Issues of hate speech/slander aside, the comments weren't made anonymously, they were made under a pseudonym. If he wanted to express himself anonymously he should of gone to 4Chan, but he instead decided to leave his comments in a place where the community that knew the individual could see and react to it.
Don't shit where you eat.
A pseudonym is simply one step from using your own name, it still identifies an entity rather than nullifying an identity.
As for being fined... fuck knows. He wasn't doing anything of worth and given we weren't sat in court watching, we don't know how he conducted himself before the magistrate. Piss off a judge and they will fuck with you.
The premise is that it should not have gone to court in the first place. The Communications Act can fuck off. It's illiberal, outdated and invasive. You can actually be arrested for being rude to someone on Reddit under an alias. This is major overreach and it doesn't look good for the Uk. It's going to continue getting worse.
The fact that people are actually OK with this sort of thing is very telling of our worldwide culture at the moment.
People are totally fine with government suppressing freedom of speech and encroaching in other aspects of their life.
That is such a completely foreign frame of mind to me. It's crazy. But whatever floats peoples boats.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - General James Mattis
Trolling is the antithesis to "freedom of speech". Especially when its done anonymously with racist comments.
Its sad that "common decency" such as slurring the dead has to be legislated, but I am 100% fine with the way this was done. (except perhaps the "intelligence gathering" is a little scary)
Because these people are short sighted, ignorant, and frankly dumb.
They have no concept of precedent.
I've been trying to school liberals on every one of Obama's unconstitutional actions, every one of his EO's that goes way beyond the scope of the Executive Branch, and every one of his misuse of federal powers.
People simply don't give a shit because its "their side" doing the act.
But what they fail to realize, in their short sighting ignorance, is that Obama wont be King forever.
Every precedent he sets can be utilized by another President ...another REPUBLICAN President.
But then they'll care, oh my how they will QQ, but it will be too fucking late at that point.
This pure fetish level masturbatory thrill people get from cheering on anything and everything from "their side" especially when its flat out fucking wrong is a prime example of why we need to seriously re-examine voting privileges.
MAGA
When all you do is WIN WIN WIN
So, what? All racial comments should carry some kind of punishment by the state? What about sexist comments? Homophobic? Ableist?
How far do you want to take this?
It's disturbing that you're content with our police doing shit like this. How many people do you want to arrest for what they say?Its sad that "common decency" such as slurring the dead has to be legislated, but I am 100% fine with the way this was done. (except perhaps the "intelligence gathering" is a little scary)
It doesn't explicitly say he was charged under the Communications Act (though the articles phrasing suggests it), but if he was, yes, you're right, that is an overreach issue. The problem is Parliament has failed for many years to put in place any proper legislation relating to the internet, so they use older laws used for other forms of media. Bare in mind that this appears to be brought about by the police and isn't technically anything to do with the government and having been tried he has failed to defend his position, rights or phrasing. Maybe his lawyer is the issue and not the conviction.
About 3 years ago I remember another case where a guy, should I say bloke, tweeted at a local airport and was charged and convicted for threatening them.
Just looked to link an article and found he appealed and won.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-19009344
He shouldn't have to defend his position. It doesn't matter how right, wrong, offensive, stupid it was. Why this is going to get worse is because the UK public (including some people in here, as you'll witness) don't care about this. Some even approve of it. Approval of this kind of authoritarian behaviour is even higher amongst the general public. It used to just effect Twitter and Facebook, and for me that was containment of sorts (I don't really use either) but this will set a precedent - you can post with a pseudonym on Reddit, and you could still be charged. Reddit will (apparently) hand your details over. This is going to get worse.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, albeit this isn't quite the same. This wasn't a joke - this was his opinion. He's also lost.
If I recall he managed to get Stephen Fry's backing also. That helped a lot.
He used a trigger word and there is legislation against hate speech, so yes, if he got called on it, he did need to defend himself.
Part of the problem you will have in convincing people of your standpoint is that a lot of people don't care for obnoxious behaviour. I haven't seen the resulting comments his Facebook page was reportedly inundated with (and caused him to lose his job), but do you feel that was legal behaviour as well?
Kinda fucked up especially since the kid is dead and can't have his feelings hurt.
Also police in the US should prob start using "died after becoming unwell in the custody of police officers".
It was demanded that he defend himself. I say he should not have had to do so. He made a racial remark. Literature can include racist societies. Comedy can be racist. Video Games can be racist. Music can be racist. All of them can also be sexist, homophobic, ableist etc.
This is a cultural issue. In America, almost all corners of society would defend his right to free speech. We don't have that kind of tradition here.Part of the problem you will have in convincing people of your standpoint is that a lot of people don't care for obnoxious behaviour. I haven't seen the resulting comments his Facebook page was reportedly inundated with (and caused him to lose his job), but do you feel that was legal behaviour as well?
Do I feel what was legal behaviour? Him losing his job over it?
His comments can't be compared to any kind of art form as it wasn't art, it was opinion. Maybe if he'd been witty... /shrug
Well... I say that but then there is Gazza's current predicament.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b05d7913704678
Not so much him losing his job as the comments posted by people on his Facebook page that caused him to be fired.
Art gets a free pass? Why? Consistency should be key here. Should making a racial joke as a stand up comedian be banned? A joke about women? A joke about gay people? A joke about disabled people? Is South Park, with all that it offers somehow /better/, more /legal/ than what this random guy said on Reddit?
Yes, that was as bad. These are two very disturbing things that have happened in a short period of time. We're clearly becoming very authoritarian on this. It should disturb social libertarians.Well... I say that but then there is Gazza's current predicament.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b05d7913704678
Not so much him losing his job as the comments posted by people on his Facebook page that caused him to be fired.