Tasteless yes, criminal? Really?

[mistermack]

I'm all for freedom of speech.
But I'm also for people paying the price, if their words cause hurt or harm.

If you hit someone, you can pay a price. You can do a lot more harm with a few words, than you might with a fist.

So say what you like, but take the consequences. Pay the price and don't whine about it. Nobody forces anyone to shoot their mouth off.

[JimC]

I don't think she said it as a joke.

I think she meant every word.

I hope the community work involves cleaning public toilets on Sundays...

[jaydot]

some people simply don't engage their brains before they shove their mouths into gear.

[Pappa]

Hyperbole, I'm sure, but do you find this acceptable? Being convicted of what is essentially hurting someone's feelings that is.

We definitely have some bloody stupid laws here.

[JimC]

Hyperbole, I'm sure, but do you find this acceptable? Being convicted of what is essentially hurting someone's feelings that is.

We definitely have some bloody stupid laws here.

The laws are a worry, in terms of free speech I suppose, but I can't help feeling glad that the silly cunt has to do community service...

[Seth]

some people simply don't engage their brains before they shove their mouths into gear.

Yeah, like the entirety of the UK Parliament and Prime Ministers, and the jackasses who voted for them.

[Pappa]

Hyperbole, I'm sure, but do you find this acceptable? Being convicted of what is essentially hurting someone's feelings that is.

We definitely have some bloody stupid laws here.

The laws are a worry, in terms of free speech I suppose, but I can't help feeling glad that the silly cunt has to do community service...

Why? I've said worse things about the Queen. Should I get community service too?

[JimC]

Hyperbole, I'm sure, but do you find this acceptable? Being convicted of what is essentially hurting someone's feelings that is.

We definitely have some bloody stupid laws here.

The laws are a worry, in terms of free speech I suppose, but I can't help feeling glad that the silly cunt has to do community service...

Why? I've said worse things about the Queen. Should I get community service too?

Nope.

I'm being selectively irrational...

[Seth]

Hyperbole, I'm sure, but do you find this acceptable? Being convicted of what is essentially hurting someone's feelings that is.

Generally I would consider freedom of speech to be one of the highest priorities, but rather than take an absolute position on this sort of question, I'd take a consequentialist one, admitting that there may be cases where it's better for free speech to be restricted. It's a very grey area and I think it depends a great deal on the platform that the speaker holds. The trouble is it's still a very new thing that any individual can have such a large platform, and I think it will take a while for any justice system to find a balance that cuts down abuse without excessive limitation of freedom.

In this case it's not correct to describe it as "essentially hurting someone's feelings". Considering someone had just been beheaded, a call for more beheadings was seriously stirring shit up, increasing animosity and probably the number of EDL idiots rioting in the streets.

When you start talking about "consequentialism" the immediate question become whose butthurt deserves to be salved by the law.

Here in the US there are constraints, like the hoary old "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" or inciting a riot, but the law has a very, very high barrier and requires that the speech pose an imminent danger of public disorder. Absolutely NOTHING published on the internet, or by text, or by any form of transmission other than oral speech to a crowd can ever pose such an imminent danger because you can just turn off the transmission.

That's why the US doesn't nuke jihadist websites.

The next thing you know the UK will criminalize saying "I hate radial Muslim Jihadi fucks!" because they might feel butthurt.

[Seth]

Hyperbole, I'm sure, but do you find this acceptable? Being convicted of what is essentially hurting someone's feelings that is.

We definitely have some bloody stupid laws here.

The laws are a worry, in terms of free speech I suppose, but I can't help feeling glad that the silly cunt has to do community service...

Boy oh boy do I sincerely hope that your attitude comes around and bites you squarely in the ass someday...

[Robert_S]

The laws are a worry, in terms of free speech I suppose, but I can't help feeling glad that the silly cunt has to do community service...

Boy oh boy do I sincerely hope that your attitude comes around and bites you squarely in the ass someday...

Exactly the same sentiment, Seth. Jim's glad her attitude came around and bit her in the ass.

[Blind groper]

I think most of us would agree that what she said was bad taste, but the sentence was pure idiocy. The proper penalty for saying things like that is to know that your friends and family are disappointed in you. Which I am sure they were.

[Seth]

The laws are a worry, in terms of free speech I suppose, but I can't help feeling glad that the silly cunt has to do community service...

Boy oh boy do I sincerely hope that your attitude comes around and bites you squarely in the ass someday...

Exactly the same sentiment, Seth. Jim's glad her attitude came around and bit her in the ass.

What they can to do me, they can do to thee. Best remember that next time you make an insensitive drunken comment at the pub. Who knows when the thought and speech police will be watching...

[PsychoSerenity]

Hyperbole, I'm sure, but do you find this acceptable? Being convicted of what is essentially hurting someone's feelings that is.

Generally I would consider freedom of speech to be one of the highest priorities, but rather than take an absolute position on this sort of question, I'd take a consequentialist one, admitting that there may be cases where it's better for free speech to be restricted. It's a very grey area and I think it depends a great deal on the platform that the speaker holds. The trouble is it's still a very new thing that any individual can have such a large platform, and I think it will take a while for any justice system to find a balance that cuts down abuse without excessive limitation of freedom.

In this case it's not correct to describe it as "essentially hurting someone's feelings". Considering someone had just been beheaded, a call for more beheadings was seriously stirring shit up, increasing animosity and probably the number of EDL idiots rioting in the streets.

When you start talking about "consequentialism" the immediate question become whose butthurt deserves to be salved by the law.

Here in the US there are constraints, like the hoary old "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" or inciting a riot, but the law has a very, very high barrier and requires that the speech pose an imminent danger of public disorder. Absolutely NOTHING published on the internet, or by text, or by any form of transmission other than oral speech to a crowd can ever pose such an imminent danger because you can just turn off the transmission.

That's why the US doesn't nuke jihadist websites.

The next thing you know the UK will criminalize saying "I hate radial Muslim Jihadi fucks!" because they might feel butthurt.

Well for a start, a consequentialist approach may actually conclude that the benefit to a society from holding absolute free speech as an ideal, actually outweighs the risks. - But importantly it allows that conclusion to be challenged in the light of developing situations i.e. new social media.

The suggestion that nothing other than oral speech to a crowd could ever pose imminent danger seems rather naive. With the likes of twitter you can have a far greater audience in real time than you will ever get in person; potentially speaking to multiple crowds at once. And you can equally "turn off the transmission" of someone speaking in public by simply walking away. If one form can pose imminent danger then so can the other.

As for the slippery slope argument - that only works if the slope is slippery. As the justice system tries to find it's place on this issue there is likely to be a huge amount of resistance to prevent it from pushing too far. Unfortunately on individual cases mistakes will happen. This girl sufficiently angered enough people that she felt threatened from the backlash and took it to the police - she only received community service, and already there's is an outcry that to prosecute her at all is excessive.

Obviously in a perfect world absolute free speech would be a given. But in the real world there are many easily manipulated idiots ready to be stirred up into violence. The primary goal should of course to be to reduce that number by education etc. And anyone who does respond by breaking the law would still be held responsible for their own actions. But the very fact that it's possible to drive others to a point of criminality which they otherwise would not have reached, suggests it may be useful to also have some deterrent against those doing the driving. I can't see that there's any problem in at least asking the question "Ought people have some responsibility to consider the potential consequences of their speech, before publishing it to the world?"

To be honest I'm not sure how much I agree with any of what I just wrote because I think the whole criminal justice system really needs to be rebuilt from scratch, and this post is just thinking within the system as it is now. The disclaimer in my signature applies.

[Svartalf]

I don't think she said it as a joke.

I think she meant every word.

I hope the community work involves cleaning public toilets on Sundays...

Or better, on fridays... or are sunday public toilets extra yucky?