It’s not just pissed tweeters – the police went after england’s ex-captain as well.

John “shagger” Terry is due to stand trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on July 9 accused of a racially-aggravated public order offence – shouting an offensive comment at Anton Ferdinand.
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/28/article-1267388635804-087E9B0A000005DC-532590_636x482.jpg

How can they jail Stacy and not every other maladjusted big mouth?

Why? Because the people demanded that anyone saying owt they find offensive on twitter and Facebook ought to be sent to jail. The police ain’t exactly scouring both mediums looking for racist tweets, they’re being forwarded em by ‘concerned citizens’. Since they’re also a piece of piss to prosecute in the courts it becomes a no-brainer for our ever keen and not at all lazy police force.

What have happened to the syntax of the title? Where are it?

@ 3 David

“What have happened to the syntax of the title? Where are it?”

It’s technically correct, I think; in that sentence the police could be considered either a group of individuals or a single force, so “is” and “are” are both acceptable. However, it does read very uncomfortably. Just as annoying is “the proof will be in the pudding”.

Regarding the actual content, I agree with Paul. This seems far too minor for a jail sentence or criminal offence, and disapproval from the tweeter’s friends will hopefully have some effect on his behaviour without ruining his life over an evening’s minor stupidity.

I would consider it a different case if he sent the messages directly to either or both of the Ashley’s but if he wrote something on his own page then it shouldn’t be a matter for the police and I agree that his friends making it well known that said author is a dick is a fitting punishment.

That being said you can’t really be that surprised given the response in the Stacey case. It’s an over-reaction but it’s consistent. The police are digging themselves a hole though since the internet is full of comments like this and they will have their work cut out to arrest everyone.

The problem we have with defending free speech (in a polity which has no real protection for it) is that we often find ourselves having to defend people we wouldn’t give house-room to.

However, it is in those very cases that our commitment to the notion of freedom of speech is demonstrated; if we don’t defend it in the ‘unpopular’ cases, then we are in danger of allowing the already-existing restrictions to be expanded. The creation of laws against ‘hate speech’ may have been well-intentioned originally, but they have undergone the same function creep which we have seen in relation to the Criminal Records Bureau and the Sex Offenders’ Register (to name but two of many examples).

What has also happened (as seen in the Stacey case) is that these instances are all too often being reported not by the intended recipients (if any), but by third-party busybodies claiming to feel outraged on behalf of others.

(Incidentally, in that case the conduct of Swansea University towards Stacey afterwards was every bit as asinine and vicious as that of the courts: see here)

Put at its briefest, unless speech (oral or written) is clearly intended to incite criminal action of some sort, then the police, CPS and courts should butt out of it.

And even in the cases where there is incitement of some sort, imprisonment is seldom, if ever, appropriate. Only in the last week we have seen yet another judicial over-reaction in a Facebook/riot case, with a young man from Hampshire given three years. And this at a time when people who kill by dangerous, reckless or drunken driving can count themselves unlucky to get much more than that.

There’s a good piece on a contingent matter (the Chambers Twitter case) here.

This is clearly different from the Stacey case. Stacey was convicted of a racially aggravated public order offence on the basis of the people who he sent racist personal replies to (*not* for the original crass tweet about Luamba).

Just saying racist things isn’t illegal, much as the Daily Mail and the BNP would like to claim POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GORN MAD otherwise.

As far as “police are investigating” goes, well, yes, that’s what they do; if somebody makes a police complaint about something, they still have to establish the facts and whether there is in fact a case, rather than just telling the complainant to get lost without following it up at all.

The complainant in this case would, admittedly, be well advised to grow the fuck up. Much like the accused, indeed…

What’s the difference between “a racially aggravated public order offence” and “just saying racist things”?

[7] whatever label the law decided to apply to Stacey’s behaviour it is now one that can equally be applied to god knows how many others (probably hundreds of thousands).

It is clearly a disgrace that a perfectly good cell is being wasted for such utter nonsense – Stacey may have made some deeply unpleasant remarks but are they different to some of the name calling that exists between religious groups for example?

John b @7: This is my piece, cross-posted fromy my blog, but not my headline, which is Sunny’s. The title is wholly misleading as it suggests I’m questioning the police’s decision to investigate, while in fact the whole piece is about whether the CPS should carry through a prosecution. This is an unfortunate conflation.

You are quite right that the police hav a duty to respond to the complainant.

Vimothy: in layman’s terms, it’s the difference between saying “Those sooties can’t play football” and “Oi, Bob, you are a darkie cunt”.

(but the other way round, obviously)

@ 11 john b

So what’s the deciding factor: that the comment is directed at an individual or that it contains a swear word?

Combination of the two. Swearing isn’t required, but the menacing character of the message would be easier to establish in the event of swearing, particularly when combined with threats of violence. Similarly, directing your message at someone personally is a good way of establishing it as a threat rather than an opinion, although isn’t necessarily required.

@ 14

Cheers, that’s useful clarification.

The creation of laws against ‘hate speech’ may have been well-intentioned originally, but they have undergone the same function creep which we have seen in relation to the Criminal Records Bureau and the Sex Offenders’ Register (to name but two of many examples).

They have also, ironically, been used against those who urged us to adopt them – religious groups suddenly discovering the rules which prevent them from legitimate criticism now find they can’t publicly hate homosexuals, etc.

Even if you think free speech should be limited the notion that jail – rather than a fine, or just banning someone from Twitter for violating their own standards of behaviour – is such a massively disproportionate response.

Prison is the maximum penalty we give anyone for any crime in this country – only the duration varies. Prison should be reserved for the most dangerous elements in the country, not the most annoying.

Apart from the obvious human costs of an excessive punishment the economics of a prison-based justice system are staggering. How many millions do we want to spend incarcerating Twatters?

Shatterface: that’s always been the case: from the introduction of incitement to racial hatred in the Race Relations Act 1976 onwards, convictions of non-white individuals have always far exceeded convictions of white individuals.

For reasons that are entirely obvious to anyone who’s ever read any research into the police and court system, police and courts were always far happier to prosecute Black Power and Muslim cranks under the legislation than they were to prosecute white bigots.

“. How many millions do we want to spend incarcerating Twatters?”

Leaving aside the issue of whether we think the law should be changed, the punishment almost certainly should be. 2 months in jail or 12 months of 2 evenings a week doing community service on projects specifically aimed at tackling racism?

For example, force the likes of liam stacey to spend their time working in a hostel for homeless people in an area predominately populated by BME groups. Not really a contest.

18. John B

For reasons that are entirely obvious to anyone who’s ever read any research into the police and court system, police and courts were always far happier to prosecute Black Power and Muslim cranks under the legislation than they were to prosecute white bigots.

Because their comments are usually more unguarded and openly offensive? Not to mention that nice middle class people don’t say racist things in public, even if they think them, and so are less likely to be arrested?

Planeshift

Leaving aside the issue of whether we think the law should be changed, the punishment almost certainly should be. 2 months in jail or 12 months of 2 evenings a week doing community service on projects specifically aimed at tackling racism?

Or, and here’s a wild thought, we just don’t prosecute people for mere words at all.

For example, force the likes of liam stacey to spend their time working in a hostel for homeless people in an area predominately populated by BME groups. Not really a contest.

I know a British medical student. Idealistic. Young. Naive. Volunteered to work in a remote Australian Aboriginal community. Came back a lot less idealistic and naive. In fact a confirmed believer that perhaps that Enoch Powell was on to something (despite, I should point out, the colour of her own skin). I am not sure that being abused by homeless people will endear anyone to them. Although he might look at the rarity of South Asian homeless people and draw his own non-PC conclusions.

@ 20 SMFS

“Or, and here’s a wild thought, we just don’t prosecute people for mere words at all.”

So if a big bloke comes up to an old lady in the street, says “give me your purse or I’ll bash your face in”, and thus gets said purse, that’s ok because it’s “mere words”?

I imagine you and I stand in roughly the same place when it comes to prosecuting people for being offensive, but it’s not as easy as just saying speech should be non-prosecutable.

“Or, and here’s a wild thought, we just don’t prosecute people for mere words at all.”

Here’s another wild thought. Read what people are saying, specifically the bit: “Leaving aside the issue of whether we think the law should be changed”

Also, and at the risk of indulging in ‘whataboutary’, I think we have to consider that in the grand scheme of things, the CPS prosecuting twitting twats for racism is pretty low down on the threats to free speech. I’m simply not going to lose sleep over it.

There is of course a far bigger threat to free expression, and it is not coming from politically correct lefties. It is coming from Britain’s libel laws and the aggressive nature that some firms have in using them to stiffle criticism. Another example today here involving our old friends schillings:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18595023

We also have a similar example where A4E threatened bloggers over criticism of its conduct in operating the work programme, and numeorus other examples over recent years.

So lets get our priorities right here.

Three points:

1)The State, in the form of immigration controls, policing and having the political and ideological might to racialize people is the biggest racist around. So asking or supporting the State to ‘fight racism’, in the weak form of a tweet (come on people, a tweet) is absurd.

2)This has a profound impact on the nature of free speech. Either its free, or it isnt, so free speech includes the right to say racialist things. Look how the discourse on offensive speech/behaviour has expanded to hassle that kid in yorkshire for saying some unpleasant things about soldiers.

3)Twitter is an unusal item. This isnt the same as a person on the street standing on a soap box racially abusing passers by. You dont have to be on twitter, you can block people on it, you dont even have to hear the abuse if you dont want to. Therefore, any arguments based on harrassment which draws paraells with the actually existing world are bunk. Theres a debate to be had if you cannot go and enjoy your local park because a gang of racialists are always there and make it unpleasent through their racialist speech. However, everyone can use twitter and dodge the unpleasantries if they want to.