This one has bothered me a little.

Lately in the press there have been a number of cases where what one chooses to type has landed them in a lot of bother.

Sorry sun links here:

19 year old locked up for 19 months for encouraging riots

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/...-19-months.html

two others jailed for the riots, nothing other than placing text on a website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14557772

On a different note:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html

So the discussion here, is it right to impose a jail term on someone for what they have said?

Opinions?

I say yes . If you are stupid enough to post stuff like this on the internet to start riots or death threats in the age of social networks then face the music I have no time for facebook or twitter .

I agree that they are some what silly to post something like that, but they haven't outright hurt any one (well the riot people) they have asked people to go out and do nasty things but surly the problem lies with the individual that chooses to act on such silly posts rather than the person who posted it?

What next, chucked in prison for just thinking something?

maybe an over the top comparison but what about hitler! It isn't always the people doing things who doing the things who are the biggest problem.

I personally agree withy these jail sentences.

I don't think there is a comparison to be made there TV. Although it looks like im on my own here, I think 2 years inside a cell for asking people to do something stupid at the expense of the tax payer is a little silly.

I don't agree with or support what they did but in my eyes there was no crime committed.

But the law looks at it this way that you have incited the act . Good enough for me .

I think the sentence was harsh for the two lads. You can serve less time for rape!

Hitler started his regime with speeches and books, look where that ended

I think that, as with all other areas of law, the offence and the sentence should be related to the outcome as well as the intent.

If you get into a drunken fight throw a punch and give somebody a black-eye then that's not the same offence as if you fracture their skull and kill them - even though the same punch has the potential to cause both outcomes.

It's the same situation here, if you call on Facebook for people to meet to smash up a town-centre and go on a looting spree, but nobody turns up then that's clearly not the same offence as if a thousand people turn up and raze the city, and sentencing should reflect that.

The Hitler speeches argument is also a non-starter, all politicians, on all levels, do exactly what he did, they make speeches praising their own country, calling for support and trying to whip up followers. What counts is what they then do with that following.

I think that people should take responsibilty for what they type; be it on here or on the wider social networking sites.

The fact is that the effect may not be what was intended, but had they not written it but voiced it instead, they would probably have not done so!

I do however feel that some of the sentencing has been harsh and with some other cases, it's obvious that the law (or the judiciary) do not really understand this 'new fangled' digital age!

On the contrary I think they are well aware of the issue. Say I walk into a room and try to incite 10 people to riot, of which 10% (ie one of those present) is stupid enough to follow my lead, there is now a riot consisiting of 1 cretin. However iIf I post on FB et al, and 3000 Southampton based FB monkeys read it, the same hit rate of 10% would result in 300 rioting cretins. Extend that across the country and tens of thousands could follow my exhortations.

The potential to find same minded is far greater through the media sites, therefore the potential consequences are higher. No sympathy for any of them. Prison may be harsh, but unfortunately public birching has been dispensed with as a legal punishment.

Definitely.

Which would rather indicate that, right or not, one *can* be locked up for speaking certain things.

So how do you feel about radicle religious nutters who brainwash people into suicide bombings? Should we let them carry on un oopsed? I am for freedom of speech but only in so far as when it doesn't potentially break any laws or cause undue distress.

I'd say that "definitely" is bit strong - as with almost all of human endeavour reality is shades of grey, not strongly black/white.

We're saying that publically posting, "Let's meet at McDonald's and go looting" is incitement ... but I've just posted it - am I guilty of the same offence?

How about if I read an article in The Daily Express about immigrants living in palaces, on £100,000/year benefit payouts, and it makes me so angry that I go out and stab the first person I see who I think might be an immigrant. Does that mean that the journalist who wrote the article is guilty of incitement? How about if the same journalist tweets the gist of the article, "Immigrants are lazy scroungers who shouldn't be in this country" - is that incitement?

Bear in mind that Charles Manson believed that a Beatles album was calling for a race war, which suggests that it's very easy to write something which incites somebody to do something bat-shit crazy.

The key, of course, is intent. It's obviously not my intention that we all get together and go and trash a town, The Beatles had no intent of pitting black against white with Helter-Skelter playing in the background and The Express journalist's only intent is to make their readers angry (because The Express and The Daily Mail are part of a vast liberal plot to kill off right-wingers by sending their blood-pressure through the roof).

So, we're left trying to guess the intent of those who posted on Facebook or tweeted during the riots, and that's a pretty tough call when a young person's entire future depends on the outcome of that guess.

Jeez Andrew thats deep for this time in the morning.

Personally i think its difficult to find a definitive line on the law against all internet based crime.

However one things an advantage in what they type,everyone can see it,including the courts.

Ah this reminds me of the old joke, refreshed for the 21st century....

A ned is up in front of the magistrate under breach of s5 Public Order Act (swearing in public to shorten things) and the magistrate delivers his verdict of guilty and gives him 200hrs community service.

At this point the ned addresses the magistrate and says "So, I can get done for something I say? Can I get done for something I just "think"?"

"No" replies the magistrate.

"Ah, good!" replies the ned "Because I "think" you're a prick!"

Somehow, I can't help but feel that you're fully aware of the difference between an imperative command and a theoretical discussion.

It's possible that even magistrates or the CPS might know the difference, too.

Nonetheless, posted as an invitation, and replied to in the same vein, would indeed be incitement to riot (and probably conspiracy to something or other, too).

Exactly, it's about my intent when I write the message.

So if I post a similar message on Facebook, and say my intent was to make a joke, and nobody responds to or acts upon my message then has a crime been committed? In those circumstances can anybody ever be so certain that my intent was to incite a crime that a 4 year sentence is justified?

I don't think any one can be certain to the intent bar the original poster, we all say things in the heat of the moment that we wouldn't follow though on.
19 months for perhaps getting court up in the moment, one chap was only 19. I remember being 19 I was an idiot.

I don't think being an idiot deserves 19 months and very much destroying the future of this silly individual. There is a massive stigma with prison and the punishment doesn't end with time served, try getting a job, loan, rent a house or even get car insurance after. No one wants to touch you.

Prison should act as a deterrent for people, but the way we have things at the moment I see little chance of any one exiting the system of being able to do anything other than exist in most cases

NB. the necessary mens rea can also arise from "recklessness" even if intent is lacking.

For example, I throw a brick off a bridge without checking if anyone is below. I have no intention to hurt anyone, but my recklessness provides the necessary mental element if it hits someone on the noggin.

Intent is the difference between a charge of murder and manslaughter. The later is a serious crime in spite of the lack of intent to achieve the outcome.

The only issue with on-line comments would be proving that the person accused actually made those comments. It is not unusual for accounts to be hacked, there is even a facebook term for those who have been hacked. Clearly this element must have been proven beyond all doubt for these sentences to have been applied.
So yes to insight hate or crime by whatever means should be punished.

A rarity - a rare nod of agreement with an Andrew post

IMHO it's brain in gear before mouth (or fingers) in motion. If you think things which aren't popular, it probably makes sense to keep them to yourself. Unless trolling gives you a warped sense of importance.

To drag this one up from the depths,

Another fail for the tax payer I believe:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-18536940

So, I have to pay to keep some one locked up for 3 years! I think a more suitable punishment would have been community service, cleaning streets, help running a homeless shelter, just giving back something to society.

How did the police know to check these accounts? I am sure several of my friends/neighbours did the same just about our close rather than our town. Yet we have not been arrested or interviewed.
Could it be that some of these are known trouble makers, which could maybe increase the likely hood of intent (Couldn't think of a better way of putting that).

Here's a good example of the issues at stake. At the time of the original conviction, thousands of other Twitter users tweeted the same message with the hashtag #iamspartacus

Ludicrous decision, hopefully about to be overturned.