Free expression, or sickening offence?

[Shaker]

http://goo.gl/inq2wb

Also here: http://goo.gl/iDhBRm

[Rhiannon]

Of course it's sickening but it's one of those things that says far more about the specimen wearing it than anyone or anything else.

What's raised my eyebrows is that I now know we have an offence in this country of "displaying abusive writing... likely to cause distress". By whose definition?

[L.A.]

http://goo.gl/inq2wb

Also here: http://goo.gl/iDhBRm

Certainly sickening - but a a criminal offence? Have we totally sacrificed freedom of speech in the name of political correctness?

Though I can see that he might need to be taken into protective custody.

[Shaker]

Agreed with both responses so far.

But we have started to set what I believe is a dangerous precedent in this country: http://goo.gl/aR3c9k

and

http://goo.gl/kwhJIP

Jo Glanville, director of the writers' network English Pen, said of Riley: "He hasn't incited violence, there's nothing around public order, so it's purely for being tasteless. I think we're seeing something new here. It's a chill on freedom of expression. Causing some distress to members of the public shouldn't be enough to get you a custodial sentence."

Lawyer and legal blogger Lyndon Harris described Newsome's case as "a knee jerk reaction by the CPS" and told the Guardian the law is "failing miserably. At what point does unpleasant become criminal? You're just locking people up for saying nasty things. If someone said that to you in the pub and you went to the police, they'd tell you to go away."

(My emphasis).

[Owlswing]

Certainly sickening - but a a criminal offence? Have we totally sacrificed freedom of speech in the name of political correctness?

Though I can see that he might need to be taken into protective custody.

Whilst I would agreed wholeheartedly that this moron could have have found a more appropriate way of advertising the company I have to admit that I am more and more offended by poeple who take offence at just about anything any one else says or does these days, but scream breach of civil rights or freedom of speech when someone/anyone objects to something that they say.

[Owlswing]

Agreed with both responses so far.

But we have started to set what I believe is a dangerous precedent in this country: http://goo.gl/aR3c9k

Nice point that he "was arrested for his own safety"!

[Shaker]

Nice point that he "was arrested for his own safety"!

... but charged for causing "harrassment, alarm and distress" with a T-shirt.

[L.A.]

Whilst I would agreed wholeheartedly that this moron could have have found a more appropriate way of advertising the company I have to admit that I am more and more offended by poeple who take offence at just about anything any one else says or does these days, but scream breach of civil rights or freedom of speech when someone/anyone objects to something that they say.

I think there is a 'slippery slope' effect. Once you start arresting people for displaying an offensive slogan you get closer to arresting them for displaying a political slogan - or indeed, expressing any kind of political opinion.

[L.A.]

Nice point that he "was arrested for his own safety"!

In certain quarters he probably risked being torn 'limb from limb'

[Shaker]

In certain quarters he probably risked being torn 'limb from limb'

As several have commented already - if he was stupid to wear the T-shirt in Worcestershire, he'd have to have been suicidal to have worn it in Liverpool.

But that fact in itself reveals an interesting albeit depressing angle about the mindset of some people.

Further thought: if someone is arrested for wearing such a shirt (or carrying a banner/placard etc.) and they are charged with inciting violence (upon themselves, by others), who is at fault - them for displaying a message deemed offensive, or the others for responding to words with physical violence? To me it says something about people that they don't meet offensive speech with other speech but with physical aggression.

[Rhiannon]

Well yes, this is something we are so rubbish at now - taking personal responsibility and expecting others to do likewise. If I give offence it's your responsibility whether to take it or not and what to do with it if you do.

[Owlswing]

... but charged for causing "harrassment, alarm and distress" with a T-shirt.

No this is the bloke in your third URL.

[Shaker]

Slightly different but related example. Man commits offence; receives suspended sentence; comments upon case on social media; is recalled by judge and imprisoned for "gloating": http://goo.gl/fYv5l8

Twelve months for what somebody deems to be "gloating"? Really?

[Brownie]

The law is an ass.

[Rhiannon]

Quite frankly a suspended sentence for using someone's head as a football isn't that great.

[Shaker]

I don't disagree. But nevertheless, that was the sentence he received, and it disturbs me greatly that having received that sentence anyone can in effect be dragged back to court and imprisoned for something like "gloating."

[Rhiannon]

Yes, if it were deemed as harassment then that is a criminal offence. Or maybe some kind of contempt of court charge. 'Gloating' isn't a criminal offence as far as I'm aware.

[Nearly Sane]

We give lesser sentences if people show regret. Now either that's wrong, or if an earlier expression of remorse is shown to be false by some means then surely it would have an effect on sentencing?

[Rhiannon]

Apparently it's because of this:

Truro Crown Court was told earlier that under Section 155 of the Power of Sentencing Act 2000 the court had the power to change a sentence within 66 days of it being passed.

[Shaker]

That's the capacity to do so, but not, in this case, the reason.

[Rhiannon]

Is it clear that the court needed a reason as such?

More dick-headed legislation from the Blair government, and this one with devastating and disturbing consequences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410539

[Rhiannon]

It appears the recall to the court is a part CPS guidelines.

Prosecutors should give consideration to using the "slip rule" where defendants "celebrate", on the steps of the court or on social networking sites, the leniency of the sentence in circumstances where their comments conflict with statements made in mitigation regarding remorse etc

Full text here.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/

[Shaker]

... which to me comes across as being like Minority Report in reverse - not psychically tracking down criminals before they commit a crime, but punishing a criminal twice after having done so.

[Nearly Sane]

So if their remorse is false and the sentencing is based on that, it should affect the sentence?

[Shaker]

So if their remorse is false and the sentencing is based on that, it should affect the sentence?

It seems highly dubious to me. For starters, in the absence of proven telepathic powers you can never tell for sure, beyond any doubt, that contrition is genuine in the first place.

Secondly, you could end up with a ludicrous infinite regress of remorse and retraction - "I'm really sorry for what I did wrong ... haha, no I'm not! ... No, honestly, really I am ... fooled you!"