People arrested for speech on Twitter: United Kingdom

[Skavau]

Copied from General Political Discussion due to lack of responses:

This sort of thing is beginning to concern me. I thought I'd put here because I am after a bigger discussion than just discussing the event in News & Current Events.

Link

A 21-year-old man has been charged with racially abusing ex-footballer Stan Collymore on Twitter.

Police said Joshua Cryer, of Jesmond, Newcastle, was charged with "a Section Five racial public order offence and a Section Five public order offence".

I get it. Racism is bad. Abuse is bad. Twitter should have banned the guy if Stan Collymore reported him to them (presumably he did) - but the idea of responding with the police is deeply concerning. Not least because it is effectively free speech (however vulgar) but because it sets a dangerous precedent.

Does that mean if someone on this forum here from the United Kingdom insults me through private message or even in public that I should forward it to the police here and have them arrested for harassing me? Can people get arrested on twitter for making religiously controversial statements or statements against religion? I cannot see this as anything but a massive totalitarian overstep with a disproportionate legal response.

The force began an investigation in the early hours of Saturday after receiving a complaint of racist comments that had been made on Twitter.

The police took action in the early hours on some "internet tough guy". This kind of action seems to be a complete joke for what it is. Do you guys not think the police should be doing something more important than following up a report on some smart mouthed kid on the internet?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, by US standards, this censorship would be unacceptable...but I'm not familiar enough with British law to know whether or not they have a Bill of Rights similar to ours.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm ok with this. I find the US understanding of freedom of speech to be too strong. Personally verbally abusing someone is different from freedom of speech. If you aren't allow to incite people to physically harm others then why should you be allowed to mentally harm someone? Does not being allowed to harm black people in protest affect my freedom of protest and liberty?

 

[AtheistVet]

Because you can't control or measure someone's mental harm. I think preachers mentally harm people, should I throw them all in jail? Mentally harmful speech and ideas can only be combated by opposing speech and ideas.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Its okay to arrest bigots as long as what I believe isn't considered bigotry.

First they came for the loud mouth guy on twitter...

 

[The Nihilist]

As I understand it, this is completely in line with British law.

 

[Verv]

Well, it is clear: British law is wrong.

They arrested someone for essentially being a racist, when everyone has a right to believe what they want without fear of the Police coming and getting them.

This is a violation of basic human rights.

I'm ok with this. I find the US understanding of freedom of speech to be too strong. Personally verbally abusing someone is different from freedom of speech. If you aren't allow to incite people to physically harm others then why should you be allowed to mentally harm someone? Does not being allowed to harm black people in protest affect my freedom of protest and liberty?

Wait... How did he harm him?

So it should be illegal for me to be... mean?

Look... Words are hot air. If we treat them as if they can be malicious and harmful, then, well, we are being foolish.

Barring a few examples (Fire in a crowded theater type stuff) free speech should be pretty much universally legal, and one of the few things we can entirely depend on in a democratic society.

 

[The Nihilist]

Well, it is clear: British law is wrong.

They arrested someone for essentially being a racist, when everyone has a right to believe what they want without fear of the Police coming and getting them.

This is a violation of basic human rights.



Wait... How did he harm him?

So it should be illegal for me to be... mean?

Look... Words are hot air. If we treat them as if they can be malicious and harmful, then, well, we are being foolish.

Barring a few examples (Fire in a crowded theater type stuff) free speech should be pretty much universally legal, and one of the few things we can entirely depend on in a democratic society.

I agree with you that it's inappropriate, but I don't have a firm enough grasp on British law to really be able to say much more than that. If you're curious, here's more info:

Freedom of speech by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm ok with this. I find the US understanding of freedom of speech to be too strong. Personally verbally abusing someone is different from freedom of speech. If you aren't allow to incite people to physically harm others then why should you be allowed to mentally harm someone? Does not being allowed to harm black people in protest affect my freedom of protest and liberty?

While it would be nice to find a perfect balance, everyone has a different sensitivity to words so trying to legislate that would be nearly impossible.

Some people are offended if someone tells them they don't like their cooking.

Trying to find a balance between the ultra thick skinned and the ultra sensitive would be a nightmare so that's why many of us are of the opinion that free speech is just that, free. People can say whatever they want, the people who don't like it can plug their ears

I know it's kind of a harsh stance, but I never like the idea of making laws that based on a few people being over sensitive. It starts with a person claiming they're offended by words, and ends with a scenario like we had in the 80's where musicians had to go before congress and explain their "explicit language that was corrupting the youth"...I rather we not have to revisit that embarrassing moment in US history. We had Iran-Contra going on and our senate was meeting about whether or not Prince was breaking the law with his Purple Rain album

 

[Skavau]

I'm ok with this. I find the US understanding of freedom of speech to be too strong. Personally verbally abusing someone is different from freedom of speech. If you aren't allow to incite people to physically harm others then why should you be allowed to mentally harm someone? Does not being allowed to harm black people in protest affect my freedom of protest and liberty?

So does this mean you think that I should have the right to report every insult on the internet to the police?

You think people should get charged just for insulting people on webforums? Do you not see the possibility for abuse or bad precedent that it sets?

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not for random insults being illegal. I'm more against things like harassment and bullying. The type that is constantly trying to mentally harm someone over a long period of time. If someone commits suicide because of bullying then the bullies are to some degree responsible for that person death. Words may be 'just words' but would you disagree that words can make ones life rather hellish? Is there no some difference between words who purpose is simply to harm and words that are meant to be protected by freedom of speech?

If someone want to make a speech about how Muslims are scum and shouldn't be allowed in our country then maybe that should be allowed. If that same person then goes on to verbally abuse a Muslim I think that is something very different.

Do you really want to argue that mental harm isn't as bad as physical harm? Do you want to be on the side of those that simply tell the depressed to pull themselves together and stop being weak?

 

[Psudopod]

Freedom of speech in Britain is pretty bad, particularly in terms of libel law. I don't think that a police response is appropriate for this sort of thing. A ban, if it is against Twitter's terms of agreement, or an internet smack down from people pointing out he's a nasty little whatsit. Ignoring him would probably be the best response. If it spiral up to harressment or actual assult, that's when you call in the police.

 

[Skavau]

I'm not for random insults being illegal.

To my knowledge (as I'm not sure his content was made apparent) all the racist did was post some nasty racial comments on Stan Collymore's profile and unless he was extremely knowledgable at computers he would have unable to do much else to Stan Collymore once he was banned from Twitter.

the I'm more against things like harassment and bullying. The type that is constantly trying to mentally harm someone over a long period of time.

I don't think this happened in the OP. In the context of the internet harassment would be someone trying to get their targets real life information and/or smearing them across the internet. Nothing like this happened at all here.

If someone commits suicide because of bullying then the bullies are to some degree responsible for that person death. Words may be 'just words' but would you disagree that words can make ones life rather hellish?

Yes, but they are words and free speech in my eyes is non-negotiable. Sometimes me being an anti-theist can offend people and indeed I have recieved infractions on this website for literally expressing my opinion on the matter. If someone found my words deeply distressing and personally insulting would they be within rights to report me to the police? Where is the line drawn?

Is there no some difference between words who purpose is simply to harm and words that are meant to be protected by freedom of speech?

There is a difference and the former can often be confused with the latter by those easily offended. Some people with controversial and eccentric opinions are presumed to be deliberately stirring the pot or trying to insult when often they aren't.

Additionally, what about hateful comments done in the name of humour?

If someone want to make a speech about how Muslims are scum and shouldn't be allowed in our country then maybe that should be allowed. If that same person then goes on to verbally abuse a Muslim I think that is something very different.

Depends on the context.

Do you really want to argue that mental harm isn't as bad as physical harm? Do you want to be on the side of those that simply tell the depressed to pull themselves together and stop being weak?

This isn't about taking sides at all. It is about defending free speech.