Arrested and Convicted for Tweeting in the UK!!!

[Renegade]

I can't help but laugh at this stuff now. It's soooo out of control...

Some poor fellow has been ARRESTED and CONVICTED for blasting a politician on Twitter! 

http://www.dailymail...offensive-tweet.html

Clips below are selected to give you the quick version fast:

'Which c*** lives in a house like this. Answers on a postcard to #bexleycouncil.'

'It’s silly posting a picture of a house on Twitter without an address, that will come later. Please feel free to post actual s**t.'

John Graham Kerlan who blogs under the name Olly Cromwell, faces jail after Councillor Melvyn Seymour complained.

But last week he was convicted of making a grossly offensive and menacing comment on Twitter, thought to be towards Mr Seymour.

He has been handed a restraining order that ordered him:

• Not to own, operate or write on a website or social media any criticisms of Bexley Council
• Not to contact the victim directly or indirectly
• Not to write directly or indirectly about Bexley Councillors on any site
• Not to refer to the victim directly or indirectly on any site

Mr Kerlen, from Millwards, Essex, has been granted conditional bail until his sentencing on May 9. He could receive a custodial sentence of up to six months in jail.

A spokesman for Bexley Council said: 'The council is totally supportive of freedom of expression and political debate.

'The council is of the view that Kerlen's actions went beyond the limits of what is both acceptable and reasonable in terms of freedom of expression.'

That last part there is just hysterical!

"We support freedom of expression, just so long as you say things we like!"

I think the part of "freedom of expression/speech" that they didn't quite understand is that it's speech that you DO NOT LIKE that needs to be protected. This stuff isn't that difficult to understand.

NSFW and "illegal"

The "spokesman for Bexley Council" is obviously a retarded cunt.

[Ehtyar]

NSFW and "illegal"

The "spokesman for Bexley Council" is obviously a retarded cunt.

-Renegade (April 17, 2012, 12:08 AM)

Ehtyar.

[Redhat]

While outrageous, this is the tip of the iceberg.

Proposals for complete real-time accessible logging of all communications... secret trials.. "limits to freedom of speech".

I will leave this country once the net is monitored heavily.

P.S. please take any daily mail article with a nice pinch of salt!

[Ehtyar]

My hope is that any kind of significant widespread monitoring of the internet will serve to promote the use of SSL. Granted SSL is flawed, and will continue to get more expensive to implement until Microsoft wake the f**k up or IPv6 is fully deployed, but it should be sufficient to protect those of us who care (and thus keep one of our own eyes on the SSL certs and ciphers our browsers are accepting).

Ehtyar.

[4wd]

Not taking sides here, (because, quite frankly, I don't give a s**t), but how is this different from:

While standing in a street you point to a house and ask the person next to you, "Which c*** lives in a house like this.  Write the answer on a piece of paper and put it in his letterbox.", oblivious to the fact that both the owner of the property and a policeman are within earshot.

By inference you have called the owner of the property a c*** which could be marginally considered as slander.

[Renegade]

Not taking sides here, (because, quite frankly, I don't give a s**t), but how is this different from:

While standing in a street you point to a house and ask the person next to you, "Which c*** lives in a house like this.  Write the answer on a piece of paper and put it in his letterbox.", oblivious to the fact that both the owner of the property and a policeman are within earshot.

By inference you have called the owner of the property a c*** which could be marginally considered as slander.

-4wd (April 17, 2012, 07:26 PM)

It's very different.

First, tweeting is not analogous to putting a letter in someone's mailbox. A tweet isn't sent to a specific person - it is posted to your own account. A letter that is put in someone's mailbox is directed at them.

Second, the tweet was directed at a politician, who is a public figure. We have different standards there. Public figures are open to scrutiny in ways that private people are not.

I will leave this country once the net is monitored heavily.

-Redhat (April 17, 2012, 02:20 PM)

As an expat, I'm getting sick of being a second-class human, and can't wait to get back to Canada. Yeah, Canada has problems, but at least there I can DO something. Where I am now there is no human rights bill, and people have even fought against getting one. I was shocked to find that out. Here, you have no right to free speech.

I've been pulled into my bosses office because one (or two) of my staff visited some banned political sites, and he got a visit from the national intelligence agency.

I've had guards and police tell me that I can't film or record audio.

I just really want to get back to a place where it isn't illegal to say what you think, or to read what you want.

I'm not sure that leaving is the key or will help. I think you may be better off trying to change things where you are. Once you're in a country where you aren't a citizen, the rules change. You're a guest. You don't have the same kind of power that you do at home.

[4wd]

Not taking sides here, (because, quite frankly, I don't give a s**t), but how is this different from:

While standing in a street you point to a house and ask the person next to you, "Which c*** lives in a house like this.  Write the answer on a piece of paper and put it in his letterbox.", oblivious to the fact that both the owner of the property and a policeman are within earshot.

By inference you have called the owner of the property a c*** which could be marginally considered as slander.

-4wd (April 17, 2012, 07:26 PM)

It's very different.

First, tweeting is not analogous to putting a letter in someone's mailbox. A tweet isn't sent to a specific person - it is posted to your own account. A letter that is put in someone's mailbox is directed at them.

-Renegade (April 17, 2012, 07:40 PM)

In my example, you are not putting a letter in someone's letterbox - you are asking the public to do it.  The same could be said for the twitter post, you are asking a question in public and directing them to send the answer to the person targeted.

Second, the tweet was directed at a politician....

The tweet was directed at the public, (twitter is not a private Q & A forum), targeting the politician.  If it was directed at the politician, it would have been an email or a question posted in a public forum specifically asked of him.

We have different standards there. Public figures are open to scrutiny in ways that private people are not.

That may be so but the method used in this case of standing on a platform and shouting out, "That person is a c***!", really isn't the way to do it, (unless, of course, they deserved it and you're willing to accept the consequences of doing it that way).

What can I say, he got his 15 minutes of fame - why is he so unhappy.

[Renegade]

We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this. Oh well. To each his own.

That may be so but the method used in this case of standing on a platform and shouting out, "That person is a c***!", really isn't the way to do it, (unless, of course, they deserved it and you're willing to accept the consequences of doing it that way).

-4wd (April 17, 2012, 08:10 PM)

If that isn't the way to do it, then what is? Not a good road to go down. Who am I or who are you (or anyone else) to tell someone what they can and cannot say?

It's a derogatory metaphor. That's all. Given that it was directed at a politician, it's difficult to imagine that it wasn't very well deserved at an absolute minimum.

What can I say, he got his 15 minutes of fame - why is he so unhappy.

-4wd (April 17, 2012, 08:10 PM)

Well, being arrested for speech perhaps?

40hz is very articulate and well spoken. I, on the other hand, and from time to time, tend to just puke out venom. Quite often we end up saying more or less the same things.

Now, should I be arrested because I didn't say things "the right way"? This, to me, seems somewhat ridiculous.

[4wd]

We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this. Oh well. To each his own.

-Renegade (April 17, 2012, 08:49 PM)

You're right of course 

That may be so but the method used in this case of standing on a platform and shouting out, "That person is a c***!", really isn't the way to do it, (unless, of course, they deserved it and you're willing to accept the consequences of doing it that way).

-4wd (April 17, 2012, 08:10 PM)

If that isn't the way to do it, then what is? Not a good road to go down. Who am I or who are you (or anyone else) to tell someone what they can and cannot say?

The point I was making, (in my roundabout fashion), is that the word c*** is still considered an obscenity in quite a few countries and publicly inferring someone is one is likely to get you in trouble.

The correct non-obscene way would have been: 'Which vulva lives in a house like this. Answers on a postcard to #bexleycouncil.'

But, of course, probably close to half the population wouldn't know what that meant and the other half would have thought they read 'volvo' 

[Renegade]

We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this. Oh well. To each his own.

-Renegade (April 17, 2012, 08:49 PM)

You're right of course  

-4wd (April 17, 2012, 10:56 PM)

Hahahaha~! Pretty much. Explanation below...

The point I was making, (in my roundabout fashion), is that the word c*** is still considered an obscenity in quite a few countries and publicly inferring someone is one is likely to get you in trouble.

The correct non-obscene way would have been: 'Which vulva lives in a house like this. Answers on a postcard to #bexleycouncil.'

But, of course, probably close to half the population wouldn't know what that meant and the other half would have thought they read 'volvo'  

-4wd (April 17, 2012, 10:56 PM)

I see now what you mean.

We have fundamentally different ideas about what "obscenity" is.

Very often people interpret the commandment:

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

To mean:

NSFW due to VULGARITY

Saying any of:

Fuck, damn, shit, piss, cunt, etc.

(God's name isn't "fuck" or "shit". That just kind of seems obvious to me. )

Or using "Jesus Christ" or "God" in an ejaculation (it's a technical linguistic term), as in, "Oh, Jesus Christ!" or "Oh God!", do not violate the above commandment.

I don't take it that way. I take it that praying "in the name of the LORD thy God" for something vain, e.g. some trinket that you really don't need or cursing your neighbour to die, violates the commandment.

Consequently, I don't find, "F*** you!" to be violating that commandment, while I would find, "I hope that God strikes you dead," to violate it.

THE SHORT POINT

That's a round about way of saying that I do not find VULGAR language to be obscene.


What I *DO* find obscene is telling other people what they can and cannot believe or think or say.

So in this particular case, I don't find the tweet obscene, but find that his being punished/censored is the part that is obscene.

At the end of the day, we simply have very different ideas about what constitutes obscenity. I simply see vulgarity where you see obscenity.

[4wd]

I simply see vulgarity where you see obscenity.

-Renegade (April 17, 2012, 11:31 PM)

Not quite, I don't see anything as either vulgar or obscene - I don't care enough to regard something as anything more than what it is.  I'll quite happily use four letter words all day long but as soon as I hit public spaces the curse gland automatically turns off due to self-preservation instinct

All I was doing was presenting a different spin on events, ie. trying to see things as though from a different point of view rather than the one presented.  Something that had little to do with supposed political skulduggery.

AFAIAC, he was just plain stupid to phrase a statement like that in a public arena.

[Carol Haynes]

Not for the faint hearted or terribly sensitive

I find it totally hilarious that anyone thinks CUNT is any more or less offensive than the word VULVA!

There is a feminist movement now to reclaim words like cunt. In fact there was whole BBC programme about it a couple of years ago.

One question: why are terms like cunt and twat considered more offensive than balls, tosser or bollocks ?

In fact I really find it strange that people get so preoccupied with 'bad words'.

I have never used Twitter (can't really see the point) but I am now tempted to open an account and start tweeting about politicians. Anyone want to join me? Maybe we could start a global 'abuse a politician' day.

By the way good book to read:

"Filthy English - The How, Why, When and What of Everyday Swearing" by Peter Silverton. US Link.

It is cheered up bay a lovely book cover.

Or for people with a short attention span how about: http://www.amazon.co...n-2003/dp/B005O7G6N4

That can be my rant for the day - I feel better now!

P.S. please take any daily mail article with a nice pinch of salt!

-Redhat (April 17, 2012, 02:20 PM)

+1   (The Daily Mail is known to be written by whole load of lying c**ts and w***ers.)

[Renegade]

I simply see vulgarity where you see obscenity.

-Renegade (April 17, 2012, 11:31 PM)

Not quite, I don't see anything as either vulgar or obscene - I don't care enough to regard something as anything more than what it is.  I'll quite happily use four letter words all day long but as soon as I hit public spaces the curse gland automatically turns off due to self-preservation instinct

All I was doing was presenting a different spin on events, ie. trying to see things as though from a different point of view rather than the one presented.  Something that had little to do with supposed political skulduggery.

AFAIAC, he was just plain stupid to phrase a statement like that in a public arena.

-4wd (April 18, 2012, 03:03 AM)

Ah - sorry. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. My mouth can be pretty filthy, so that would just be icky~!

P.S. please take any daily mail article with a nice pinch of salt!

-Redhat (April 17, 2012, 02:20 PM)

+1  (The Daily Mail is known to be written by whole load of lying c**ts and w***ers.)

-Carol Haynes (April 18, 2012, 03:12 AM)

I've seen some twisted stuff in the Daily Mail, but I never read it until the last few months, so I'm not really sure I can comment on it other than to ask questions.

Have they been caught in many lies? (I suppose that's a bit of a stupid question -- which ones haven't?) Or are they all that much worse than the others, e.g. Guardian, Huffington Post, BBC, NYT, Washington Post, CNN, Fox, etc.?

[Carol Haynes]

The Daily Mail is very tabloid and very right wing biased (almost fascist in its attitudes) - you can't really take seriously any of their 'journalism'.

Think of it as a comic for people who can actually read, if you can't read then you probably just about cope with the Sun.

No comparison with the Guardian or BBC. Can't really comment on the US publications (though I gather Fox News doesn't have the greatest reputation for integrity).

To add to the dabate here is another Twitter Jail Sentence:

http://www.guardian....mp;CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

[Renegade]

The Daily Mail is very tabloid and very right wing biased (almost fascist in its attitudes) - you can't really take seriously any of their 'journalism'.

Think of it as a comic for people who can actually read, if you can't read then you probably just about cope with the Sun.

No comparison with the Guardian or BBC. Can't really comment on the US publications (though I gather Fox News doesn't have the greatest reputation for integrity).

-Carol Haynes (April 18, 2012, 04:17 AM)

I just about vomit any time I read the news now anyways. I've learned to basically reverse whatever they say, then that's probably closer to the truth. It's my "double-speak" filter.

I downloaded the Fox news app for my tablet... Oh god... It just about burned my eyes out. Did the same for CNN and suffered. The BBC is much better, but still stings.

To add to the dabate here is another Twitter Jail Sentence:

http://www.guardian....mp;CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

-Carol Haynes (April 18, 2012, 04:17 AM)

It... just... doesn't... stop...

I really don't care what people spout. They can spout all the trash they want. But making it criminal? I just can't get on board...

"I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done. "You committed this offence while you were drunk and it is clear you immediately regretted it. But you must learn how to handle your alcohol better."

I did find that a bit funny though~!

(Too bad the Guardian doesn't know how to use quote properly...)

, chief crown prosecutor for CPS Cymru-Wales, said: "Racist language is inappropriate in any setting and through any media. We hope this case will serve as a warning to anyone who may think that comments made online are somehow beyond the law."

(It's also too bad that they don't know how to start a sentence, or how to use commas properly... But enough of picking away at the inability of the press to write fluently in their own language... That... is another rant...)

While racism may be sickening, it is no less sickening that some neo-fascist, politically correct <insert vulgarity of choice here /> think that they can police people's thoughts and speech. "Serve as a warning to anyone..." Oh please. Self-righteous indignation is for feeble minds that can't articulate a coherent argument to prop up their religious <insert another vulgarity here />.

However:

Racist language is inappropriate in any setting and through any media.

Yes! Certainly! It *IS* disgusting, inappropriate, and feel free to insert as many vulgarities here as you will...

However, it isn't a crime.

Being an idiot isn't a crime.

Just because something is "immoral" or "naughty" doesn't mean that it must be "illegal" or punishable.

What's next? Throw 6-year olds in handcuffs and drag them down to the police station for throwing a temper tantrum? Ooops... We're already there...

Like seriously... Who are these pathetic cry babies that get so upset over some idiot spouting garbage?

The swiftness of the arrest demonstrates how seriously police are taking the posting of potentially criminal comments on social networking sites by so-called trolls.

Just got 2 words...

NSFW

Fucking lame.

[Carol Haynes]

(Too bad the Guardian doesn't know how to use quote properly...)

-Renegade (April 18, 2012, 05:47 AM)

(It's also too bad that they don't know how to start a sentence, or how to use commas properly... But enough of picking away at the inability of the press to write fluently in their own language... That... is another rant...)

-Renegade (April 18, 2012, 05:47 AM)

That's why the Guardian has the nickname the Grauniad !

[tomos]

To add to the dabate here is another Twitter Jail Sentence:

http://www.guardian....mp;CMP=FBCNETTXT9038
[Student jailed for racist Fabrice Muamba tweets]

-Carol Haynes (April 18, 2012, 04:17 AM)

a couple of related articles since then on the Guardian

Student who abused Fabrice Muamba on Twitter 'should not have been jailed'
Thomas Hammarberg, the European commissioner for human rights, calls Liam Stacey's 56-day sentence excessive

Don't jail tweeters – that's not where the real racist problem lies
The criminal justice system is targeting racist individuals while endemic discrimination in Britain is allowed to prosper