Should you be jailed for making a joke on facebook?

[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.