Man jailed for dead girl 'trolling' insults on FB,Youtube

[Seth]

In the English system, if you get convicted of a crime such as this, you can ASK for other similar cases to be taken into consideration, prior to sentencing. That's obviously what happened here. They can't be taken into account against your wishes. That would be ridiculous.
If you don't, there's every chance that you can be arrested leaving prison, and charged with the second offence. And again with the third.
It's a chance to wipe the slate, and many take it.
I'm surprised you don't have it.

I'm not. We require a trial with a jury of one's peers and a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt for EACH crime alleged. And yes, you can be dragged back into court for other crimes that come out during testimony. And we have statutes of limitation to prevent what you suggest; prosecutors sitting on a charge until the defendant finishes a previous sentence. Once the prosecution becomes aware of a crime, they only have a limited time to charge the defendant, which is consistent with the administration of justice.

The problem with your system is that a) it wipes the slate clean, which denies victims their right to be heard and receive justice for their injury, and b) it allows judges to "stack" penalties without the necessity of proving guilt and in ways that may be outside of the just sentence for each of the individual crimes.

Thanks for pointing out that adding crimes in this manner is voluntary, that's an important point.

Problem is, give the courts/government the power to protect people using the criminal laws in this manner and it very soon results in the widespread suppression of free political and social expression, to the detriment of the rights of the people to speak out against their government. That's precisely why we tolerate offensive speech to such a great degree.

That's the theory. It doesn't happen here in Britain, in practice.

The hell it doesn't. It's illegal to hold a protest within one KM of Parliament. No such law would pass Constitutional scrutiny here. And one of the main reasons the US exists is precisely because Britain suppressed political and social expression in the Colonies.

Because of the reasons I laid out.
The courts and the prosecution service are there to make sure it doesn't happen.

Unless they collude with the government to suppress free expression, which they are not prohibited from doing.

And if it did, the law can be amended at any time.

Which does fuck-all good to those already prosecuted and imprisoned for breaking the previous law.

The courts and the legislature take free speech seriously, and won't see the law abused.

Right up until they do. Nothing in your law prevents Parliament from passing a law completely removing the privilege of free speech in the UK, because you have no supreme document that constrains your government from doing so. We do.

It's just a case of where the line is drawn.

Indeed. Well, not "just."

[mistermack]

I don't see your problem with the "taken into account" option.
It's no different to pleading guilty to something. The victims don't get a chance of a trial if the defendant pleads guilty anyway.
The defendant ASKS if he can have offences taken into consideration after the verdict. The prosecution and judge don't have to agree. If the offences are very different, they may prefer a new trial.
If a criminal doesn't ask, doesn't take the oportunity, then I see nothing wrong with charging him later with fresh crimes.
It's his own choice. They are ALWAYS asked if they would like any other offences taken into account before sentence is passed.

The hell it doesn't. It's illegal to hold a protest within one KM of Parliament. No such law would pass Constitutional scrutiny here. And one of the main reasons the US exists is precisely because Britain suppressed political and social expression in the Colonies.

If that's the case, it's brand new. There was a protest outside the commons by one guy that lasted for more than five years. Can you quote where you got that fact from?

In any case, if that WAS the law, I would agree with it.
One square kilometre is nothing.
There is plenty of London left for protesting in.
Freedom of speech is not impinged by yards or kilometres. It's freedom to speak, not freedom of where to speak.

Which does fuck-all good to those already prosecuted and imprisoned for breaking the previous law.

That applies to any law that's amended. You have to obey the existing laws if you don't want to be prosecuted.

Right up until they do. Nothing in your law prevents Parliament from passing a law completely removing the privilege of free speech in the UK, because you have no supreme document that constrains your government from doing so. We do.

Big deal. We don't need a piece of paper written by dead people to know how to behave. But as rabid christians, I suppose americans are used to that.

[Exi5tentialist]

Freedom of speech is not impinged by yards or kilometres. It's freedom to speak, not freedom of where to speak.

So you wouldn't mind if they extended the exclusion zone to 900km around parliament, then? You'd still be allowed free speech in a boat off the irish coast.

I understood that Brian Haw, the protestor who camped outside parliament for several years, was allowed to remain because of some technical error in the drafting of the law preventing any noisy protests within 1km of parliament without prior police approval. Nevertheless there remains a 1km ban, which is an affront to democracy.

[mistermack]

Freedom of speech is not impinged by yards or kilometres. It's freedom to speak, not freedom of where to speak.

So you wouldn't mind if they extended the exclusion zone to 900km around parliament, then? You'd still be allowed free speech in a boat off the irish coast.

I understood that Brian Haw, the protestor who camped outside parliament for several years, was allowed to remain because of some technical error in the drafting of the law preventing any noisy protests within 1km of parliament without prior police approval. Nevertheless there remains a 1km ban, which is an affront to democracy.

You can extend your logic the other way, and say that protests should be allowed right inside the commons.
I see 1km as perfectly reasonable. NOBODY has their freedom of speech restricted by that measure.
Freedom of marching on an organised protest is not the same as freedom of speech. You can say what you like inside the 1 km, it's just organised protests that are banned there.
That's just one square km out of 1500 in London that you can't use for a march.
That's perfectly reasonable.

[Seth]

The hell it doesn't. It's illegal to hold a protest within one KM of Parliament. No such law would pass Constitutional scrutiny here. And one of the main reasons the US exists is precisely because Britain suppressed political and social expression in the Colonies.

If that's the case, it's brand new. There was a protest outside the commons by one guy that lasted for more than five years. Can you quote where you got that fact from?

The Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005 (c.15) (often abbreviated to SOCPA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom aimed primarily at creating the Serious Organised Crime Agency, it also significantly extended and simplified the powers of arrest of a constable and introduced restrictions on protests in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster. It was introduced into the House of Commons on 24 November 2004 and was passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent on 7 April 2005.[2]...

The Act is controversial primarily for sections 132 to 138, which restrict the right to demonstrate within a "designated area" of up to one kilometre from any point in Parliament Square.[4]

It was written and enacted in part to get rid of Brian Haw, the protester you allude to.

In any case, if that WAS the law, I would agree with it.
One square kilometre is nothing.
There is plenty of London left for protesting in.
Freedom of speech is not impinged by yards or kilometres. It's freedom to speak, not freedom of where to speak.

We, on the other hand, believe that the seat of power, or reasonably close to it where our representatives can hear us, is the most appropriate place for such speech. Otherwise, government can shuffle us off to Buffalo and restrict us to far places where our petition for redress of grievances cannot be heard.

In the US, everywhere is presumptively open to free speech unless there is a compelling government need to restrict it.

Which does fuck-all good to those already prosecuted and imprisoned for breaking the previous law.

That applies to any law that's amended. You have to obey the existing laws if you don't want to be prosecuted.

My point exactly.

Right up until they do. Nothing in your law prevents Parliament from passing a law completely removing the privilege of free speech in the UK, because you have no supreme document that constrains your government from doing so. We do.

Big deal. We don't need a piece of paper written by dead people to know how to behave. But as rabid christians, I suppose americans are used to that.

Actually, you do. You've got the Magna Carta and whatnot, but no fundamental protection for free speech and expression, which is allowed at the whims and caprices of your government. That and arms.

[mistermack]

Well, I think this 1 km is a deliberate red herring.
I'm over sixty years old, and I've never met anyone in this country who feels restricted by that km.

The vast majority of people would see it as logical, and want to keep it, if you asked them.

In the US, everywhere is presumptively open to free speech unless there is a compelling government need to restrict it.

You seem to be confusing demonstrations with free speech.
There IS free speech within the 1 km of parliament square.

[amok]

I agree with Seth on this issue, even though I've seen a few videos recently (I'll have to look for them, but I will when I get home from work) suggesting the concept is being eroded in the U.S., too. The people arrested for dancing at a site in Washington (the Jefferson Memorial?) springs to mind, and also the gentleman who was removed from a public venue for heckling Hilary Clinton (though I have mixed feelings about that one, because security people have to make quick decisions in such situations just in case it's not a simple protester, and rather a possible threat).

Either Canada doesn't have a "distance" law similar to the U.K., or it's not enforced, because protests definitely happen on the grounds of Parliament Hill and provincial legislatures. Heck, I work a block from Province House here, and there are protests there all the time, large and small. I also think Canada should take a step back from criminalizing "hate" speech other than using the legitimate and time-tested criteria of incitement and sedition and whatnot. I personally don't go around saying what I think of Christianity and Islam and Judaism (and any other religion, for that matter), or racists, or homophobes, or political extremists of various ilks, or believers in other stuff I find ludicrous, but I really don't like the slippery slope of it being criminalized if I chose to.

I think existing laws are sufficient in regards to harassment and making threats in cases of such things being inflicted on individuals. They should be used, of course, when individual cases warrant (and the case in the OP might be one of those cases), but they shouldn't be extrapolated to prosecute any and all disagreeable speech.

I don't want it to be illegal for someone to say "atheism is moronic," or "atheists are evil" for example, because that would also mean it would be illegal for me to say "Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. is moronic/evil." Or even, if it's taken to extreme, because I consider some political parties a threat to my way life and beliefs and the well-being of the citizens of my country, that I should be muzzled from saying so. Because it's almost (not quite) getting to that stage. I have very negative feelings about certain politicians in my country right now, for example, and I should be able to say I think they're creeps - and why - without fear of prosecution. It's complicated, because part of that is mixed in with my feelings about religion, so it could be used against me if things get out of hand in that regard.

[Seth]

Well, I think this 1 km is a deliberate red herring.
I'm over sixty years old, and I've never met anyone in this country who feels restricted by that km.

The vast majority of people would see it as logical, and want to keep it, if you asked them.

Slaves are often contented in their chains, just ask Harriet Beecher Stowe. But they remain slaves and vassals to their overlords all the same. We prefer disorderly and noisy liberty.

In the US, everywhere is presumptively open to free speech unless there is a compelling government need to restrict it.

You seem to be confusing demonstrations with free speech.
There IS free speech within the 1 km of parliament square.[/quote]
Demonstrations are the very essence of collective free speech. It's how a group shows its government that more than one person has a grievance to be redressed.

In the US, notions on the part of the Park Service to prohibit further large-scale demonstrations (like Glenn Beck's 8/28 rally) on the National Mall because of the cost of managing the event and the damage to the grass were met with fury from both the public and the Congress, who told the Park Service that the National Mall belongs to the People, and is their venue for protest, demonstration and petition for redress of grievances as promised in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Park Service has, to the best of my knowledge, dropped that plan like a hot potato.

[mistermack]

Slaves are often contented in their chains, just ask Harriet Beecher Stowe. But they remain slaves and vassals to their overlords all the same. We prefer disorderly and noisy liberty.

Now you're back to talking bollocks. Our government WORKS FOR US. Not the other way around. We hire them, we fire them and we pay their wages.
They offer their SERVICES and we can choose to vote for them, or not.

In the US, notions on the part of the Park Service to prohibit further large-scale demonstrations (like Glenn Beck's 8/28 rally) on the National Mall because of the cost of managing the event and the damage to the grass were met with fury from both the public and the Congress, who told the Park Service that the National Mall belongs to the People, and is their venue for protest, demonstration and petition for redress of grievances as promised in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Park Service has, to the best of my knowledge, dropped that plan like a hot potato.

Seems like a suitable place. Demonstrations can get violent. We all know that. Damage gets done.
Nobody in this country wants to see parliament smashed up.
Hyde Park would be an excellent place for demonstrations.

[Hermit]

It's illegal to hold a protest within one KM of Parliament. No such law would pass Constitutional scrutiny here. And one of the main reasons the US exists is precisely because Britain suppressed political and social expression in the Colonies.

The reason for the lack of such a law is that the various state and federal legislatures of the USA can obtain the same result with other laws. In the first place, protests in the US do require a permit, and secondly, the police do tell the protest organisers where they may march and where they may not. All for "security reasons" of course. That is the norm.

[MrJonno]

Slaves are often contented in their chains, just ask Harriet Beecher Stowe. But they remain slaves and vassals to their overlords all the same. We prefer disorderly and noisy liberty

I think most sane people put personal happiness over everything else, if freedom increases happiness then great but there is nothing inheritably good about freedom

[Gallstones]

Slaves are often contented in their chains, just ask Harriet Beecher Stowe. But they remain slaves and vassals to their overlords all the same. We prefer disorderly and noisy liberty

I think most sane people put personal happiness over everything else, if freedom increases happiness then great but there is nothing inheritably good about freedom

You mean freedom is handed down, like in a will?

Personal happiness is nice.
But contributing to the happiness of others is nicer.

[Exi5tentialist]

In the US, everywhere is presumptively open to free speech unless there is a compelling government need to restrict it.

You seem to be confusing demonstrations with free speech. There IS free speech within the 1 km of parliament square.

Demonstrations are the very essence of collective free speech. It's how a group shows its government that more than one person has a grievance to be redressed.

I agree with Seth.

[Seth]

Slaves are often contented in their chains, just ask Harriet Beecher Stowe. But they remain slaves and vassals to their overlords all the same. We prefer disorderly and noisy liberty.

Now you're back to talking bollocks. Our government WORKS FOR US. Not the other way around. We hire them, we fire them and we pay their wages.
They offer their SERVICES and we can choose to vote for them, or not.

And they can choose to ignore you and your vote, and because you've allowed them to disarm you, and because you have no right to keep and bear arms anymore, you can do nothing about it if they choose to institute a tyranny. That makes you a slave.

The first thing tyrants do is disarm the populace. The second thing they do is silence them.

[MrJonno]

Personal happiness is nice.
But contributing to the happiness of others is nicer.

If thats what makes you happy