News Should you be jailed for making a joke on facebook?

[BenG549]

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.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I mean what else can you say other than this is ridiculous? It is just a bunch of butt hurt individuals who take jokes over face book way too seriously. It is a very sad day when humans are riled up by jokes to that extent over some 5 - year old girl. It is truly sad.

 

[BenG549]

I mean what else can you say other than this is ridiculous? It is just a bunch of butt hurt individuals who take jokes over face book way too seriously. It is a very sad day when humans are riled up by jokes to that extent over some 5 - year old girl. It is truly sad.

I totally agree! To be honest as soon as I posted this I thought "This might have been pointless because surely no one will agree the he should be in jail"

But oh well its up now, I'll think ill just use it to let people vent on the subject and if an interesting discussion worms its way out of the woodwork then we can roll with it.

Could be interesting to see what the not to distant future holds for the internet age.

Another recent example of legislation not being able to keep up with technology!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[George Jones]

I totally agree! To be honest as soon as I posted this I thought "This might have been pointless because surely no one will agree the he should be in jail"

Either I have misunderstood WannabeNewton`s post, or you have misunderstood it.

 

[Evo]

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.

You forgot to post the link to the article, so I don't know what it said. Can you post it please? There is no way a person can have an opinion without knowing all of the facts.

Just FYI, for copyright reasons, whenever you quote something that is copyrighted, you should always link to the original source.

 

[BenG549]

Either I have misunderstood WannabeNewton`s post, or you have misunderstood it.

Hmmm maybe WannabeNewton can clear this up but I read that as effectively saying people far too often choose to be offended when it's far easier to consider that one persons opinion or ill judgement is not a reason to take personal offence. Which I would agree with.

If one chooses to subscribe to a persons facebook page and chooses to read things they post then imprisoning them for saying something you dis agree with is ludicrous.

Ben.

 

[BenG549]

Here is a link to the article I read, it's brief but the point is pretty clear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-woods-jailed

 

[WannabeNewton]

Oh lord those comments are genius. I got a laugh out of those. And yes Ben I was saying those people who threatened\arrested him were in the wrong not him; I find it quite appalling.

 

[Evo]

The kid is obviously a moron, and Facebook should have deleted the posts and banned them.

I don't know what kind of hate speech is allowed in the UK, so I can't comment on whether what the jerk wrote was illegal.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The kid is obviously a moron, and Facebook should have deleted the posts and banned them.

I don't know what kind of hate speech is allowed in the UK, so I can't comment on whether what the jerk wrote was illegal.

Oh come on evo don't tell me you didn't get a giggle out of the ginger joke =D.

 

[alan2]

Depends entirely on your ideological bent. Americans like to lock people up to punish them. Other places take the attitude that only those who are are a threat to others should be jailed. Some countries punish anyone that they perceive to be a threat to those in power.

 

[Evo]

Oh come on evo don't tell me you didn't get a giggle out of the ginger joke =D.

No. Kidnapping with the probable rape, torture, and murder that goes with it of a child is never a laughing matter.

I don't think jail is appropriate, but as I said, I don't know what is considered hate or indecent speech there that is illegal. I think a few hundred hours of community service would have been more appropriate.

 

[George Jones]

Oh lord those comments are genius. I got a laugh out of those. And yes Ben I was saying those people who threatened\arrested him were in the wrong not him; I find it quite appalling.

So no sarcasm was intended in

It is a very sad day when humans are riled up by jokes to that extent over some 5 - year old girl. It is truly sad.

Wow. Because I have a daughter who just turned six, maybe I am biased.

The kid is obviously a moron, and Facebook should have deleted the posts and banned them.

I don't know what kind of hate speech is allowed in the UK, so I can't comment on whether what the jerk wrote was illegal.

Yes, it depends on the laws in the UK, but this could well be illegal hate speech. The internet should not be the Wild West where "anything goes".

 

[rootX]

The kid is obviously a moron, and Facebook should have deleted the posts and banned them.

I don't know what kind of hate speech is allowed in the UK, so I can't comment on whether what the jerk wrote was illegal.

UK seem very strict and bit odd on hate speech from the BBC UK news I have come across in past. They have banned few people North Americans over hate speeches and put charges against quite a few people over hate speeches and anti-social behaviors.

Going to OP, it depends on country. You need to think before you speak anywhere outside the US.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[BenG549]

No. Kidnapping with the probable rape, torture, and murder that goes with it of a child is never a laughing matter.

I don't think jail is appropriate, but as I said, I don't know what is considered hate or indecent speech there that is illegal. I think a few hundred hours of community service would have been more appropriate.

I totally agree that it is not a laughing matter and when the news segment I watched is repeated I will take note of the relevant UK laws and legislation that were discussed in order to aid a more informed discussion.

However on face value alone it seems absurd. If I were to be rude and offensive in a physics forums discussion I would likely be slapped with several warnings and banned, if I were rude and offensive in a pub/club/shop I would told to leave... If I'm rude and offensive on facebook, I might go to jail?

I seem to remember a clause being mentioned in a current version of the Public order act (although I will post something a little more concrete shortly) that describes how one should not knowingly offend or insult another person and this was "copied and pasted" into the internet arena to deal with cases such as this... I will however do a bit of research and I'll try and find a link to something a little more... hmm... reliable.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't see how you can persecute someone for posting non - threatening comments on his\her own facebook page.

 

[George Jones]

I were rude and offensive in a pub/club/shop I would told to leave

This depends on the comments, and on the laws of the country in which the comments were made. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galliano

 

[BenG549]

Yes, it depends on the laws in the UK, but this could well be illegal hate speech. The internet should not be the Wild West where "anything goes".

I agree to a certain extent, however I feel that people need to have a little perspective. You mentioned you had a 6 year old daughter and if I were to make a horrible comment about her (which I obviously wouldn't) you would rightfully be offended and I would be dismissed from this forum. However if you come across a story involving a completely unrelated child do you necessarily have to take action against a person being an idiot because of your increased empathy for the families situation? You can write it of as a fool being a fool and get on with your own life? We all deal with ill mannered people on a day to day basis, they don't all belong in prison.

But you are in a better position than me to comment on that, so feel free to correct me.

 

[BenG549]

This depends on the comments, and on the laws of the country in which the comments were made. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galliano

That's a good point George, and a good example, however I feel there is (or at least should be) a clear distinction between blatant racism - telling people you wishes they were dead because they are jewish (expressing very clear personal views) and telling a racist joke for example in order to get some *likes* or even to rustle a few of his friends feathers, stand up comedians do it on TV all the time, the only difference is that they get paid.

 

[BenG549]

For those interested this article is a little more in depth on the background to the case under discussion, might be worth skimming though it. Although it does not refer to specific UK law violations. I will keep up the search for some more clarity on that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19882618

Ben.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think you should be jailed for posting anything at all on facebook.

 

[BenG549]

I think you should be jailed for posting anything at all on facebook.

Hahaha, I saw post from you on another thread and I must say I do like the "I hope this subject is not to serious to joke about" tag... very fitting in this thread as I feel it is an attitude that should be more widely adopted.

 

[russ_watters]

Hate speech laws by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

In the US, this would not be a crime:

In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54]

I prefer the US's more liberal view on freedom of speech. I don't want the government to be the ones deciding what is and isn't rude. It is too arbitrary. Nor do I think it is conducive to a free society.

 

[rootX]

Hate speech laws by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

In the US, this would not be a crime: I prefer the US's more liberal view on freedom of speech. I don't want the government to be the ones deciding what is and isn't rude. It is too arbitrary. Nor do I think it is conducive to a free society.

Only the US people can understand the concept of "free" society It's impossible to argue the concept of freedom of speech, "free society" seems to be a cultural element of American society.

 

[256bits]

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."

Definitely a " Do not post on the internet for all the world to see" situation.
I just wonder if a stand-up commedian would have uttered the same "bad-taste" comments in a routine to an audience would the commedian have suffered the consequences of being arrested and convicted, other than his career going down the drain (maybe). Should have public outrage, if any, been a mitigating factor for a legal decision? What percentage of the public should conceive of an act as being abhorant for an individual to receive a certain sentence?

 

[russ_watters]

Only the US people can understand the concept of "free" society

I'm thinking you meant that sarcastically, but I consider it to be true.

It's impossible to argue the concept of freedom of speech, "free society" seems to be a cultural element of American society.

Yes, that is my perception: Americans tend to place a higher value on freedom than do other westerners.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

it's the internet; if you see something you don't like: *you can ignore it*

like if someone is on this forum and they are saying things that consistently offend me, I will put them on ignore. If I see someone posting offensive things on facebook, I mouse over their comment and hit the little X and *poof*.

The only time it gets serious is if some troll decides to try and hunt someone down and repeatedly attack them on the internet. Hacking into accounts, calling home phone numbers, these are things that are over the line. But on the internet, ignoring someone is often just a few clicks away.

 

[lisab]

I'm thinking you meant that sarcastically, but I consider it to be true.

I think Americans are more willing to put up with BS (like the stuff this guy posted) in order to protect our collective right to free speech.

 

[russ_watters]

I think Americans are more willing to put up with BS (like the stuff this guy posted) in order to protect our collective right to free speech.

Yes, but I would put it slightly more forcefully: Americans are more willing to protect BS like the stuff this guy posted in order to protect our collective right to free speech.

That means if the KKK wants to march in your town, the police are obligated to ensure their safety. Not to drag this off topic, but this is also why the Obama administration's comments/actions on the anti-Muslim video bothered me so much.

 

[atyy]

That means if the KKK wants to march in your town, the police are obligated to ensure their safety. Not to drag this off topic, but this is also why the Obama administration's comments/actions on the anti-Muslim video bothered me so much.

The comments were fine, since the government has free speech too.

I do agree that asking the video to be removed is more debatable.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The comments were fine, since the government has free speech too.

I do agree that asking the video to be removed is more debatable.

It is unequivocally wrong. Why should the video be taken down because some muslims are so obsessed with their damn religion that a video making fun of their intangible idol drives them to murder? It is as ridiculous as ridiculous can get.

 

[russ_watters]

The comments were fine, since the government has free speech too.

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.

 

[Evo]

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

 

[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.