www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-la ... e-19869710 This guy seems to be a complete muppet, and what he said may have been distasteful. But 12 weeks in jail for a few posts on Facebook?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-la ... e-19869710 This guy seems to be a complete muppet, and what he said may have been distasteful. But 12 weeks in jail for a few posts on Facebook?

I guess the Fabrice Muamba stuff was just 'distasteful' too.

No sympathy with these idiots.

At what point does something become 'grossly offensive'? When does Facebook cease being something between friends and start being a 'public communications network'? If someone posts something that is only visible to their friends list, is this still classed as a public communication? How does this differ from Twitter? Oh, and remember this for another example of ridiculous application of the criminal law: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344 The irony is that, in another thread on this board, people are making fun of a disabled person. Yet this is deemed ok? You can give someone a good beating round town, and avoid jail. Post something on Facebook and get locked up. There is something not quite right about that, isn't there? If we start jailing people for causing offence, where do we stop?

At what point does something become 'grossly offensive'? When does Facebook cease being something between friends and start being a 'public communications network'? If someone posts something that is only visible to their friends list, is this still classed as a public communication? How does this differ from Twitter? Oh, and remember this for another example of ridiculous application of the criminal law: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344 The irony is that, in another thread on this board, people are making fun of a disabled person. Yet this is deemed ok? You can give someone a good beating round town, and avoid jail. Post something on Facebook and get locked up. There is something not quite right about that, isn't there? If we start jailing people for causing offence, where do we stop?

I don't see what the problem is? There is a clear and obvious distinction between what is grossly offensive and what isn't, particularly when it involves children who are missing and feared dead.

If you go by the rule of not being vile when posting, you'll likely be okay. You should never put something on the internet that you wouldn't be willing to stand up and support as your opinion in public.

But there isn't. It is entirely subjective from person to person. And that is what the problem is.

Not that I want to condone any insensitive comments made about any tragic event. But being sentenced for ANY views aired on social media is disturbingly getting close to being tried for a thought crime.

How many times do we think before we speak on the internet, on a forum, etc? There lacks a barrier or a filter that sometimes we have in other 'real' social contexts. This questioning barrier of [iis this thought of mine appropriate to air in relation to those that will hear it[/i doesn't seem so immediate on the internet.

Besides, what's the difference between telling a mate a joke about a tragic event in a pub, or on an network that is (in theory) a collection of your friends? Not to dwell upon this, but joking about tragedies, other people's gross misfortunes, even terrorists attacks is something that a minority get a kick out of. Is it in poor taste? Absolutely. But is it a criminal offense? If so, I hope the police are keeping a keen eye on Frankie Boyle's twitter account.

Is it really necessary to jail someone for it? I'd have thought a stern word from the police would be sufficient. As mentioned you can avoid jail for fighting on a Friday night, or putting people's lives at risk by driving dangerously.
Seems extreme to me.

It is completely extreme.

He should have got legal aid, gone not guilty, and done a human rights special on freedom of expression. All the way to the Supreme Court. At public expense, of course.

Paul Wood ?

Poor taste? Yes!

Worthy of a prison term? No!

So if he'd stood up in public and aired those views, would that have been acceptable to you?

I agree entirely with your sentiment though - have the courage of your convictions, no matter how distasteful they may be.

The sentence might be fine. It would all depend on what he tweeted. I don't know what he tweeted.

One thing I do hate is how far we have slid down the slippery slope of people feeling able to express the vilest language and abuse, largely because of a combination of one or more of the following:
a) increasingly, nothing will happen ("I can say what I like, you can't do fsck all about it you fscking " etc
b) total lack of discipline and morals when being brought up, leading to a total lack of basic respect for your fellow man
c) I know my rights

Obviously, the state society has degenerated to, you can't lock up everyone who descends to the vilest language and abuse, but still, on the rare occasions when some arrogant self-centred oaf gets his come-uppance, even if only a modest one, I find it hard to feel in any way sorry.

I also find it mildly amusing that some profess to think that tweeting is just like a private conversation with your mates. The whole point of the offence (which he admitted) was that it is sending a "grossly offensive public electronic communication". Only morons think Twitter is in any way "private".

Twitter is not private. You're right. But it is not, and never will resemble a sophisticated communique that elicits care and forethought when in use. It is a medium incapable of dealing with anything serious. Therefore I think when someone is using twitter - the consequences dished out to offensive remarks are disproportionate to remarks said in more conventional environments. Internet communication with its immediacy and with the shroud of anonymity (whether it be of yourself, or from authorities) - very often makes one say what one wouldn't necessarily say otherwise. Therefore there is a discrepancy between what effectively is "typing stuff on the internet" and abuse outside, threats and/or harassment.

But then Frankie Boyle makes jokes about Madeleine McCann - and I'm struggling to spot the difference. (neither being funny, of course)

Do we have the prison capacity to lock up all the people that are trolls on the internet?

If not, what are the government's plans to increase prison capacity?

A locked room somewhere is probably the best place for someone as thick as that.

Where do we make our complaints about how offensive all the grief tourists wallowing in someone elses misery are?

What ever happened to sticks and stones?

Seriously, 12 weeks in prison for a vile comment?

We have repeat burglers constantly avoiding prisoner, child molesters getting conditional discharges and we put someone in prison for being a tasteless, uncaring moron?

I still don't know what he tweeted, but from the very limited reports, it wasn't one tweet, he was at it over two days.

Well, and again without knowing what was tweeted, I do not believe that this lad was trying to make people laugh.

You also for some reason seem to overlook that he pleaded guilty to the offence.

But 12 weeks in prison? Perspective surely considering all the ills in the world.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Well, and again without knowing what was tweeted, I do not believe that this lad was trying to make people laugh. You also for some reason seem to overlook that he pleaded guilty to the offence.'" It wasn’t tweeted, it was on his facebook page, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/0 ... ods-jailed

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Well, and again without knowing what was tweeted, I do not believe that this lad was trying to make people laugh. You also for some reason seem to overlook that he pleaded guilty to the offence.'" It wasn’t tweeted, it was on his facebook page, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/0 ... ods-jailed

I don't know how I can assess the perspective if I don't know what he put. I don't think it helps to try to blur the discussion by inferring that because many people get away with or walk free from perceived very bad things, that should go in his favour, though.

I'll bet it is a message that has been driven very widely home amongst the millions of Twitter users, though. Even those as stupid as him.

This is an interesting point.

The thing is, words often can do far more harm than a punch. Much bullying is not physical in nature - but that doesn't mean it does no damage. Self-esteem, for instance, is far more difficult to 'cure' than a bruised arm. We know, for instance, of cases where verbal bullying has driven children and young people to suicide. So it's not something that is 'victimless'.

And it seems perhaps odd that many people, who would be openly dismissive of anyone appearing to favour a perpetrator over a victim would do that themselves when it comes to verbal bullying.

But I am equally uncomfortable with what appears to be an increasing culture of saying that anything that offends (or offends over a certain line - which is inevitably pretty subjective) is a criminal offence.

There is a difference between this incident (as reported) and bullying.

There should never be any right not to be offended. And this, in my book, is a vast overreaction.

Incitement would be a different matter, but there are laws to deal with that.

Criminalising offense, though? No. Absolutely not. And yes, that includes 'hate speech' too, providing it is not incitement.

I with you on the bullying, but this wasn't a prolonged bullying campaign it was a very bad judgement on 'his own facebook page', supposedly only for people who know him.

April's family would never have known and going on to the self esteem point, i would suggest this lad probably suffers himself, it doesn't in anyway vindicate what he says, and i personally would never advocate it but the prosecution seems a grossly disproportionate response to something that was just ill advised and plain idiotic.

What happened to offence being taken rather than given?
There are plenty of things around you could take offence at, most of us just rise above it and get on with life.