Should you be jailed for making a joke on facebook?

[russ_watters]

But this isn't about the US.

Incorrect. The question in the OP is not nation specific. It asks what you [and I] think. My opinion, in answering the question, just so happens to agree exactly with the official US legal position. (For clarity: my description of the US legal position is factual, my implication that it is the correct or best or preferred position is opinion.)

What are the laws in the UK?

Based on the wiki description, this is straightforwardly illegal in the UK:

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

I will say this, and the OP's article mentions it: the law is extremely broad in its applicability, which I would think would be problematic for enforcement. Facebook and twitter have vastly increased the audience for speech and as a result, things that one ordinarily would have to overhear in a bar are now permanently documented in writing, for the entire world to see. If the UK chooses to crack down on this type of speech and intends to apply the law consistently, I think they will shortly find most of their population in jail. So what bothers me about this case is the arbitraryness: we heard about it because it made the papers. It made the papers because it got prosecuted. It got prosecuted because it received a high profile backlash. So that raises the question: does the quantity of people offended affect the offensiveness and therefore punishment for the offense? If so, facebook and twitter will necessarily cause the punishment of this crime to increase by orders of magnitude.

In addition to the above problems, I also think the crime is self-punishing and therefore does not need to be punished by the government. The wide audience for the speech is a double-edged sword: if you say something bad, the social backlash can be devastating. Case in point, the global attention a certain hater received when he told a British athlete at the Olympics that he let down his dead father. He now has tens of thousands of enemies, all over the globe.

[edit] Er: and he was arrested for it: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/31/13046159-uk-teen-arrested-after-olympic-diver-tom-daley-receives-twitter-death-threat?lite
I wonder if any of the tens of thousands of people who attacked him also got arrested?

 

[Evo]

Incorrect. The question in the OP is not nation specific.

Wrong. He is expliciting talking about the incident in the UK. He just forgot to post the link, but he is in the UK, the Guardian is a UK paper, and

He pleaded guilty at Chorley magistrates court to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive. The chairman of the bench, Bill Hudson, said Woods's comments were so "abhorrent" he deserved the longest sentence the court could hand down.

He's asking about what we think about the UK incident, he posted.

 

[russ_watters]

Wrong. He is explicating talking about the incident in the UK. He just forgot to post the link, but he is in the UK, the Guardian is a UK paper, and

He's asking about what we think about the UK incident, he posted.

Evo, reread the title of the thread. I know the incident happened in the UK. But the OP didn't ask "Is it punishable in the UK to say something offensive" (If it was, there'd be nothing to discuss!), he broadly asked "Should you..." "Should" is a question of opinion, not a question of fact. My opinion: No, you should not.

This should also be obvious enough from the OP's own opinion: also no. The OP, from the UK, was not erroneously stating a fact, but stating an opinion.

 

[atyy]

No, it most certainly does not. Individuals in the government, sometimes have free speech rights, but "the government" is not an entity with sentience and cannot have an opinion of its own, other than to support its laws and principles. It can only support and defend freedom of speech (in the US, anyway), not comment on the speech because commenting on the speech is making official policy establishing or de-establishing the legitimacy of that speech. I bolded "establishing" because the issue gets clearer to people when dealing with the religious establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. This is true at all levels of government, including me, when I was a deck seaman in the Navy.

Example: The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was fired for putting a big monument to the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

This act, as an official representative of the Alabama state government establishes religious principles as being The officially recognized religious principles in Alabama and thus violates the Establishment Clause. His opinion, expressed in an official capacity, is not legally permitted.

Following the issue with the anti-Islam video, US government officials, including embassy websites and the Secretary of State made multiple statements against the video and even went so far as to run TV ads in Pakistan denouncing it. In addition, the government petitioned Youtube to re-check if the video should be banned and sent the FBI and local police after the maker of the video (if anyone is unaware of these facts, I can source them). Since the speech in question was religious in nature, this, imo, violates the Free Speech Clause and the Establishment Clause and perhaps even the Free Exercise Clause, since the maker of the video probably made it because of his own beliefs.

But to take your example earlier, can't the government denounce the KKK, even if it let's them exist and print and say what they want?

In the same way, why can't the government denounce the video?

 

[BobG]

Following the issue with the anti-Islam video, US government officials, including embassy websites and the Secretary of State made multiple statements against the video and even went so far as to run TV ads in Pakistan denouncing it. In addition, the government petitioned Youtube to re-check if the video should be banned and sent the FBI and local police after the maker of the video (if anyone is unaware of these facts, I can source them). Since the speech in question was religious in nature, this, imo, violates the Free Speech Clause and the Establishment Clause and perhaps even the Free Exercise Clause, since the maker of the video probably made it because of his own beliefs.

If, instead of making an anti-Muslim video, he made a speech saying Israel should be wiped off the map, the proper response would be for the US government to defend his right to free speech? Or, since the person saying it is actually a member of a foreign government, call for the United Nations to charge him with violating international laws concerning genocide?

They're not identical situations, since in one, the person has the capability to at least attempt making his wish come true, while the person making the video has little to no power to do anything to Muslims (and nor does Woods have the capability to affect the kidnapping cases in any way other than idiotic comments). So does the capability to do something affect how the government views a person's (or nation's) free speech rights?

Personally, I think it's entirely appropriate for the government to point out that the video was completely against the views of the US government regarding religious tolerance.

Or should the US government remain completely neutral on issues of religion and religious tolerance since religious tolerance is not a universally held position among US citizens or even by US elected officials?

Yes, each is a different situation because it takes some slightly different situations to understand the limits on this idea of the US government not being able to take a stand on statements made publically by others in the world.

 

[Mentalist]

A teenager who posted explicit comments and jokes about April Jones on his Facebook page has been jailed for 12 weeks.

"Woods was arrested for his own safety after about 50 people descended on his home. He pleaded guilty at Chorley magistrates court to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive. The chairman of the bench, Bill Hudson, said Woods's comments were so "abhorrent" he deserved the longest sentence the court could hand down.

Hudson added: "The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive."

The court was told Woods's Facebook page was available to a large number of people."

- Extract from the Guardian website.

Surely this is ridiculous?

Surely this cannot now act as precedent for future cases?

What is the world coming to when you can't make inappropriate jokes to your friends on facebook?

... Discuss.

Guilty.

Why aren't they being more lenient? He is a kid that made a dumb choice, why jail him for words posted over Facebook? I am sure some community service would be good enough, not jail.

"50 people descended onto his home."

These people need to get a grip.

I can't remember if it was BBC or C4 but one o them recently did a special report on a recent police crackdown on trolls and Internet harrassment. It was pretty good because they did tackle sickos like people who would go onto RIP memorial pages and make fun of grieving family. However one commenter did point out that sometimes the situation isn't black and white, like if someone makes a harrassing comment on their own page.

I'm pretty sure there are other, more serious problems in the world than internet trolls.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm pretty sure there are other, more serious problems in the world than internet trolls.

That's an excuse for not doing something that can be thrown at almost anything. Personally I'm glad that harassment via the internet is getting more attention. Note that there's a difference between a troll who keeps posting silly, off-topic or argumentative posts on forums and someone who posts sick insults towards grieving families on the memorial facebook page of their dead loved one.

 

[Pkruse]

When we in the US broke away from England, we did so in a large part because of these sorts of things. That is why we included freedom of speech in our constitution. Many countries don't have that.

But we all must live by the laws in our own country or suffer the consequences. If the law says we can't say nasty things or we go to jail, then we in the US may find that terrible, but the people in that country must either live by that law or change it.

If the people don't change it, then I assume that most either find the law reasonable or at least not worth the effort to change it. I'm willing to let everyone live under the laws that they choose. Some choices are declared by action, others by inaction

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Contrary to seemingly popular belief freedom of speech is a huge issue in the UK. It's really not that draconian overall however it seems that our laws are vague enough that in high profile cases we can have anomalies like this.

 

[Mentalist]

Murder, rape, child molestation, etc..., have other excuses to be made in place of?

If a person is posting sick material on a facebook memorial page he can simply be blocked from posting. If they want to stifle him even more, just allow friends to post comments. That goes more to the people running the page than the troll.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Murder, rape, child molestation, etc..., have other excuses to be made in place of?

A silly position IMO. You're essentially saying that non-violent crimes aren't worth addressing if there are still serious violent crimes. We do have a police service that is funded to try and address all crimes.

If a person is posting sick material on a facebook memorial page he can simply be blocked from posting. If they want to stifle him even more, just allow friends to post comments. That goes more to the people running the page than the troll.

Why is it such a minor thing if it is on the internet when it isn't in other areas? I've someone sent letters to grieving families or stood outside their house with a megaphone they would be arrested for harassment and rightly so. Just because it's on facebook doesn't make it a case of someone to be ignored.

Also I find your victim blaming extremely repugnant.

 

[Mentalist]

A silly position IMO. You're essentially saying that non-violent crimes aren't worth addressing if there are still serious violent crimes. We do have a police service that is funded to try and address all crimes.

It is silly but I am trying to make the point that internet trolling is not a serious non-violent crime. It is more akin to a nuisance, especially in a country where there is freedom of speech. I have the right to go to a funeral and scream, laugh, etc..., all I'd like on public ground. I may be an ******* for doing it, but I do have that right.
If they made the page public to allow people to post on, he has the right to do as he pleases.

Also I find your victim blaming extremely repugnant.

Finding my post repugnant doesn't make your position logical.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It is silly but I am trying to make the point that internet trolling is not a serious non-violent crime. It is more akin to a nuisance, especially in a country where there is freedom of speech. I have the right to go to a funeral and scream, laugh, etc..., all I'd like on public ground. I may be an ******* for doing it, but I do have that right.
If they made the page public to allow people to post on, he has the right to do as he pleases.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and harassment. Freedom of speech would be standing a distance from a funeral on public ground and saying what you have to say, harassment would be targeted behaviour design to upset and distress invading the personal lives of the people in question. Just because a page on facebook is viewable publicly does not make it a public space.

Finding my post repugnant doesn't make your position logical.

So you're prepared to blame the victims for setting it up so that he could commit the crime rather than him for doing it? And you for some reason think that is "logical"? You might as well blame victims of theft for leaving their window open or rape victims for walking down a dark alley.

Logical is in quotes because we haven't proposed premises of our morality and worked on from there so you implying my position isn't logical is bizarre because you have no idea where I'm coming from and what argument I've made to get to the conclusion.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I still can't believe this is all over a boy posting jokes on face book. Jimmy Carr says things that are way more vulgar but I don't see him being arrested. It is all hypocritical in the end. Jimmy Carr is awesome for the record.

 

[BenG549]

But this isn't about the US. What are the laws in the UK?

Ok I have found the relevant UK legislation!

All of the recent court proceedings have been based on Section 127 of the 2003 communications act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21

For those that don't want to scroll though the whole document:

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

However this does mean that in public discussion you or live shows (stand up comedians) you can say things that, if posted on line, could see you breaking the law. A law that was written long before the rise to fame of social media!

Ben.

 

[TheMadMonk]

If this guy had been harping on about terrorism on Facebook I doubt so many people would be pontificating about freedom of speech and how awesome they think the US is.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I haven't got links because this has all been found on the phone on the go but the following acts cover harassment and hate speechin public:

Criminal justice and immigration act 2008
Racial and religious hatred act 2006
Protection from harassment act 1997
Criminal justice and public order act 1994
Public order act 1986

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If this guy had been harping on about terrorism on Facebook I doubt so many people would be pontificating about freedom of speech and how awesome they think the US is.

Let's keep this civil and on topic shall we? Thanks.

 

[atyy]

Personally I think that if the comments were on their own Facebook page and did not involve tagging anyone related to the incident in them then it should not be against the law. However this doesn't necessarily apply if they have set their page for public viewing.

In the UK as I understand it something posted on the Internet where it can be publicly viewed is under the same libel, hate speech, harrassment etc laws as if it was printed in a newspaper.

In the case discussed by the OP, were the offensive comments public or private? (I read the linked item in #8, but am not familiar enough with Facebook.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That wasn't how your point was presented. Either way it depends on the comment. If one makes a joke about terrorism in the public domain (like the man last year who was imprisoned for joking about blowing up an airport on twitter due to flight cancellations) then I don't think it should be a crime. If you are inciting people to perform terrorist acts then that should be.

Similarly making a joke about someone who has just died (sick as it may be) in a public space shouldn't be a crime. Directing it at the grieving family for no other reason than fun or an exercise in your freedom of speech should be (and is) a crime.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't see that current legislation is good enough to deal with social media and 2003 is closer to 1993 in terms of social media than today. Reason being that Facebook didn't take off til the middle of the decade and it now has over 1 billion accounts regularly used. The manner in which it is used is very different to anything before and that also goes for more modern creations such as twitter.

Social media creates grey areas such as whether or not ones own Facebook page counts as a public space or a private space and whether or not that changes on the basis of your privacy settings. Pertinent to this is whether or not posting on someone else's page would constitute harrassment vs posting on your own page.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Mentalist you originally responded to my post about a troll who posted on memorial pages, not the person under discussion in this OP yet your latest post treats it as if it were the latter. If we're not following the thread of the conversation then we're not going to get anywhere. Again being public is not a free liscence to say whatever you want to whoever you want.

 

[Mentalist]

My latest post is talking about the funeral post you made.

Again being public is not a free liscence to say whatever you want to whoever you want.

It really depends on the country. If, in America, I have every right to say what I want on a public forum. Those who own the forum have the right to delete the message if it (1) violates their rules or (2), they don't like it. But even if I decided to make a heinous remark violating the rules, I am not to be jailed for those same remarks (concerning America).

In the UK you can go to jail which is why I said "guilty" to the person posting remarks on facebook. If a person violates the law of the country and can actually go to jail for such comments, that is the issue of the person making that decision.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Similarly making a joke about someone who has just died (sick as it may be) in a public space shouldn't be a crime. Directing it at the grieving family for no other reason than fun or an exercise in your freedom of speech should be (and is) a crime.

Why is that a crime? I can't make fun of a family because of a death in that family? I don't even have that freedom anymore?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Why is that a crime? I can't make fun of a family because of a death in that family? I don't even have that freedom anymore?

Depending on the exact situation you never did have it under UK law. Freedoms are balanced by law, your freedom to swings your arm ends at someone else's personal space for example. Are you seriously surprised that emotionally and psychologically damaging behaviour is subject to regulation like physical behaviour? A good example of recent regulation to this effect is the inclusion of psycholgical and emotional abuse.

 

[TheMadMonk]

I don't see that current legislation is good enough to deal with social media and 2003 is closer to 1993 in terms of social media than today. Reason being that Facebook didn't take off til the middle of the decade and it now has over 1 billion accounts regularly used. The manner in which it is used is very different to anything before and that also goes for more modern creations such as twitter.

What about it isn't sufficient to allow for it to work properly? The fact that we are seeing successful prosecutions under it for things posted on Facebook suggests to me that it is sufficient. We're far to quick to call for new legislation without really thinking it through in this country.

Social media creates grey areas such as whether or not ones own Facebook page counts as a public space or a private space and whether or not that changes on the basis of your privacy settings. Pertinent to this is whether or not posting on someone else's page would constitute harrassment vs posting on your own page.

Framing it in terms of public versus private space doesn't really make sense. When you post something on Facebook you have published it, regardless of any security settings. If you were to post something racist on your own wall and only allow your friends to see it, if a friend of yours was to consider it racist then there could still be repercussions for you. The fact that you restrict access to what you have published is neither here nor there. Similarly, if you were to start harrassing somebody on your page (for instance posting a status tagging them in it) then you're still harrassing them. There is no grey area there.

These grey areas only really exist for those who don't understand the law behind it, courts have already addressed a lot of this without the need to pass new legislation.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Depending on the exact situation you never did have it under UK law. Freedoms are balanced by law, your freedom to swings your arm ends at someone else's personal space for example. Are you seriously surprised that emotionally and psychologically damaging behaviour is subject to regulation like physical behaviour? A good example of recent regulation to this effect is the inclusion of psycholgical and emotional abuse.

I find it disappointing that poking fun at a family at the death of one of their members is not allowed in the UK. Here in the US we have groups like the Westboro Baptist church wandering the streets freely spewing hatred towards families of dead soldiers. Hooray freedom!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I disagree, I don't think that people are necessarily uninformed but that they disagree with the desicion of the courts. For example: disagreeing that social networking should count as publishing bearing in mind how it is used in today's society.

Successful convictions are hardly a measure of success when what you disagree with is the purpose of the law rather than a practice.

 

[TheMadMonk]

I disagree, I don't think that people are necessarily uninformed but that they disagree with the desicion of the courts. For example: disagreeing that social networking should count as publishing bearing in mind how it is used in today's society.

Honestly, most people haven't got a clue what goes on inside the courts. I think you overestimate the legal knowledge of the average Brit. Most British people don't even realize there are three distinct legal systems within the UK, let alone complicated points of law.

I'm also struggling to see why it would be decided that something being put online shouldn't be considered as publishing because it absolutely is and rightly so.

Successful convictions are hardly a measure of success when what you disagree with is the purpose of the law rather than a practice.

But if the law isn't fit for purpose (which is how I interpreted the first point) then successful convictions are a perfectly good measure. As I said previously I don't agree with arresting and jailing people in circumstances like that of the OP but the law itself is actually, for once, fairly well written and hardly irrelevant.

 

[BobG]

Similarly making a joke about someone who has just died (sick as it may be) in a public space shouldn't be a crime. Directing it at the grieving family for no other reason than fun or an exercise in your freedom of speech should be (and is) a crime.

Why is that a crime? I can't make fun of a family because of a death in that family? I don't even have that freedom anymore?

Making an offensive joke about a dead or missing family member to a greiving family is getting into a gray area.

You wouldn't have the right to threaten them with violence. Even if you didn't intend to carry out the violence, the language would probably be interpreted as being intended to intimidate them. That would be clear cut.

Other comments are much less clear cut, but you can be charged with assault just for verbal comments depending on how a reasonable person would interpret those comments.

Using jokes for the same purpose is just a passive-aggressive method of accomplishing the same thing. It definitely wouldn't be clear cut and would probably be tilted towards not being seen as a direct offense to the family (passive-aggressive techniques work pretty well), but you'd be working the edges.

Regardless of how vulgar or violent the language, the punishment (if any) would be much less than any physical assault, and would be much more likely to result in a restraining order than actual punishment. (Of course, violate the restraining order and continuing to harrass the person and the likelihood of jail time goes way up.)

I'm surprised by the punishment, but not shocked. Making him stop (by deleting his account or by restraining order or some other method) seems like it would have been sufficient.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Does it help if the dead person is widely hated?

 

[rootX]

There are some universal norms over what might be bad-mouthing. Making jokes over a missing teenager will likely get you killed in a small law-less society and get you behind bars in a civilized society that does not tolerate such stupid acts. Words can be as deadly as any other weapon.

There is nothing arbitrary in the case considered in this thread. Bringing in hypothetical cases is bit of over-stretch.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Honestly, most people haven't got a clue what goes on inside the courts. I think you overestimate the legal knowledge of the average Brit. Most British people don't even realize there are three distinct legal systems within the UK, let alone complicated points of law.

IMO any legal profession suffers from the same problem as science; a general disregard for public communication by writing it off as not their consideration.

I'm also struggling to see why it would be decided that something being put online shouldn't be considered as publishing because it absolutely is and rightly so.

Be careful of overstating your opinion as fact. I've attended debates on this subject before and generally the reason that people believe they should be distinct in some way is the manner in which it is used. When your primary form of non-face-to-face contact with someone is via social media you don't treat it as equivalent to publishing a book or a blog post for that matter. It becomes a form of semi-public correspondence. The central issue here is that whilst social media might bear similarity in practice to print publishing they are being used and viewed in entirely different ways in society.

If nothing else that's going to cause problems.

But if the law isn't fit for purpose (which is how I interpreted the first point) then successful convictions are a perfectly good measure. As I said previously I don't agree with arresting and jailing people in circumstances like that of the OP but the law itself is actually, for once, fairly well written and hardly irrelevant.

So if a law successfully convicts people for what the consensus agree shouldn't be a crime you would still take it as fit for purpose? Regardless of if it deals with the problem also the false positives need to be taken into account too when judging the fitness.

 

[TheMadMonk]

IMO any legal profession suffers from the same problem as science; a general disregard for public communication by writing it off as not their consideration.

If the legal system were to constantly pander to public pressure it would be an utter mess. I'd like to see more law taught in schools to at least give pupils a basic overview of the legal systems in the UK but I suspect there isn't really much appetite for it unfortunately.

Be careful of overstating your opinion as fact. I've attended debates on this subject before and generally the reason that people believe they should be distinct in some way is the manner in which it is used. When your primary form of non-face-to-face contact with someone is via social media you don't treat it as equivalent to publishing a book or a blog post for that matter. It becomes a form of semi-public correspondence. The central issue here is that whilst social media might bear similarity in practice to print publishing they are being used and viewed in entirely different ways in society.

If nothing else that's going to cause problems.

You conceed that it is publishing in the UK so I'm not sure how you can possibly accuse me of stating opinion as fact when you acknowledge as much yourself.

I can't understand why blogging would be considered publishing and using social media (such as Twitter rather ironically) not when in a lot of cases the platforms are being used for a very similar purpose, it seems rather arbitrary to say one is publishing and the other is not.

So if a law successfully convicts people for what the consensus agree shouldn't be a crime you would still take it as fit for purpose? Regardless of if it deals with the problem also the false positives need to be taken into account too when judging the fitness.

That's not really what I'm getting at though and I think you know that, you're erecting a strawman argument here. I've already said I don't agree with the law as it stands right now and I'd even suggest we agree to an extent. We don't need to change the law to facilitate what you advocate, the courts are perfectly capable of doing that themselves.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If the legal system were to constantly pander to public pressure it would be an utter mess. I'd like to see more law taught in schools to at least give pupils a basic overview of the legal systems in the UK but I suspect there isn't really much appetite for it unfortunately.

I agree that more education would be a good thing but other than that what you've written here does not address what I said about public communication. I mentioned nothing about bowing to public pressure just because.

You conceed that it is publishing in the UK so I'm not sure how you can possibly accuse me of stating opinion as fact when you acknowledge as much yourself.

I agree that it is regarded as publishing by UK law, what I warned about was when you said that this was absolutely right.

I can't understand why blogging would be considered publishing and using social media (such as Twitter rather ironically) not when in a lot of cases the platforms are being used for a very similar purpose, it seems rather arbitrary to say one is publishing and the other is not.

I already gave you an example with regards to how people utilise social media in their lives as correspondence. Do you actually not understand or do you just disagree? It's not necessarily arbitrary but it is awkward.

That's not really what I'm getting at though and I think you know that, you're erecting a strawman argument here. I've already said I don't agree with the law as it stands right now and I'd even suggest we agree to an extent. We don't need to change the law to facilitate what you advocate, the courts are perfectly capable of doing that themselves.

I'm not erecting a straw man argument at all. I'm simply following through in what you said with regards to conviction rates being an indicator of a successful law by pointing out that if a law doesn't address what it was meant to or has strong negative consequences it can be considered as not fit for purpose even with lots of convictions.

Also please note that I never said that we need to change any laws, simply highlighted the possibility of it and have been discussing that.