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

[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.

 

[TheMadMonk]

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.

There is a wealth of information out there for people interested in legal matters but a massive degree of apathy when it comes to taking the oppurtunities presented. I'm not surprised the legal profession doesn't do a huge amount of direct communication because trying to explain complicated points of law to laypersons isn't ever to be straight forward. The British public really just don't understand their legal systems as far as I can tell.

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

It is right because that is how things stand currently. I don't think it can be any clearer than that.

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.

But then a blog could equally be used a form of correspondence so in that respect I think the cut off is arbitrary.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, English isn't my first language so I don't always quite get the hidden meanings.

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.

But then if the law doesn't work (which is how I interpreted the original point) then it is perfectly salient. I think we're getting our wires crossed here.

 

[BobG]

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.

I think this is a very good point.

But in this particular case, Woods was not using his Facebook page to communicate with anyone associated with the kidnapped girls. In order to offend them, they would have had to have visited his Facebook page, which would make his page more similar to a blog when it came to them.

We're talking UK law, which I'm definitely not an expert on. But the Westboro Baptist Church won a US Supreme Court case in which they seriously insulted a dead veteran on their webpage on the day of his funeral. The fact that the family would have had to intentionally visit the website to view the insults to their son made a significant difference. There was no way to justify the idea that the WBC was trying to harass the veteran's family, even if the website were freely viewable by anyone that wanted to view it.

 

[russ_watters]

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...

[separate post]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.

The problem hasn't changed though: such laws are by nature arbitrary and capricious. Because:

Does it help if the dead person is widely hated?

The problem here is that the person being offended gets to decide based on emotion alone how offended they feel and the government gets to decide if it cares enough about the offense and the person being offended to act on it. Physical harm, on the other hand, is non-arbitrary.

Freedom comes with the double-edged sword of responsibility. Making hate speech illegal requires the government to decide what is hateful and how you should feel about it. It is government telling us that we are not mature enough to be able to listen to and dismiss offensive speech. How far should that go? Offensive clothes? Offensive smells? Music? Art? Arbitrary laws are dangerous to the concept of a free society.

Even in the US, where the laws are more liberal with respect to freedom of speech, it is still a problem. The KKK sometimes has to sue in order be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech or even just do things other organizations do, like "Adopt a Highway". They typically win, but as a hate organization, they would be legislated out of existence by hate speech legislation. Who'se next? The Republican Party? In the VP debate thread, it seems a few people feel offended by Republican opinions...

 

[AlephZero]

Making hate speech illegal requires the government to decide what is hateful and how you should feel about it.

Hmm ... I'm no expert on the US constitution, but in the UK the government doesn't interpret the law in every individual case. That's what the courts are for. Ror serious criminal offences, that means untrained members of the public serving on juries making the decisions, not full-time (and possibly cynical) paid adnimistrators.

(Though in the OP's example, apparently the sentence was haded down by a maginstrate's court, the lowest tier of the criminal justice system - that doesn't involve a jury, but UK magistarates are NOT full time employees of "the government", nor are they professional laywers, but volunteer members of the general public.)

I don't have any comparitive experience to know if the US government has more or less influence (either theoretical or real) over the day to day working of the courts. But even at the higher levels of the system, the UK government regularly loses legal arguments, and sometimes gets told by the courts to go away and rethink what the law on a particula issue should be.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hmm ... I'm no expert on the US constitution, but in the UK the government doesn't interpret the law in every individual case. That's what the courts are for.

In the terminology, I'm used to, the courts are a part of the government: they are part of the judicial branch, which is separate from the legislative branch and the executive branch.

Ror serious criminal offences, that means untrained members of the public serving on juries making the decisions, not full-time (and possibly cynical) paid adnimistrators.

In U.S. courts this is true as well (for the verdict, at least), but the juries are advised of the relevant law by the court.

 

[russ_watters]

I would describe it a little more directly than that: In the case we're discussing and in the general situation I'm describing, the prosecutor (or district attorney) decides if they think a crime has been committed and then decides if it is worth the effort to take the case to court. Then in court they try to convince a judge or jury of the same.

For the issue of whether speech is offensive, this would be based strongly on the personal beliefs of the judge/jury/prosecutor.

For murder, it is straightforward: if someone is dead and someone else did it and it wasn't self-defense or an accident, that's murder. What gets argued in court is whether he did it or not and how motive plays into the degree of murder for sentencing.

For hate speech, usually the fact of who did the speech is not in question. The question that the court has to answer is does the law apply to the speech in question. That means that what is argued and decided in court is offensiveness, not truthfulness of facts.

It is hard enough to get a jury to decide on the truth (or falseness) of facts without letting their biases come into play -- it would be impossible (essentially by definition) if what they were deciding was opinion based.

 

[Alfi]

A couple of teenage suicides linked to on-line bullying have hit the news lately.

Bullying itself is not considered an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada; however, many elements of it are, including assault, uttering threats and criminal harassment.

While Sgt. Thiessen said it is too soon to comment specifically on Amanda’s case, he noted bullying is the RCMP’s second-biggest youth issue, behind substance abuse.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...probe-into-amanda-todds-death/article4609443/

In a landmark case in March, 2002, a 16-year-old girl was found guilty of criminal harassment for uttering a series of threats to Dawn-Marie Wesley, a 14-year-old Mission girl who killed herself shortly after.

unfortunately, the imposed sentence is not mentioned in this article.

The 16-year-old who was found guilty of both charges Monday will undergo four to six weeks of assessments before a judge imposes a sentence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/03/25/wesley020325.html


To the case in the OP, perhaps jail is appropriate to underline the seriousness of the issue.