UK Student Charged For 'Grossly Offensive' Facebook Post

from the fighting-for-the-right-to-not-be-offended? dept

Just in case anyone needed another reminder that Britain's "Free Speech" laws are more about what's not included than what is, a UK citizen has just been found guilty of "sending a grossly offensive communication," a crime under the Malicious Communications Act of 1988.

Azher Ahmed posted a message on his Facebook page in response to the news that six British soldiers had died in an Afghanistan IED attack. His message was as follows:
People gassin about the deaths of Soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed. The women who have been raped. The children who have been sliced up! Your enemy's were the Taliban not innocent harmful familys.

All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE F****N SCUM! Gotta problem. Go cry at your soldiers grave and wish him hell because that's where he is going.
Recognizing the fact that the UK does not have the same sort of free speech protection that the US does, it's still somewhat troubling that a Facebook post of this nature is considered a criminal act. The message is ugly and completely devoid of sensitivity (or logic), but is it so offensive as to be a criminal offense? The district court certainly believes it is.

A lot of terminology was used by both parties in an attempt to draw the line between what's acceptable and what's arrestable. Ahmed felt the message was "distressing" but not "offensive." The judge said his remark was "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory."

The comment could certainly be considered all of the above, but pursuing cases like this in an effort to keep the public from being distressed or offended is an exercise in futility. There's no shortage of statements people find offensive, but the defining line is subjective. There's no true baseline for "offensive," and yet the judicial system somehow believes "offensiveness" can be objectively determined and enforced.

This puts the judicial system in the position of forming opinions on behalf of its citizens. Ahmed himself met with plenty of opposing opinion soon after posting his message. As his account of the event shows, the "court of public opinion" had already rendered a verdict.
Ahmed told the court he immediately started to receive critical comments on his page and realised the second half of his post was "unacceptable".

Ahmed told the court he was only trying to make the point that many other deaths in Afghanistan were being ignored. He said he had no idea it would cause so much upset and as soon as he realised what reaction it was having he deleted it.
When someone deletes a post because of negative comments, the system has already worked. This doesn't excuse the person writing the post, but in Ahmed's case, he'd already received plenty of feedback on the "wrongness" of his opinion, and acted on the feedback.
Ahmed said: "I didn't intend to insult them at the time.

"When I read back on it, that's when I realised I had actually insulted and upset a lot of people."

He said he replied with apologies to many people who commented on his page and when some told him they had lost relatives in Afghanistan he realised how serious it was.

"That's when I realised it was unacceptable for them to see something so upsetting and distressing, to write something like that," he added.
Including the demonstrations at his court appearances, derogatory Facebook pages and threats being made against his employer as well as against an unrelated "Azhar," it seems almost redundant for a court to step in a render a verdict. The severe limits imposed on speech in an effort to protect people from "offensive messages" has had enough of a chilling effect that most UK-hosted articles dealing with this court case have their comments shut off. (Comments are available on this editorial at The Guardian, but the thread appears to be heavily moderated.)

Enforcing a national "niceness" is an impossibility, but its unintended consequences include criminalizing the most basic human trait of all: stupidity. The general population already has very effective ways of dealing with those who are "stupid in public," especially those who are "stupid on the internet." Despite the fact that the law was conceived to deal with a digital age, at no point does it seem to have been crafted to deal with nuances like opinion, emotion or venue. It only encourages citizens to engage the legal system every time they've been offended.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Mesonoxian Eve (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 3:27am

    Remember! Remember! The 4th of November.

    LOL. Such a great movie.

    But you know, Tim, you need to realize the UK is still (pretending to be a) democracy. Obviously the citizens have no problem with this law, so where's the issue?

    1010 End Sarcasm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 3:36am

    Pointing out that many innocent men, women and children have been murdered by allied forces in Afghanistan is grossly offensive?

    I guess the truth hurts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Tim Griffiths (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:14am

      Re:

      I don't think any one is arguing that's what was offensive in his post. Or at lest I hope they are not, it's bad enough as a reminder I live in a place that only have a pretence to free speech because we don't have the balls to have to deal with actual free speech.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:32am

        Re: Re:

        Well, you have to remember the valuable lesson we've learned from our cousins across the pond - if you feel the slightest bit hard done-by, litigate!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Eponymous, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 7:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Where do you think we derived our legal system from, also who's the one with the crazy "free speech" and "defamation" laws, hint it's that island y'all rent from that old lady.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:18am

      Re:

      It's not that part of the post that was seen as problematic: it's the last part.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Zakida Paul (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:56am

        Re: Re:

        That is still protected by freedom of speech (or should be).

        Free speech is there to protect unpopular or 'offensive' speech. It's not like he threatened to kill anyone or incited racial violence.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Tim Griffiths (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's the second part that is not only not protected under UK law but is seen as a crime. Which is what is so batshit crazy about our free speech laws.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            ethorad (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 7:50am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Turns out we don't have "free speech" laws, but free "speech laws" ... we were given some opressive laws without having to pay for them*

            *financially I mean, obviously we pay for the with our liberty

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          UK doens't have a lot of the free speech protections us americans (supposedly) have.

          Now turn your inflated dick around and shove it up your self righteous ass.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 8:03am

          Re: Re: Re:

          OH, sure, he just said that all the soldiers in Afghanistan were rotting in hell...to families of soldiers.

          Now that the sarcasm's out fo the way, I actually agree with you: however, Crony Bliar instituted this as part of his "anti-hate speech" concept. And as usual, it did little to actually stop what it was targetted against and lots against foreigners saying stupid shit.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 3:50am

    So...

    Whom do I complain to when I find this ruling utterly offensive?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    York, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 4:01am

    The old saying

    "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me."

    We really need to stop teaching children this saying. It doesn't hold true in the 21st century.

    Stay off the social networks people. It's a trap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Milton Freewater, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 9:22am

      Re: The old saying

      "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me - We really need to stop teaching children this saying. It doesn't hold true in the 21st century."

      I disagree. It's just as true today. Truth doesn't have a date stamp.

      "Stay off the social networks people. It's a trap."

      Here you may be right. As long as superstitious, ignorant people believe that digital activity requires an entirely new set of morals and legal codes, we'll never be sure how to act online, and given that the whole world's watching, we're all at the mercy of the most superstitious of the lot.

      Fifty years from now, anti-digital hysteria will be studied in schools. Now we just have to live through it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Sean T Henry (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 11:19am

      Re: The old saying

      "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me."

      I believe the updated version goes like this "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can let me sue you."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:18pm

      Re: The old saying

      Agreed. It should be "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but chains and whips excite me", just like Rihanna said.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 4:11am

    I get offended whenever a politician opens their mouth

    I get offended whenever a politician opens their mouth, can we put them in jail?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 4:15am

    You know...

    I gotta wonder...

    Why do countries such as the UK continue to pretend that they're not trying to dominate everything in their citizen's lives?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 4:24am

    Hmm...does bob live in the UK? Everything he posts offends me...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 4:56am

    I do hope they have shitloads of vacant space on their jails. They are gonna need it. Everybody has their moment of saying, writing something that makes them look like complete arseholes. I have these moments, Mike has these moments, bob has these moments (although they are much more frequent). The fact is we are human, we commit mistakes and often can't grasp that something said can be "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory."

    We are, however, capable of apologizing or explaining what was our intention when saying something that had such not intended effect (well, maybe in exception of bob). So he deleted his post and apologized to many people and still got jailed and got his life destroyed. Tell me how does this help to diminish the hatred? Answer: it doesn't. It seems but some sort of modern linguistics inquisition we are living in. When have we started devolving like this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Andrew (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 4:59am

    I find this extremely worrying. Quite apart from the right not to be offended enshrined in the Act (and also in the Communications Act 2003 127 (1)), which is very concerning, these laws don't seem to distinguish between communications directed at a particular individual and those put out into the public sphere.

    Posting a message saying "I'm going to kill you" on a blog, or even something hateful like "kill all [insert your favourite minority here]", is clearly going to be perceived as less of a threat than if the message were sent directly to members of that community. The law should reflect that, but, as with the Chambers Twitter joke trial, it doesn't appear to make that distinction. There seems to be a real danger that provocative and controversial reporting could fall foul of this Act - was yesterday's #muslimrage Newsweek article "grossly offensive", for example?

    I'm also a little concerned that someone may find my defence of distasteful speech, as in this case, grossly offensive and file suit against me. That is not a good place for a legal system to be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:14am

    Social engineering

    This ruling is meant to be a scare tactic, to intimidate people into speaking in a particular manner approved by big brother. All the more reason why people need to be more concerned with the ever-increasing surveillance systems.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tim Griffiths (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:17am

    Posted while drinking tea

    The British, we'd like to have free speech but are afraid of how awfully impolite it can be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Titania Bonham-Smythe (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:02am

    Notice that he said "All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL!" - he's not even directing his comment at one group of soldiers - he comes across as a clumsy pacifist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:06am

    Waving my naughty bits at your aunties!

    My fear is that we are stumbling into a world where we treat troops like a protected minority...

    Surely if the speech were that dangerous all insurgents and opposing forces everywhere would need to do is deploy English speaking denizens with megaphones to say awful things like "I fart in your general direction!"

    Still, its nice to know that British authorities aren't so overwhelmed with dealing with the serious crime of piracy, that they can occasionally attend to the other most important crime of the 21st century - saying unpleasant things on the internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 8:05am

      Re: Waving my naughty bits at your aunties!

      The simple fact is that the armiesw are simply doing their job. Even if we disagree that there is a job to do. There's a corollary to the Hillsbrough incident and the actions of the higher-up polkice there were absolutely reprehensible. But if I called for them to be shot for betraying the uniform, then it could reasonably be argued that I was threatening them. And that, sadly, is a criminal offense over here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        The dude, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 8:10am

        Re: Re: Waving my naughty bits at your aunties!

        Do you mean like " I was only following orders" ?
        This argument didn't hold water before.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 8:25am

          Re: Re: Re: Waving my naughty bits at your aunties!

          Apparently it does now. I have a friend who was in the Air Force, I was visiting her awhile back and noticed she had a giant stuffed teddy bear. So I asked about it, she then told me the name of the bear. I forget what it was, but it was the name of one U.S. soldier who had ordered soldiers in his command to essentially ambush and fire on Iraqi police forces as retribution for something or other. Or was it women and children? I forget.

          She said that all the soldiers used the "I was only following orders" defense and were summarily pardoned for their actions. But the Captain or Sergeant (forget his rank) who ordered the soldiers to do that didn't get away scott free.

          At which point I couldn't help but start laughing uncontrollably and she didn't get why, so she inquired about my laughter. I told her it was hilariously hypocritical for U.S. soldiers to shoot upon Iraqi people as retribution and then use the "I was only following orders" defense, which was summarily dismissed as "unacceptable" about sixty years ago when the Nazis used it. Which she still didn't get. I then had to explain it to her. Basically, it's not okay to use that excuse when you're anyone but the U.S., which she found offensive and quickly changed the conversation. (Some people don't like the hypocrisy of the U.S. to be pointed out. I also went off pointing out how the majority of dictators and whatnot that we've had problems with were all originally put in power by the U.S. to replace others who wouldn't kowtow to what we wanted them to do/say.)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            The dude, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 8:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Waving my naughty bits at your aunties!

            Well, this is called "humans as usual"; in fact we humans always do it, "it's different in my case",

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 10:05am

          Re: Re: Re: Waving my naughty bits at your aunties!

          No. I can respect the job they have to do whilst reviling their actions in the negative.

          See also: Abu Ghraib as an example of actions that should be reviled. I have a number of current-and-ex military friends who went and served in Afghanistan who also do not agree that they should not be out there right now. It is one of those things for which I have no easy answer.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            The dude, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 10:14am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Waving my naughty bits at your aunties!

            If they think that they are being part of something wrong why don't they quit?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 3:25pm

        Re: Re: Waving my naughty bits at your aunties!

        I can see how problematic that could be given that your citizenry are not allowed guns.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:08am

    Middle Age

    Russia: have PUSSY RIOT trial,
    UK: Paul Chambers (Twitter joke about airport) and now
    this Azher Ahmed's case,
    In Muslim countries they are rioting because of movie...
    In US they are going Julian Assange.

    The world is going back to the dark Middle Ages

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      cows, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 11:29am

      Re: Middle Age

      I wish! I remember when germ warfare was easy and common, just have the soldiers shit on rotting cow (other creatures will work) bodies then send the whole mess over the wall with a catapult.

      Aah the good old days I can't wait.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 3:26pm

      Re: Middle Age

      Our governments are whipping the populace into a frenzy for the coming (it's already here) crusade.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:58pm

      Re: Middle Age

      Kinda like on "Revolution". Good show. Rather reminiscent of "Jericho" with a little "Postman" thrown in.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:08am

    There are others of us who believe that the terms "offensive, "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory" do not adequately express proper contempt for the action of a group of nut cases organized in to a band of roaming kill crazies whose hole life is devoted to the occupation of beat the hell out of, kill and mangle, other lands and people just for the fun and hell of it.

    Wait, can not say that because it is a proper description of what the west is doing in Afghanistan.

    This rulings like this from piss ant despots shows why the US Constitution has a First Amendment. At one time we had a know it all group of idiots trash despots here too. Ups, they still exist here but are now restrained some what by the First Amendment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:10am

    "The message is ugly and completely devoid of sensitivity (or logic)"

    Seems pretty logical to me. The soldiers were sent to fight the Taliban, but instead they're killing innocent people. And he's pissed about that. As anyone should be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 7:39am

    "The trial continues.."

    The link in your article states that "a UK citizen has just been found guilty", yet the Telegraph article to which it links ends with the statement "The trial continues."

    So as offensive as his remarks are, cooler heads might yet prevail and acquit him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Duke (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:51pm

      Re: "The trial continues.."

      BBC is reporting that he was convicted on the 14th. He doesn't seem to have been sentenced yet.

      There's still the chance of him appealing, though; as with the Paul Chambers case (eventually acquitted) sometimes crazy things can happen in the lower courts of the UK criminal justice system. But don't worry, the government is fixing this by drastically reducing the legal/financial support provided to defendants.

      *sigh*

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ethorad (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 7:57am

    Where is Voltaire when we need him?

    It's at times like this Voltaire must be turning in his grave. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    (I know, he apparently didn't actually say that but, hey, go and eat cake)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The dude, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 7:58am

    Free speech

    Didn't you get the memo?
    Free speech is only acceptable if you think the same as the other sheeple.
    https://www.facebook.com/AzharAhmedScum/info (being this one a nice example), free speech is only an illusion.
    The funny thing is, you have 2 sides trying to shut you up;
    the politicians, and the butthurt politically correct cocksuckers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 8:34am

    Considering the number of civilians that are harmed or killed at the hands of soldiers, accidentally or otherwise, I find it more offensive when media and citizens downplay their suffering in any discussion of war. But if they're poor and brown they don't matter, right?

    Fine: this guy overstated his case, but I get where he is coming from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Another Muslim, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 9:22am

    So than is the offensive muslim movie banned

    So then, under this same act, has the UK asked Youtube to ban the porn movie that is causing violence in the middle east and other place, or does this law flow one way. "Thats different" excuse?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 3:28pm

      Re: So than is the offensive muslim movie banned

      porn movie? did I miss the memo?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:34pm

      Re: So than is the offensive muslim movie banned

      The only thing causing violence are the people committing the violence. An excuse is an excuse no matter what you wrap it in.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rob (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 9:42am

    devoid of logic?

    The message is ugly and completely devoid of sensitivity (or logic)


    Yes, it is ugly and insensitive, his second paragraph was completely unnecessary and over the line, but what do you mean by devoid of logic? The low estimates are over 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003, that's the "safe guess" number, many sources report over half a million. These are civilians, the same as the 3,000 civilians who died on 9/11. Not to desparage the lives of the victims of 911, but the tragedy of this war is so much deeper, and while we arrogantly have our 911 memorial vigils every year and mindlessly buy bumper stickers and coffee mugs that say "Never Forget" and "Freedom!", the hundreds of thousands of brown people we have snuffed out don't get a second thought, hell they don't even get a first thought because the average American has ZERO CLUE how many innocent people we've slaughtered to avenge the deaths of those 3,000.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 10:40am

      Re: devoid of logic?

      Absolutely. You said it!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dirkmaster (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 12:38pm

      Re: devoid of logic?

      But isn't it true that every insurgent, every terrorist, every member of the Taliban and such are CIVILIANS? We're not at war with a country. We are at war with an idea. In the war against an idea, ALL are civilians.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 10:46am

    I wouldn't worry about the free speech of the u.s.a. if things continue as they have been it will be just as real as pink flying elephants soon enough.

    All that thanks to our inglorious leaderS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 11:21am

    Jurisdiction

    > Enforcing a national "niceness" is an
    > impossibility, but its unintended consequences
    > include criminalizing the most basic human
    > trait of all: stupidity.

    And even if such a niceness policy could be implemented and enforced, it would still be pointless as it could only be enforced within the borders of the UK. Someone else on Facebook from another country could easily write the same thing, and offend the same people, with impunity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 11:29am

    and if...

    What if this statment was about the Taliban and not soldiers, would it still be offensive? Would he still be in the same amount of trouble.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 11:42am

    I am dumb.

    Whatis the difference? Yes, one isin Arabic and one is in English but really what is the difference?

    Egypt court sentences Copt for insulting Islam, leader

    Published September 18, 2012

    Associated Press
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/18/egypt-court-sentences-copt-for-insulting-islam-leader /

    CAIRO A court in southern Egypt has sentenced a Coptic Christian teacher to six years in prison for posting on his Facebook page drawings that it ruled insulted Islam's Prophet Muhammad and comments deemed an affront to the country's president.

    The state news agency said the court .................

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/18/egypt-court-sentences-copt-for-insulting-islam-leader/#ixzz2 6qdwt8gK

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Austin (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 12:23pm

    Really?

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think this asshat deserves jail either, but none of you see the issue here?

    Let me give you a hint. You see that part AFTER his line break? Yeah, that second half? That's pretty god damn offensive. I mean, I'm not in the military, I have no family in the military, and I'm not even British (I'm from Alabama, heh) but even I find that second half offensive.

    Now that isn't to say I think this dipshit should go to jail for it. On the contrary, they should conscript his ass into the SAS and drop him in the middle of Kabul with nothing but a sidearm with 2 bullets and a helmet camera and tell him "You have 1 hour to make it to the airport or we leave your ass here. Good luck." That way the punishment fits the crime AND we get some good TV out of it. Win-win.

    But in any case, while I agree that this isn't jail-worthy, let's all have some context here. We can all agree that killing innocent civilians is as much, and maybe even more, of a tragedy than the death of soldiers. However, when you make it this personal, like he did in the second half of his post, you go from something that makes good sense to insensitive prick pretty quickly. This is almost as offensive as a facebook post can possibly be, folks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The dude (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 12:38pm

      Re: Really?

      "maybe even more, of a tragedy than the death of soldiers"
      Maybe?
      I'm gonna ask you again the day when some uniformed lunatic shoots you down without a reason and plays dumd saying it whas just his job, and then expects to return home and be celebrated as a hero for his "bravery"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 3:52pm

      Re: Really?

      not jail worthy, you would however, gladly send him to his death. Wow, just wow!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:28pm

      Re: Really?

      Mmm. I got you wrong. Go back to your hole in 'bama and watch some real tv. Context contorted by you. Fail-fail.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:55pm

      Re: Really?

      Some people find taking God's name in vain offensive too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:10pm

    At what point does something go from being offensive to being grossly offensive? How grossly is grossly?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Andre (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:11pm

    "Malicious Communications Act 1988" - An Act to make provision for the punishment of persons who send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety.

    Guess the average Briton would sulk in fear upon hearing American Rap Music. According to what I take from the "Malicious Communications Act," this was seemingly enacted to protect individual citizens from unsolicited harassment, which makes sense.

    Similar to today's Kate Middleton injunction, the British and their European buddies apparently spin laws so as to protect politicians, royalty and the military. How is this effectively different than Saudi Arabian and laws?

    History shows that all nations, no matter their political pursusions, are likely at some point to come under tyrannical and brutish rule. That's a hard fact. How does the British propose citizens rally support for an insurrection, if one is warranted, against tyrannical governments if comments such as this are banned? Like the article states, if everyone else think such a comment is asinine, then it ends there. If Libyans didn't discuss how they felt about Gaddafi and his regime, there couldn't have been an uprising. British high society would likly suggest a respectfull letter written to the tyrannical regime stating concerns. And if they ignore, disincline, or worse?

    Well, at least no one beats the British in histrionics when evidence of genocides are uncovered. Got to give them that!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    tk, Nov 13th, 2012 @ 10:36am

    Idiots the guy should be legit to say fuck those embarrassing and law breaking troops in any way the choose put v vendetta on

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    sweete, Nov 13th, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Agree with you man

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    lolapaloe, Nov 13th, 2012 @ 10:43am

    The guy made opinion who cares many would agree anyways those idiots been shooting at ppl over useless

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This