Man Charged Over Offensive Facebook Post [Britain]
44 replies, posted
[quote]
[B]A man from Lancashire has been charged with making an offensive post on Facebook about missing five-year-old April Jones.[/B]
-------
Police are still searching for April, who was last seen in Machynlleth, Powys, Wales, on Monday.
Matthew Wood, 20, of Eaves Lane, Chorley, is [I][B]accused of sending a public electronic communication which is grossly offensive.[/B][/I]
He is in custody and will appear before Chorley Magistrates' Court on Monday.
Mr Wood, who was arrested on Saturday, has been charged under section 127 of the Communications Act.
Hundreds have taken part in a procession and church service for April at St Peter's Church in Machynlleth.
Mark Bridger, 46, has been charged with murder, child abduction and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
==================================================================
Source:
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19863228[/URL]
[/quote]
[quote]
Communications Act 2003
§127 - Improper use of public electronic communications network
[quote][B]1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—[/B]
[quote](a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.[/quote][/quote]
[quote][B]2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—[/B]
[quote](a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.[/quote][/quote]
[quote][B]3)[/B] A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.[/quote]
[quote]Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).[/quote]
===================================================================
Source:
[url]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127[/url]
[/quote]
Not sure how I feel about this..
It should be down to Facebook banning him, not for the police to arrest him.
I guess he done goofed.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Dumb meme reply" - postal))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;37959019]It should be down to Facebook banning him, not for the police to arrest him.[/QUOTE]
Everyone understands this but a few European governments apparently.
i'm sick of these trolls being arrested. why don't we just arrest everybody that says nasty things huh
What was the point of the Britain tag? We would all know where this happened by the title alone.
[quote]Hundreds have taken part in a procession and church service for April at St Peter's Church in Machynlleth.
Mark Bridger, 46, has been charged with murder, child abduction and attempting to pervert the course of justice.[/quote]
These two lines sort of threw me off as to what was happening for a moment.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37959045]i'm sick of these trolls being arrested. why don't we just arrest everybody that says nasty things huh[/QUOTE]
Bubblewrap everything.
[QUOTE=Benlecyborg;37959017]What was the post?[/QUOTE]
[quote]“Who in their right mind would abduct a ginger kid?”[/quote]
[quote]Others stated “I love April Jones” and “Could have just started the greatest Facebook argument ever. April Fools, Who Wants Maddie?”[/quote]
[quote]“I woke up this morning in the back of a transit van with two beautiful little girls, I found April in a hopeless place.”[/quote]
[url]http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/in-depth/april_jones/2012/10/08/man-admist-making-sick-jokes-about-april-jones-on-facebook-55578-31992741/[/url]
What they charged him with simplifies to being an asshole on the internet
i'm all for free speech as much as anyone else
what others have to realise is that it means exactly what it says. you can't say you're a free country that allows people to express their opinions and views so long as you agree with them. no doubt what he said was tasteless, but he shouldn't have been arrested for it and it's a farce that he was.
give the guy a microphone, put him on a stage and call him Frankie Boyle, and nobody would have gave a shit
Oh cmon he was clearly fucking joking.
This is rather unusual but I don't see why people act that surprised; I'm pretty sure that you'd get arrested if you texted somebody something grossly offensive or made threatening phone calls as well. Just because typical internet trolls get away with message of similar qualities anonymously it isn't automatically OK to do it everywhere.
EDIT: Alright, those comments seems sort of harmless to be honest, or at least not warranting an arrest. But if they are "jokes" referring to an actual case of child abuse there is definitely cause for concern at least.
If anything, the very worst he should receive is a fine.
Not an arrest.
apparently they have lost the right to make rude jokes.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;37959163]This is rather unusual but I don't see why people act that surprised; I'm pretty sure that you'd get arrested if you texted somebody something grossly offensive or made threatening phone calls as well. Just because typical internet trolls get away with message of similar qualities anonymously it isn't automatically OK to do it everywhere.
EDIT: Alright, those comments seems sort of harmless to be honest, or at least not warranting an arrest. But if they are "jokes" referring to an actual case of child abuse there is definitely cause for concern at least.[/QUOTE]
i'd be serving a life sentence if i was to be arrested for sending "sick jokes"
the thing about a joke is, it can be very subjective. what's funny to one, may not be to another. but that doesn't make it a criminal offence. or shouldn't, rather
Freedom of speech isn't a binary case where any form of communication is sacred. This is why we don't allow death threats, and sue for slander.
What matters is the context in which it was said. As brought up in this thread, a comedian would not be arrested. A comedian is clearly joking. Intent is key; this man may have been trying specifically to cause pain to others, and that will probably be brought up to be determined in whatever trials may come from this.
Freedom of speech should exclude freedom from being offended. As long as no threats/defamations are made I don't see a problem with people being offensive.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;37959230]Freedom of speech isn't a black and white case where any form of communication is sacred. This is why we don't allow death threats, and sue for slander.
What matters is the context in which it was said. As brought up in this thread, a comedian would not be arrested. A comedian is clearly joking. Intent is key; this man may have been trying specifically to cause pain to others, and that will probably be brought up to be determined in whatever trials may come from this.[/QUOTE]
having read the posts he made, i'd say it's safe to assume they were jokes. unless he specifically sent them to the family of the girl, which it doesn't seem he did, then he's done nothing wrong.
this man is clearly a danger to society and should be rehabilitated before he seriously harms someone/something with his internet posts
:downs:
Execute him.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;37959230]Freedom of speech isn't a binary case where any form of communication is sacred. This is why we don't allow death threats, and sue for slander.
What matters is the context in which it was said. As brought up in this thread, a comedian would not be arrested. A comedian is clearly joking. Intent is key; this man may have been trying specifically to cause pain to others, and that will probably be brought up to be determined in whatever trials may come from this.[/QUOTE]
Putting a man in jail over the typical asinine bullshit posted on Facebook is a waste of everyone's time and taxpayer money.
I honestly think freedom of speech [i]should[/i] be a binary case where any form of communication is sacred. I should be able to call someone a fucking retard without ending up in court over it, simple as that...and just the same the person that's aimed at should be allowed to call me a prick without ending up in court, too.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37959323]I honestly think freedom of speech [i]should[/i] be a binary case where any form of communication is sacred. I should be able to call someone a fucking retard without ending up in court over it, simple as that...and just the same the person that's aimed at should be allowed to call me a prick without ending up in court, too.[/QUOTE]
Well, there's still threats of assault, slander, and libel. There's obviously some level where it's falling outside your freedom of speech, but this case feels like it should have been protected. He didn't threaten to commit a crime, say anything bad about any specific person, just a joke that could almost qualify as hate speech if it wasn't so asinine.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37959323]Putting a man in jail over the typical asinine bullshit posted on Facebook is a waste of everyone's time and taxpayer money.
I honestly think freedom of speech [i]should[/i] be a binary case where any form of communication is sacred. I should be able to call someone a fucking retard without ending up in court over it, simple as that...and just the same the person that's aimed at should be allowed to call me a prick without ending up in court, too.[/QUOTE]
I think it needs to be a bit more than that. I think that the only thing that should be limited are direct threats and cases of extreme harassment.
I don't understand why anyone cares about this girl, people are quite happy for they taxes to go to weapons of war, but a middle class white girl goes missing? Call the militia!
It strikes me as pretty disturbing that someone can be arrested just for saying/posting something
Sure the case is a tragedy but I still don't think anyone should get arrested just for saying something no matter how "offensive" it is. There is a ton of shit on Sickipedia about it
The internet is serious business.
More serious even than civil liberties.
What the fuck is happening, since when people's feelings are to be protected by legal means?
[QUOTE=Benlecyborg;37959017]What was the post?[/QUOTE]
"Queens a skank"
it was a joke about april jones wasn't it
[editline]8th October 2012[/editline]
yes as it says in the article heh
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
