Keyboard warriors - will the jail sentences deter others?

ronib

Germanshepherdmum has posted under Chat!!

Which thread please???

Babs03

Try the shoe on the other foot.
If the woman was a Muslim calling for people in a church to be blown up or burned what would your response be?
And do we suppose that freedom of speech should extend to terrorist groups grooming recruits on the internet?
If someone can point out the difference out here I look forward to it.
Both groups are inciting hate crimes and should face imprisonment. No?

Yes, whoever is breaking our laws, irrespective of whom it is, should all be treated the same.

growstuff

I'm not convinced that a jail sentence will make Julie Sweeney realise the consequence of her "free speech". It would appear that she has a deeply held contempt for Muslims. She incited bombing, presumably because she doesn't see the lives of Muslim people as having any value. She wasn't just passing on (false) information she had read. It's more likely that she'll see herself as a victim, having being denied her "right to free speech". That's why I'd like her face up to what the consequences of her actions could have been - looking at people with burns injuries, speaking to people from an ordinary Muslim family and telling them to their faces that she wanted to bomb them. If the experience gives her nightmares, so what?

👏👏👏👏👏

Galaxy

Imagine a panel of Alistair Campbell, Brendan Cox and Owen Jones telling you how to think

Horror of Horrors. Do as I say or else its prison for you citizens.
Cox is the only one with any credibility.

Wyllow3

On I player newsfeed another example of prosecution involving social media:

Encouraging murder during unrest

In Liverpool, a 39-year-old man, whose case we mentioned earlier, has pleaded not guilty to intentionally encouraging murder and violent disorder between 28 July and 8 August....

.....Chris Taylor, prosecuting, confirmed to Judge Neil Flewitt at Liverpool Crown Court that "in simple terms" the suggestion was McIntyre was the administrator on an online group.

The judge has set 3 February as the provisional trial date and McIntyre will be remanded into custody until then.

No details of the group or its contents released as its sub judice, but the interest here is that he was admin to the group, as in "intentionally encouraging murder and violent disorder"

It sounds to me as though this guy has been a riot instigator, actively promoting a riot to multiple users, maybe on behalf of one of the far right groups, rather than a keyboard warrior putting their personal views about the riots forward. That’s much more serious if it is the case. I wonder if the police have managed to get access to peoples identities on Telegram yet?

Thanks for the clarification Maerion.

Cheshire Constabulary reported:

The 53-year-old was sentenced to 15 months after pleading guilty to sending communications threatening death or serious harm (S181 Online Safety Act 2023).

Section 181. Threatening communications offence

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person sends a message (see section 182)*,

(b) the message conveys a threat of death or serious harm, and

(c) at the time of sending it, the person—

(i) intended an individual encountering the message to fear that the threat would be carried out (whether or not by the person sending the message), or

(ii) was reckless as to whether an individual encountering the message would fear that the threat would be carried out (whether or not by the person sending the message).

(2)“Serious harm” means [inter alia]

serious injury amounting to grievous bodily harm within the meaning of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

The latter act includes: conspiring or soliciting to commit murder, threats to kill, causing gunpowder to explode … placing gunpowder near a building, with intent to do bodily injury to any person …

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents

* Section 182 discusses how messages are encountered and message sharing ...

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/182

... for example:

It does not matter whether the content of a message is created by the person who sends it (so for example, in the online context, an offence may be committed by a person who forwards another person’s direct message or shares another person’s post).

That wasn’t the case here, it was the convicted woman's own message, but it’s a warning to those who were sharing inciteful posts during recent events.

Her sentence may be specifically related to CPS guidelines on terrorism rather than "just" racial hatred.

guidelines are

"“The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.”

ie her alluding to a bomb.

Oreo

Doodledog

Oreo

I think it’s a question of who is putting out false info to start with? Was it done with malicious intent or not?

Can you explain how someone putting out false info can possibly be doing so without malicious intent?

It isn’t up to me to explain but wrong information can come from many sources as we all know.It’s easy to be taken in by something and I’ve seen it happen on several forums.
It’s believed and passed on as they think it’s genuine.In this case it was thought to be an asylum seeker.There may be no malicious intent in doing this.

There's no need to be defensive. I was asking about the people who put out the info in the first place, as you said, and just trying to understand your point of view.

IMO someone repeating false information having been taken in is in a different category from the person starting the rumour. I still don't understand what non-malicious motive there can be for making something up knowing that it will anger people, but if you don't want to explain, it's fine. I'll continue to believe that making up lies can only be malicious, and deserves harsher sentences than those blindly repeating tropes and memes without checking them out.

Iam64

We are close in thinking about this Growstuff. Forty years ago I worked in a probation area on a specialist project putting together packages for offenders as alternative to prison. Our prison system fails to rehabilitate. Having said that I’ve seen some men make huge progress on literacy numeracy schemes, something they’ve had pride in
I also agree there’s a risk this woman is seen as a martyr.
My older grandson and his partner made an offer on their first house. They viewed it in the middle of the riots, she was brought up Muslim, mum Burmese dad white British Muslim convert. She no longer follows her faith. Her name is Muslim. She is a mixed heritage beauty. There had been several offers on the house. They have my grandsons name both a bit anxious anti Muslim feeling heightened

My daughter has kept her own surname after marriage. Apparently, it's not the norm for Muslim women to adopt their husband's surname after marriage - my son-in-law's mother also kept her own maiden name. Even though my daughter looks European and has a very British-sounding surname, she has noticed in the eight years since she's been in a relationship with her husband that people sometimes treat him as an outsider. He was born in the UK, went to a Catholic primary school and the highest achieving independent school in Manchester, has a masters degree and a senior, well-paid job - but he still experiences racism, which is now being transferred to my daughter.

Julie Sweeney's excuse was that she was angry when she saw pictures of people clearing up the mosque in Southport. Believe you me, I'm angry that people like her are so bigoted and, quite frankly, ignorant. However, I would never incite people to harm her or all the many people who belong to the same demographic cohort as her.

Message withdrawn by GNHQ

There are currently 29 charged with online offences, it's hard to get specific information on sentencing, but one of the early ones was Tyler Kay,

Who was convicted after he used social media to call for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set alight - 38 months.

I imagine there is a lot of material being sifted through.

Oreo

Doodledog

Oreo

I think it’s a question of who is putting out false info to start with? Was it done with malicious intent or not?

Can you explain how someone putting out false info can possibly be doing so without malicious intent?

It isn’t up to me to explain but wrong information can come from many sources as we all know.It’s easy to be taken in by something and I’ve seen it happen on several forums.
It’s believed and passed on as they think it’s genuine.In this case it was thought to be an asylum seeker.There may be no malicious intent in doing this.

The person who allegedly first posted the misinformation has been arrested. Why would she even have thought the post was true? She has "form" for posting misinformation. I have no idea why she made something up, but she must have known that she has thousands of followers, who would have reposted it and the truth would get lost on the way. She had a reason for posting what she did.

We are close in thinking about this Growstuff. Forty years ago I worked in a probation area on a specialist project putting together packages for offenders as alternative to prison. Our prison system fails to rehabilitate. Having said that I’ve seen some men make huge progress on literacy numeracy schemes, something they’ve had pride in
I also agree there’s a risk this woman is seen as a martyr.
My older grandson and his partner made an offer on their first house. They viewed it in the middle of the riots, she was brought up Muslim, mum Burmese dad white British Muslim convert. She no longer follows her faith. Her name is Muslim. She is a mixed heritage beauty. There had been several offers on the house. They have my grandsons name both a bit anxious anti Muslim feeling heightened

Doodledog

Oreo

I think it’s a question of who is putting out false info to start with? Was it done with malicious intent or not?

Can you explain how someone putting out false info can possibly be doing so without malicious intent?

It isn’t up to me to explain but wrong information can come from many sources as we all know.It’s easy to be taken in by something and I’ve seen it happen on several forums.
It’s believed and passed on as they think it’s genuine.In this case it was thought to be an asylum seeker.There may be no malicious intent in doing this.

I take your point Iam64. I only put it forward as a suggestion because a) we all know that prisons are overcrowded and can barely cope b) I wondered if being faced with consequences might make this ghastly woman change her thinking because I don't think prison will and could well turn her into a martyr by "restricting her free speech" (according to some).

I've only ever spoken to one imam in my life, but I think he could very easily cope with this woman. It was at the time my daughter was married and he was very much aware of the negative views people have of Islam.

Restorative justice can help victims and offenders but I don’t see it as relevant with the burn people in the mosque woman. As others have said, her fixed negative, hostile views are unlikeky to change, whatever punishment she receives. Why should Muslim people be expected to expose themselves, physically and emotionally to this woman.
The outcomes from domestic abuse or sex offenders sent to therapeutic group work aren’t reassuring.
In the case of so called keyboard warriors inciting violence, their offence is far from non violent. Prison will protect the vulnerable is the riots recur. Harsh I know

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

MissAdventure

I don't think you can educate a mindset out of some people.

You can, however, make it clear that certain behaviours won't be tolerated.
By punishing them. By taking up their time. By restricting them.

I don't see why people are bulking at the idea.

I agree

Oreo

I think it’s a question of who is putting out false info to start with? Was it done with malicious intent or not?

Can you explain how someone putting out false info can possibly be doing so without malicious intent?

Nano14

MissAdventure

I don't think you can educate a mindset out of some people.

You can, however, make it clear that certain behaviours won't be tolerated.
By punishing them. By taking up their time. By restricting them.

I don't see why people are bulking at the idea.

I agree, there is no educating some people, I think the sentences are deserved and in my opinion will serve as a deterrent to others with the same mindset.

Well said both

MissAdventure

I don't think you can educate a mindset out of some people.

You can, however, make it clear that certain behaviours won't be tolerated.
By punishing them. By taking up their time. By restricting them.

I don't see why people are bulking at the idea.

I agree, there is no educating some people, I think the sentences are deserved and in my opinion will serve as a deterrent to others with the same mindset.

On I player newsfeed another example of prosecution involving social media:

Encouraging murder during unrest

In Liverpool, a 39-year-old man, whose case we mentioned earlier, has pleaded not guilty to intentionally encouraging murder and violent disorder between 28 July and 8 August....

.....Chris Taylor, prosecuting, confirmed to Judge Neil Flewitt at Liverpool Crown Court that "in simple terms" the suggestion was McIntyre was the administrator on an online group.

The judge has set 3 February as the provisional trial date and McIntyre will be remanded into custody until then.

No details of the group or its contents released as its sub judice, but the interest here is that he was admin to the group, as in "intentionally encouraging murder and violent disorder"

Try the shoe on the other foot.
If the woman was a Muslim calling for people in a church to be blown up or burned what would your response be?
And do we suppose that freedom of speech should extend to terrorist groups grooming recruits on the internet?
If someone can point out the difference out here I look forward to it.
Both groups are inciting hate crimes and should face imprisonment. No?