people need to have a little perspective. You mentioned you had a 6 year old daughter and if I were to make a horrible comment about her (which I obviously wouldn't) you would rightfully be offended and I would be dismissed from this forum. However if you come across a story involving a completely unrelated child do you necessarily have to take action against a person being an idiot because of your increased empathy for the families situation? You can write it of as a fool being a fool and get on with your own life? We all deal with ill mannered people on a day to day basis, they don't all belong in prison.

But you are in a better position than me to comment on that, so feel free to correct me.

 

[BenG549]

This depends on the comments, and on the laws of the country in which the comments were made. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galliano

That's a good point George, and a good example, however I feel there is (or at least should be) a clear distinction between blatant racism - telling people you wishes they were dead because they are jewish (expressing very clear personal views) and telling a racist joke for example in order to get some *likes* or even to rustle a few of his friends feathers, stand up comedians do it on TV all the time, the only difference is that they get paid.

 

[BenG549]

For those interested this article is a little more in depth on the background to the case under discussion, might be worth skimming though it. Although it does not refer to specific UK law violations. I will keep up the search for some more clarity on that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19882618

Ben.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think you should be jailed for posting anything at all on facebook.

 

[BenG549]

I think you should be jailed for posting anything at all on facebook.

Hahaha, I saw post from you on another thread and I must say I do like the "I hope this subject is not to serious to joke about" tag... very fitting in this thread as I feel it is an attitude that should be more widely adopted.

 

[russ_watters]

Hate speech laws by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

In the US, this would not be a crime:

In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54]

I prefer the US's more liberal view on freedom of speech. I don't want the government to be the ones deciding what is and isn't rude. It is too arbitrary. Nor do I think it is conducive to a free society.

 

[rootX]

Hate speech laws by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

In the US, this would not be a crime: I prefer the US's more liberal view on freedom of speech. I don't want the government to be the ones deciding what is and isn't rude. It is too arbitrary. Nor do I think it is conducive to a free society.

Only the US people can understand the concept of "free" society It's impossible to argue the concept of freedom of speech, "free society" seems to be a cultural element of American society.

 

[256bits]

Hudson added: "The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, 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."

Definitely a " Do not post on the internet for all the world to see" situation.
I just wonder if a stand-up commedian would have uttered the same "bad-taste" comments in a routine to an audience would the commedian have suffered the consequences of being arrested and convicted, other than his career going down the drain (maybe). Should have public outrage, if any, been a mitigating factor for a legal decision? What percentage of the public should conceive of an act as being abhorant for an individual to receive a certain sentence?

 

[russ_watters]

Only the US people can understand the concept of "free" society

I'm thinking you meant that sarcastically, but I consider it to be true.

It's impossible to argue the concept of freedom of speech, "free society" seems to be a cultural element of American society.

Yes, that is my perception: Americans tend to place a higher value on freedom than do other westerners.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

it's the internet; if you see something you don't like: *you can ignore it*

like if someone is on this forum and they are saying things that consistently offend me, I will put them on ignore. If I see someone posting offensive things on facebook, I mouse over their comment and hit the little X and *poof*.

The only time it gets serious is if some troll decides to try and hunt someone down and repeatedly attack them on the internet. Hacking into accounts, calling home phone numbers, these are things that are over the line. But on the internet, ignoring someone is often just a few clicks away.

 

[lisab]

I'm thinking you meant that sarcastically, but I consider it to be true.

I think Americans are more willing to put up with BS (like the stuff this guy posted) in order to protect our collective right to free speech.

 

[russ_watters]

I think Americans are more willing to put up with BS (like the stuff this guy posted) in order to protect our collective right to free speech.

Yes, but I would put it slightly more forcefully: Americans are more willing to protect BS like the stuff this guy posted in order to protect our collective right to free speech.

That means if the KKK wants to march in your town, the police are obligated to ensure their safety. Not to drag this off topic, but this is also why the Obama administration's comments/actions on the anti-Muslim video bothered me so much.

 

[atyy]

That means if the KKK wants to march in your town, the police are obligated to ensure their safety. Not to drag this off topic, but this is also why the Obama administration's comments/actions on the anti-Muslim video bothered me so much.

The comments were fine, since the government has free speech too.

I do agree that asking the video to be removed is more debatable.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The comments were fine, since the government has free speech too.

I do agree that asking the video to be removed is more debatable.

It is unequivocally wrong. Why should the video be taken down because some muslims are so obsessed with their damn religion that a video making fun of their intangible idol drives them to murder? It is as ridiculous as ridiculous can get.

 

[russ_watters]

The comments were fine, since the government has free speech too.

No, it most certainly does not. Individuals in the government, sometimes have free speech rights, but "the government" is not an entity with sentience and cannot have an opinion of its own, other than to support its laws and principles. It can only support and defend freedom of speech (in the US, anyway), not comment on the speech because commenting on the speech is making official policy establishing or de-establishing the legitimacy of that speech. I bolded "establishing" because the issue gets clearer to people when dealing with the religious establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. This is true at all levels of government, including me, when I was a deck seaman in the Navy.

Example: The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was fired for putting a big monument to the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

This act, as an official representative of the Alabama state government establishes religious principles as being The officially recognized religious principles in Alabama and thus violates the Establishment Clause. His opinion, expressed in an official capacity, is not legally permitted.

Following the issue with the anti-Islam video, US government officials, including embassy websites and the Secretary of State made multiple statements against the video and even went so far as to run TV ads in Pakistan denouncing it. In addition, the government petitioned Youtube to re-check if the video should be banned and sent the FBI and local police after the maker of the video (if anyone is unaware of these facts, I can source them). Since the speech in question was religious in nature, this, imo, violates the Free Speech Clause and the Establishment Clause and perhaps even the Free Exercise Clause, since the maker of the video probably made it because of his own beliefs.

 

[Evo]

But this isn't about the US. What are the laws in the UK?