17 year old girl arrested over 'offensive' Facebook comment

[MANANNAN]

Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.

 

we're constantly getting the believes of others forced on us, under the guise of free speech, whilst those who express an alternative view are victimised. Same gender marriage is the perfect example. Those who oppose, whether on religious or other grounds, are homophobes and victimised in the society. When, in reality, they are exercising their right to free speech and opposition, which they should always have the right to exercise in a democracy. Another example is the desire not to offend muslim people, yet they have the ability to preach hate against christianity/western society and the desire of the extremists to end the UK state.

 

This isn't free speech, and it's time the people learned that and revolted against the morons who made these rules.

[Whatsername]

Get rid of Facebook, job done

[Vulgarian]

It also depends how people act on those thoughts/beliefs. i.e in your example, if said bloke is turning up at the various pride rallies and protesting or being generally unpleasant then yes, he has gone too far, whereas if he's at home talking to like-minded friends and saying "I think x group of people should not be here because of y reason" that's his views expressed privately without the motivation to offend.

I think the same goes for a lot of radical believers, if they keep themselves to themselves, and aren't trying to indoctrinate youths or vulnerable people, it's a lot more acceptable than someone going around dressed in a manner to provoke and/or offend, spreading messages of hate in order to provoke, offend or indoctrinate.

 

If someone goes onto Facebook or any website for the purpose of causing grief, and upset to others, then I'm sure most would agree, they are doing something wrong/malicious.

 

So you can say what you want but not publicly? Free speech in public is the most important kind. There's no point being able to say what you like but only to your dog in a whispered voice. If a certain person wants to attend gay pride rallies to voice his opposition he ought to be entitled to do that without being locked up and having his opinion suppressed in the public arena.

 

Define "violent". Define "innocent". Define "absolutely necessary". Define "very serious".

 

You can google 'violence' to read about that. There are debates about how far its definition extends and I touched on that earlier when I mentioned psychological violence. In our judicial system people are innocent until they have been proven otherwise, so anyone who is arrested for anything is innocent. When I say 'necessary' in relation to the intervention of police and the use of force, I mean that this should only be done to prevent violence, or in cases of theft and a few other limited circumstances; not just when people are saying offensive things on the internet. Ditto for very serious. The details must obviously be discussed.

 

The arrest is a use of words to tell someone that their liberty has been taken from them until such time as they are released, sometimes, and only sometimes force is used. Generally in cases such as this one people are invited to the Police Station and formally arrested in the foyer, not even a touch passes between them. Really violent that !

 

Force is always used in arresting someone, whether it is simply threatened or actually used. Without it the police would have no power. Police powers are predicated on the use of force.You ought to know that.

[Mission]

If you're not a dick about it, the police won't use force when arresting you - of course, many people are massive dicks about it and get treated accordingly I guess...

[Mr. Sausages]

You can google 'violence' to read about that. There are debates about how far its definition extends and I touched on that earlier when I mentioned psychological violence. In our judicial system people are innocent until they have been proven otherwise, so anyone who is arrested for anything is innocent. When I say 'necessary' in relation to the intervention of police and the use of force, I mean that this should only be done to prevent violence, or in cases of theft and a few other limited circumstances; not just when people are saying offensive things on the internet. Ditto for very serious. The details must obviously be discussed.

 

"Presumption of innocence" is simply a phrase to make clear that the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, and not the other way around. It doesn't mean arrested suspects or people on trial are innocent. It means they are presumed innocent, i.e. haven't been proved guilty and convicted in court (at that point in time).

 

Arrest to prevent violence? Sounds like a job for the thought police.

[Vulgarian]

If you're not a dick about it, the police won't use force when arresting you - of course, many people are massive dicks about it and get treated accordingly I guess...

 

As I said, force is always used in an arrest, whether it is actually employed, or merely threatened, it is always used. By 'being a dick about it' I assume you mean resisting arrest?

 

"Presumption of innocence" is simply a phrase to make clear that the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, and not the other way around. It doesn't mean arrested suspects or people on trial are innocent. It means they are presumed innocent, i.e. haven't been proved guilty and convicted in court (at that point in time).

 

Arrest to prevent violence? Sounds like a job for the thought police.

 

Yes, as I said, "in our judicial system" people are innocent until proven otherwise. This principle extends to the police and their actions. That is why people are arrested on suspicion of something, and are referred to as 'suspects' and the crimes 'alleged', so we are always dealing with innocent people.

 

Yes, force may be employed to prevent violence, if serious intention to cause harm is discovered, or if violence has already been done and arrest is to prevent further violence. Or it could mean arresting a drink driver say, who by their actions threatens violence on others.

 

You can keep firing questions at me if you want. I would like to know what others think about it, and understand their reasoning.

[Moghrey Mie]

How about this one? Public humiliation!

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/13/ohio-man-bully-sign-harassment-neighbor

[AcousticallyChallenged]

So you can say what you want but not publicly? Free speech in public is the most important kind. There's no point being able to say what you like but only to your dog in a whispered voice. If a certain person wants to attend gay pride rallies to voice his opposition he ought to be entitled to do that without being locked up and having his opinion suppressed in the public arena.

So by the same token, if you had children and NAMBLA or similar started protesting outside the school against the age of consent, that's perfectly acceptable.

 

Or if a new branch of neo-nazis started marching down Strand Street encouraging genocide, that'd be acceptable too?

 

There's a big difference between what people should be able to voice behind closed doors and publicly. Note, that these are two extreme examples that many, including myself, would disapprove of in any context.

[Kopek]

Should allowance be made for 'naivety' as to the possible effect of the online comments?

 

There must be a traumatic effect to being arrested but violence is surely a minority of cases? I don't think that the Police should match the violence they are encountering though.

[Truth Seeker]

Get rid of Facebook, job done

Seconded.

[Vulgarian]

So by the same token, if you had children and NAMBLA or similar started protesting outside the school against the age of consent, that's perfectly acceptable.

 

Or if a new branch of neo-nazis started marching down Strand Street encouraging genocide, that'd be acceptable too?

 

There's a big difference between what people should be able to voice behind closed doors and publicly. Note, that these are two extreme examples that many, including myself, would disapprove of in any context.

 

Even the most reviled in our society: NAMBLA, Neo-Nazis, racists, holocaust deniers, Islamic fundamentalists, politicians, etc. should all be free to make their views known publicly. Equally, everyone else should be free to challenge them.

[Lonan3]

 

 

You can google 'violence' to read about that. There are debates about how far its definition extends and I touched on that earlier when I mentioned psychological violence. In our judicial system people are innocent until they have been proven otherwise, so anyone who is arrested for anything is innocent. When I say 'necessary' in relation to the intervention of police and the use of force, I mean that this should only be done to prevent violence, or in cases of theft and a few other limited circumstances; not just when people are saying offensive things on the internet.

Are you suggesting that only physical violence matters - that only 'sticks and stones' can cause actual harm?

If so, then you are living in a very strange and unreal world.

Not only can words cause real, genuine pain - they can also leave scars that are every bit as destructive as anything that physical violence can produce.

[Mr. Sausages]

.

 

Yes, force may be employed to prevent violence, if serious intention to cause harm is discovered, or if violence has already been done and arrest is to prevent further violence. Or it could mean arresting a drink driver say, who by their actions threatens violence on others.

 

So you'd be fine if they arrested someone who they thought intended to commit psychological violence against someone else?

 

Or should I say, if they violently arrested an innocent person and used force to prevent them from using their right to free speech?

 

This is all very confusing.

[Vulgarian]

Are you suggesting that only physical violence matters - that only 'sticks and stones' can cause actual harm?

If so, then you are living in a very strange and unreal world.

Not only can words cause real, genuine pain - they can also leave scars that are every bit as destructive as anything that physical violence can produce.

 

I quite agree that psychological violence can be extremely distressing, but I don't think it should be dealt with using physical violence, except perhaps in grave circumstances. I think we can in most cases resolve disputes where psychological violence is employed without resorting to using force. The aim of any intervention should be to help the aggressor understand the harm they are causing, and help them become a better person.

 

Was police intervention really necessary or helpful in the case of a teenager who had forgot, or not properly understood, the consequences her views might have for others? Or would some other avenue of resolution perhaps be better for her, the victims, and society generally?

 

In resolving disputes without using force we are sending out a message that force is not the way to deal with these matters. We are affirming people's right to express their views, but we are also challenging them where we disagree, and commit to increasing the understanding of the perpetrators of the harm they may be doing.

[Truth Seeker]

Isn't restricting "Free Speech" a "Thought Crime".