There's something I find loathesome about this "Send a message" sentencing. What the judge has done is send a clear message, that he won't sentence you on the merits of the case but will sentence you to serve his own agenda. The only message this sends is that justice has failed. It's always completely transparent who exactly gets made an example of, and who gets off with a slap on the wrist. We'll spend months hunting down every rioter in the London riots throwing the book at them and putting up massive billboards in city centres trying to identify them, but when a prominent tory steal millions from the tax payer in dodgy PPE contracts? Well let's just write that off shall we. Because as we know, stealing some shoes from JD sports is much worse than stealing millions in the middle of a pandemic.
I feel like I must have been corrupted by the internet or something if the tweet in question is considered "grossly offensive". It certainly isn't <i>nice</i>, but 18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here.
I’m generally in favour of some limits on speech. I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. It’s obviously very complicated and something people are going to argue a lot about. BUT this case has made me change my opinion. Things much worse than this are tweeted every day and this is the one that gets prosecuted. It’s blatantly politically motivated (‘national hero’, British soldier etc) and in terms of awful things people tweet…it’s not actually that bad. Suddenly I find myself agreeing with the people arguing these restrictions are a slippery slope.
Interesting case: drunken tweet to a small follower count, deleted after 20 minutes, leading to prosecution and conviction. The Online Safety Bill which is due to be passed, with further empower institutions to police 'harmful messages'. I guess ideological conformity is a good thing for stable society?
The history of this law dates back to 1935, when it was designed to protect post office staff who ran telephone switchboards from being harassed by the public, and it that context, it makes sense. Of course in 21st century the law doesn't make sense as it isn't humans transmitting our messages any more<p>Some legal commentary about its previous use: <a href="http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/24/its-time-to-change-the-bad-law-used-to-prosecute-count-dankula/" rel="nofollow">http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/24/its-time-to-change-th...</a><p>While there is certainly a slippery slope argument about the validity of restrictions on speech, that is not how I see this - this is legislative debt, and an argument in favour of deleting deprecated laws
Crickets from the usual crowd who would be crying "cancel culture!" on all TV and radio for weeks and calling for heads to roll had the tweet been about something other than a cause they support (military worship).<p>Governments and companies continue to get more and more empowered to do this stuff because people always show that it has never really been about freedom but rather pushing their own views.
>> Hundreds of UK citizens have been found guilty under Section 127, often for insulting, abusing, and harassing public figures like athletes, journalists, and MPs.<p>A good opportunity for the Americans among us to feel gratitude at our constitutional right to insult the dunderheads in both chambers of our congress!<p>It's times likes these that I like to reflect on how fortunate it was that the Sedition Act of 1798 was allowed to expire long before I was born.
Presumably, the bobbies of the UK are hot on the trail of the people who Tweeted <a href="https://twitter.com/dataracer117/status/1272737061703790592" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/dataracer117/status/1272737061703790592</a> and will get those community services sentences on the schedule.<p>Death threats, after all, are worse than being glad someone is dead.
> The day after his death, Kelly, 36, tweeted “the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn.”<p>This is nothing compared to what people tweeted the day after Margaret Thatcher died. You absolutely should not be prosecuted for that.
In another UK case, a 19-year-old just got 6 weeks in jail for using a racist slur directed at a football (soccer) player in a tweet: <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60927111" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60927111</a>.
That seems like an incredibly low-bar for what's considered "grossly offensive". Then again, the worst stuff is made by anonymous accounts and the police probably aren't going to trace those.
This is part of why we have the first amendment. People should be allowed to express their opinions even if they're "grossly offensive".
I'm a bit confused who found this message that offensive? I have a brother who served in the British Army and I struggled to take offense at all. Just one guy with an opinion.
The Open Rights Group has statistics and a list of the more well-known prosecutions under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.<p><a href="https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_200...</a>
Woah the infamous "Picking quarrels and provoking trouble" went global
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking_trouble" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking...</a><p>And they said PRC lacks global influence and soft-power.
Breaking: man in UK jailed for thinking bad thoughts, "experts say the body language of the man clearly indicated he was thinking thoughts that go against public interest, the man has been apprehended and we hope to set an example for this kind of behavior"<p>I mean this is satire now but with the way things are going its not entirely ludicrous
I believe after Margaret Thatcher died, "Ding-Dong, the Witch Is Dead" hit Number 1 on iTunes UK. Should everyone who purchased the song have been sentenced to community service, too?
To illustrate the effects of administrative suppression of free speech one can observe that Russian propaganda freely blossoms on the platforms where free speech is significantly administratively suppressed, ie. for example FB, Twitter, LinkedIn - the places where speech violating various "safe space" rules is handled by getting administratively deleted. Russian propaganda is a product of a free speech suppressed environment and easily thrives in such conditions. The rebuttals to Russian propaganda on those platforms gets reported by Russians as harassment and bullying and thus frequently gets deleted, and as a result the Russian propaganda stays there unchallenged or weakly challenged at best. One of the main point of Russian propaganda is rationalization and normalization of the actions of their fascist regime, and such rationalization/normalization naturally fits the "safe space" rules of those platforms, while denying "safe space" to that propaganda is one of the most important thing in fighting it, yet those platforms in many cases de-facto help Russian propaganda by allowing it to highjack the free speech suppression machinery on those platforms.<p>Compare that to for example HN and Reddit - the places where free speech has much less administrative suppression and where the speech is mostly moderated by the community. There is much less Russian propaganda in those environments because any time it appears it gets strong rebuttals which stay together with the propaganda. As a result anybody exposed to that propaganda here gets also exposed to the rebuttals, and that is naturally net loss to the propaganda, ie. the propaganda can't thrive in the environments where free speech isn't suppressed.
Another British case from this week: a man got 3 months in jail for being drunk on a plane. The judge acknowledged he wasn't violent or aggressive or even rude to anyone, but he did vomit: <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/drunk-passenger-vomit-jet2-flight-b2046992.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/drunk-p...</a>
I remember 8 years ago when the UK police started conducting night raids on houses like they were going after the Taliban, because the people tweeted something anti-muslim after a terrorist attack:<p><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/in-britain-police-arrest-twitter-and-facebook-users-if-they-make-anti-muslim-statements-2013-5" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/in-britain-police-arrest-twi...</a>
Feels like it is on the wrong side of balancing freedoms while keeping things in check.<p>Sure the tweet is terrible. But ruining someone’s career prospects for it levels bad?
Funny how some people take 'freedom of speech' for granted or universal..nope...that is uniquely an American feature, still, even after centuries. Democracy does not mean free speech.
The thing I’m most interested in isn’t in this article nor the source it cites: how was the tweet itself reported or discovered by the authorities in the first place?
In many ways, we haven't moved much beyond the middle ages where "make an example" was the standard operating principle. Sure we don't publicly hang or draw & quarter people in the square anymore (which I am glad for of course), but the basic underlying principle of "increase obedience by scaring people when they see what you did to person X" is still very much in use.<p>I really hope to see our justice system progress toward a system with a goal of reforming people rather than punishing people. Ostensibly that's what the purpose is already, but if you look at the output, it clearly isn't.
YouTube also removed a channel last week on direct orders from the UK Ministry of Defense, after it published a video prank involving the current Defense Secretary.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vovan_and_Lexus#YouTube_ban" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vovan_and_Lexus#YouTube_ban</a><p>Who knows what sort of punishment those guys would have gotten if they were UK "citizens".
Stop using Twitter. Build open decentralized alternatives that won't cooperate with speech police. Defund the useless bureaucrats who exist only to police speech. Fire them. Let them compete for their bread and wine like all of us who work for a living.
I'm a little surprised that the UK press is allowed to name Mr Kelly.<p>Once he has completed his punishment and appropriately paid for his crimes against society and the late Captain Moore, why will Mr Kelly still be newsworthy?<p>Won't he earn the right to have his crimes forgotten?
Wow the examples of UK prosecutions under Section 127 of the Communications Act are an embarrassment: <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offensive-tweet-prosecution-section-127-2003-communications-act" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...</a><p>Most of them are just losers saying stupid offensive shit; clearly not worth giving the time of day let alone prosecuting. And one was someone who was understandably angry about the actions of foreign troops in Afghanistan; he has a right to express his anger.
The tweet is certainly bad taste and something that would be appalling if said out loud, however, this seems like a bit over-the-top judicial response to tweets.<p>Isn’t stuff like this why the ‘report’ function exists? Or couldn’t the gov just request a takedown / account suspension? Or the social pressure of responses to the tweet would create enough backlash…?<p>This just seems like an archaic way to patrol social media, which is basically a nebulous void.<p>On the other hand, I guess if you really need a lot more free public involvement in community service and picking up litter, then this law is the answer…
Given the date, it feels appropriate to point out that the same law also makes it illegal to send a message that you know to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance.
> The deterrence is really to show people that despite the steps you took to try and recall matters, as soon as you press the blue button that’s it. It’s important for other people to realise how quickly things can get out of control. You are a good example of that, not having many followers.<p>I'm genuinely confused by what "get out of control" means. Violence? SWATing? Other people on the Internet may get mad?
I'm an American so I don't know that my opinion has much importance here, but as someone who has never really believed in "cancel culture" and who regularly rolls their eyes at the self victimization of politicians and celebrities who advocate for hate against marginalized groups then act like they are being bullied when those same groups call them on it, this is definitely eye opening.
If I would have my way, I would allow all offensive speech, however if a society wants to be policed, I'd rather it be done by a court of the state and not by private companies because there is a higher chance of things being fair if it's done by the state and it's easier to hold courts to account than private companies.
I've been noticing how much I'm "self-censoring" nowadays. The whole "free world" concept is a lie. Even the "guardians of freedom" USA wants you to disclose all social media handles if I apply for a visa. That means whatever I say online is already getting profiled.
Reading that headline, I was thinking it might be like a specific graphic death threat against someone, or just some vile racial epithets but no its just the kinda edgy stuff you see all over social media. Upsetting that this is even a thing and sets a very bad precedent.
"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free" - for all our problems, these are still not hollow words. I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else.
It wasn't a threat or a call to violence. It was just a sentiment, and one seemingly made in knowing jest (though I don't really get the context).
150 hours is insane. In my area most non-profits will only give you 2-3 hours per volunteering shift and you'll be lucky to do that once per week.
Have UK courts heard of the Streisand effect? I have a strong urge to search the said tweet to find what the hell did he say and I'm pretty sure it will be like the first or second result in google images if i had enough motivation for it.