Twitter user jailed for 56 days
Discussion
If the person who keeled over been from and other profession, would anyone give a flying f
k (family aside)?
As sad as it may be that the guy nearly died, this sort of thing happens to all sorts of people every day.
Just because he is a footballer and/or black does not elevate him to needing a day of national prayers for his well being.
GET A fkIN LIFE.
If some idiot had tweeted something that I found offensive, can I expect him to go down for a stretch?
I think we need to stop idolising "celebs" and "Sporting heroes" and get some perspective.
k (family aside)?As sad as it may be that the guy nearly died, this sort of thing happens to all sorts of people every day.
Just because he is a footballer and/or black does not elevate him to needing a day of national prayers for his well being.
GET A f
kIN LIFE.If some idiot had tweeted something that I found offensive, can I expect him to go down for a stretch?
I think we need to stop idolising "celebs" and "Sporting heroes" and get some perspective.
The fact is he was still guilty of a crime - just as you would be if you did the same.
The difference in this case was that due to the public nature and I imagien volume of complaints - action was taken to prosecute.
If you said soemthing offensive on Twitter chances are you wouldn't be prosecuted or punished as hard - but then again chances are, in general, you wouldn;t be posting tweets that a) offend a lot of people and b) are done at a sensitive time.
The difference in this case was that due to the public nature and I imagien volume of complaints - action was taken to prosecute.
If you said soemthing offensive on Twitter chances are you wouldn't be prosecuted or punished as hard - but then again chances are, in general, you wouldn;t be posting tweets that a) offend a lot of people and b) are done at a sensitive time.
Mojooo said:
The fact is he was still guilty of a crime - just as you would be if you did the same.
The difference in this case was that due to the public nature and I imagien volume of complaints - action was taken to prosecute.
If you said soemthing offensive on Twitter chances are you wouldn't be prosecuted or punished as hard - but then again chances are, in general, you wouldn;t be posting tweets that a) offend a lot of people and b) are done at a sensitive time.
Yet surely you agree that the volume of people taking offence and the timing of the incident should have no bearing on the penalty in law. Offending people isn't illegal (yet) and neither is being insensitive. All we're left with here is the racism which could have been dealt with in a much more considered fashion.The difference in this case was that due to the public nature and I imagien volume of complaints - action was taken to prosecute.
If you said soemthing offensive on Twitter chances are you wouldn't be prosecuted or punished as hard - but then again chances are, in general, you wouldn;t be posting tweets that a) offend a lot of people and b) are done at a sensitive time.
carmonk said:
mattnunn said:
carmonk said:
mattnunn said:
I struggle to understand quite why people take such affrontery to someone being punished for publicly using foul, racist and abusive language in respect of a dying man.
And yet nobody's saying that. The objection is to the magnitude and inapproptiateness of the punishment. Burglars, violent criminals and repeat offenders would consider themselves hard done by to receive a sentence like this. There is no justification for locking up someone of otherwise good character for posting some abuse on a poxy website after a few too many beers. It's idiotic.mattnunn said:
As to comparisons with other crimes, simply two wrongs don't make a right, but I've been burgled, had stuff stolen and I can't see why it would be any worse than being publicly racially abused and wished dead whilst undergoing a severe medical condition.
Then you're naive. People can be severely traumatised by being burgled and even suffer mental breakdowns. Because you are OK with it is neither here nor there. All this about being wished dead is ridiculous. I doubt many people have suffered severely from being told "LOL you're dead." Although Twitter is generally deemed essential to life I'm sure this footballer isn't currently browsing the website and even if he were, I guess he's an adult who would read the comments and respond, "What a tosser," and move on.Besides the man was dying, I mean really! This man did this because he though he was anonymous and he's a vile little prick, well now we all know about him, we know to avoid him or not employ him, justice is served.
mattnunn said:
It's the racial stuff that matters, not the LOL he's dead. If you don't understand what using that language is about and why people use it then it's you that is niave, it's not just a descriptive noun, it's the lanuguage of seperation, the language of apartheid, used deliberately for purpose, to alienate, to divide, it's the first step on the road to genocide. It's no good just saying sticks and stones will break my bones, it doesn't work.
I think in talking about genocide you're getting hysterical too. Yes, racist language should not be tolerated but that's beside the point. It's the severity of the penalty that's the issue as opposed to whether or not racism is acceptable. The law should be applied with broad fairness in a measured manner yet clearly has not been in this case. If some yob was to come out with this language on a Friday night he'd get an £80 fine and maybe a night in the cells if he was unlucky (and that would likely involve face-to-face intimidation and not just some words on a website which haven't even been read by the 'victim', who likely has more important issues to worry about).mattnunn said:
Besides the man was dying, I mean really! This man did this because he though he was anonymous and he's a vile little prick, well now we all know about him, we know to avoid him or not employ him, justice is served.
Dry your eyes for God's sake. A decline in a man's health does not confer on him extra human rights. It really is pathetic that you and others are getting so worked up about this. Try talking to a seriously disabled person to see the kind of vastly more damaging abuse they put up with on a daily basis without anybody giving a single solitary st. Perhaps if they made the effort to stand up and kick a football then society would be more amenable to delivering justice for them too.carmonk said:
Yet surely you agree that the volume of people taking offence and the timing of the incident should have no bearing on the penalty in law. Offending people isn't illegal (yet) and neither is being insensitive. All we're left with here is the racism which could have been dealt with in a much more considered fashion.
I am not sure I agree, although I see where you are coming from.I am not au fait with the law in question here, so I couldn't give a decent answer without seeing what the law says and guidelines.
But I am fairly sure many pieces of legislation allow differing sentences depending on the number or degree of 'hurt' caused.
Each circumstance and penalty given should be taken on the facts, so I don't see why being racist in 2 circumstances with similar but different facts shouldn't have a bearing on the outcome (i.e whether a prosecution is taken or the sentence given).
I would imagine the volume of complaints recieved influenced the Polices decision to take action - even though they may ignore thousands of complaints of someone doing something similar but with 1 complaint. That is not a legal thing as such but more of a public pressure/political thing IMO.
As regards to the sentencing, clearly public pressure has played a part but if the Judge has the pwoer he can use them, and again there may well ahve been a poltical decision to make an example out of him.
Mojooo said:
carmonk said:
Yet surely you agree that the volume of people taking offence and the timing of the incident should have no bearing on the penalty in law. Offending people isn't illegal (yet) and neither is being insensitive. All we're left with here is the racism which could have been dealt with in a much more considered fashion.
I am not sure I agree, although I see where you are coming from.I am not au fait with the law in question here, so I couldn't give a decent answer without seeing what the law says and guidelines.
But I am fairly sure many pieces of legislation allow differing sentences depending on the number or degree of 'hurt' caused.
Mojooo said:
Each circumstance and penalty given should be taken on the facts, so I don't see why being racist in 2 circumstances with similar but different facts shouldn't have a bearing on the outcome (i.e whether a prosecution is taken or the sentence given).
I would imagine the volume of complaints recieved influenced the Polices decision to take action - even though they may ignore thousands of complaints of someone doing something similar but with 1 complaint. That is not a legal thing as such but more of a public pressure/political thing IMO.
As regards to the sentencing, clearly public pressure has played a part but if the Judge has the pwoer he can use them, and again there may well ahve been a poltical decision to make an example out of him.
Public pressure and setting an example as a result of that pressure, I'd go along with that. A sad state of affairs. I've heard of serial trolls being convicted on the basis of systematic and targeted abuse (usually on these RIP sites, the less said about them the better) but I've not heard of a penalty so harsh for what was effectively a one-off transgression. You have then to look at why this case is different to any other and the answer is pretty obvious.I would imagine the volume of complaints recieved influenced the Polices decision to take action - even though they may ignore thousands of complaints of someone doing something similar but with 1 complaint. That is not a legal thing as such but more of a public pressure/political thing IMO.
As regards to the sentencing, clearly public pressure has played a part but if the Judge has the pwoer he can use them, and again there may well ahve been a poltical decision to make an example out of him.
King Herald said:
mattnunn said:
56 days in prison is not exactly over the top is it for being so insulting on a public forum....
Oh jeez, lets hope they don't have an internet purge and jail everybody who ever threatened or insulted anybody else. They'd have to build a dozen new jails.
chris watton said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think we have already passed that point. 
See total b
ks.You're free to think whatever the f
k you want, I'm doing it right now! Go out of your way to publish those thoughts and you can hardly claim they're still only thoughts.Hoofy said:
Tiggsy said:
GestapoWatch said:
So is chinky offensive as that's what we call the Chinese takeaway? Or is it all about context? Oooh it confuses me.
A simple guide is - would you teach your kids that? My parents all referred quite "innocently" to the Edited by GestapoWatch on Tuesday 27th March 19:31
shop/chinky, etc....and I take no great issue with anyine using those terms with me....but I wouldnt teach my kids them.I notice
, and are banned but chinky isn't...If I used either of those other words in a non-offensive way what crime am I committing other than having an innocent label (if I genuinely don't mean anything malicious)?
I worry there are a few different things that go on and the lines blur because we're all scared to death of what to say. There are the people who I don't consider racist and instead are just narrow-minded, ill-informed, stupid pub talkers. Then there are true racists who wouldn't breathe the same air as someone they dislike (still stupid, ill-informed and narrow-minded of course) and then there are people who would never, ever judge somebody based on race, yet because they happen to use one of the naughty words casually without realising are seen as being offensive/racist.
Take the point on teaching it my kids but only because today the use of such words is so taboo. I may have continued to use c
y for our Chinese had I not visited this thread though and had Triads after me 
(kidding of course!)carmonk said:
Public pressure and setting an example as a result of that pressure, I'd go along with that. A sad state of affairs. I've heard of serial trolls being convicted on the basis of systematic and targeted abuse (usually on these RIP sites, the less said about them the better) but I've not heard of a penalty so harsh for what was effectively a one-off transgression. You have then to look at why this case is different to any other and the answer is pretty obvious.
I think we all agre 56 days is excessive, but we all know he will serve a tiny amoutn of that, so it may be a moot point.Back to your poitn on sentencing...
Lets take the poppy burning example as someone mentioned it earlier on this thread.
a) I go out Sunday at 10pm (at night when no one is there) to my high street and burn a poppy and shout death to all British soliders. 1 person sees me and complains.
b) I go out Sunday morning on Remembeance Day at 11am to my High Street and shout the same. 500 people see me and complain.
It seems to me the same act has been commited each time - do you not think the law should allow for different penalties based on the amount of people offended and type of offence caused? (of cours ein poitn b there may be other aggravating factors, like the potentially to cause a riot but lets ignore that bit).
To me it looks like the situation is simialr here, had matey just tweeted soemthing racist no one would have cared, but the fact he did it when he knew he would get a big audience and cause maximum offence is the key factor.
Mojooo said:
It seems to me the same act has been commited each time - do you not think the law should allow for different penalties based on the amount of people offended and type of offence caused? (of cours ein poitn b there may be other aggravating factors, like the potentially to cause a riot but lets ignore that bit).
The law is about inciting hatred, not about being offensive. I don't think people should be jailed for being offensive.The effect that the legislation is designed to stop is the hatred of the *target* of the abuse, not the hatred of the *source*.
Mojooo said:
To me it looks like the situation is simialr here, had matey just tweeted soemthing racist no one would have cared, but the fact he did it when he knew he would get a big audience and cause maximum offence is the key factor.
Interesting question - I understood he had not very many followers at all and it was they who 're-tweeted' it, thus causing the snowballing.I apologise for the poor analogy about to follow but it is the best I can think of at the moment (need more coffee).
Take the Danish cartoon fisaco, if a paper here re-printed it, would they be liable for incitement? I suspect so. Why is 'retweeting' different?
My question/musing here is, ok he said something braindead to a small audience, who then went on to spread it - who is more at fault for the mass offence here? The kid, or the people who lit the touch-paper so to speak?
It seems odd that someone says something offensive to a few people who then spread it around and the author is held solely responsible. Yes, I know 'social media' is 'different' but I can't help but feel something doesn't sit right somewhere here.
NB: I don't have a twitter account and am not au-fait with it, so forgive me if this seems tollish/idiotic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff