A 22-year-old man
has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook
following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.
Benjamin Flatters,
from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to
Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a
racist or anti-religious nature.
He was charged with
an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the
comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.
A second man was
visited by officers and warned about his activity on social media, the
spokesman added....
The charge comes
after two men were earlier released on bail following their arrest for making
alleged offensive comments on Twitter about the murder.
Complaints were made
to Avon and Somerset Police about remarks that appeared on the social
networking website, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.
This comes on the heels of the
brutal murder of British soldier Lee Rigby by islamofascists in England. This is particularly famous due to this video
that emerged of one of the attackers trying to justify his brutality on
camera. You can watch that video, here.
I mean even in America actual
incitement is unlawful. I should know,
my freedom of speech was suppressed over a year ago by a convicted terrorist
named Brett Kimberlin, falsely asserting that I had incited violence against
him. It’s a long story and you can read dig
into it, here
but let’s just say I didn’t even come close to meeting the legal standard and
indeed did not want or hope that he would face anything but legal consequences
for his criminal conduct. He is the
criminal, not me.
In America, the controlling legal
standard for incitement is enunciated in the landmark case of Brandenburg
v. Ohio:
the constitutional
guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or
proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such
advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is
likely to incite or produce such action.
So in the case of these British tweeters,
for all we know, this really might have been incitement under that standard and
thus properly punishable under even America’s relatively broad First Amendment
protections. That doesn’t solve every
objection to this prosecution. In America,
the rule against incitement still has to be viewpoint neutral. That is, you have to punish all incitement
and not just “racial or religious incitement.”
But in fact, Britain seems to
punish things that by no stretch of the imagination is incitement. For instance, last year a soccer player
called Muamba was suffering from heart failure and as often is the case, someone
said something stupid about it:
A Swansea University
student was sentenced to 56 days in prison after posting a message on Twitter
as doctors fought to save Muamba's life.
Liam Stacey, 21,
wrote on the social networking site: ''LOL (laugh out loud). F*** Muamba. He's
dead!!!''
Stacey, who admitted
racially aggravated public disorder, was suspended from university for the
remainder of the year and served half his 56-day sentence.
He described his
tweet as a "stupid, massive, massive mistake and I've paid a big price for
it".
Muamba suffered a
heart attack during an FA Cup tie against Tottenham Hotspur on March 17 last
year.
So it was tasteless and by his
own admission it was also a racist comment.
But by no stretch of the imagination would anyone say that this was true
incitement. It was at best ambiguous
about advocating his death and what does he expect? That one of the doctors would see his tweet
and agree? And yet this for some reason
merited jail time in the eyes of Britain’s courts. Did they give a rapist early release so they
could imprison this dangerous, dangerous criminal? Inquiring minds and whatnot.
So we can’t feel confident that
this is even true incitement. It might
be nothing more than “saying something bad about a certain group.”
The dumbest thing about this, is
that what does Britain think it will do?
Keep all these horrible thoughts off Twitter? The fact is there is a whole country full of
300 million (mostly) English speaking individuals who are free to say this kind
of stuff all the time. An
American is free to deny the holocaust, or advocate a fresh one and the
British do virtually nothing to keep these ideas out. Even if you accept the premise that these
ideas will make people lose control and get violent—a very dubious assertion—the
fact is they can’t keep these ideas out.
So all they will end up doing is needlessly filling up their prison cells.
As I said on Twitter this evening,
not even China can control their internet... and they really try. This half-hearted effort to control what
people say in Britain is beyond pointless.
In the meantime, since they are
not being told what awful things are being said, this creates a chilling effect
on British speech. They are not sure
where the line is, so they watch their mouths hoping not to come anywhere near the
line, and thus these arrests suppress far more speech than what the police can
lawfully ban. And that seems to be the
idea. Consider this passage from the end
of the article that has been repeated in many others, a police spokesnazi:
'People should stop
and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the
consequences could be serious.'
Right watch what you say, or they
might come for you. How fascist of them.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs
due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an
attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up
to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic,
but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these
claims using documentary and video evidence.
If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin
accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
History here.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his organizations,
either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
To my mind, the problem is not so much that the police did not justify the charge with details of the offensive comment, but that the *PRESS* did nothing to *make* them justify it.
ReplyDeleteIn the UK, it seems that the press is wholeheartedly in favor of censorship and suppression of speech, unless it happens to be them being suppressed or censored, when it's a travesty of justice.
I call it "justifying the Revolution" -- meaning ours, not Obama's.
ReplyDelete