• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK jailing people for making social media comments on riots

PoS

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
38,591
Reaction score
31,315
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian




Is the UK still a democracy?
 
Any source other than Twitter posts?
 
PoS said:
Is the UK still a democracy?
Click to expand...

Since he broke a law that was enacted in 2003 through the representative democratic process, I would say "yes."



Billy Thompson, 31, of Mill Street, Maryport, was jailed for 12 weeks for posting racially aggravated, offensive online content on social media, Cumbria Police said.

The force said he was arrested on Wednesday, charged on Thursday and appeared before North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court on the same day, where he admitted an offence under section 127 of the Communications Act.

The court heard how, on Wednesday, he posted a racially aggravated and threatening comment on a Facebook social media post informing the public of a dispersal order being imposed in Carlisle relating to potential planned disorder, the police said.

Largs & Millport Weekly News

S.127 CA 2003 – Actus Reus​

An offence under section 127 CA 2003 may be committed in a number of different ways:/p>

  • s.127(1) – an offender sends, or causes to be sent, via a public communications network a communication that is either grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character;
  • s.127(2) – for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety to another, an offender:
    1. sends, or causes to be sent, a communication that the offender knows to be false; or
    2. persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network

How a communication is sent​

Section 127 CA 2003 – addresses only communications which are sent via a 'public electronic communications network', which was defined in the case of Director of Public Prosecution v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 as "a service provided for and funded by the public, for the benefit of the public" (approved in Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157). It encompasses the internet and mobile phone networks widely available to the public, and social media platforms which operate via the internet, e.g. WhatsApp (see DPP v Bussetti [2021] EWHC 2140 (Admin)).

To whom a communication is sent​

Section 127 CA 2003 – it is not necessary to show the message was addressed to, or received by, another person. The actus reus of the offence is complete when the message is sent – see DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40, and DPP v Kingsley Smith [2017] EWHC 359 (Admin). This will cover the posting of a message, and indeed re-posting or other sharing of a communication.

cps.gov.uk
 
Bok Tuklo said:
Since he broke a law that was enacted in 2003 through the representative democratic process, I would say "yes."



Billy Thompson, 31, of Mill Street, Maryport, was jailed for 12 weeks for posting racially aggravated, offensive online content on social media, Cumbria Police said.

The force said he was arrested on Wednesday, charged on Thursday and appeared before North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court on the same day, where he admitted an offence under section 127 of the Communications Act.

The court heard how, on Wednesday, he posted a racially aggravated and threatening comment on a Facebook social media post informing the public of a dispersal order being imposed in Carlisle relating to potential planned disorder, the police said.

Largs & Millport Weekly News

S.127 CA 2003 – Actus Reus​

An offence under section 127 CA 2003 may be committed in a number of different ways:/p>

  • s.127(1) – an offender sends, or causes to be sent, via a public communications network a communication that is either grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character;
  • s.127(2) – for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety to another, an offender:
    1. sends, or causes to be sent, a communication that the offender knows to be false; or
    2. persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network

How a communication is sent​

Section 127 CA 2003 – addresses only communications which are sent via a 'public electronic communications network', which was defined in the case of Director of Public Prosecution v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 as "a service provided for and funded by the public, for the benefit of the public" (approved in Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157). It encompasses the internet and mobile phone networks widely available to the public, and social media platforms which operate via the internet, e.g. WhatsApp (see DPP v Bussetti [2021] EWHC 2140 (Admin)).

To whom a communication is sent​

Section 127 CA 2003 – it is not necessary to show the message was addressed to, or received by, another person. The actus reus of the offence is complete when the message is sent – see DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40, and DPP v Kingsley Smith [2017] EWHC 359 (Admin). This will cover the posting of a message, and indeed re-posting or other sharing of a communication.

cps.gov.uk
Click to expand...
A country with no free speech is not a democracy.
 
The people behind the riots are not the men on the street, but the ones stoking the flames online, spreading disinformation and paying for the buses. These are the true instigators. And yes Tommy, I am speaking about you.
 
It’s a fascinating case.

news.sky.com

First men jailed for riot-related social media posts

Jordan Parlour was sentenced to 20 months in jail for urging people to target a hotel housing asylum seekers and refugees. Shortly after, Tyler Kay was also jailed for his own posts calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set alight.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

It’s clear these men meant to contribute to the incitement of a riot, but it’s not clear their social media posts had any effect whatsoever.

It’s almost a presumption of guilt standard.
 
PoS said:




Is the UK still a democracy?
Click to expand...


OK, another lie.

Here is what really happened: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyn24p3e5ro

He made multiple posts on multiple social media outlets, it seems the facebook post was the one that got him into trouble. It was:

"He admitted sending a message that was grossly offensive, or of indecent, obscene or menacing character by means of a public electronic communications network and was sentenced to 12 weeks in jail.

The court heard the father-of-one had nine previous convictions for 13 offences.
Kate Hunter, defending, said Thompson apologised and "certainly says he won’t be repeating this mistake again".
Of the criminal post and emojis, Ms Hunter said: "His version is that that comment relates to police, not to anything else."

So yet another made up bit that makes those making the lie seem malicious and those parroting it less than DISCERNING.

Please fact check. You are better than this.
 
If they're going to lock people up for formenting violence by spreading hateful lies on X, Elon Musk should be one of them.
 
NatMorton said:
The Brits have a long way to go before they understand personal liberty.
Click to expand...

This response made me think of Klaatu’s farewell monologue in the sci-fi classic, The Day the Earth Stood Still.


“I am leaving soon, and you will forgive me if I speak bluntly. The universe grows smaller every day, and the threat of aggression by any group, anywhere, can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure. Now, this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly.”
 
Bok Tuklo said:
This response made me think of Klaatu’s farewell monologue in the sci-fi classic, The Day the Earth Stood Still.


“I am leaving soon, and you will forgive me if I speak bluntly. The universe grows smaller every day, and the threat of aggression by any group, anywhere, can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure. Now, this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly.”
Click to expand...
Complete bullshit. Supporting free speech for inoffensive language is easy. The test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when you find speech offensive, and UK is failing that test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Unsure which is worse at this point, and it should be a discussion. European liberalism going too far in the determination of what speech via social media means, or the alternative in conservatism continuing to push the idea that hate speech and incitement speech is somehow free speech.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Unsure which is worse at this point, and it should be a discussion. European liberalism going too far in the determination of what speech via social media means, or the alternative in conservatism continuing to push the idea that hate speech and incitement speech is somehow free speech.
Click to expand...
Why should hate speech be banned?
 
NatMorton said:
Why should hate speech be banned?
Click to expand...

I would assume because it promotes ignorance, hatred, and on a long enough timeline violence. Even a causal review of history would confirm for anyone rational that the premise is true.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I would assume because it promotes ignorance, hatred, and on a long enough timeline violence. Even a causal review of history would confirm for anyone rational that the premise is true.
Click to expand...
Many hateful things about Donald Trump and his supporters are said on this site. Should DP users who post such statements be arrested?
 
NatMorton said:
Many hateful things about Donald Trump and his supporters are said on this site. Should DP users who post such statements be arrested?
Click to expand...

The define for us how insulting Trump became equivalent to defining a race by violence or encouraging violence towards the police. What I am putting stress on is your proposal comes off as false equivalency to make some absolutism point. Where is the absolutism on calling Trump "Lord Cheeto" equivalent to posting a generalization that all black people are violent?

(I am saying all this in the context of what this thread is about, in the posts made that got these guys inside of a courtroom.)
 
OrphanSlug said:
Unsure which is worse at this point, and it should be a discussion. European liberalism going too far in the determination of what speech via social media means, or the alternative in conservatism continuing to push the idea that hate speech and incitement speech is somehow free speech.
Click to expand...
There's a happy medium in there for sure, and I lean to more free speech than less, but do not favor speech that incites of promotes violence. There's plenty of nuance here though.
 
ElChupacabra said:
There's a happy medium in there for sure, and I lean to more free speech than less, but do not favor speech that incites of promotes violence. There's plenty of nuance here though.
Click to expand...

That is something else worthy of discussion, going from false equivalency as a means to argue false dilemma. If we determine that hate speech promotes violence (which is historically true,) then we need to do at least something to deal with that speech even if the conservative view is some false dilemma that everything must be free speech or nothing is.
 
The law in the UK isn't the law in the US.
Incitement to violence and incitement to racism are both crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom