Student jailed for offensive comments on Twitter

[Taosaur]

Student jailed for offensive comments on Twitter - Neowin.net Some of the actual tweets: http://fandaily.info/wp-content/uplo...nts-images.jpg Seriously? Being an asshole is a jailable offense in the UK? If someone were drunk and shouting epithets on a street corner, an arrest at that time would be warranted to arrest (i.e. stop) the behavior, but tweeting is inherently less disruptive. It's more akin to putting a sign out on the lawn; yes the statement is public, but it's not forcing itself on anyone's attention (e.g. by shouting).

[Barry]

not for being a arsehole, it's considered racist and racism is an arrestable offence here.

[Taosaur]

Racism (as opposed to actual discrimination) is a species of assholery. He is now serving nearly two months for being a drunken ass on Twitter. ETA: I cannot envision any form of "being offensive" that would warrant more than a night in jail and a fine for disturbing the peace, and even that much is ridiculous for statements made on Twitter. TWO MONTHS? For saying mean things about a soccer player?

[Universal Mind]

You Brits better not fuck with me. Watch what you say to me in your posts, or I'll call your police.

[DrunkenArse]

The idea that one can legislate racism out of existence probably does more to hurt the cause than to help it.

[Photolysis]

Very disturbing, but it seems the only reason he was arrested was because it seems to have been twisted into racial aggravation. This seems to be going against the entire spirit of the law. It's there to stop cases of people publicly going out and crying "them niggers are inbred and a disgrace to the country and should be kicked out", not to stop people from ever making a moronic comment. Or series of them in this case. It's one thing to spout off stupid offensive shit, but insert the word "black" in one of your comments and suddenly it becomes an arrestable offense?

[Sornaensis]

Lol it's illegal to call black people black.

[Xei]

Yep, these laws are both morally ridiculous, and as Phil points out, The idea that one can legislate racism out of existence probably does more to hurt the cause than to help it. not even productive. I caught a report last night on the rise of underground fascism in Germany, where there are various laws about it. I wondered how popular it would be if people could actually discuss fascism openly and rationally.

[mcwillis]

My friend got a 6 week jail sentence for stealing a 'Milky Bar' He needed the aluminium foil to smoke some heroin But then considering his record for crime they had no choice but to lock him up.

[khh]

My friend got a 6 week jail sentence for stealing a 'Milky Bar' He needed the aluminium foil to smoke some heroin But then considering his record for crime they had no choice but to lock him up. Uh... I don't think you can even be fined for that here, if you give it back when they catch you. No matter your previous history.

[Xei]

Yeah that's definitely the whole story, it was the milky bar that got the thieving drug addict locked up.

[mcwillis]

Yeah that's definitely the whole story, it was the milky bar that got the thieving drug addict locked up. Seeing as your English, and if you're old enough, you'll understand why his nickname in jail was the milky bar kid.

[Wayfaerer]

Milky bar- contains full day's supply of goodness.

[StonedApe]

Lol it's illegal to call black people black. I don't think that's quite what it is, if you read the uncensored tweets he says more than that. However putting him in jail at all is fucking absurd and shouldn't be tolerated. He said something, he used words(and not any kind of threats) and these people think they can use violent means to solve the problem. Lock him up in a cage against his will because he got drunk and made an ass of himself. It's insanity.

[DrunkenArse]

This is really the same issue as hate crimes. I personally feel that there should be a clearly defined line between laws which punish physical behavior and laws which punish speech and inferred intentions. We should stay on one side of that line. In the US, drug laws are already almost on the border of violating it. Consider that if I get caught with a gram of weed, I'll be charged with possession if anything happens at all. However if I have a scale or spare baggies on me then I can be charged with intent to distribute. In this case, it's still technically on the right side of the line (despite it's terrible name) because it's criminalizing having, e.g. a scale, in addition to weed rather than purely intent. However they're also blurring the line by attempting to infer intent from behavior. With hate crimes and this anti-hate-speach law in the UK, they're clearly crossing the line. They're adding severity to the punishment for intentions that the person had. So if I murder someone, I get one punishment. If I murder someone and a jury is convinced that my intentions were formed because I didn't like the race or sexual orientation of the person, I now have additional time. Murder and the punishment for it are already extreme enough to act as a deterrent for most people. This is a stupid class of laws.

[Taosaur]

This is really the same issue as hate crimes. No, it's not. There's a difference between criminalizing hateful speech and evaluating whether a criminal act was motivated by hate. Intent is already the main determinant of how violent crimes are classified and sentenced--it's what separates first from second from third degree murder. It's worth considering whether the defendant(s) in an assault, arson or murder trial acted on the belief that the victim's rights or personhood were suspended on account of group belonging, especially when there's a possibility that part of the community and/or the legal system will support them in that belief. We're not making a crime out of the hate itself, but acknowledging hate's role in acts that have always been criminal and still get unevenly prosecuted (if they even get prosecuted *cough*Trayvon*cough*) due to bias.

[Universal Mind]

It's worth considering whether the defendant(s) in an assault, arson or murder trial acted on the belief that the victim's rights or personhood were suspended on account of group belonging, especially when there's a possibility that part of the community and/or the legal system will support them in that belief. Why? It is relevant whether a person meant to commit a crime and whether he believed it was necessary for legitimate defense. Acting with intent to commit the violation is what is punished, and appearance of a need for self preservation or the preservation of another makes a perfectly good excuse. Both must be considered. That I get. Why is whether or not the person hated the victim's group relevant?

[Taosaur]

Why? It is relevant whether a person meant to commit a crime and whether he believed it was necessary for legitimate defense. Acting with intent to commit the violation is what is punished, and appearance of a need for self preservation or the preservation of another makes a perfectly good excuse. Both must be considered. That I get. Why is whether or not the person hated the victim's group relevant? Because it makes the act more corrosive to society. The intention to reinforce the oppressed status of the victim's group and/or the privileged status of the perpetrator's group makes the crime both more antisocial and a greater injustice. If that stance isn't spelled out in hate crimes law (and sometimes even when it is), such crimes get treated as lesser offenses if the court, community, or police share the perpetrator's bias.

[Universal Mind]

Because it makes the act more corrosive to society. The intention to reinforce the oppressed status of the victim's group and/or the privileged status of the perpetrator's group makes the crime both more antisocial and a greater injustice. If that stance isn't spelled out in hate crimes law (and sometimes even when it is), such crimes get treated as lesser offenses if the court, community, or police share the perpetrator's bias. I don't think it makes the crime any more evil or corrosive to society. In fact, I see it as at least involving some kind of excuse, though very weak. Imagine being shot in the heart and about to die. If the perpetrator did it because you are white, would that piss you off more than if he did it because he just felt like getting his kicks killing somebody? The latter would piss me off much more. At least in the first case he did it because he was dumb and had some kind of false perception of what race is. In the second case, he is just a cold blooded evil dick and nothing more, in terms of the act. That is even more evil and horrible. Somewhere between the two, as far as I am concerned, would be a scenario in which he was robbing me for money. Such selfishness would be worse than a racist mentality, which I really believe carries the excuse of stupidity.

[Taosaur]

If the perpetrator did it because you are white, Trotting out a "reverse racism" example demonstrates why these laws are necessary. There are two sides to prejudice: discrimination yes, but also privilege. A lot of people--an inordinate number in courts and other positions of power--will cluck their tongues at overt discrimination, but those same people have a vested interest in remaining ignorant of the pervasive, institutional biases that favor some groups and punish others for merely coming in contact with the dominant culture. Hate crime laws attack that bias on multiple levels: In the context of specific cases, they deliver justice to the community wronged by the perpetrator's perception that his/her acts were somehow acceptable due to race/sex/sexuality and etc. In a broader social context, they take an explicit stand that our society does not condone violent discrimination. In the context of the courts, they counter the documented tendency to favor anyone who demonstrates affiliation with the dominant culture (even if only by complexion) and punish anyone perceived as part of a marginalized group.

[StonedApe]

I don't think it makes the crime any more evil or corrosive to society. In fact, I see it as at least involving some kind of excuse, though very weak. Imagine being shot in the heart and about to die. If the perpetrator did it because you are white, would that piss you off more than if he did it because he just felt like getting his kicks killing somebody? The latter would piss me off much more. At least in the first case he did it because he was dumb and had some kind of false perception of what race is. In the second case, he is just a cold blooded evil dick and nothing more, in terms of the act. That is even more evil and horrible. Somewhere between the two, as far as I am concerned, would be a scenario in which he was robbing me for money. Such selfishness would be worse than a racist mentality, which I really believe carries the excuse of stupidity. Because most murders are committed because some guy wanted to get his kicks. Most murders involve some kind of motive. If the motive is race the case should be treated differently than if the motive is drug territory or someone cheating on there boyfriend. The label hate crime probably does get thrown around too much due to the overly PC culture we have but hate crime laws aren't pointless. In reality we should be treating the aggressor with compassion as well as the victim. We should be trying to rehabilitate people, or at least help them to see why what they did was wrong. If we took all the money we waste people in prison for drugs and used it to help violent criminals we'd end up with a drastically less violent society. People should be treated differently based on the motive of the crime

[Universal Mind]

Trotting out a "reverse racism" example demonstrates why these laws are necessary. There are two sides to prejudice: discrimination yes, but also privilege. A lot of people--an inordinate number in courts and other positions of power--will cluck their tongues at overt discrimination, but those same people have a vested interest in remaining ignorant of the pervasive, institutional biases that favor some groups and punish others for merely coming in contact with the dominant culture. What I trotted out was an example in which you are the victim of an attack committed because of your race. I wanted to get you to picture injustice from the victim's point of view. You are white in your pictures, so I used being white in the example. If you think that causes a problem in this, then pretend you are some other color and the victim of racial violence. I am still interested in knowing which motive would piss you off the most and why. Like I said in my previous post, racism is not more evil than the other motives for unjust violence. They are all scummy as Hell, and I believe in severe punishments for them. In fact, the punishments I support for unjust violence are much more severe than what 99% of hate crime legislation supporters believe in. That is something I have always found interesting about this issue. People who don't support the death penalty call death penalty supporters racist for not wanting to make racial murders "hate crimes." I hate murderers, rapists, and assaulters with a major passion. They are all garbage that needs to be treated like garbage. Throwing the term "hate crime" in there while wanting to go easy on such garbage is something that has never made sense to me. Kill the bastards. Fuck the silly labels. Hate crime laws attack that bias on multiple levels: In the context of specific cases, they deliver justice to the community wronged by the perpetrator's perception that his/her acts were somehow acceptable due to race/sex/sexuality and etc. In a broader social context, they take an explicit stand that our society does not condone violent discrimination. In the context of the courts, they counter the documented tendency to favor anyone who demonstrates affiliation with the dominant culture (even if only by complexion) and punish anyone perceived as part of a marginalized group. They deliver justice to the community? Why can't just punishing the criminal for being a violent scum bag deliver justice to the community? What would using the term "hate crime" be beyond empty symbolism? #2 looks like more mere symbolism. I am still not clear on why taking a stand against specifically violent discrimination is more important than taking a stand against unjustifiable violence of all forms. Why not take some extra symbolic stand against sadistic violent kicks or violence in the name of selfish gain? They are all scummy, and sadistic kicks involve the most extreme disregard for humanity of all of them. If you disagree, please explain why. #3 would be ineffective and probably even counterproductive. A racist judge or jury will be even less likely to push for justice if what they consider stupid hate crime bullshit is involved in a case. Racial bias in the legal system is a real issue, but hate crime laws aimed at the problem would be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Because most murders are committed because some guy wanted to get his kicks. Most murders involve some kind of motive. If the motive is race the case should be treated differently than if the motive is drug territory or someone cheating on there boyfriend. The label hate crime probably does get thrown around too much due to the overly PC culture we have but hate crime laws aren't pointless. In reality we should be treating the aggressor with compassion as well as the victim. We should be trying to rehabilitate people, or at least help them to see why what they did was wrong. If we took all the money we waste people in prison for drugs and used it to help violent criminals we'd end up with a drastically less violent society. People should be treated differently based on the motive of the crime So, if it's a hate crime, the criminal should be treated with more compassion or less compassion? I don't really see what you are saying hate crime laws would do. What would be accomplished? Hate crime laws would make penalties more severe, not less severe. Your argument would be one against hate crime legislation, not for it. I don't think racial violence should be put on some special pedestal over other forms of unjust violence. As awful as racism is, I don't get the special consideration it gets. This whole issue reminds me of the way Jerry Springer responds to his panel members. His show is almost completely about homewreckers getting on stage and flaunting their homewrecking in front of the devastated innocent people's faces. The show might be totally fake, but in the drama, something really odd happens. Jerry smirks and acts neutral while characters are watching their wives kiss their new lovers the husbands just found out about, and wives are blindsided with news that their husbands are leaving them for other women, who are screaming obscene things in their faces in the midst of the horrific devastation. Such things are the theme and custom of the show. Jerry acts like it's all just a big joke and that he should not get too involved. That is family tragedy in the face of sociopathic kicks Jerry is smirking at. But... as soon as somebody on the panel says something racist, Jerry acts personally offended and goes off on the person. So, making a racist comment is more evil than rubbing an innocent person's face in family tragedy? That is absolutely absurd. Racism is terrible, but it is not the king of injustice. It is just another horrible injustice. The functioning of society is full of them.

[Taosaur]

I don't think we can do much but agree to disagree on the subject. I think hate crime laws do at least moderately address all three points I mentioned, and I would say #2, explicitly defining our society's position on a given transgression, is one of the basic functions of criminal law. Yes, it's symbolic, but not in the pejorative, colloquial sense of "lacking real substance." The punishment/revenge element of our legal system is what I find "symbolic" in that sense.

[greenhavoc]

State: Why did you kill him? Me: Because he is gay and made a pass at me. Hate crime/life State: Why did you kill him? Me: Because he raped my ol' lady. Crime of passion/15 years Seems legit.

[Universal Mind]

State: Why did you kill him? Me: Because he is gay and made a pass at me. Hate crime/life State: Why did you kill him? Me: Because he raped my ol' lady. Crime of passion/15 years Seems legit. There is much more mitigation/understandability in the second scenario. I can understand killing somebody who rapes my wife. I don't think it should be legal, but I might congratulate somebody who kills for that reason. A gay guy making a pass at me will just get a rejection, unless he touches me the wrong way, in which case a punch in the nose should be enough. Here's the way I see hate crime laws. State: Why did you kill him? Defendant: Because he is a member of the Asian race. I am so stupid that I hold ALL of them responsible for Pearl Harbor and 'Nam. State: Hate crime, life in prison without parole. State: Why did you kill him? Defendant: I just love to laugh my ass off when I make an innocent person's brain end up all over a wall, knowing he will never enjoy anything again or reach his dreams in life or even exist again at all, and I get to watch people who love him very deeply experience something so terrible it defies description. I really enjoy it. Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! State: Well, at least it wasn't because you had a problem with his race. We'll go easier on you than we would in that situation. 20 years with possibility of parole after 7 years.