|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Grossly offensive"
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Two things interest and concern me about the case of Robert Riley , sentenced to 8 weeks custody, after pleading guilty to sending a "grossly offensive or malicious message" (language found in the UK Communications Act 2003:
- I am inclined to agree with Riley's own expression of surprise, on his twitter feed, that of all his crass, racist and otherwise offensive tweets, it was the ones concerning the murder of a teacher that led to him being reported to the police.
- I am amazed that he was advised to plead guilty and I wonder if this is one of the many inequalities in the legal system - had he been better educated and able to afford to be better represented, surely he would have been advised that the charge against him would be very difficult to prove?
I am concerned that having a bad sense of humour on the internet seems to have been criminalised and any or all of us could be at risk, but, as well, that it's people who have already been dealt a tough hand who are going to be least able to avoid the consequences of a moment's bad taste.
What do you think?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
I think you might want to change your sig line Johnny Cash.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I think you might want to think about changing your signature. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I think you might want to change your sig line Johnny Cash.
Have you googled it?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I think you might want to change your sig line Johnny Cash.
Have you googled it?
Nope. Just reminded me of the line from Folsom Prison Blues.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What do you think?
I think I have very little sympathy for the man, or anybody who thinks that publishing that "he would have killed not only Maguire but all her school colleagues" was anything less than criminal.
This is not 'bad taste', or 'humorous' or any other euphemism you'd like to deploy. And honestly, I'd want to see everyone who ever called for anyone to be assaulted, raped or murdered over the internet to be fined, heavily, and their access to social media platforms terminated permanently.
Seriously, why on Earth should anyone have to put up with this nonsense?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Doc Tor
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.
And it is so much easier to control what we type than what we say - there really is no excuse.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stumbling Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 7637
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor
Hear hear. (Sorry, pet peeve of mine, these cowardly internet snipers)
--------------------
Stumbling in the Master's footsteps as best I can.
Posts: 492 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor
What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.
Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
- I am amazed that he was advised to plead guilty and I wonder if this is one of the many inequalities in the legal system - had he been better educated and able to afford to be better represented, surely he would have been advised that the charge against him would be very difficult to prove?
What makes you think it would be difficult to prove?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
If you think that threatening her colleagues on the internet is humorous, surely you can see how funny it is that he's going to jail? Hilarity ensues as his "I just open my mouth and funny stuff comes out" attitude encounters other offenders.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor
What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.
Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.
It'd be an offence if he phoned the school up and said that. It'd be an offence if he wrote to the school and put it in writing. It'd be an offence if he went to the school gates and shouted it across the playground.
Saying it in his local pub would be merely stupid. He could have done that, and he wouldn't be a convicted criminal serving an eight-week sentence. He chose not to, and now look...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I am not a big reader of the Hell board but even so can think of several examples where physical violence against someone has been referred to, often involving rusty farm implements. I wouldn't call these jokes but obviously they were not genuine threats of violence either.
If the prosecuting authorities considered Mr Riley's remarks to be real threats of violence, or incitement to violence by others, then they could have prosecuted him for harassment, assault, incitement etc.
If he had directly emailed the teachers his thoughts that they should be killed, I would agree that should be a crime because that shows an intent to cause them distress. But I don't think that posting grossly offensive communications on twitter should be. If that is how the Communications Act is being interpreted, I would be glad to see it amended.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Obviously Mr Riley is an obnoxious half wit but his conviction fails the J.S. Mill test, inasmuch, as it doesn't appear to have been addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks outside the house of a teacher.
There was a celebrated incident, comparatively recently, where a gentleman jocularly threatened to blow up Robin Hood airport (who said irony was dead) when it appeared that the snow might prevent him from hooking up with his beloved. He was duly convicted of having sent a threatening message and the conviction was only subsequently quashed when, various freedom of speech types rode into battle on his behalf. Now with all due respect to Nick Cohen and David Allan Lane we cannot really expect them to sally forth on behalf of every weapons grade moron who avails themselves of the twittersphere to tell us all what a pratt they are. Still, if they can't be nicked for harassment, or whatnot, they are effectively being subjected to a custodial sentence for being doubleplusungoodthinkful which is not the kind of route a representative democracy ought to be heading down. I'm not a free speech fundamentalist but I feel about the free speech fundamentalists much as I feel about the animal rights people, that whilst I don't buy into the entire bill of goods, that they are right that we ought to be seriously raising our game.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.
If you told someone to their face they should be killed, you could be subject to arrest for assault. Everything on the internet is addressed to everyone in the world. Therefore "he should be killed" is perforce the same thing as "you should be killed" because unless the victim of your death threat is permanently offline, they are part of the audience.
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Obviously Mr Riley is an obnoxious half wit but his conviction fails the J.S. Mill test, inasmuch, as it doesn't appear to have been addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks outside the house of a teacher.
J.S. Mill didn't live in a world so connected that threats made in Singapore show up instantly in Timbuktu. EVERYTHING you post on the internet is potentially addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks. That the mob has not yet assembled is a technicality. Mobs can assemble really fast.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Also, it can be pretty discombobulating to be the target of hatecrime. I deliberately trivialised that comment to remove the effect of what I had from neighbours - not online, but I would have sworn I could sense the loathing radiating up through the floorboards. Not here. But even thinking of what happened about 7 years ago gives a twinge. It doesn't need a mob to be nasty. On the other hand, if no-one tells you about it, no harm's done.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Now with all due respect to Nick Cohen and David Allan Lane ...
Just for the record, I think that's David Allen Green. (He's a lawyer - best not risk his umbrage!)
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I'm not a free speech fundamentalist but I feel about the free speech fundamentalists much as I feel about the animal rights people, that whilst I don't buy into the entire bill of goods, that they are right that we ought to be seriously raising our game.
Can you explain to me how threatening to kill a murdered teacher's colleagues counts as an example of free speech that needs protecting? Cheers.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
That the mob has not yet assembled is a technicality.
The non-assembly of the mob is always a technicality. When the mob turns up, or is likely to turn up, it is incitement. When no mob is in sight it is self indictment as a clueless moron. I'll stop here. One of us come from a country which has a good record of upholding freedom of speech. I don't. If we had a first amendment we would have fewer convictions of this sort and that would be a good thing.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I'm not a free speech fundamentalist but I feel about the free speech fundamentalists much as I feel about the animal rights people, that whilst I don't buy into the entire bill of goods, that they are right that we ought to be seriously raising our game.
Can you explain to me how threatening to kill a murdered teacher's colleagues counts as an example of free speech that needs protecting? Cheers.
In much the same way as a threat to blow up Robin Hood Airport needed protecting. The point about free speech is not the inherent value of the speech. If that were the case I would hold that free speech should defend the works of Bonhoeffer, Barth and Dom Gregory Dix and that there should be an absolute ban on Mein Kampf, The Face Of Janus and 120 Days Of Sodom. The point about free speech is not the value judgement as to which speech is worthwhile but the openness to speech which is offensive.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The point about free speech is not the value judgement as to which speech is worthwhile but the openness to speech which is offensive.
But there is a qualitative difference between being offensive and calling for murder.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
That the mob has not yet assembled is a technicality.
The non-assembly of the mob is always a technicality. When the mob turns up, or is likely to turn up, it is incitement. When no mob is in sight it is self indictment as a clueless moron. I'll stop here. One of us come from a country which has a good record of upholding freedom of speech.
It's so cute that you think that.
quote:
I don't. If we had a first amendment we would have fewer convictions of this sort and that would be a good thing.
The first amendment is dead. In the US he almost certainly would have received a longer sentence for harassment, stalking, assault, terroristic threatening, and a host of other things.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Cat
Shipmate
# 9104
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[snip]
Saying it in his local pub would be merely stupid. He could have done that, and he wouldn't be a convicted criminal serving an eight-week sentence. He chose not to, and now look...
If he said it in his local pub, there would be the chance that someone sensible would tell him not to be a dick, and/or someone more handy would punch him in the face. Either way, he'd receive immediate social feedback on his idiocy, and might reconsider his position.
If I went into a pub and Riley were drinking there, I'd probably leave, as I wouldn't care to hear him talking shite. One Twitter, one is virtually sitting in the pub with people you would cross to road to avoid. I stay off it myself. There's enough stupid in my life already.
--------------------
Weird and sweary.
Posts: 1844 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Can you explain to me how threatening to kill a murdered teacher's colleagues counts as an example of free speech that needs protecting? Cheers.
In much the same way as a threat to blow up Robin Hood Airport needed protecting. The point about free speech is not the inherent value of the speech. If that were the case I would hold that free speech should defend the works of Bonhoeffer, Barth and Dom Gregory Dix and that there should be an absolute ban on Mein Kampf, The Face Of Janus and 120 Days Of Sodom. The point about free speech is not the value judgement as to which speech is worthwhile but the openness to speech which is offensive.
While I would agree that protecting the free speech of ideas is entirely necessary, "I'm going blow up an airport" is not a coherent philosophical system. It is a comment designed, at best, to tie up an awful lot of police time working out whether or not the threat is credible, and at worst, the prelude to someone bombing an airport.
Perhaps I'm some filthy censoring Statist lackey, but I can't see free-speech argument in either the Robin Hood airport tweet or the one under discussion.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The point about free speech is not the value judgement as to which speech is worthwhile but the openness to speech which is offensive.
But there is a qualitative difference between being offensive and calling for murder.
The news reports are being all coy about what he actually said. Did he call for murder?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The first amendment is dead. In the US he almost certainly would have received a longer sentence for harassment, stalking, assault, terroristic threatening, and a host of other things.
Really? You surprise me. My impression of US law was that the sentences are generally more severe, but largely for doing stuff rather than just saying stuff, and that you could be as obnoxious in word (vide Fred Phelps) as you wished without fear of prosecution.
The elephant in the room however, is the ungovernable nature of the internet. I don't suppose this unpleasant chap would have been prosecuted (or even pursued) for this particular piece of trollery had he been based outside of the UK. There are a lot of people who seem to think that Twitter and Facebook come with a built-in cloak of impregnability and there seems little chance of anyone resolving that issue. The demands made of those companies to police their content in a timely manner are impossible to meet. You can't ask individuals to exercise their choice not to access social media - everyone else does, and avoiding it oneself doesn't render one immune to its consequences. Perhaps we just have to get used to it.
▲
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
While I would agree that protecting the free speech of ideas is entirely necessary, "I'm going blow up an airport" is not a coherent philosophical system. It is a comment designed, at best, to tie up an awful lot of police time working out whether or not the threat is credible, and at worst, the prelude to someone bombing an airport.
Perhaps I'm some filthy censoring Statist lackey, but I can't see free-speech argument in either the Robin Hood airport tweet or the one under discussion.
Who gets to decide that your comments are the second coming of Thomas Aquinas and his comments are just a waste of police time? The point is that the burden of proof ought to rest with the state when it comes to prosecute people. If someone starts a General Election thread on the Ship and I post something to the effect of 'One Tory, One Bullet' lots of people will be entitled to conclude that I am being a bit of a twat but if the fuzz start going after me it would be reasonable to conclude that they had lost their sense of proportion.
The thing is that it ought not to be the state which judges the worthwhileness of your utterance. Most utterances, probably including this post, are eminently forgettable and lots of them are entirely shite. But it is only the government's job to say "steady on now" if I say something like "If Doc Tor had any balls, he'd put a cap in Alan Cresswell's ass" (I am now banking on the fact that I have invoked the identities of two of the Ship's best and noblest personas) and actual violence takes place, and that this could have been anticipated, then I expect the law to get all medieval on my bottom. But in most other instances I would expect something between a hostly rebuke or planking.
Generally, the punishment for malicious horrible sentiments ought to be the loss of regard from one's peers, not a jail sentence. Unless said sentiments lead to violence.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The first amendment is dead. In the US he almost certainly would have received a longer sentence for harassment, stalking, assault, terroristic threatening, and a host of other things.
Really? You surprise me. My impression of US law was that the sentences are generally more severe, but largely for doing stuff rather than just saying stuff, and that you could be as obnoxious in word (vide Fred Phelps) as you wished without fear of prosecution.
To a large extent, it depends on where you are in the US (and which state you are in). But, for example, in the northeast US, most of the states have rewritten their laws to such an extent that if someone claims that a comment you made caused them emotional distress, you're doing time. I no longer feel that I can criticize the government at all (particularly not the cops or criminal injustice system) without fear of official reprisal.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.
If you told someone to their face they should be killed, you could be subject to arrest for assault. Everything on the internet is addressed to everyone in the world. Therefore "he should be killed" is perforce the same thing as "you should be killed" because unless the victim of your death threat is permanently offline, they are part of the audience.
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Obviously Mr Riley is an obnoxious half wit but his conviction fails the J.S. Mill test, inasmuch, as it doesn't appear to have been addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks outside the house of a teacher.
J.S. Mill didn't live in a world so connected that threats made in Singapore show up instantly in Timbuktu. EVERYTHING you post on the internet is potentially addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks. That the mob has not yet assembled is a technicality. Mobs can assemble really fast.
See that's the difference, if you told someone to their face that 'they should be killed' you could be prosecuted but it would be a 'he said she said' case. If you shouted it at them in the street you would be committing verbal assault.You could be prosecuted but it would be unlikely. Tweeting it or blogging it or screen printing pamphlets is incitement to commit an act.
It's also on permanent record. My point still stands, their is a difference between saying something and publishing something, it's far more offensive and threatening to put it in print for the world to see.
[ 09. May 2014, 20:38: Message edited by: lapsed heathen ]
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Tweeting it or blogging it or screen printing pamphlets is incitement to commit an act.
It's also on permanent record. My point still stands, their is a difference between saying something and publishing something, it's far more offensive and threatening to put it in print for the world to see.
That is so bizarre to me - I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that you think that. Posting something online is so unlikely to lead to violence, or to anyone taking you seriously when you've demonstrated that you're a certain kind of troll, that it seems to me that it's far less offensive to post something online where people are free to ignore it. Saying something in person can lead to violence a lot more easily and can lead to people not being allowed/ comfortable in public spaces because they can't ignore the offensiveness.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Who gets to decide that your comments are the second coming of Thomas Aquinas and his comments are just a waste of police time? The point is that the burden of proof ought to rest with the state when it comes to prosecute people.
Which is pretty much where we are now.
The two cases that stick in my mind are the Lord whatisface accused of being a paedophile, and the trolls who went after Caroline Criado-Perez for campaigning for Jane Austen on the tenner. The Lord was able to use libel law to, quite effectively, crush his detractors and get pretty much all of them. Criado-Perez's harassment resulted in just two convictions out of the thousands who threatened to rape and kill her.
No, I'm not expecting Twitter to monitor tweets real-time. I am expecting them to use the ban hammer more effectively, or even just once in a while. It's not a human right to use that particular platform.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Was there not some pushback in the US when some GOP stars used crosshairs on a target Democrat "who should be shot" just before an actual Congress-person was shot by a suggestible male?
The GOP-creatures used the "free speech" line until they realised how badly that played among real voters.
But, no, they didn't go to jail
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Amanda Hess wrote an article
Why Women are not welcome on the internet about being cyberstalked and talks about the state of the laws and actual protection in the United States. This and several other cases have pushed me away from the "Absolute Free Speech means you can make anonymous death threats" position. Threats are not always clearly rhetorical bluster. There have been cases where the online threats are followed by real life stalking.
[ 10. May 2014, 03:26: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Tweeting it or blogging it or screen printing pamphlets is incitement to commit an act.
It's also on permanent record. My point still stands, their is a difference between saying something and publishing something, it's far more offensive and threatening to put it in print for the world to see.
That is so bizarre to me - I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that you think that. Posting something online is so unlikely to lead to violence, or to anyone taking you seriously when you've demonstrated that you're a certain kind of troll, that it seems to me that it's far less offensive to post something online where people are free to ignore it. Saying something in person can lead to violence a lot more easily and can lead to people not being allowed/ comfortable in public spaces because they can't ignore the offensiveness.
Yeah I understand where your coming from, I don't fully understand it myself. It took some persuasion to convince me to go with the notion that the media we have today is a whole other kettle of fish to what I grew up with.
It's a bit like this. Before social media you had your rows face to face, if it ended in fisty cuffs at least it ended. Now what happens is a back n forth of tweets, face book posts or blogs goes out, people who don't know the parties involved get involved or form opinions of the parties based on just text. No contextual cues to help them decide right or wrong just the biases they bring with them. This is so different from verbal argy bargy that it requires different rules of behaviour. Yes, the law is heavy handed about it but it's not without reason, no big loss of freedom of speech or right to respond is lost or compromised, in fact clear and precise communication is encouraged by this.
We know a troll when we see one but their are a lot of people who cant tell the difference.
[ 10. May 2014, 09:11: Message edited by: lapsed heathen ]
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It'd be an offence if he phoned the school up and said that. It'd be an offence if he wrote to the school and put it in writing. It'd be an offence if he went to the school gates and shouted it across the playground.
Saying it in his local pub would be merely stupid. He could have done that, and he wouldn't be a convicted criminal serving an eight-week sentence. He chose not to, and now look...
From the newspaper report, it seems that Riley's tweets weren't aimed at any particular person, but generally made to the world at large. In that case, wouldn't they be more like the example in your second paragraph than your first?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
It's a good point about the inflationary nature of the Web.
Plus there's the ominous power of anonymity. Usually when the troll is brought to court, s/he is just such an inadequate, dimwitted no-hoper as the present instance - but on the receiving end, you don't know that. It takes uncommon strength of character to be the object of violent threats and not begin to imagine a RL stalker - film and TV will helpfully model this for you.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That he was jailed is utterly insane. He should have been made to do community service like Berlusconi.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.
And it is so much easier to control what we type than what we say - there really is no excuse.
It's about proof. It is easier to prove someone has posted something on social media than it is to prove they've said it. Even things that have been published online then deleted can often be found cached elsewhere on the web.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It'd be an offence if he phoned the school up and said that. It'd be an offence if he wrote to the school and put it in writing. It'd be an offence if he went to the school gates and shouted it across the playground.
Saying it in his local pub would be merely stupid. He could have done that, and he wouldn't be a convicted criminal serving an eight-week sentence. He chose not to, and now look...
From the newspaper report, it seems that Riley's tweets weren't aimed at any particular person, but generally made to the world at large. In that case, wouldn't they be more like the example in your second paragraph than your first?
No. He might think he's showing off to his mates, but he's not. They are published. They are, in effect, in print for the whole world to see, including the people he's threatening.
If someone is so verbally/textually incontinent that they can't help themselves but issue death threats, and not realise that those threats are then broadcasted to the furthest ends of the Earth, I'm going to suggest Twitter is not for them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
- I am amazed that he was advised to plead guilty and I wonder if this is one of the many inequalities in the legal system - had he been better educated and able to afford to be better represented, surely he would have been advised that the charge against him would be very difficult to prove?
What makes you think it would be difficult to prove?
Paul Chambers finally winning his case on appeal sets a strong recent precedent that I think a good lawyer would have been able to exploit. As Gildas says, David Allen Green can't offer pro bono defence to every idiot, but it seems unfair that it's one's ability to engage decent representation that ultimately determines whether you get a criminal record.
The reduction of Legal Aid in the UK is going to lead to a lot of injustice in my view.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No. He might think he's showing off to his mates, but he's not. They are published. They are, in effect, in print for the whole world to see, including the people he's threatening.
To my mind, it's unclear where the line ought to be drawn and it seems to me that there's a wider uncertainty as to how social media comments ought to be treated. You say it's criminal to have typed these off-colour remarks on Twitter, but not to have uttered them in a public place (a pub). But where is the dividing line between the two? Should making the same remarks on a platform at a public meeting be illegal, for example?
It seems to me that there's a world of difference between directly communicating with someone (by, for example, writing a letter) and writing something that a possible victim might or might not chance upon.
quote:
If someone is so verbally/textually incontinent that they can't help themselves but issue death threats, and not realise that those threats are then broadcasted to the furthest ends of the Earth, I'm going to suggest Twitter is not for them.
Is 'death threats' the correct term to describe Riley's comments? I haven't seen his actual tweets, but according to the Guardian report he joked about Maguire's colleagues requiring stab vests and that he 'would have killed not only Maguire but all her school colleagues'. If that's an accurate summary, is it a 'death threat'?
To say 'if I was in Person A's position, I would not only have killed Person X, but also Persons Y and Z' seems to me quite different than saying 'I'm going to kill Y and Z'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
To my mind, it's unclear where the line ought to be drawn and it seems to me that there's a wider uncertainty as to how social media comments ought to be treated. You say it's criminal to have typed these off-colour remarks on Twitter, but not to have uttered them in a public place (a pub). But where is the dividing line between the two? Should making the same remarks on a platform at a public meeting be illegal, for example?
I'm not saying it's criminal. I'm pointing to the current state of the law in England and Wales which says it's criminal.
If I make a speech at a public meeting which I mention the recent murder of a teacher, and say in the killer's position I would have gone on to kill the rest of the staff too - what do you think? If I replace the name of a dead teacher with the name of Stephen Lawrence, and say I would have gone on to kill the rest of his family too - what do you think?
And "off-colour"? Please. Off-colour is the realm of smutty jokes and mild innuendo*. Saying that you'd have killed all the other teachers in a school where one of the teachers has just been killed is not "off-colour".
*a woman walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre, so the barman gave her one.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If I make a speech at a public meeting which I mention the recent murder of a teacher, and say in the killer's position I would have gone on to kill the rest of the staff too - what do you think?
I think it might depend on the kind of language used, the setting, possibly even the audience. I don't think it automatically follows that offensive language ought to be illegal. What do you think?
This incident made me think of Tony Martin, who was initially found guilty of murder after he shot and killed one of two burglars in his home (the verdict was later reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility because of some mental issues he had). As I'm sure you recall, that stirred up quite a bit of debate about what rights homeowners should have to protect their home.
I presume you don't agree that it should be illegal, as part of a debate, to advance the view that homeowners ought to be able shoot intruders? It's surely not a great leap from there to saying 'if I was Tony Martin, I would've shot them both'?
quote:
If I replace the name of a dead teacher with the name of Stephen Lawrence, and say I would have gone on to kill the rest of his family too - what do you think?
I'm not sure why you think this might produce a different result?
quote:
And "off-colour"? Please. Off-colour is the realm of smutty jokes and mild innuendo. Saying that you'd have killed all the other teachers in a school where one of the teachers has just been killed is not "off-colour".
'Rude' or 'tasteless' might have been more apposite. But whatever term used, I'd still say they don't appear to be death threats.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
The reduction of Legal Aid in the UK is going to lead to a lot of injustice in my view.
It seems to me that the system is already letting people down. I've long disliked Dave Lee Travis, but even I felt sympathy for him when I learned that he is facing financial ruin to pay the legal fees for successfully defending himself against sex charges.
Something seems to have gone wrong, in my view, if the state can concoct some charges against you and you then have to pay out of your own pocket to prove that those charges are false.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
'Rude' or 'tasteless' might have been more apposite. But whatever term used, I'd still say they don't appear to be death threats.
That's nice. What does the legal profession say? What do the threatened teachers say? What does your opinion matter in a legal issue? Or mine for that matter?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's nice. What does the legal profession say? What do the threatened teachers say? What does your opinion matter in a legal issue? Or mine for that matter?
I'm not quite sure what you're driving at. With the words 'what do you think?' the OP invited us to discuss the issue.
We don't have to discuss issues, of course. But if we don't wouldn't we have to close this site down?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
'Rude' or 'tasteless' might have been more apposite. But whatever term used, I'd still say they don't appear to be death threats.
Okay, let's take a look at this bit, since it seems to be the nub of the matter.
When is a death threat not a death threat? Should a death threat always be illegal, only illegal sometimes, or never illegal? And for afters, how are the (a) police and (b) the object of the threat, going to be able to differentiate between an actual death threat and the merely crass?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor
What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.
Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.
Death threats are illegal, and putting someone in fear of attack is a form of assault that is also illegal. So it would probably depend how convincing you were when you said it.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
