Please explain Great Britain.

[+Edouard Subscriber²]

"Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK for posting ‘offensive’ tweet"

 

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly

 

What the actual f**k! Is this true?

 

I understand the Brits are looking to change this law but how was this ever even implemented?

[ad47uk]

On 31/03/2022 at 11:01, Jumping Jacinta said:

"Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK for posting ‘offensive’ tweet"

 

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly

 

What the actual f**k! Is this true?

 

I understand the Brits are looking to change this law but how was this ever even implemented?

He may think twice about doing it again. I am in two minds about this, I think peoiple shhould have free speech and when we get to prosecuting people for it then we have to look at where we're going, but then in another way, some things should never be said, and he may think twice about doing it again. Name and shame may be the best way.

[+Edouard Subscriber²]

On 31/03/2022 at 21:24, ad47uk said:

He may think twice about doing it again. I am in two minds about this, I think peoiple shhould have free speech and when we get to prosecuting people for it then we have to look at where we're going, but then in another way, some things should never be said, and he may think twice about doing it again. Name and shame may be the best way.

The man made a drunk post which he deleted 20 minutes later.

 

How does the penalty fit the crime FFS!

 

Two words for you and anyone who may agree with the penalty...Slippery Slope!

[+DonC Subscriber²]

The law made more sense in the pre-internet era when most communications for regular folk were just person to person interactions. It was up to the platforms (i.e. the telephone companies) to do the policing. The process was that the victim would complain to the phone company about offensive calls which would then cause the phone company to investigate and be able to provide evidence which could then be used to charge the perpetrator. The sticking point is that it was intended to be used when the speech was directed at a specific other person.

 

The law wasn't really intended to be used where you can essentially publish your own content as a private individual for the world to see.

 

It's in the process of being replaced with new legislation.

[Fleet Command]

On 31/03/2022 at 14:31, Jumping Jacinta said:

"Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK for posting ‘offensive’ tweet"

 

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly

 

What the actual f**k! Is this true?

Slander is illegal in all nations. Most slanderers today, however, use their anonymity on the Internet to escape punishment. Joseph Kelly was not that lucky. The short arm of justice caught him.

 

It is true that the United Kingdom has some unfair slander laws. However, even the more relaxed laws of the United States would have showed no mercy to Kelly. After all, he demonstrated abject malice.

 

Note that Neowin also has little tolerance for such statements. On several occasions, a Neowin member wished death for another. Their comments were duly struck.

[Steven P. Administrators]

I think you'll find that the authorities look at tweets like these as an actual threat against British soldiers, when such behavior is ignored it can turn into events like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

 

While the argument was "I was drunk and I deleted it" the authorities will also be questioning the mindset of the person who posted it.

 

Aren't such threats against the U.S. president also followed up on by the FBI? I thought they were, but I may be wrong.

[+Edouard Subscriber²]

On 31/03/2022 at 22:06, Fleet Command said:

Note that Neowin also has little tolerance for such statements. On several occasions, a Neowin member wished death for another. Their comments were duly struck.

Warning someone and deleting their post is fair and reasonable.

 

Being sentenced to 150 unpaid hours of community work is not. Not to mention he probably now has a criminal record, assuming he didn't previously.

 

Remember, he deleted it in twenty minutes.

[jnelsoninjax]

On 31/03/2022 at 07:12, Steven P. said:

I think you'll find that the authorities look at tweets like these as an actual threat against British soldiers, when such behavior is ignored it can turn into events like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

 

While the argument was "I was drunk and I deleted it" the authorities will also be questioning the mindset of the person who posted it.

 

Aren't such threats against the U.S. president also followed up on by the FBI? I thought they were, but I may be wrong.

Secret service is the agency who follows up on threats against the president.

[+Edouard Subscriber²]

On 31/03/2022 at 22:12, Steven P. said:

I think you'll find that the authorities look at tweets like these as an actual threat against British soldiers, when such behavior is ignored it can turn into events like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

 

While the argument was "I was drunk and I deleted it" the authorities will also be questioning the mindset of the person who posted it.

 

Aren't such threats against the U.S. president also followed up on by the FBI? I thought they were, but I may be wrong.

The thing is Steven is that he didn't actually threaten anyone. He just celebrated the death of a 100 year old veteran.

 

Tasteless, yes. Worthy of a criminal conviction...f**k no.

 

Again, he deleted the post after twenty minutes after realizing he had gone too far.

[Dick Montage]

Oh look, it’s the consequences of my actions catching up with me…

 

Maybe if people knew there would be consequences for such disrespectful posts then they wouldn’t act like keyboard warriors and make them.

[FloatingFatMan]

On 31/03/2022 at 13:11, Jumping Jacinta said:

The thing is Steven is that he didn't actually threaten anyone. He just celebrated the death of a 100 year old veteran.

 

Tasteless, yes. Worthy of a criminal conviction...f**k no.

 

Again, he deleted the post after twenty minutes after realizing he had gone too far.

I agree that the punishment is completely disproportionate, but as others have said, it's an old law currently in the throes of being replaced and judges are required to sentence within the laid out guidelines for current legislation. 

 

I suspect he gave the high end of those guidelines because of who Captain Tom was and what he means to most Brits.  Not exactly appropriate from a judge, but as long as he's within the guidelines... Well, he's human too, I guess. 

 

 

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

On 31/03/2022 at 11:48, DonC said:

The law made more sense in the pre-internet era when most communications for regular folk

 

On 31/03/2022 at 13:44, FloatingFatMan said:

I agree that the punishment is completely disproportionate, but as others have said, it's an old law currently in the throes of being replaced and judges are required to sentence within the laid out guidelines for current legislation. 

 

I suspect he gave the high end of those guidelines because of who Captain Tom was and what he means to most Brits.  Not exactly appropriate from a judge, but as long as he's within the guidelines... Well, he's human too, I guess. 

 

 

The Verge article has a link to the legislation that he was prosecuted under. It was created in 2003 so hardly archaic by legislation standards. It also specifically refers to "public electronic communications network" which I assume is the interwebs. 

[Brandon H Supervisor]

the tweet was bad but the action taken against the tweeter is far worse IMO

 

a drunk tweet that was deleted 20 minutes later; at worst should have been a temp ban from twitter not "18 months of supervision and 150 hours of unpaid work in the form of a Scottish Community Payback Order (CPO)"; it's ridiculous.

talk about a WAY overreaction by the legal system ....

 

what's next? are they going to be physically walking into bars an arresting/sentencing people for talking bad about others? slippery slope indeed

[Gurn Blandsten]

They can pretty much go after you for anything they want to in the UK. Look at how broad this language is:

Quote

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

[+Edouard Subscriber²]

On 31/03/2022 at 23:33, Dick Montage said:

Oh look, it’s the consequences of my actions catching up with me…

 

Maybe if people knew there would be consequences for such disrespectful posts then they wouldn’t act like keyboard warriors and make them.

Who gets to decide what is disrespectful?

 

I cannot believe you hold this position given the back and forward you had with @Gheebuttersnaps a few days ago. Both of you would now be supervised and serving community service under these utterly ridiculous laws.

 

In fact, given what many of us have posted about Trump and Biden we would all technically be guilty.

[Dick Montage]

On 31/03/2022 at 15:21, Jumping Jacinta said:

Who gets to decide what is disrespectful?

The judge, it seems.

 

On 31/03/2022 at 15:21, Jumping Jacinta said:

I cannot believe you hold this position given the back and forward you had with @Gheebuttersnaps a few days ago. Both of you would now be supervised and serving community service under these utterly ridiculous laws.

And rightly so!

[Fleet Command]

On 31/03/2022 at 16:37, Jumping Jacinta said:

Warning someone and deleting their post is fair and reasonable.

 

Being sentenced to 150 unpaid hours of community work is not. Not to mention he probably now has a criminal record, assuming he didn't previously.

 

Remember, he deleted it in twenty minutes.

To be fair, backbiting is a very disgusting thing to do. If Kelly had stuck with the old and proven principle of "don't backbite," he wouldn't have been in this mess right now. And I hate the fact that Elon Musk committed a similar crime and got away with it. (He called someone a pedophile.) The most important thing in dispensing justice is equity. So, I think at least some of your emotions are justified. Kelly is receiving a punishment, but not justice.

[DocM]

On 31/03/2022 at 07:06, Fleet Command said:

Slander is illegal in all nations.

>

There's often a difference between criminal and civil infractions. In the United States it's  usually a civil infraction requiring a lawsuit to claim damages, not the government charging someone with a crime. 

 

There are also differing standards, such as in the UK if you say something false about a public figure you can be sued under common law malice. In the United States public figures are usually fair game unless they can prove actual malice

 

And of course, things can go haywire.

 

A really good Paul Newman / Sally Field  film touched on the  malice issue, Absence of Malice. Recommended.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by DocM

[Fleet Command]

On 01/04/2022 at 00:55, DocM said:

There's often a difference between criminal and civil infractions. In the United States it's  usually a civil infraction requiring a lawsuit to claim damages, not the government charging someone with a crime. 

 

There are also differing standards, such as in the UK if you say something false about a public figure you can be sued under common law malice. In the United States public figures are usually fair game unless they can prove actual malice

Yes, that, and a lot of other per-jurisdiction differences I didn't mention, exist. The point is, people like Kelly are not entirely safe from practicing slander. I still don't think Kelly would have been safe, even in the U.S. Murder is malum in se (by itself evil). Hence, expressing the desire for the death of a group of people is easily contempt of the law. Contempt isn't by itself illegal; but when a court is deciding on the guilt, contemptuous defendants don't stand a chance. Also, in the U.S., legal battle is very expensive because it is more business than justice. You already know about expensive lawyers. But there is also a whole sector of the clothing industry dedicated to making people presentable in court. As such, rich public figures can increase their chances of winning.

 

P.S., is there a reason you have linked to Wikipedia entry for "Alcohol consumption in Russia"?

[+Edouard Subscriber²]

On 01/04/2022 at 02:10, Fleet Command said:

Kelly is receiving a punishment, but not justice.

Yeah, that sums it up perfectly.

[DocM]

On 31/03/2022 at 17:12, Fleet Command said:

>

P.S., is there a reason you have linked to Wikipedia entry for "Alcohol consumption in Russia"?

 

Tapped the wrong clipboard entry when pasting it. Sorry 🤪

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

[boo_star]

On 31/03/2022 at 12:06, Fleet Command said:

Slander is illegal in all nations. Most slanderers today, however, use their anonymity on the Internet to escape punishment. Joseph Kelly was not that lucky. The short arm of justice caught him.

 

It is true that the United Kingdom has some unfair slander laws. However, even the more relaxed laws of the United States would have showed no mercy to Kelly. After all, he demonstrated abject malice.

 

Note that Neowin also has little tolerance for such statements. On several occasions, a Neowin member wished death for another. Their comments were duly struck.

Slander is not a crime in the UK, it is a civil "tort." I suspect it is also a civil wrongdoing in almost every other civilised country.

 

Slander is also spoken defamation. It's libel if you do it in written form, as the defendant did here. But even then it wasn't defamation. He said "the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn." That is not defamation.

 

You're expressing the same level of ignorance of the law that I generally expect from most people, and it only perpetuates the ignorance if it isn't corrected.

Edited April 18, 2022 by boo_star

[boo_star]

On 31/03/2022 at 13:44, FloatingFatMan said:

I agree that the punishment is completely disproportionate, but as others have said, it's an old law currently in the throes of being replaced and judges are required to sentence within the laid out guidelines for current legislation. 

 

I suspect he gave the high end of those guidelines because of who Captain Tom was and what he means to most Brits.  Not exactly appropriate from a judge, but as long as he's within the guidelines... Well, he's human too, I guess. 

 

 

How is a law from 2003, a mere 19 years ago, "old?"  And it is in the process of being replaced by a far more restrictive law than the one that exists, so don't try to play the "it's as an issue that will be resolved" lie.  It's an issue that is only going to get worse.

 

Oh, and whilst the judge might have been restricted by sentencing guidelines, the CPS could have happily not prosecuted the case for not being in the public interest, which, for the record, it absolutely wasn't.  Please don't try that disingenuous "they had no choice" ######, because they did.

[FloatingFatMan]

On 18/04/2022 at 03:10, boo_star said:

How is a law from 2003, a mere 19 years ago, "old?"  And it is in the process of being replaced by a far more restrictive law than the one that exists, so don't try to play the "it's as an issue that will be resolved" lie.  It's an issue that is only going to get worse.

 

Oh, and whilst the judge might have been restricted by sentencing guidelines, the CPS could have happily not prosecuted the case for not being in the public interest, which, for the record, it absolutely wasn't.  Please don't try that disingenuous "they had no choice" ######, because they did.

When it comes to laws managing things on the internet, 19 years is ancient.  As for the CPS, they had nothing to do with it.  This was in Scotland so it's the Procurator Fiscal Service who prosecute and they work under different guidelines so I have no idea what their reasoning for prosecution is.

[Fleet Command]

On 18/04/2022 at 06:28, boo_star said:

Slander is not a crime in the UK, it is a civil "tort." I suspect it is also a civil wrongdoing in almost every other civilised country.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. Moving on.

 

On 18/04/2022 at 06:28, boo_star said:

Slander is also spoken defamation. It's libel if you do it in written form, as the defendant did here. But even then it wasn't defamation.

That's lawman's terminology, not mainstream English, which employs metonymy. In day-to-day use, "slander" simply means "casting aspersions" or "vilification." It's a superset of backbiting.

 

On 18/04/2022 at 06:28, boo_star said:

He said "the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn." That is not defamation.

Yes, it is. The first portion alleges unspecified misdeed on part of the claimant. Its indirectness and lack of specificity contribute to its calumny nature. If it were direct and had specific facts backed by evidence, it would have been benevolent criticism. The second portion is just rude, though.

 

On 18/04/2022 at 06:28, boo_star said:

You're expressing the same level of ignorance of the law that I generally expect from most people, and it only perpetuates the ignorance if it isn't corrected.

I assure you, messages like this have no correctional power. The personal attack in them tarnishes the writer's good faith.

 

Emotions are the king. People easily forget your deeds, your teachings, and your reasoning, but they won't forget how you made them feel. When I read the distasteful remark in your comment, I immediately consider that perhaps the whole purpose of your message was showing disdain, not educating. This notion is absent when I am taking your message on its merit.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Fleet Command