So would I, but with no DP, (something that should probably be re-thought) at least they got serious sentencing...I'm assuming this is the best that could be done...
(Unlike that remorseless scumbag in Norway who got 17 years for murdering 70 people...)
Lord Jim wrote:You know, maybe it's just me, but I don't have a whole lot of trouble distinguishing between this:
removing a woman who heckles the Presidant during his speech
And this:
British police are arresting people in the middle of the night if they have made racist or anti-Muslim commentson Twitter following the murder of a soldier by two Muslims in Woolwich, London.
Three men have so far been taken into custody for using Twitter and Facebook to criticize Muslims.
Not a real poser seeing the difference between those two...
'People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.'
Actually what the British people should be thinking about is the question of what is worse for a free society:
Private citizens making insulting tweets, or police officers coming in the middle of the night to arrest people for saying things in social media the government determines to be objectionable...
Again, I don't think it's a real close call....
Without knowing the content, it's impossible to judge what level the comments rose to. If they amounted to an incitement to violence, I think it would unacceptable for the police NOT to have gone around arrest people.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Twitter comments making credible threats to someone's life or inciting to racist murder would reasonably get you in the pokey. And are not comparable to merely protesting.
Scooter wrote:Without knowing the content, it's impossible to judge what level the comments rose to. If they amounted to an incitement to violence, I think it would unacceptable for the police NOT to have gone around arrest people.
rubato wrote:Twitter comments making credible threats to someone's life or inciting to racist murder would reasonably get you in the pokey. And are not comparable to merely protesting.
Well, that's precisely the question under the American view: Is some asshole's Twitter twatting really a "credible threat" or otherwise an incitement directed toward producing "imminent" lawlessness that is actually likely to produce such lawlessness? I would think that without substantially more, being an asshole on the Internet is insufficient cause to justify any police action at all. At least in a society that actually values freedom of speech.
being an asshole on the Internet is insufficient cause to justify any police action at all.
Guess I'm safe for a while then
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
