Internet bigot Stephen Birrell jailed for eight months - Scotland

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

A man who posted sectarian comments on a Facebook page called "Neil Lennon Should be Banned" has been jailed for eight months.

Stephen Birrell, 28, from Glasgow, admitted posting the religiously prejudiced abuse earlier this year.

Sheriff Bill Totten said what Birrell had done was a hate crime which would not be tolerated by "the right thinking people of Glasgow and Scotland".

He said he wanted to send out "a clear message to deter others".

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15333744

[tk2kewl]

1. "the right thinking people of Glasgow and Scotland".

holy crap.

Looks like the guy made some nasty statements, but jail? Ever heard of free speech?

[iandhr]

3. European nations...

have criminal hate speech laws. not saying I agree.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Regarded as being

for the overall good.

[alp227]

9. because of the Holocaust, too?

I guess the 1st amendment model won't work in EVERY country.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. "Right thinking people" Very scary term when used by those in power

While what the guy did was stupid, it would be allowable in a truly free nation

[Rebubula]

5. Wow....

...always amazes me that Freedom of Speech is not universal.

Also - some people are OK with that...

[NYC Liberal]

11. I think you have to take the country's history into account.

For example, Germany has laws against Holocaust denial, displaying Nazi symbols, etc. I wouldn't support those laws here but I can understand having them in Germany. I'm still undecided but I understand it.

[dipsydoodle]

22. If it was universal

no posts would ever be deleted here on DU.

Another UK case here : England riots: Court rejects Facebook sentence appeals.

Appeals by two men jailed for using Facebook to try to incite disorder during August's riots in England have been rejected by the Court of Appeal.

Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, and Jordan Blackshaw, 21, were among 10 people challenging riot-related sentences.

At a 27 September hearing, the pair's lawyers argued that their four year sentences were "manifestly excessive".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15347868

[DocMac]

6. There wouldn't be a tea party if we such laws. nt

[alp227]

10. so how would you modify the 1st amendment so that would be? n/t

[DocMac]

12. Hate crimes have more serious consequences.

I understand the importance of free speech. But what about the bullies that push young people to commit suicide?

Perhaps the people of this nation should consider hate speech. It can be defined.

I don't want to step on the Constitution, but the world is evolving and we need to consider that.

[Xithras]

15. Disagree. Our unfettered 1A is one of the greatest rights Americans have.

The government should never have the ability to define the acceptability of speech. The entire point of 1A is to protect unpopular speech.

Remember, according to the supremes, corporations are people now. If we allow the government to define "hateful" speech, it's not a big jump to the banning of anti-corporate speech. Or anti-religious speech (in the UK, you can already be imprisoned for insulting someones religion). Do you really want to live in a country where the fundies can have people prosecuted for publicly denouncing their beliefs? Don't say it can't happen...people said that when Britain started down this road decades ago, and look where they are now.

[DocMac]

17. You're right! I didn't think that far.

I'm sure TPTB do. Thanks for that post.

[Tansy_Gold]

23. We do not have unfettered free speech

We have such things as Truth in Lending laws and Truth in Advertising (not often enforced, but sometimes).

We have slander and libel laws.

We have copyright laws.

People can be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for making verbal threats against someone else's life and/or property even if no action is taken on those threats.

We have laws against harrassment.

And we have "hate crime" legislation -- not enough, but some.

[Xithras]

27. I'd disagree with most of those.

We have such things as Truth in Lending laws and Truth in Advertising (not often enforced, but sometimes).
The Constitution guarantees individual rights. Those are business regulations that are not imposed on individuals.

We have slander and libel laws.
Slander and libel are forms of defamation, and aren't criminal. The government doesn't prevent you from making defamatory statements, but simply provides an avenue for wrongly defamed people to sue for damages. And, in U.S. courts, truth is always a valid defense against slander claims (if I have evidence to suggest that a claim is true and you sue me for slander, you will lose no matter HOW damaging that information is.)

We have copyright laws.
That's because literary and artistic works are property, and unauthorized duplication is theft. This is a property restriction, and not a speech restriction. When distributing copyrighted content, you aren't using your free speech rights because you aren't communicating anything at all...you are simply transferring someone else's speech to a third party. That's fine, unless that third party doesn't want their media transferred...at that point it becomes theft.

People can be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for making verbal threats against someone else's life and/or property even if no action is taken on those threats.
Generally speaking, this is only true if there is reasonable cause to believe that the person had the intent and capability to carry out those threats. There are literally thousands of citeable cases where people have been charged with making these threats, and have been let off based on the "I was pissed off and just spouting bullshit" defense. Unless the prosecution can establish that there was a reasonable chance that they intended to carry out those threats, these cases often go nowhere. Making a statement in anger is rarely cause for imprisonment.

We have laws against harassment.
Harassment is a vague term, but most of these laws are again targeted at businesses with the intent to enforce equality, and not against individuals. There are very few laws that cover harassment between individual people. Generally, if someone is harassing you, the most you can do is request a cease and desist order from a court, which will prevent that person from contacting you. This is entirely constitutional, as the Constitution also guarantees citizens the right to freely associate, and the USSC has determined that this also grants the right of an individual to NOT associate with you.

And we have "hate crime" legislation
U.S. hate crime legislation is almost exclusively limited to prosecuting actual actions, and not speech. Assaulting someone because they're gay isn't speech. Neither is burning a cross on someone's lawn. Or spray painting hate messages on the side of someone else's building. You'll note that it's PERFECTLY LEGAL to burn crosses on your own property, to rally against the "evil gays" on public property, or to place racist messages on buildings you own or billboards you pay for. American hate crime legislation merely stiffens the penalties for criminal acts that harm others or damage property while driven by hateful or racist ideology.

When it comes to individual speech, the United States is still among the least restrictive nations on the planet. Generally speaking, the government only steps in when that speech causes direct harm, or when there is a reasonable belief that it is a promise of direct harm to come in the immediate future.

[Taverner]

30. Exactly. "I love freedom of speech - it lets us know who the idiots are"

I have a t-shirt that says just that

[totodeinhere]

16. Not necessarily. With the right wing controlling our judiciary as it does, they might

say that the OWS protesters are the ones making hate speech and jail them instead. That's why I'm glad we have the First Amendment.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[panzerfaust]

8. Weel - Scots hae made *some* progress

In 1697 - just before the Scottish Enlightenment - a 19 old year student, Tom Aikenhead, was hung by the neck until dead by the Godly ("right thinking") Presbyterians in Edinburgh for having opined that the Bible was not, in fact, the literal Word of God - and other horrific blasphemies.

When all was said and done, the members of the Kirk thought they had done a good, a Godly, days work.

And who is to say it did not warm the cockels of The Lord's heart?

[DocMac]

13. And that was a long time ago.

You aught not compare those days to these.

[panzerfaust]

14. I fear the comparison might well be with the future

[DocMac]

18. I'm not debating it anymore.

I was shot down by a post above.

But, I have myself been in situations where people have got in my face. They felt as if insults and degrading me was ok...until they found out that I wouldn't be a victim. The police called us "mutual combatants" and no charges on either side. They paid the physical price but I doubt they learned from it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. The best way to do that is to let them swing first in front of witnesses

Therefore your response is arguably self defense...even if its much more damaging. When its hand to hand disproportionate force is a very hard call to make stick.

The other mandatory tool is a recording app on your cell phone. Cops, bigots, teabaggers, it records them all.

[DocMac]

20. Plenty of people saw this.

I was at a tiki bar in FLA and this guy got in my face calling me a faggot.

As soon as I got off my stool he swung and missed. I gave him a straight right and he dropped.

That was good enough but he hit his head first on the cement and was out.

Every one there saw and heard what happened. That guy ended up fighting for his life in intensive care for two weeks. He even tried to sue me once he got out. I'm glad he lived through that, but I sure hope he learned something.

If he had not hated gay people or chose not to voice that, it would never had happened. And i'm not gay. The guy at the bar with me was my brother.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. You should have been able to recoup costs from his legal nonsense

I have a couple of times...the threat of that alone has made people to reconsider legal actions.

[Little Tich]

21. I just checked out the Facebook page in question.

There's nothing there that I would qualify as being hate crime. It's just a bunch of knuckleheads having trouble with spelling. What a joke.

[Democat]

24. I'm sure they apply that law equally to all religions and cults.

As long as the government approves of your religion, you'll get protection.

These type of laws are rarely applied fairly.

[Romulox]

25. This is one of the few areas in which Europe falls woefully behind the US.

For shame for jailing a man for thought crimes. :pukes:

[Nye Bevan]

26. Not too far removed from sending people to jail for saying mean things about politicians.

Cases like this are chilling to those of us used to living with the protection of the First Amendment.

[Taverner]

29. The UK does not have freedom of speech.

So it is a little hard for us to understand.

Not passing judgement, just context...