Encouraging violence against the government is protected. Have you ever listened to rap lyrics?

That depends on whether it is referring to specific violence. In general saying something like "Let's kill the president," is okay. Actually scheduling an assassination is conspiracy to commit murder.

The guys in the Facebook case committed no violence themselves and there is nothing to suggest their words caused anyone else to do so. The actions of the UK police are no different than what one would expect in China.
4 Years In Prison For Calling For Riot On Facebook

thisiskyle Wrote:That depends on whether it is referring to specific violence. In general saying something like "Let's kill the president," is okay.

No it's not:

http://www.7dvt.com/2010comedian-or-crim...ning-obama

Also: (notice how he just said "I'd like to..." - no real plans to do it)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-27/ve...ot/2353210

Back in the 80s, Ronald Reagan reduced social security benefits and my feeble old grandmother screamed at the TV set, " I wish someone would shoot that man!"
I remember that clearly even though I was a small child, because a few days later, someone did.

She should have been put in prison.

aphasiac Wrote:

thisiskyle Wrote:That depends on whether it is referring to specific violence. In general saying something like "Let's kill the president," is okay.

No it's not:

http://www.7dvt.com/2010comedian-or-cri … ning-obama

Also: (notice how he just said "I'd like to..." - no real plans to do it)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-27/v … ot/2353210

Well that's just stupid. I guess I shouldn't state stuff as fact like that. Now I'm angry! So angry I'm going to fly to DC and kill the pre..pretzel vendor. *cough*

Also take note of the number of teens arrested in American for threats of school shootings:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=arreste...ing+threat

Lots of these threats made on social networking sites, or even in one case during Xbox Live voice chat! 99% were probably not serious, but police can't take the risk..

Btw I'm not moralising in any way - just saying comparing UK to China is silly, as this type of thing happens all the time in the US.

A. US law does not apply in the UK.
B. Freedom of speech in the US is not absolute either, there are many exceptions. If you did something similar in the US, you could land up in jail too.

Quote:The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

If you threaten physical harm against a human being, you might be arrested.
If you threaten to destroy property, you will not be arrested.

Why is what happened to the Facebook guys not the same as what one would expect in China? They committed no crime and even took the page down the next morning when they sobered up. It sounds exactly like a police state especially if cell phone service was shut down as some are reporting.

Quote:If you threaten physical harm against a human being, you might be arrested.
If you threaten to destroy property, you will not be arrested.

That is not what the law says: which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

If you incite someone to burn down a property and they do it, you'll go to jail. It's any lawless action, destroying property is a lawless action.

Quote:Why is what happened to the Facebook guys not the same as what one would expect in China?

Yes, it probably would have the same result in China, and most of the world. Inciting violence is not protected free speech in most countries. The difference is in China you'll go to jail just for stating an opinion or criticizing the government, often with a dubious trial or no trial.

Quote:They committed no crime and even took the page down the next morning when they sobered up.

They did commit a crime. Hate speech, inciting violence etc are criminal offences in the UK. If you steal a TV and then return it, you will still be charged with theft. Once you commit a crime, you can't undo it. If they wanted a protest, they should have planned a peaceful one.

The length of the sentence is ridiculous though.

travis Wrote:If you incite someone to burn down a property and they do it, you'll go to jail. It's any lawless action, destroying property is a lawless action.

In America, you will not go to jail for getting someone else worked up. It is not a crime. If it is a crime in the UK, the country has issues to work out.

bodhisamaya Wrote:In America, you will not go to jail for getting someone else worked up. It is not a crime. If it is a crime in the UK, the country has issues to work out.

Read quote above, it is a crime, in the US it's a federal offence. As someone has already pointed out, it's called conspiracy and it's an exception to freedom of speech. You cannot claim as defence that "I have freedom of speech, I can say what I want and the other person didn't actually burn the building down". Whether you get prosecuted and whether a jury convicts you is a different thing, the prosecution would have to prove intent etc. People are arrested all the time in US for making comments thinking they have freedom of speech or assuming everyone would think it was just a joke (even if it was). The police often don't see it that way.

bodhisamaya Wrote:In America, you will not go to jail for getting someone else worked up. It is not a crime. If it is a crime in the UK, the country has issues to work out.

This is actually not an unusual law in europe. I don't know if you must go to jail for it, but you're certainly going to be punished if you incite somebody to break the law in Germany. As far as I know that's also the case in Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Poland and Denmark (correct me if I'm wrong).

bodhisamaya Wrote:

travis Wrote:If you incite someone to burn down a property and they do it, you'll go to jail. It's any lawless action, destroying property is a lawless action.

In America, you will not go to jail for getting someone else worked up. It is not a crime. If it is a crime in the UK, the country has issues to work out.

What seems to be missing here is the acknowledgement of some key facts.

The two individuals in question were arrested on the belief that a case could be brought against them.

The two individuals pleaded guilty relating to enticing (promoting) a riot.

They were sentenced to prison terms.

Yes, there is areas for debate. Such as, the sentence too severe. However, what these two individuals did was commit a crime.

Maybe, someone could try to explain why "trying to convincing someone to participate the act of crime" should be ignored by the authorities. This is not about convincing some one to engage in a protest, or similar acts.

travis Wrote:Read quote above, it is a crime, in the US it's a federal offence.

The intent of that law is not for speech such as the Facebook pair made. If you are a gang leader and order a hit on a politician, or if you hire a killer to collect insurance on your wife, then you will be punished if convicted. Our prisons would be overflowing with protestors if this law was applied to circumstances such as this.

bodhisamaya Wrote:The intent of that law is not for speech such as the Facebook pair made. If you are a gang leader and order a hit on a politician, or if you hire a killer to collect insurance on your wife, then you will be punished if convicted. Our prisons would be overflowing with protestors if this law was applied to circumstances such as this.

Unfortunately that's not what the law says, it can be any crime. The intent of the law is irrelevant.

Imagine if a 1000 people had turned up and gone on the rampage: theft, burglary, assault, arson, murder. Would it still have been reasonable to prosecute them then? From the point of view of the law just because nobody arrived, that was still their intent.

If they had done this at month earlier, they probably would have just had a visit from the police or at worst a police caution. In the context of the rioting going on though, there was a real possibility of a riot forming.

It takes something extreme for any law that could potentially curb free speech to get a conviction in an American court. Civil Liberty organizations are very strong and this is one of the few rights where both the left and right fight for passionately.

There is a line, between expressing one's own views and actually encouraging other people to commit serious crimes, which the people in this case have crossed. For example I doubt anyone could be arrested for writing on their facebook page that they thought the riots were great, but by making a group to actively encourage crimminal activity they went too far.
The fact that they were unsucessful doesn't make it ok. That's like saying people should only be arrested for drink driving once they've hit someone/something.

The sentence seems ridiculously harsh though considering the offence. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of them being used to 'set an example' to other people.

bodhisamaya Wrote:It takes something extreme for any law that could potentially curb free speech to get a conviction in an American court. Civil Liberty organizations are very strong and this is one of the few rights where both the left and right fight for passionately.

I would have to agree the Civil Liberty Organizations in America do get disappointed with court rulings, including those from the Supreme Court. However, the courts can't please everyone now can they.

It isn't possible to seek changes against anyone who wants to organize a protest, as that is a direct violation of freedom of speech and assembly. We all agree on that. However, what about an individual who wants to commit a crime, such as encourage a riot?

Bodhisamaya's right: this is NOT the point of those laws, and it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.

They must have had an awful barrister. I would NEVER EVER employ a barrister if i was going to court, i would represent myself. If you're even close to articulate, you're almost certainly better off representing yourself.

There's a massive difference between threatening to kill someone and writing on facebook a time and place for a riot... especially one that NEVER HAPPENED.

If you threaten to kill someone, there's not going to be a time and place after which that person will be safe, the police have to ensure that the victim is safe.

Similarly, inciting violence is NOT the same as organising a facebook "event" to riot. The laws against inciting violence are there to protect minority groups, and stop things similar to Klu Klux Klan events going on, as well as hiring people to kill or hurt others, etc.

Inciting violence should either involve money, or using some tactic to stir up the emotions of others. It should have to be perfectly clear. In the case of making a facebook event, it's unclear how it "incites" anything, tbh. Nobody has any connection to it... there's no reason anyone would actually go. And, in fact, the fact that nobody did go should show that it's not incitement.

Do i "incite" you to come to my party by making a facebook event? ... no, i "invite" you. It doesn't provoke you to come, except in the weakest possible sense.

Anyway, the point is that this is costing a shitload of money for Britain, that apparently we HAVE TO save!!! Yes, they can appeal to get it overturned, and will indeed do that, costing us a bunch. If the judge just got it right in the first place, it wouldn't have costed so much.

I'm surprised nobody picked up on the point about first time offenders getting prison sentences for nicking a few things (bottled water being the example given on ch.4 news last night). That really, really isn't normal in this country... for very good reasons!!!

Remember that incite means "to encourage or stir up violent or unlawful behavior." So is inviting a person to come to a riot legal (lawful)? Are riots protected under law? At what point should law enforcement officers engage in stopping an unlawful act? At what point should law enforcement officers engage in stopping a violent behavior?

The ruling will not be overturned, the sentence might be decreased, it might even be increased.

I doubt this will be overturned, here is the relevant law: Part 2 of the Serious Crimes Act. They may get a reduced sentence on appeal, or perhaps not. The law is there to protect everyone, including the people who live in the village they tried to get people to trash.

They probably pleaded guilty on the advice of their barrister to get a more lenient sentence, because they knew it was a hopeless case to win. If a jury had convicted them they probably would've received a longer sentence.

Whether the riot actually happened or not is not relevant. If you fire a gun at a policeman and miss, should you not be tried for attempted murder because nobody was actually harmed? Should the guy who tried to blow up a transatlantic flight with explosives concealed in his shoes not be charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist offence because the explosives failed to detonate?

They *tried* to incite a riot. That is the only relevant fact here.

yes, it won't be overturned because they were stupidly advised to plead guilty.

It will be reduced, if they get a judge who isn't mad.

Yes, that's what incite means. This is what i was saying above... it has to be provocative (including emotional provocation), or involve money.

The reason just inviting people to do stuff isn't included in that is because inciting has to be a violence-inducing thing. In other words, it has to have the strength to induce violence in other people.

Think of the difference between this and an emotionally rousing speech by the leader of the BNP, in which he tells people to loot all shops run by immigrants.

An emotionally rousing speech acts as a persuasive action... in other words, it induces the action to some extent.

If someone instead made a facebook event to smash up an immigrant's shop, that wouldn't normally be considered incitement on it's own. (at least partially because the same rules for facebook invitations as real invitations don't exist. If someone called up their friends and asked them to come, it's different again, because this is more persuasive). Other information is necessary... how influential is this person writing this stuff? What tone was it written with? What's the mental state of the people receiving the invitation? Did the event in fact happen?

In reality, the person would probably be convicted, because it's at least racially provocative, and that stuff receives a harsh view by the court. But if you take out the racial provocation, what's left, really?

In this situation, the event never took place, so the people clearly weren't influential. The only thing that remains is just an invitation, which doesn't induce action.

Anyway, this should have been taken to crown court, and argued by someone who understands how facebook actually works. The laws weren't made with facebook in mind, and there are significant enough distinctions that precedents should be argued and set. How many fake or funny facebook events are organised every day, dya think??

travis Wrote:I doubt this will be overturned, here is the relevant law: Part 2 of the Serious Crimes Act. They may get a reduced sentence on appeal, or perhaps not. The law is there to protect everyone, including the people who live in the village they tried to get people to trash.

They probably pleaded guilty on the advice of their barrister to get a more lenient sentence, because they knew it was a hopeless case to win. If a jury had convicted them they probably would've received a longer sentence.

oh, damn... who made that legislation?!? that could cover almost anything that anyone has ever done if they want to twist it that way...

well, there you go. That's the difference between law and morality shown, again.