http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17524548

Is it just me or is anyone worried about this whole strive to neuter free speech on the internet. Now i can understand why spouting 'offensive' speech out in the street would be considered a crime, but on the internet you do not have to read what you do not like. I've seen plenty of stuff i wasn't comfortable with online, i didn't write to my MP, i didn't phone the media or show faux outrage on twatter,faceprat or any of the other (un)social networking sites, no i simply clicked off. I exercised my right to view or not view what i want to read or not. The ones who run to the 'big protector' because someone said something 'bad' will just force people to stop talking freely, then the internet will just be flowers, cooking recipes and pron (until they stop that).
Surely the whole point of the internet was it was free from government control, if 'we' illegalise certain speech on the internet whats to stop others following suit. I might be an a Jewish holocaust denying blogger who happens to go on holiday to Europe, only to find i spend the next ten years in jail, simply because someone in Dussledorf was offended by my blog, written in Glasgow, hosted by a UK company and breaking no UK laws, which he found by googling Jewish holocaust . Fecking crazy.
I used to post on some American sites years ago and something always stuck in my mind from an ex Marine. John i disagree with your views but i will die for your right to speak them. Compare that to the UK, john i might agree or disagree with your views but i will do everything in my power to stop you airing them and turn you into a Stepford citizen because i can..
Maybe google should have a warning on it search page, the internet if filled with people of different views some of wich you may find distastefull, if you wish not to be offended then please switch off the PC/Phone/TV/Tablet/Game console (remember the good old days it was just PC )
BTW i realise the irony of complaining about the complainers, but i consider it a just cause to stop them eroding all our rights to post our offensive, rude and disgusting views if we feel the need, let the admin/moderators deal with them.

As long as it´s no the moderator of the Wee Frees.

What the Liam Stacey said was a disgrace, but I don't agree with him being sent to Prison or dismissed from University because of it. A heavy fine would have served the purpose just as well.

He has learned a lesson in a very tough way and will be more careful of what he says in future.

Some people have committed worse offence's and walked out of Court free and laughing.

Voltaire,1694-1778 made a statement regarding free speech and civil liberties and I think it is as valid today as any time.This case show how the state can pry into something as innocent as Glasgow Guide Forums with impunity.It is insidious but it is here to stay and in my opinion stifles free speech.I have read a number of books which I have found offensive by their very content and language.I have the choice to put it down at any time but by reading this I am widening my knowledge.In some cases the language would far outstrip anything Ive read on the internet.
I note the Daily Record has changed its policy on readers comments in that a nom de plume is no longer valid and full partics have to be entered.

Why on earth should he even face charges and why should he be carefull what he says online?
People didn't have to read his comments past his 1st remark, just as people dont need to read this. No one forces you to read users posts or follow twitter tweets. Some do because in truth they want to be offended so they can spout mock outrage to their E-friends and wider world for whatever reason, maybe they lead sad lonely worthless lives and somehow linking themselves to that gives them their 15 minutes of fame, maybe they are just self haters. Who knows, frankly who cares...well i suppose i do if by the outrage they cause they limit free speech.

If something offends then switch off, the only 'offensive' thing i've unfortuantely seen was a gay pride parade through Glasgow, i would say it seemed more like an S+M perverts bash if you ask me but i suppose that would be homophobic and i would go to jail, so i wont . We should have a straight/white pride parade for balance of course, bet no one is offended by that, further bet it wouldn't be allowed to parade at all

So, if I follow your logic, someone breaking the speed limit is ok as long as nobody see them

This guy broke the law of the land and, in my opinion, deserves exactly what he got.

You are obviously on cloud lalah land if your anology of my post comes down to speeding offences I find it quite offensive in fact, who do i complain to?

Now to humour you, can a speeding motorist physically hurt or kill someone? See where i'm going with this, now after this guy posted his tweets was anyone admitted to hospital with broken bones or severe trauma?

The law of the land as it stands is an arse. If i called you a k*****d online no crime but if i called you a [insert colour] k*****d suddenly it's the crime of the century (btw i'm not calling you names, just an example) and i could actually do time.
Anyway if as you say he got exactly what he deserved, what of the people who forwarded his tweet to others, surely if his tweets are 'illegal' then distribution of them is also illegal, or are we now cherry picking parts of the law for pure politicaly correct reasons?
They are also guilty of inciting *insert law here* because when they forwarded it on they has alterior motives and that was to attack the person who tweeted and quite possibly goad him into replying. I've seen his tweets but what of the tweets to him, or is only white on black abuse illegal?

What is a 'tweeter'?

Behave yourself Rab.

Just incase you are not kidding, ' a tweeter' is someone who Posts on the Website, Twitter.

As always, and for everyone, remember that we have 'Board Rules' which are there to remind members of the appropriate etiquette to be used on the boards. The rules include – and go beyond – conduct required by law.

http://discuss.glasgowguide.co.uk/index.php?act=boardrules

GG.

Sorry Admin, got lost in the post and was trying to emphasise the crazy point that the name calling wasn't the offensive/illegal part but pointing out the colour of the person was.

Got this 5live link on another forum, if you dont have time to listen the last hour or so, there's an interesting call from 1.45.

More confused than ever as I have found this on Wiki -
A tweeter is a loudspeaker designed to produce high audio frequencies, typically from around 2,000 Hz to 20,000 Hz (generally considered to be the upper limit of human hearing). Specialty tweeters can deliver high frequencies up to 100 kHz. The name is derived from the high pitched sounds made by some birds, especially in contrast to the low woofs made by many dogs, after which low-frequency drivers are named (woofers).

Can you be more specific Heather? Is a Twitter the same as a Tweeter?

Well Rab, from that I take it that men are Woofers.

Thanks John. I listened to to the call – very interesting. The caller (who was black) seemed genuinely concerned about the long-term consequences of the legislation which put the Twitterer in jail. I have to wonder also about his main contention: "where will it stop?" Willl someone eventually be jailed for calling someone else a baldy thicko, or the like?

GG.

It's no the Woofers ye have to worry aboot these days.

Hey..........less o' the baldy

Isn't calling a person a baldy thicko as 'offensive' as calling someone a [insert non white colour] thicko. The N word is a bad word but surely cracker is as bad, is P*** not as much of an abbreviation as Scot. Why the public outrage over Jade Goodie calling some Indian burd Popadom but no such uproar over the white trash comment. There are no answers to these because they can't be answered. If placing skin tone descriptives before slurs are illegal then it should be across the board as should abbreviations of Nationalities(not races). It is just crazy to me (and i lawyer i know) that an assualt crime becomes a worse crime when the attack is perceived as racist.
if the caller is asking 'where will it stop' the bandwagon started rolling a long time ago and quite frankly should be slapped into reverse.

It's not just you. The sentence was ludicrously draconian, and equally astonishing was the judge's view that there was "no alternative" to a prison sentence. If one is to be put in prison for saying stupid things, there will not be enough room for the entire population.

When does freedom of speech end and incitement to racial hatred and violence against minorities begin. Hitler began gradually and worked his invective to the gates of Auswitch. The anti Semitic ravings of the dysfunctional left and right, continue to be a big ticket item on the internet. And what about the "Famines Over". What is so terrible about drawing a line in the sand when hatred and slander can, and have caused the deaths of millions?

We already have laws to deal with people who incite others to commit violence as well as actual laws for people who commit violence, for people to have more protection under the law just because of their colour of skin seems pretty racist to me. Anti semetism?, so what! Dont go hunting for it if all your'e going to be is offended. I myself do actually know someone Jewish and his opinions on Arabs and muslims would put the BNP to shame. And lets not mix anti semitism and anti Israel policy,. Btw never liked the phrase anti semitism just being used as if Semite only refers to followers of the 'Jewish religion', in fact Arabs are 'Semetic people' and we all know where the most hatred of them eminates from.
Not being a Rangers/Celtic fan i'd never heard the famine song until recently. I know of someone who constantly pointed to it as proof of Anti Irishness in Scotland. Something i should point out about this person, despite his family having resided here since the famine, refuses to consider himself a Scot or Scottish and puts down Irish on forms, all this even though he has never been there and has no links to the place other than a tricolour he flies at celtic games. Chip, shoulder, methinks so and to me thats who the songs lyrics at directed at and getting the desired effect, winding him up.

BTW religion has caused the deaths of numerous millions, are we to ban that?

A little hyperbole occasionally adds dialectical interest to an argument, but rarely when it is as crassly overstretched -- and bonkers -- as this, an absurd line being drawn between a stupid remark on Twitter and the ovens at Auschwitz.

I quite agree john, when i point out to the singers of the famine song that Ireland was united during the famine, it affected both sides of the Irish divide, so they are in effect are telling a good proportion of there own support to go home, and like their southern Irish brothers, they also fly the Northern Irish flag having no links or even having stepped foot in the place.

The two buffoons who were found guilty of sending nail bombs to Neil Lennon prove that point, the fact that one of them used to live in Beith for years, and wore a Celtic top almost every day shows the stupidity of of the whole issue.

Especially if your politicians are tested first.

And there's more...If it wasn't bad enough that someone is jailed for 'internet racism' then it seems that swearing online is now an illegal act.


A later tweet read:
The councillor complained and John Graham Kerlen was arrested under Section 127 of the Telecommunications Act 2003
He has since been found guilty and will be sentenced on May 9, under the act he could receive a custodial sentence of up to six months jail.

Well f**** me silly ,if f******* swearing at someone online is now illegal they may as well just throw away the key with me. Maybe it's just politicians that have this protection, though in my view thats who deserves the name calling the most.

This was an incitement to actually post human excrement to the councillor's house address which J G Kerlen aka Olly Cromwell was making available.
How'd you like to receive a lot of recycled spam in the post each morning?

Posting personal abuse on the internet behind the Freedom of Speach banner is not on.
Being a cyber bully is easy in the comfort of one's own home ... It's no longer a case of the pen being mightier than the sword but rather the keyboard is mightier than the cosh.

He posted the picture of a house, no address or name of the owner was posted. He was charged with incitement to cause criminal damage due to the excrement comment, but that and a harassment charge were later dropped.

Check out this link for more info. This really does look to me as a witch hunt to silence the man.

For too long, too many trolls and other malfeasants have hidden behind the "anonymity" of cyberspace; spouting rubbish which would get thier erses put in a sling if they did it face to face.

Trolls, I suppose, may well be general malcontents or unconsequential, weak playground bully non entities who have failed to disengage from the disreality of the Playstation at an appropraite stage of juvenile mental development.

Of course, there may well be more comprehensive definitions of these complex, yet simple lifeforms. This task, I formally dedicate to the scientific fraterity, with my best wishes.

In my view, posting hated and inciting violence, of any kind, in cyber space or any other medium under a non de plume is well worthy of time inside. I base this purely on the cowardice factor alone.

Free speech!?

Aye, just be sure to be nice, as kick in the slats often hurts.

People should be able to post whatever rantings they want online. Let the ISP's or hosting companies deal with them. We are not forced to read or listen to them, we have a back button or we can close the webpage. If someone on Twitter or Facebook offends you, then dont follow or unfriend them. If they are not bombarding your letterbox, inbox or phone with hatefull and obscene messages then you have the power to choose whether to read them or not.

People were not forced to read or listen to Hitler's rantings either ... at first ... but that soon changed didn't it?
Of course no one is forced to read what comes up on their facebook page or Twitter; or PMs on the Glasgow Guide Boards for that matter, but they get read because they're there.
Those who spout hate should be jumped on from a great height; as part of their treatment while in psychiatric care, just for the hands on experience.
Notice I didn't use one effin swear word there?

Guy in the RAF asks an officer, "Just hypothetical, sir? What would you do if I called you a ****?"
"You'd be charged with insubordination and insulting an officer, airman."
"What would you do if I only thought it, sir?"
"I can't do anything about what you think, airman."
"Well sir, I think you're a ****."
You can be charged for your thoughts too.

Get right intae them, wee man !

I remember an online debate on a forum years ago. Similar argument, the right to free speech, hate etc. Someone came on said we should just kill all the nazis to eradicate racism/hate speech etc, right away a guy comes and posts, well make sure you save the last bullet for yourself. The point was completely lost to the 1st poster.
RE;Facebook, i manage to bypass most BS on facebook, it's easy just dont read.

One of the greatest dangers to free speech on the Internet is allowing people 'anonymously' to say just what they want to say, whenever, to whomever they wish. That kind of behaviour would not (and is not) tolerated in a civilised society and it most certainly will NOT be tolerated here. I am not suggesting that you would do it, John, but I am taking this opportunity to reiterate that such behaviour will absolutely not be allowed on this board. Long-term members like THH and Rabbie above (to name just a couple) appreciate this, as is demonstrated in their posts.

We are here as an online community that respects the right of ordinary people to express our ordinary opinions and make our considered points in a reasonable, measured and lawful manner. By doing so, I hope that we can learn from each other and, who knows, contribute to a shared understanding of complex issues in a complex society. It's a lofty goal, but one that can only be achieved through mutual respect and thoughtful behaviour.

GG.

I was not talking about this forum/website GG, you have your rules that visitors abide by or you wield the ban hammer, your house, your rules. Same should go for Twitter/Facebook etc. What i think is it should not be up to this goverment to police the internet cleansing it's users of their thoughts. If someone wishes to blog on an offshore web hosting company criticising and calling his/her councillors names then he should not criminalised for it. There are far far worse things out there and the police/security services should spend their time investigating that.
The old saying everones taught as a child to deal with name callers springs to mind, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me.

You missed out ladders there
But it's absolutely true. Call me a cloth-eared, toothless, wee Jock bastard and you've got 5 out of 5. Just don't come my way wavin' a stick.
Inciting others to do *your dirty work for *you by posting crap to peoples houses and homes using the media of the net as your tool and claiming your right to free speech as your authority to do so can't be far from committing a criminal act though.
If someone reading your rant reports you to either the media or some authorative watchdog or other then you'd have no one to blame but yourself and would fully deserve what comes to you if only for being stupid enough to think that your comments will only be viewed by those to whom it was directed.


* for you/r read; of course, "one/'s"

Obviously there are lines with incitement, anyone calling on others to harm someone should have their collar felt. But what of say supporting actions in the middle eastern spring, calling on others to go to war or even say offering to put a £10m bounty on a foreign leaders head . If a UK national is criminalised for a post on a foreign server could he also be done for saying something inflammitory on foreign soil, or what if he posts on his blog while abroad could he still be done, even if the server is abroad too? This could get as crazy as the anti holocaust denier laws in Europe where you can be tried for something said here if it's repeated in the media over there..

Just read a story on the BBC about how a boy put photos of his clubs latest shirt on Twitter and they called the police. Unbelievable!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-17767236

Totally agree with you GG
______________________

Thanks Doug1.

GG.

Free speech is important but the issue of anonimity is creating problems with folk hiding behind it to abuse others and, in extreme cases, resort to bullying. The outcome of this case could have a major impact on how the system works in future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/...es-cyberbullies

Lighten up john, you seem to be pretty worked up over this. No one likes censorship especially on the internet but it aint going to go away.

Have you given any thought to the amount of abuse that kids suffer on social networking sites. The world is full of sickos and downright bad people who take great pleasure in posting very abusive messages to all sorts of people from a cloak of anonymity. You should not be able to post anything on the internet that you wouldnt say to someones face to face.

Yes I'm a family guy with three kids so I do take this subject very seriously as do a great many other ordinary folk in this country
______________________