Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2024 21:57:52 GMT
When it comes to incitement to murder, I will say the following.
Any who know me well will know that I hated Margaret Thatcher. If back in the day I had said over a few pints with my mates, that Thatcher ought to get her throat cut, then clearly the context of the situation would simply be me expressing my loathing for the woman in picturesque terms, to a few mates fuelled by alcohol. Yet if I had said the same thing to a braying mob - that Thatcher ought to get her throat cut - this could be viewed much more as incitement to murder. And had a member of that crowd gone on to commit such a crime I would have been very hard put to deny culpability in terms of incitement.
So context is indeed everything.....in my example the difference between mouthing off to your mates and inciting an angry crowd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2024 22:08:29 GMT
When it comes to incitement to murder, I will say the following. Any who know me well will know that I hated Margaret Thatcher. If back in the day I had said over a few pints with my mates, that Thatcher ought to get her throat cut, then clearly the context of the situation would simply be me expressing my loathing for the woman in picturesque terms, fuelled by alcohol. Yet if I had same the same thing to a braying mob - that Thatcher ought to get her throat cut - this could be viewed much more as incitement to murder. And had a member of that crowd gone on to commit such a crime I would have been very hard put to deny culpability in terms of incitement. So context is indeed everything.....in my example the difference between mouthing off to your mates and inciting an angry crowd. I hated Thatcher and thought I couldn’t detest another more,then along came Blair,as things stand Steamer may make it a triumvirate of tosspots. Anyway I understand your thoughts,a long time ago and in a very acrimonious meeting I told a director and some colleagues that I wouldn’t pay them in washers and they were that bloody useless I’d have them all taken out and shot. I kept my job and didn’t shoot anyone or shell out any washers. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 19, 2024 22:17:08 GMT
When it comes to incitement to murder, I will say the following. Any who know me well will know that I hated Margaret Thatcher. If back in the day I had said over a few pints with my mates, that Thatcher ought to get her throat cut, then clearly the context of the situation would simply be me expressing my loathing for the woman in picturesque terms, to a few mates fuelled by alcohol. Yet if I had said the same thing to a braying mob - that Thatcher ought to get her throat cut - this could be viewed much more as incitement to murder. And had a member of that crowd gone on to commit such a crime I would have been very hard put to deny culpability in terms of incitement. So context is indeed everything.....in my example the difference between mouthing off to your mates and inciting an angry crowd. What if you were chatting on X and you said Thatcher ought to get her throat cut, then someone nothing to do with you went and killed her. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2024 22:24:45 GMT
When it comes to incitement to murder, I will say the following. Any who know me well will know that I hated Margaret Thatcher. If back in the day I had said over a few pints with my mates, that Thatcher ought to get her throat cut, then clearly the context of the situation would simply be me expressing my loathing for the woman in picturesque terms, to a few mates fuelled by alcohol. Yet if I had said the same thing to a braying mob - that Thatcher ought to get her throat cut - this could be viewed much more as incitement to murder. And had a member of that crowd gone on to commit such a crime I would have been very hard put to deny culpability in terms of incitement. So context is indeed everything.....in my example the difference between mouthing off to your mates and inciting an angry crowd. What if you were chatting on X and you said Thatcher ought to get her throat cut, then someone nothing to do with you went and killed her. Saying it on a forum accessible to the public is likely to be the same as saying it to a braying mob. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 20, 2024 6:08:38 GMT
What if you were chatting on X and you said Thatcher ought to get her throat cut, then someone nothing to do with you went and killed her. Saying it on a forum accessible to the public is likely to be the same as saying it to a braying mob. Possibly, but should you do time simply for saying it in writing? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Sept 20, 2024 7:57:34 GMT
A councillor should know better. At the very least he should step down. Yes I agree, the conversation keeps switching between the principle and the personal.
That's right and, as a matter of fact, there are 'different kinds' of intent involved in the two cases.
The woman, Connoly, was charged with and guilty of stirring up racial hatred. She didn't need to intend to stir up racial hatred, it was enough that the words she used were 'likely' to have that effect. She only needed to have used words that she knew were threatening, abusive or insulting to meet the intent requirement. (My guess is she was advised she had no defence, so she entered a guilty plea.)
The man, Jones, was charged with encouraging violent disorder. In order for Jones to be found guilty the prosecution will need to prove that he intended that his words would encourage violent disorder or that he believed it would result. No doubt his defence will be that there was no intent or belief.
In my opinion, words published on social media have just as much potential to cause harm as those spoken to a crowd. I think, though, of the two incidents, Jones' words were far more harmful than Connoly's. Yet, Jones has a defence and Connoly had none.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2024 10:07:40 GMT
Saying it on a forum accessible to the public is likely to be the same as saying it to a braying mob. Possibly, but should you do time simply for saying it in writing? Possibly, though that will be down to the circumstances of the case to be determined by a judge in the event of a conviction. Certainly, if the circumstances suggest intent to provoke criminality, especially if someone subsequently acts on your words, a custodial sentence would be in order. Though I do not necessarily think a one size fits all approach is useful and a judge should exercise his or her discretion. But if you or I were internet influencers with thousands of followers, and we decided to use that platform to suggest that violence against target groups is desirable, we would be leaving ourselves wide open to criminal prosecution, especially if one or more of our followers acted on this. Of course most people - including you or I - would never go online expressing such sentiments to any following we might have, even against people we may not like. But we need the threat of legal sanction against those that do, otherwise we risk open season for hatemongers to encourage violence and murder with impunity |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2024 10:43:13 GMT
Wapentake appears to have deleted his account.
I regret that this has happened.
I hope we are not making people who disagree with the majority of us on any given topic feel unwelcome.
I know how it feels when a majority of members pile in against you. By the time you have responded to one, there are three others that need responding to. It can be very draining to sustain that single-handedly. Curiously, I sometimes had that experience on the forum he moderates and it tends to bring out the worst in me, and probably does in most people.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,449
|
Post by Steve on Sept 20, 2024 13:00:20 GMT
Saying it on a forum accessible to the public is likely to be the same as saying it to a braying mob. Possibly, but should you do time simply for saying it in writing? Depends on the severity. If it is about one specific person then it is actually less severe than about an identifiable group because then there is an impact multiplier. In general I shed no tears for anyone jailed because they issued a death threat or death exaltation. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 20, 2024 15:06:14 GMT
Wapentake appears to have deleted his account. I regret that this has happened. I hope we are not making people who disagree with the majority of us on any given topic feel unwelcome. I know how it feels when a majority of members pile in against you. By the time you have responded to one, there are three others that need responding to. It can be very draining to sustain that single-handedly. Curiously, I sometimes had that experience on the forum he moderates and it tends to bring out the worst in me, and probably does in most people. Yes, it's a shame. I've spoken to him and it wasn't the disagreements with members that made him feel unwelcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 20, 2024 16:43:08 GMT
Yes I agree, the conversation keeps switching between the principle and the personal.
That's right and, as a matter of fact, there are 'different kinds' of intent involved in the two cases.
The woman, Connoly, was charged with and guilty of stirring up racial hatred. She didn't need to intend to stir up racial hatred, it was enough that the words she used were 'likely' to have that effect. She only needed to have used words that she knew were threatening, abusive or insulting to meet the intent requirement. (My guess is she was advised she had no defence, so she entered a guilty plea.)
The man, Jones, was charged with encouraging violent disorder. In order for Jones to be found guilty the prosecution will need to prove that he intended that his words would encourage violent disorder or that he believed it would result. No doubt his defence will be that there was no intent or belief.
In my opinion, words published on social media have just as much potential to cause harm as those spoken to a crowd. I think, though, of the two incidents, Jones' words were far more harmful than Connoly's. Yet, Jones has a defence and Connoly had none. I think there is an important difference between explicitly advocating violence and expressing a dislike. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 20, 2024 20:16:34 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2024 20:48:49 GMT
Wapentake appears to have deleted his account. I regret that this has happened. I hope we are not making people who disagree with the majority of us on any given topic feel unwelcome. I know how it feels when a majority of members pile in against you. By the time you have responded to one, there are three others that need responding to. It can be very draining to sustain that single-handedly. Curiously, I sometimes had that experience on the forum he moderates and it tends to bring out the worst in me, and probably does in most people. Yes, it's a shame. I've spoken to him and it wasn't the disagreements with members that made him feel unwelcome. Who or what made him feel unwelcome and why? I have an email address I can contact him on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2024 20:54:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 20, 2024 20:56:47 GMT
Yes, it's a shame. I've spoken to him and it wasn't the disagreements with members that made him feel unwelcome. Who or what made him feel unwelcome and why? I have an email address I can contact him on.
|
|
