
Racist Twitter user jailed for 56 days - DanBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992
======
Karunamon
This boggles my mind, as a citizen of the USA who is used to having freedom of
speech.

1) It's a tweet (of all things)..

2) Which incites nothing, and is an expression of opinion

And the guy gets hauled off to jail for 2 months because of it? This is the
kind of behavior I'd expect from China, not an ostensibly first world nation!

*edit

I meant that literally, too. My mind simply ceases processing the
circumstances under which a completely harmless tweet, in a place like Great
Britain, can be grounds for legal action. I thought (mistakenly) that freedom
of speech was recognized a bit more with the US's allies.

~~~
freehunter
Even in the US, you can be sued civilly for hateful comments and jailed for
comments that could be construed as inviting or inciting violence.

I don't know the full story, the tweets are gone and the BBC didn't reproduce
them.

~~~
Locke1689
Do you have a source for your comments on civil law? As far as I know you can
be sued for defamation and harassment, but neither of those are simply
"hateful comments."

Also, "fighting words" is not simply inviting or inciting violence, it's
"those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an
immediate breach of the peace."

~~~
freehunter
All of those are a subset of hate speech. Inciting violence is not necessarily
under fighting words, it's a category of its own.

Here's the Wikipedia article on US hate speech, they call out specific forms
of hate speech which are illegal.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States>

~~~
Locke1689
First, you did not use the term hate speech, you used the term "hateful
comments," which do not legally have any connection.

Second, it seems that your own link reinforces exactly what I said. Inciting
violence is _not_ a crime in the United States. Incitement _to riot_ may be,
but this is not what you said. US law requires an immediate threat of violence
in order to censure speech outside of defamation and obscenity.

~~~
freehunter
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#Incitement_vs._f...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#Incitement_vs._fighting_words)

 _Incitement is a related doctrine, allowing the government to prohibit
advocacy of unlawful actions if the advocacy is both intended to and likely to
cause immediate breach of the peace._

You seem like you're reaching for something to argue about. "Yes, but you
didn't use the proper legal term!" You also seem to be confusing the statement
I made about civil suits vs what can be considered a crime. But, since two
people have been willing to argue semantics in what is obviously not legal
advice, I will say you must be right. I concede. Hateful comments could not
get you sued civilly and inciting violence is not the same as advocating a
breech of the peace. I guess.

------
p4lto
I don't know how the laws are in the UK but damn, jail-time for racists
comments? I'm 100% against prejudice but being sent to jail for saying
something controversial seems like a bit much.

I don't know much about the government there or what people have rights to,
any clarity would be much appreciated.

~~~
rlpb
"Inciting racial hatred" is illegal here. I think that's quite a bit more
specific than "saying something controversial".

I don't see that this is any different from the US First Amendment. It has
exceptions too (eg. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). "Inciting racial
hatred" is an equivalent restriction. You may disagree on this law
specifically, but I don't see how this affects anything fundamental like
freedom of speech or anything like that.

~~~
GFKjunior
I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his
own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting
up billboards. Anyone can unfollow or even block his twitter, if you were even
able to see it in the first place.

It is a freedom of speech issue because we should be allowed to write what we
want on our personal social networks. I think it is absurd that mommy
government can read your tweets (whats next? blogs, emails?) and give you jail
time for the 'naughty' things you say.

I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-
athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European
soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the
stands. It's part of the game.

~~~
kls
_I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-
athlete_

I think what bothers me most is that other citizens reported him to the
authorities for such, which means a percentage of the population agrees with
speech being restricted so long as it restricts speech that is contrary to
their dogma. Racism is a slippers slope too, I once witnesses a person being
lambasted as a racist for calling an obvious blood gang member a thug. What
people feel is the definition of racist varies widely and is very much
perception based. I could easily see a law like that being used for witch
hunts.

~~~
icebraining
That's why we have judges. Just reporting someone doesn't automatically put
them in jail.

~~~
kls
Judge or not a segment of the population is comfortable with the idea of the
thought police and see them as the good guys, which should be a scary
realization anytime it is witnessed. I would not want my life held in the
balance by a judge who is going to make a subjective decision as to whether my
speech was racist or not, in a society that accepts the policing of opinion,
the judge already accepts as law that you are not entitled to your opinion, as
such the deck is immediately stacked against you. Chances are in such a system
judges will be affected by the same confirmation bias and group think as the
rest of the population that thinks policing opinions, even when expressed in
public is acceptable.

------
jdminhbg
I wouldn't support jail time for racist comments, but has anyone seen evidence
that he actually made racist comments? The only tweet I've seen reproduced is
"Fuck Muamba, he's dead," which is highly assholish but not so far as I can
tell racist. At the same time, news reports all seem to reference "tweets"
plural, so I may be missing more.

~~~
streptomycin
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE>

Offensive? Rude? Sure. But it doesn't seem like anything too out of the
ordinary. If they had microphones in bars, they'd arrest millions for similar
utterances.

------
arnoldwh
I don't feel any pity for this guy from a personal point of view, and I can
only hope he learns a lesson because of this instead of going down a darker
path of more hate.

However, I still have real issues and concerns with him being jailed for
making a racist comment. This seems an awful lot like a slippery slope that we
don't want to go down. Any law that restricts what we can say or think scares
me when information continues to become easier to pass along into the "public
domain."

------
revscat
Given that the UK recently extradited a UK citizen for breaking an American
law, does this mean that racist Americans could be extradited to the UK for
posting a tweet which incites racial hatred?

Somehow I doubt it, although the logic is superficially sound.

~~~
ajross
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

~~~
AkThhhpppt
Similar clauses in other countries' laws haven't prevented extradition the
other way.

~~~
ajross
Good grief. It's the first sentence in the Bill of Rights, not merely a
"clause in a law". And I don't know the specifics to which you are referring,
but the UK does not have such a guarantee of speech rights. There are
occasional flame wars to that effect in our share social circle.

So no: there is no way in hell that any US court will order an extradition for
a prosecution of a pure act of speech. They occasionally break that rule
internally, of course. But no way would any politician allow a foreign court
to do it.

~~~
AkThhhpppt
Yes, it's the first clause of the US Bill Of Rights. So? Still a clause in
law.

And that's the point; the gp was, I _believe_, complaining about the perceived
lack of equity in a relationship that has the US extraditing citizens of the
UK for actions that are crimes in their jurisdiction but not in the UK, when
it would never be considered to be allowed the other way.

~~~
ajross
But it's not even remotely symmetric. In one direction it's just a crime being
prosecuted, and the UK has similar laws that could conceivably apply. In the
other it's a prima facie violation of (stated without hyperbole) the single
most important law of the nation.

See the difference?

And the "never be considered to be allowed the other way" bit is silly. The US
has extradition treaties with most of the industrialized world, and extradites
criminals routinely (although perhaps not necessarily fairly or
symmetrically). See:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#International_extradition)

But they won't extradite anyone for _this_ crime, for reasons of fundamental
constitutional law. That's not going to change no matter how many downvotes
the first amendment receives above.

~~~
AkThhhpppt
The UK has no criminal law about copyright. Whatsoever. The US is attempting
to extradite this guy for the crime of linking to copyrighted material:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/17/student-file-
shari...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/17/student-file-sharing-
tvshack-extradition)

I've been trying to find a case where the US extradited someone to a
jurisdiction where they were accused of committing a crime not on US books. I
can't.

~~~
ajross
No. The 2003 Extradition treaty certainly is a UK law. But (and for the
record: I think that extradition is unjust too) this has nothing to do what
our discussion at all.

You want the US to extradite people for hate speech. I pointed out that no,
that will never happen because of the clear text of the first amendment to the
constitution. And you started flaming away, I guess because I'm American and
therefore The Enemy.

But the point remains that no matter how symmetric and just and wonderful its
extradition policy might come to be, _US law would never allow such an
extradition_. It will not happen. So stop flaming and find another shibboleth.

~~~
AkThhhpppt
No I do not want to extradite anyone for hate speech; see, this is what's
known as an _example_. What I would like is for the US to stop being quite so
bullying in their dealings with the rest of the world.

And you're not The Enemy; I don't have any enemies. I'm Irish and therefore
neutral and too small for anyone to care about. ",)

------
nextstep
What exactly did he say? I don't understand why this garnered so much
attention. There are a lot of racist tweets on Twitter.

~~~
icebraining
<http://chirpstory.com/li/5261>

------
DanBC
Fabrice Muamba is a soccer / football player who collapsed on the pitch during
a game. He's been big news in the UK.

Liam Stacey posted racist tweets soon after Muamba collapsed.

Here's a Youtube video which claims to be screengrabs of the tweets. (I have
no idea if it is or not.)

(<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE>)

Huffpo has a screenshot, but it's been blurred to the point of
incomprehensibility.

In England most offences are treated more severely if there's a racial
motivation.

I post this here because I'm pleased that no-one is saying (as far as I can
tell) that Twitter should be responsible for what its users post. No one is
calling for Twitter to have more oversight or to control their users. People
have been happy for the existing laws to take its course.

------
noodly
It's not surprising, if you think about UK as orwellian state (or wannabe).

"It was not the football world who was praying for [Muamba].... everybody was
praying for his life."

What a bullshit - I don't even know who he is and I don't care. I stopped
reading here.

~~~
why-el
Read: everybody who knew him outside the field. And do you have any evidence
that the UK is become an Orwellian state? I am really surprised at the cheer
amount of irresponsible comments in HN lately.

~~~
noodly
Orwellian aspects of UK:

1\. Extradition of their citizen to US, for creating link aggregator [1][2]

2\. Jail for downloading a file [3]

3\. Politicaly correct brainwashing in schools [4][5]

4\. Sites blocking [6]

5\. Jail for posting dumb messages on twitter [7]

These're few things I did remember. When I hear about new case, I don't
bookmark it, that's why this list is short.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/copyright-
wa...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/copyright-wars-heat-up-
us-wins-extradition-of-college-kid-from-england.ars)

[2] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-
los...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-loses-us-
extradition)

[3] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/police-
downl...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/police-download-a-
file-go-to-jail-for-10-years-and-pay-an-unlimited-fine.ars)

[4] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223738/Nursery-
chil...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223738/Nursery-children-
branded-racist-schools-report-40-000-playground-race-spats-year.html)

[5]
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103175/Boy-7-brande...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103175/Boy-7-branded-
racist-asking-schoolmate-Are-brown-come-Africa.html)

[6] [http://www.freshtechweb.com/after-uk-high-court-ruling-
the-p...](http://www.freshtechweb.com/after-uk-high-court-ruling-the-pirate-
bay-could-be-blocked.html)

[7] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992>

~~~
why-el
Your first 4 points apply to virtually every other country I know, to varying
degrees. As for jailing the guy, it might sound surprising, but it is only so
because a lot of people dont know how advanced the US is in terms of freedom
of speech. You can say almost anything and get away with it. Some other
countries are moving to that directions, albeit slower that expected. Slamming
the UK alone for this ignores general developments across the globe.

------
jack-r-abbit
hmmmm... I've said many times before "Good thing its not against the law to be
an asshole". Turns out it IS against the law. Sure this guy is the lead
candidate for Twat of The Year... but 56 days in jail for being an ignorant
douche-bag is a dangerous trend to set. If we locked up every ignorant douche-
bag we'd have to build A LOT more jails here in the US.

------
EnderMB
If I remember rightly the reason this guy was jailed was not because he made
racist commands AT Muamba, rather than about. I don't know for sure, but I
would imagine that there is a huge difference between making racist comments
about someone and making racist comments to them.

------
mindslight
Maybe someone familiar with the UK could clarify for us: when exactly during
that 56 days does he get the rats on his face?

~~~
philhippus
Not necessarily rats - just whatever is his worst fear, and it'll start on the
2nd day, over on the 55th. Ignorance is Strength.

------
rokhayakebe
For those wondering what he said:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/27/liam-stacey-
racis...](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/27/liam-stacey-racist-
tweets-twitter-muamba-dead_n_1381876.html)

~~~
billpg
Will the people working at the huffington post's UK offices now be jailed?

------
J3L2404
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't
believe in it at all.

------
J3L2404
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1) is an Act of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting
hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. The Act was the
Labour Government's third attempt to bring in this offence: provisions were
originally included as part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in
2001, but were dropped after objections from the House of Lords. The measure
was again brought forward as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police
Bill in 2004-5, but was again dropped in order to get the body of that Bill
passed before the 2005 general election.

