4 Months Jail for 'Offensive' T-Shirt

Glaucus · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:21

MagicBoy said:
I'd argue facebook is a different kettle of fish. You've got to go looking for it. It wasn't wandering around a public place with a slogan written on it's chest.

.

Facebook and social media is public by its nature.
Also that is the opposite of the court, with teh person in t-****
Rt getting jail sentence with suspended sentence and the Facebook getting jail sentence with no prior cautions as far as I can tell.

bhavv · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:24

Glaucus said:
Facebook and social media is public by its nature.

So are forums and message boards then, so why arent anyone from those also jailed?

MagicBoy · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:25

Glaucus said:
Facebook and social media is public by its nature.

Public Order laws pre-date common use of the internet. Needs looking at again perhaps?

Where do you draw the line? You need a computer device with internet connectivity to access Facebook (plus an account) which bears a degree of cost. Wandering around in a public place does not.

Nitefly · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:26

No. I'm right!

Glaucus · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:27

bhavv said:
So are forums and message boards then, so why arent anyone from those also jailed?

Of course theya are, as allready said the laws are being used for public opinion and are being used very one sided.

MagicBoy said:
Public Order laws pre-date common use of the internet. Needs looking at again perhaps?

Where do you draw the line? You need a computer device with internet connectivity to access Facebook (plus an account) which bears a degree of cost. Wandering around in a public place does not.

They are being looked at

New guidelines on policing offensive conduct on social media are being discussed to avoid a "chilling effect" on free speech, prosecutors say.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19910865

Internet is deemed a nessecity and part of basic living by the government and something every single person should have access to.

Skillmister · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:28

bhavv said:
So are forums and message boards then, so why arent anyone from those also jailed?

Because they haven't been complained against enough. Wasn't the Facebook comment one only arrested once a mob had gathered around his house?

bhavv · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:30

MagicBoy said:
Public Order laws pre-date common use of the internet. Needs looking at again perhaps?

Where do you draw the line? You need a computer device with internet connectivity to access Facebook (plus an account) which bears a degree of cost. Wandering around in a public place does not.

Also you need to actually look up the comments. And if you see something you dont like on the internet, you can always simply ignore it and stop looking?

Jail all the people making internet shock videos!

aln · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:32

MagicBoy said:
I'm not your mate.

Why shouldn't he go to jail for wearing an offensive slogan on a T-shirt with a suspended sentence already imposed on him?

I find that offensive.

You should totally be prosecuted. :rolleyes:

Internet is deemed a nessecity and part of basic living by the government and something every single person should have access to.

The numbers exposed are probably higher on the Internet too. I don't particularly read peoples T-Shirts when going walkies.

MagicBoy · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:35

bhavv said:
Also you need to actually look up the comments. And if you see something you dont like on the internet, you can always simply ignore it and stop looking?

Exactly. It's not like you load up facebook and boom! it appears and you want to scratch your eyes out. If he's your "friend" then you will know where to find him and impart some "wizdom".

If it was print media then it would be an obscene publication. Not sure why the internet/social media/forums/blogs comes under public order instead. The reply button is the equivalent of the publish button.

aln said:
I find that offensive. You should totally be prosecuted.

Bring it on.

aln · 12 Oct 2012 at 00:37

MagicBoy said:
Bring it on.

I would, but my ***** aren't detachable like some others here.

Salsa · 12 Oct 2012 at 01:13

He should have gotten longer... total ****-wit!

/Salsa

ilcp · 12 Oct 2012 at 01:40

billysielu said:
Yeah that's disgraceful, could give him life for all I care - scum.

yeah? that is how we feel when someone mocks our religions, but all we get is FREEDOM of speech. looks like it doesnt work both ways?

Chris-.- · 12 Oct 2012 at 01:43

Deserves the jail time for being an idiot.

Angilion · 12 Oct 2012 at 02:03

Glaucus said:
Thankfully, the laws are going to be discussed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19910865

I think this sums it up and it comes from the right person:

Director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer QC told the BBC that the right to be offensive "has to be protected". [..] "The threshold for prosecution has to be high," he added.
"We live in a democracy, and if free speech is to be protected there has to be a high threshold.
"People have the right to be offensive, they have the right to be insulting, and that has to be protected."

The whole point of freedom of speech is the freedom to speak offensively - nobody opposes speech they're not offended by.

I wouldn't actually care if someone held this guy down and defecated on his face as a gesture of contempt, but I wouldn't jail him just for being offensive. I would, however, jail him as much as possible for anything else (like breaching probation for the drugs thing).

Angilion · 12 Oct 2012 at 02:09

Theophany said:
[..]
I'm not saying that the laws are perfect, but I cannot understand what defensible position there is for what this cretin has done.

There doesn't have to be one. It's not about him or what he's done. It's about freedom of speech. You either have it or you don't, and if you don't protect offensive speech you don't have any freedom of speech. It's a matter of whether you think the benefits of freedom of speech outweigh the costs of it or vice versa. It's not about agreeing with any particular piece of speech. Quite the opposite - the test of whether or not you approve of freedom of speech is whether or not you would allow speech that strongly offends you.

StriderX · 12 Oct 2012 at 02:15

Is it not the police's job to protect the very thing that this man preaches?

Odd.

Dystopia (exaggeration for silly folk) here we come.

ArnieRambo · 12 Oct 2012 at 02:48

i like his t-shirt

bhavv · 12 Oct 2012 at 06:10

All the people saying he deserves more time, what planet do you live on? Jail time should be reserved for the most serious offenses / criminals only, not someone who probably only possessed marijuana and then wore a silly t shirt.

Funny that most people are against the death penalty, yet sticking people in jail for minor offenses has much more public support. Yet the only thing that putting a minor offender in jail would accomplish is potentially turning him into a far worse criminal due to the kind of people he will be locked up with.

The defence of the jail time is just as bad as the 'hang Mark Bridger' FB page, bearing in mind that simply wearing a t shirt with such a message, however offensive it may be should never be illegal in a developed country. At the most the police should have forced him to return home, or buy and change into a new t shirt rather than giving him a jail sentance / classing this act as a breach of his order.

bhavv · 12 Oct 2012 at 06:13

Chris-.- said:
Deserves the jail time for being an idiot.

Then jail 90% of the population? Being an idiot has never been, and blnever will be a criminal offense.

MrMoonX · 12 Oct 2012 at 06:33

absolute waste of time and money prosecuting this idiot, clearly he's a moron, but 4 months in jail for that :rolleyes: