We are very much under attack from the government who are almost certainly trying to stop us from having freedom of speech... in fact the government doesn't want us to say anything at all... especially not on twitter.
What with the recent imprisonment of the infamous Muamba tweeter Liam Stacey, who said something along the lines of 'LOL! Fuck #Muamba he's dead!!!' followed by a stream of 'vile racist comments.'
I am interested to know what these comments were; I have been, from time to time, quite aggressive on Twitter and would like to know the line between harmless trolling and being a criminal. His charge was 'racially aggravated public order offences'. Similar to Emma West, the racist train lady (who recieved a suspended sentence for abusing members of the public, on a tram between Wimbledon and Croydon.)
NIGGERAGUAAAAAAAAAARGHAHAHAHAHAHAAAARGH!!! |
There are reasons why Emma west was given a suspended sentence and Liam Stacey wasn't. West was unemployed and under great stress having to cope with a son who had a rare genetic dissorder which made his face look like it was made of lego. (see above picture.) And of course, Liam Stacey was Welsh and therefore didn't have the same rights as actual humans. What is worrying, is that death threats were made against from multiple accounts to Liam, is threatening behaviour not a crime? Why are these not followed up? I may or may not disagree with the sentencing, and to be honest its been so many weeks now that I have forgotten what my opinion is, but if you are going to throw a man in prison for public order offences on twitter, then should you not throw people who make death threats on twitter in jail as well?
#CUNextTuesday.
Another Twitter crime is being thrashed out in the court. With tweeter, OllyCromwell about to be sentenced for implying that a bexley councellor was a cunt, you can see the backlash against Bexley council here and here amongst other places...
Only, he wasn't actually arrested and charged for swearing; he was charged and found guilty of ‘incitement to commit criminal damage’ which he did, when he posted the address of a councilor and encouraged followers to post shit through his letterbox.
I consider myself quite 'right on', I like to read the Guardian, I don't like the Tories, I listen to Dr Dre and have watched Roots; I even watched Steven Soderbergs 2 part biopic of Che even though it was all in Spanish, but I can't help feeling that this is less about freedom of speech than it is about people who just don't know when to stop. If a person did a flyer campaign stating that poo should be posted through a letterbox it would be a simple case of incitement, but the fact that it has happened over the internet has highlighted a grey area; people who thought they could say whatever they want without consequence have had a bit of a rude awakening. Should these people be sent to prison? probably not, these are not actual criminals, not in the sense that Charles Manson or Ian Huntley are criminals, but if you take the time to make sure the grammar is correct on your racist responses or encourage people to post poo into someone elses home, then you should deal with whatever comes your way I find it very difficult to sympathise.
If it were illegal to say cunt on twitter then there are 50 tweeters this week heading for the slammer, including me; the fact is, it isn't, our freedom of speech is safe. Even if we do say cunt. Dudley Moore famously said the word cunt on tape over 30 times. He remains at large to this day.
So it turns out that the word in question isn't actually illegal on twitter, neither is the word felch, frig, vagina and all other variants of the female anatomy are okay, providing you don't attach it to racist comments or comments encouraging people to post faeces through a local councilors letterbox. If you consider these laws an affront to your human rights then pardon my french: but I think you're a cunt.
We need some new laws regarding the internet.
ReplyDeleteThe Public Order Act was meant to keep order on the streets during demonstrations etc. It was never meant for the internet.
Individuals having private conversations online are unaware of the many laws. Journalists have the benefit of legal advice, but the general public do not.
Offensive words, insults, drunken rants, could all be sorted out with an apology in the pub, but they remain online forever and are liable to prosecution.
This is why I feel so sorry for Liam Stacey. He had a drunken rant, which normally would be ignored in a college bar, but instead he gets two months in prison. Two months, for being a mouthy drunken student!
The European Commissioner for Human Rights said that Stacey's sentence was wrong and that our judiciary don't really understand the internet. I agree with that.
They don't understand it.
When is the government going to catch up and review the laws??
I agree to a point; I think Liam Stacey's life is probably ruined, he's going to struggle to find work after having a custodial sentence. Considering the crimes that end up with suspended sentences and community service, I think he just got a judge that doesn't like the concept of the internet. which ties in with the judiciary not understanding the internet.
DeleteI think the other example is a bit more straightforward, posting peoples addresses online is a no-no.
As for when the government will do something about the laws, every time they try to regulate the internet they come up with lots of resistance.
I can't help but have a problem with people who hide behind the internet. (he says, on a blog!?) I've not been arrested yet for this one, in case you are interested... I'll keep you posted.