Keyboard warriors - will the jail sentences deter others?

Some people re-tweeted things that they agreed with or believed to be true.
It’s something that’s run away from us and the authorities and has to be run better by the owners of the site who also have to make members aware of all the pitfalls.

The severity of the punishment handed out was surely because it wasn't a case of free speech, but of encitement - and how easy it is to make bullets for those who have little to fire at those who have even less. Incitement should be a criminal offence; it has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with causing the maximun amount of distress from a safe distance.

Margs

I think we are pretty close to having the parameters of what we may and may not post set arbitrarily by some faceless regulatory body that will not be accountable in anyway.

Big Brother is watching us alright. True, social media is an absolute uncontrolled Wild West, but scrutiny and censorship can easily take us to the opposite extreme. Witness North Korea, China, Russia - people are picked off and 'disappear' for expressing their thoughts.

This isn't going to happen.
We all have to obey laws, and there are already laws with regard to hate speech and inciting violence. Or would you prefer for these laws to be relaxed in order to allow true freedom of speech, which would also allow Islamic terrorist groups to spew their hate speech freely thereby inciting violence?
Where would you draw the line?
I am happy that there are laws regarding this and don't believe that in protecting the public like this we are going to end up like Northern Korea or China.

I know the online safety act that Maerion posted about above was only in 2023, but prior to and since that a number of people have been imprisoned for hate crimes, and I guess it doesn’t matter how the hate was expressed - it person, written or online, the offence is the same.
As you say, it’s easy to be wise after the event though - which brings it back to my initial pondering about whether imprisonment fir these offences now would act as a deterrent to future keyboard warriors. At least in future they won’t be able to say they didn’t know it was an offence.

Just wondering who is 'germanshepherdmum'?
Bizarre.

True, Casdon it’s a terrible shock to be jailed, especially if you had no idea that jail time was a possibility for what you’d done.I would say most of the country up to now had no idea that could happen.Which is why I consider it unfair really.

As described above by Maerion, the Online Safety Laws were drafted and passed by the then government in 2023. Not new

They are not enforced by some "faceless big brother" making us into China or North Korea, I believe these claims are completely out of proportion to what is happening and what we actually have.

Where was the outcry when they were passed in 2023? There wasn't one

The laws are investigated by the police and enforced by our own judiciary

A great deal of the concerns for parliament in 2023 were

one, online safety for young people,

and secondly, the appalling increase in the most horrible online threats for people either in positions of power or otherwise prominent in the public eye. Very violent, very frightening, and of course include

People used to write nasty letters or shout threats - now we have for example not just politicians, but anyone (like the bizarre example of a breakdancer at the Olympics who a group of people decided they didn't like representing their country 💁💁 -real violence).

It's now become clear they are essential as a tool - used properly - to prosecute those fomenting hatred and violence against groups within the population.

It's just bee brought him to us very clearly that some - perhaps many -think it's fine to foment racial hatred, foment violence and rioting, and carelessly suggest bombs in mosques. And as Casdon said, never thought they would be caught (and probably didnt know the 2023 act.)

Well, they do now and I am very glad to have the laws protections, as I said, used appropriately.

When people are asked what they consider our UK values are, an answer given is often "decency".

Well, lets hold ourselves to this.

Wyllow3

As described above by Maerion, the Online Safety Laws were drafted and passed by the then government in 2023. Not new

They are not enforced by some "faceless big brother" making us into China or North Korea, I believe these claims are completely out of proportion to what is happening and what we actually have.

Where was the outcry when they were passed in 2023? There wasn't one

The laws are investigated by the police and enforced by our own judiciary

A great deal of the concerns for parliament in 2023 were

one, online safety for young people,

and secondly, the appalling increase in the most horrible online threats for people either in positions of power or otherwise prominent in the public eye. Very violent, very frightening, and of course include

People used to write nasty letters or shout threats - now we have for example not just politicians, but anyone (like the bizarre example of a breakdancer at the Olympics who a group of people decided they didn't like representing their country 💁💁 -real violence).

It's now become clear they are essential as a tool - used properly - to prosecute those fomenting hatred and violence against groups within the population.

It's just bee brought him to us very clearly that some - perhaps many -think it's fine to foment racial hatred, foment violence and rioting, and carelessly suggest bombs in mosques. And as Casdon said, never thought they would be caught (and probably didnt know the 2023 act.)

Well, they do now and I am very glad to have the laws protections, as I said, used appropriately.

When people are asked what they consider our UK values are, an answer given is often "decency".

Well, lets hold ourselves to this.

Well said.

I very much doubt that anyone knew about the online safety law brought in just last year.I will be totally honest and say I didn’t.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives us freedom of expression but makes it clear that the exercise of these freedoms carries with it duties and responsibilities which may be subject to restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of [such matters as] national security, territorial disorder or crime ….

To say that nobody had any idea that they could go to prison as there were no warnings is not true.

Laws on what constitutes an offence against the person have been in force for hundreds of years. Lay people may not be able to quote legal chapter and verse but know what is right and wrong. What the jailed woman posted online was wrong. There is no question of that.

The Malicious Communications Acts has been in force since 1988. It makes plain that anyone who sends a communication either by letter or electronic medium which is indecent or grossly offensive to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person is guilty of an offence which carries a custodial sentence of up to two years.

One regional constabulary alone receives around 10,000 complaints about malicious communication every year. Those that reach the courts have been dealt with by custodial sentence, fines or community service depending on the severity of the crime.

Earlier this year, a man was jailed for eleven months for sending malicious communications to an MP. It was in the national news. The police officer who lead the investigation said:

My message to anyone who is considering sending abusive or threatening messages is quite simply do not do it.

In any event, ignorantia legis neminem excusat "ignorance of law excuses no one", is an ancient legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.

Oreo

True, Casdon it’s a terrible shock to be jailed, especially if you had no idea that jail time was a possibility for what you’d done.I would say most of the country up to now had no idea that could happen.Which is why I consider it unfair really.

I think that all those impacted by the riots, the asylum seekers almost locked inside a burning building, small businesses left picking up the pieces, police men/women attacked, and communities left reeling, felt it was grossly unfair that keyboard warriors safe and comfortable in their own homes incited the rioters to do this.
I believe their sense of unfairness trumps that of those who orchestrated this.

Er actually lots of us talked about it and about issues relating to freedom of speech. If I remember rightly did the lib dems not oppose it. I will be honest and say I dont pay enormous attention to the lib dems but someone else may remember.

Well, that’s one warning only for the case you mention and I didn’t see it or hear about it and would bet that most people didn’t, so that hardly worked as a warning.
It’s obvious that not knowing about this law didn’t save anyone from a prison sentence.The law can sometimes be an ass tho.
In this latest case I think it has been.Just my view, nobody has to think the same.
Cleaning up graffiti and mess in the town centre and hitting the pockets with a big fine would be my solution.I thought the prisons were full? Hmmm, obvs not the case.For a first offence of this kind prison seems OTT.

I can only find it was opposed by some Conservatives Galaxy, I couldn't find an answer for Lib Dems.

www.parliament.uk/business/news/2023/january-2023/lords-scrutinises-online-safety-bill/

Those is the full details of the passage of the bill, but what struck me on a squick scan through was again and again concerns for children - ie age appropriate materials, protection against suicide sites, and so on.

I am sure the lib dems were quite weird about it, particularly re safeguards for children but I may be libelling them

I do find it interesting the shift between left and right, it used to be the right who wanted to control speech, all the parental advisory lyrics in the eighties, and now it is the left who seek control. I dont mean re the riots particularly, just in general.

Wyllow I presume that’s because it was partly driven by the death of Molly Russell?

Oreo

Doodledog you can believe what you like, as can we all.
I continue to believe that saying awful things on SM such as the mosque quote or others should be dealt with by other means than a prison sentence.A hefty fine and community service would have fitted the bill. If a prison sentence is considered to be needed then the general population should be aware beforehand that if they write awful things for all to see then they may actually go to prison.
Nobody had any idea up to now that it could happen as there were no warnings.That’s why I think these measures were draconian and unfair.For years people had written all sorts of dark things and tho I agree that for some things there have to be consequences, people have to know ahead of time about the consequences.

I'm not really arguing with that. As I have explained, I was questioning was how the people who started the lies could have done so without malice, which is what you claimed was happening.

If we jailed people for passing on memes and slogans that have been fed to them online there would be no cells for criminals . I'd like to think that at least some people might be more careful having seen the consequences, but I doubt it. On the whole, people like that talk to one another anyway, because of algorithms and who we choose to follow online. They are the footsoldiers - it's the people starting the rumours and misinformation who are to blame, and as you kindly say, I can (and will) continue to think that they should be locked up.

I do wonder. And have mentioned this before.
Swap the photo of the woman who did this for a person of colour, same age, same sex, but Muslim, and the venue not a mosque but a church.
Again this will be a first offence, and the woman had no idea it was against the law.
I wonder how many will then suggest community service because a prison sentence is unfair?
Just because the woman in the photo is white and fairly old, perhaps a bit like one of us, doesn’t mean she should be given more latitude.
The law applies to everyone.

People will just get angrier, as they can see hope not hate not being 'punished' and Wes Streeting in the cabinet.

Galaxy

Er actually lots of us talked about it and about issues relating to freedom of speech. If I remember rightly did the lib dems not oppose it. I will be honest and say I dont pay enormous attention to the lib dems but someone else may remember.

There's a difference between free speech and incitement.

In the UK, I am free (for example) to give my view about God and Christianity, which might offend some people, but that's totally different from inciting people to attack churches or shoot people leaving a church service.

I agree with you Babs03.

No one wants to talk about the elephant in the room - immigration. Totally wrong to riot and attack police but to suppress and send people to jail with draconian sentences that are greater than other more serious crimes is against fair play. The government ran scared and will not discuss the underlying issues.

Babs03

I do wonder. And have mentioned this before.
Swap the photo of the woman who did this for a person of colour, same age, same sex, but Muslim, and the venue not a mosque but a church.
Again this will be a first offence, and the woman had no idea it was against the law.
I wonder how many will then suggest community service because a prison sentence is unfair?
Just because the woman in the photo is white and fairly old, perhaps a bit like one of us, doesn’t mean she should be given more latitude.
The law applies to everyone.

Agreed. That would be a 'two tier' system, wouldn't it?

No. Babs03
If you showed me a picture of a woman of different ethnicity who had done the same thing, I would still question whether prison was the correct punishment.
Though I’d still come up with the same it’s a deterrent to remind people what will happen.