A student has been jailed for 56 days for posting offensive comments on Twitter about the on-pitch collapse of Bolton Wanderers footballer Fabrice Muamba. "The swiftness of the arrest demonstrates how seriously police are taking the posting of potentially criminal comments on social networking sites by so-called trolls." "Chief crown prosecutor for CPS Cymru-Wales, said: "Racist language is inappropriate in any setting and through any media. We hope this case will serve as a warning to anyone who may think that comments made online are somehow beyond the law." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets I believe this sets a good example. The written word, is stronger than the spoken word. Usually the posters only act in the way they do because they are hiding behing a user name that does not reveal there identity. They would probabally not say the things they write to a friend, boss, co-worker or relative. People seem to forget you are not annonamous, an IP address is very easy to trace, and the internet provider will gladly assist with police enquiries. There are other forms of online discrimination, such as homophobia, disrespecting the deceased, threats and bullying etc. Is it really acceptable? Is the excuse 'it's the internet mate' an acceptable defence? Do you think the sentance was too harsh? Or do you think the prison sentance was justified and will perhaps act as a deterent to others?
This will not end well but... I believe totally in freedom of speech. The phrase "I hate what you're saying but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" has a resonance with me. But then I'm a person who believes in personal responsibility. My actions right or wrong have never been dictated by another's opinions: it's been my choice to believe what I heard & then act on it. I believe; as well meaning as these laws are the whole "incitement" laws are a cop out for the perpetrator of physical crimes; but indicative of our society where we now make a "victim" of the criminal. Boo hoo it's because they were poor, didn't have a daddy, watched Violent movies, read something that said it was all the black man or Jews fault. Excuses, excuses, excuses. They perpetrated the crime because they wanted to, not because someone told them to. In having these laws we're giving the real criminal a ready made excuse. If you are a bigot (you'll not think so) I want to hear you, mark you out from the crowd, identify you as such. Now; having said that Mate: you have named the difficulty; the Internet provides anonymity. People hide behind avatars & can't be identified as the bigot. This allows them to say things they wouldn't dare say if their identity was attached; that would risk their jobs, personal relationships. But; as unpleasant as I find this; and possibly an archaic outlook but I still believe that saying something doesn't make another person DO something unless, they not only already share the view but have a determination to act on it anyway. By saying "he made you do it" allows some doubt in regarding the actual perpetrator as the real danger to society. Instead; just make the punishment for "acting" so harsh, that it makes the person pause before committing it. I don't want to "understand" a criminal, I want to scare them so bad they don't become one in the first place.
I studied Multimedia and internet technologies, and believe me, there is no such thing as anonymity, even if you are using private browsing, or are 'hiding' behind a proxy blocker. I think some of the people who make these insensitive comments, are clearly looking for a reaction, perhaps they are having a difficult time and are just making the comments to vent there anger at the world, a release. Some are not scared by the law, but the threat of a prison sentance, criminal record and all the stress that goes with court apperances etc, may cause them to think twice. All it takes is one complaint, the police are obliged to investigate. This is why I think this case sets a good president. "Instead; just make the punishment for "acting" so harsh, that it makes the person pause before committing it."
Profile of a troll: "They are people who do not feel that they matter very much in life. So, interjecting something that makes others react, can make them feel, at least temporarily that they somehow matter. It gives a false sense of superiority. It is akin to people who deliberately dress in odd clothes or have outlandish hair or piercings or tattoos etc. They seek to provoke reaction." - - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090430000710AA9mHys "Trolls are typically anti-social and often depressed or less often just ADHD. Think of them as the kid who acts up in class, making disruptive jokes, or other people who do bad things to get attention. They typically have problems at home or just in their general social life. The depressed or ADHD ones are often doing it to try to "feel" something. Since normal life isn't causing them to feel normal emotions they try doing things outside of the norm. The reason they are spread all over Y!A is because a lot of anti-social and/or depressed people use computers as an escape, in fact it is a very common addiction today. Note that computer addiction is not technically considered a disorder but rather a result of existing disorders." - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090430000710AA9mHys
And that is my point. We hide behind a phoney right to "privacy" (which as you state in reality does not exist; hence the arrest & prosecution) and by doing so denigrate what I believe is a far more precious right of freedom to speak. If you are going to create a law make it this. You have to use your real name & photo on all social network forums. If everybody had to; there's no risk and people with these types of views will think twice if an employer, mother, wife can type in their name & review what they have said. It's would be easier to police. As opposed to for example: the one guy making racist tweets about a poor footballer in a vulnerable state as opposed to the thousands who tweeted & retweeted racist tweets about the death of Witney Houston & got away with it. Instead of trying to review millions of comments, you can review & shut down thousands of forum sites that don't enforce true identification. Under a level playing field I'm prepared to comment on sites like this under my real name as I stand by what I say. In fact I'd do it now if anyone wanted me to.
Don't get me wrong; I know anything can be falsified, another's name & pic can be used but there are ways to combat that & identity fraud is already an offence.
Surely there is no such offence as "disrespecting the dead"? If there is what utter mopery."oh this person is dead, you can only say good things about him and make it sound like he was a pillar of society!", away and ****e, if he was a horrible **** (like a scumbag from my area that put a pensioner in hospital but got stabbed to death a year after and was suddenly the loveliest fella to walk the earth) i will make no bones about still calling him a horrible **** who deserved everything he got.
Any one is traceable, Mobile phone operaters and Internet providers will oblige to any police request.
The tweets weren't racist for joking about her death; they were racist for making stereotypical jokes based on the colour of her skin. Under present laws that is an offence that carries a possible jail sentence.
Sick internet 'troll' who posted vile messages and videos taunting the death of teenagers is jailed for 18 WEEKS http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...acebook-internet-troll-Sean-Duffy-jailed.html
I don't know what the idiot actually said on Twitter - and I don't want to. However, it appears that a great deal of offence has been taken - enough to get the perpetrator charged and goaled. My question is why was he goaled? Was it for making offensive comments or was it for making racist comments? The two may be joined but they are essentially very different things. Tonight on Radio 5 Live, Dame Tammy Grey-Thompson was interviewed as part of an item on disability. She was deeply offended when a woman who noticed that she was pregnant told her that "people like her should not be allowed to breed". Now that may have been the woman's belief (which she has the right to hold even if you disagree) but voicing that belief is another issue. In English literature we have a long and fine history of satire. Now to the targets of that satire I'm sure felt very offended but did that feeling of offence give them the right to take action? In more recent times that feeling of offence has been used to justify things like Fatwas - is that right or excusable? When offence becomes associated with racism, the water becomes even more murkier. We cannot truly define what we mean by racism itself or what constitutes a racist comment. As a society it appears that whilst we abhor racism, we have to test every supposed racist action or comment to see if it is actually racist - that is a situation that cannot continue. Is offence felt by a black person to be given more weight than offence felt by a white or yellow person? If so then the law itself becomes unjust. I don't have the answers to these questions but I applaud the attempt to address them. I have just retuned from Australia where the racism issue is even more schizophrenic. The official stance is apologetic for what has been done to the Aboriginal peoples and the White Only immigration policy. However on the street I heard far more racist comments from everyday Assies than I would ever hear in the UK. So, let's not beat ourselves up too much but continue to tray and find the answers that are acceptable to us all. Isn't it strange that for all the kicking that football fans get, this debate is happening tonight on a football forum!
But as my examples show its a lottery; you need enough complaints about an individual among millions & police resources to go after them. Unlikely unless it's topic of the day. Heres where a law forcing true identities used in tandem with equality & employment laws and societies natural justice would make racists comments (and id argue abusive comments in general e.g. Sectarian, sexist, homophobic etc etc) untenable without even involving the police (no incitement law needed) Joe Smith (photo supplied) makes racist comments on twitter. Thinks its just a laugh. He goes for a job: prospective employer as standard runs an Internet check on candidates. Joe Smith doesn't get the job. Joe Smith gets hauled into existing bosses office who can now discipline him for comments that put the employer at risk under equality laws by association. Joe smith will find himself fired if he continues. Prospective Landlord does an Internet search; joe doesn't get that apartment. Joe Smith starts dating a girl; who Internet checks him. Joe smith no longer dating the girl. You've protected his right to free speech but allowed the consequences of using that right to be scrutinized by everybody else & protected THEIR right to free speech.
It's both, if I walked into a pub and made offensive and (or) racist comments to anyone who would listen, I would be arrested. The written word is the same, Joey Barton is yet to grasp this concept. Writing things is the same as speaking.
You may think things that are dark, but too act upon them, speak or write them in a public place, is surely the difference between sanity and madness. A loss of control.
It's not as simple as that. A pub is a public place but is a private conversation between 2 people in a pub private or public if it is not over-heard by anyone? If I write my thoughts on my computer or in a notebook that I didn't intend to publish but later comes into the hands of another is that an offence? What is the difference between Joey Barton's actions and thousands of visitng fans at Anfield singing "Louis Suarez we know what you are"?
Indeed Dave. Ironically I believe if there was ever a time for these laws they were twenty years too late! I truly believe that the vast majority of our society finds racist etc (i hate concentrating on race as the laws cover other equally horrible abuse) language & comments unacceptable & we got there without these laws. The only laws needed are a bill of rights that state that everyone is equal regardless of gender, religion, race or sexuality. That you have equal access to all other rights & protections under the law. As long as we in society ensure our government upholds & enforces these laws, the rest is basically about personal relationships. It's a very very slippery slope to start saying one comment is acceptable another is not. Because you are saying that those in power can dictate what can or can not be said. See the millions of disappeared during the 20th century where that lead, all brought in with the best of intentions but twisted to suit evil men's need for control. To say it can't happen again is to invite it.
As Dave is implying Baz, too much grey, nt really black and white and cut and dry. This is a long battle man, we have been battling this since the 60's and still do it today http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/us/florida-teen-shooting-sanford-divided/index.html
In a pub, It would be a private conversation. On the internet it os open to anyone to read, perhaps an impressionable youth is reading.
It's not just about racism. It's the mindset of these 'trolls', whereby they think what they write is a throw-away coment without consequece, when infact it is not.
But that's the contradiction; I can write/say: Go take take drugs Everyone should steal a car by the time they are 20. I do not get arrested because someone "impressionable" might have taken me seriously. Am I socially irresponsible, yes. A criminal no. But if I say I hate black/gay/religious people: apparently I'm actively engaging in criminalizing others? Seriously? Why one& not the other? why are the impressionable to be protected from me in one aspect but not another. If you follow the precedent these laws set, you will find it hard to find a point where anything I say is not a danger to somebody.
