17 year old girl arrested over 'offensive' Facebook comment

[Bobbie Bobster]

Clearly, Randall has been reading ManxForums...xkcd: Free Speech

[Lonan3]

Time to talk about this again. A 17 year old girl has been arrested in relation to comments she made on Facebook about a 15 year old boy who died suddenly. BBC

 

I believe that police interference in our lives should only happen when absolutely necessary; to protect people from violence, theft, and other very serious crimes. Arresting someone means using violence against them, and this should only occur in grave circumstances.

 

In the conservative political atmosphere that prevails in the UK and over here, criminalisation has become an over-used tool for social engineering. Want to make people less racist? Make saying racist things illegal. Want to promote social cohesion and harmony? Make saying offensive things illegal.

 

It is a tool which is used far too casually, and far too frequently without considering what it entails. It is firstly the use of force against innocent people (as they must be considered until they have been proven otherwise), the psychological distress of being subject to this process, and the host of other restrictions and sanctions that arrest and criminalisation often mean.

 

The law has long strayed over the bounds in which it ought to operate. It ought to have very limited interference in speech and expression, if any at all.

It may be argued that offending someone, or causing them distress or alarm, are forms of violence, and I would agree with this, but physical violence is a much more serious form, and its use by the state against innocent civilians should be used sparingly and only when most necessary; furthermore its use must by proportionate to the crime.

 

In cases such as this one, the response of the law is not in reasonable proportion to the supposed crime. The girl's comments may have been hurtful, offensive, distressing to someone (equally, they may not have been, and it may be that someone has just decided that they could be) but this does not justify the use of force and the power of the law against her. She, and everyone else, ought to be able to speak their mind, no matter how much offense this may cause, without fear of reprisal from an overbearing state that thinks the way to create a compliant, prosperous, and peaceful society (such are their ends) is to use repressive laws as a form of social engineering.

 

Do you think the actions of the state in this case are justified? Why?

Sorry about the bloat quote, but I wanted it to be compared with the actual story you're applying your drawing-room liberalism to.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10763958/Police-investigate-grossly-offensive-online-comments-after-teenager-19-commits-suicide.html

 

Although it's not complete, yet, it is a story of a 15-year-old boy who hanged himself after [allegedly] being bullied. How does that sit with your view that "It may be argued that offending someone, or causing them distress or alarm, are forms of violence, and I would agree with this, but physical violence is a much more serious form"?

 

As I said earlier, " It is entirely possible for 'speech' to go beyond offence and into the realms of genuine hurt. An example would, perhaps, be the effect nasty words about their dead child could have on parents.

Make no mistake, if that was done deliberately, it is every bit an act of violence as a punch would be and probably even more painful."

 

You can spout your ridiculous, theoretical crap from the comfort of your home but, in the real world, a young lad who'd barely had time to get into his life is dead - and he's dead because of the words that were used as weapons against him.

 

If that was my child, and someone had continued to dish out insults afterwards, there wouldn't be any need for the police to take action. My apologies for sounding like a knob/Internet warrior, but I'd go and strangle the horrible, ignorant bitch myself.

[slinkydevil]

Teen's Facebook brag costs dad $80,000 lawsuit settlement http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-26393546

 

When Dana Snay learned her father had been awarded a cash settlement in an age-discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, the Miami-based Gulliver Preparatory School, she couldn't resist bragging about it.

"Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver," the teen posted to her 1,200 Facebook friends. "Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT."

It was a bit of boasting that could end up costing the Snays the entire $80,000 (£47,750) settlement.

[thommo2010]

 

 

The reason they will lose the settlement is due to the dad signing a non disclosure confidential contract or something similar he goes home tells family she tells everyone. Silly cow

 

When Dana Snay learned her father had been awarded a cash settlement in an age-discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, the Miami-based Gulliver Preparatory School, she couldn't resist bragging about it.

 

"Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver," the teen posted to her 1,200 Facebook friends. "Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT."

 

It was a bit of boasting that could end up costing the Snays the entire $80,000 (£47,750) settlement.

[Vulgarian]

Sorry about the bloat quote, but I wanted it to be compared with the actual story you're applying your drawing-room liberalism to.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10763958/Police-investigate-grossly-offensive-online-comments-after-teenager-19-commits-suicide.html

 

Although it's not complete, yet, it is a story of a 15-year-old boy who hanged himself after [allegedly] being bullied. How does that sit with your view that "It may be argued that offending someone, or causing them distress or alarm, are forms of violence, and I would agree with this, but physical violence is a much more serious form"?

 

As I said earlier, " It is entirely possible for 'speech' to go beyond offence and into the realms of genuine hurt. An example would, perhaps, be the effect nasty words about their dead child could have on parents.

Make no mistake, if that was done deliberately, it is every bit an act of violence as a punch would be and probably even more painful."

 

You can spout your ridiculous, theoretical crap from the comfort of your home but, in the real world, a young lad who'd barely had time to get into his life is dead - and he's dead because of the words that were used as weapons against him.

 

If that was my child, and someone had continued to dish out insults afterwards, there wouldn't be any need for the police to take action. My apologies for sounding like a knob/Internet warrior, but I'd go and strangle the horrible, ignorant bitch myself.

 

Kids bully each other and say hurtful things all the time. You can't have the police step in any time a kid says to another one to go and 'die in a fire'. If there is very clear causation between the comments made and some kind of physical violence or imminent potential thereof, then it may be right to step in, as I mentioned earlier. It's the thing with shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. There is the distinct possibility of that directly causing physical harm. If a person, with real intent, encourages someone to harm themselves, even commit suicide, then it could be argued that there is some direct causation. But it is not desirably or feasible to try to police general malicious abuse, name calling, and gossip, etc. There is the potential for any of it to contribute to harm depending on circumstances, and you can't outlaw it all.

[Gladys]

But they are not kids really, are they? They are young adults for many purposes and should have now learnt care and consideration for others.

 

Having said that, I do understand and kind of share the OP's concern of over-criminalisation if what is, otherwise, name-calling. I have not read the reports but hope that what is involved truly deserves police time and attention and that there is a causal link between the girl's comments and the lad's death.

 

In times gone by, a visit from a parent to the other would put a stop to such nonsense but we are now unwilling or prevented from policing our own behaviour.

[ballaughbiker]

Equally though, those being offended could just merely ignore the offensive comment/s and disregard them as just being the words of an insignificant attention seeking idiot.

Well I agree on the face of it but I've developed a thick skin working with "one or two" inadequate line managers who had rank. I've also seen a bit of life. However do you really think those defensive life skills can be acquired by 15?

 

Also, never underestimate the destructive power of social media. Every time someone puts something about you on bookface your phone chirps and everytime someone comments the f'ing thing chirps again and again and again etc. When you inevitably read it, you know everyone else has too. Imagine the destructive power that would have at 15. Go on, it doesn't take too much imagination.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think that the escalation of a harmful use of speech to a use of force is not warranted. It's like saying "call me that again and I'll get my mate to punch you in the face". The use of force should only be evoked when absolutely necessary, and this is not one of those cases.

Why do you consider it an escalation?

 

In any society where there would be some form of justice, there would have to be some process by which a person who does harm is brought to account. Unless they deliver themselves to the body that would deal with the harmful behaviour or unless they decide to leave that society, force would have to be used mete out justice.

 

Take a situation where the whole contents of someone's home, including their food, their workgear, their sentimental possessions disappeared and it was known who the culprit was. In this case, there hasn't been any violence in taking these things. It would acceptable to use force to bring that person to account if they do not fess up and take responsibility.

 

The problem with society today is that the State has no legitimate claim to use of force. It has no authority, nevermind the authority to use force. Nevertheless, the reality is that its ability to use force to bring people to account has to be relied upon. The State has usurped the responsibility of communities to deal with problems so it has to be relied upon where harm is done.

 

I agree that any authority has to meet a very high burden of justification to warrant any coercive behaviour but when one party harms another I cannot see of any other way.

 

I think it would be interesting to know when you think force is warranted.

 

Essentially, you are correct in the quote you give above. If harmful speech is designated as criminal then it could become a case of deterrence. But what we are talking about is a specific form of speech, which is causing harm and which has been designated as requiring the perpetrator to come before an authority/any authority to end punish that behaviour. That would involve the use of physical coercion.

Now, presumably, you seem to think that use of such force is far worse than the harm caused by the harmful speech. Why is that the case?

 

We can work out other ways of dealing with oppressive speech. Better education is definitely needed. We were taught next to nothing about the use of oppressive language when I was at school just over ten years ago, though I hope things have changed a bit now. It's something that people should also be encouraged to deal with themselves, socially. We shouldn't be delegating the negotiation of what is acceptable speech to the police and state, but handling it peacefully ourselves. That is our social responsibility, and not something to be handed over to someone else so that we can feel that we don't have to deal with it.

I think this is all too detached from the realities of what really goes on for people who are victims of oppressive speech.

Again, I couldn't agree more about the importance of education, but the idea that people should be encouraged to deal with oppressive speech themselves is completely unrealistic.

 

The problem is firstly that there is no dialogue between the perpetrator and the victim that can effectively deal with harmful speech to the victim's satisfaction and which punishes what ought to be punishable behaviour. But also, in our society there is currently no form education and very little awareness of why oppressive speech exist, how it operates and how to deal with it.

The progress being made is minimal. In these circumstances, it would be unsatisfactory and a rather bizarre exception of justice to simply give reference to how education should be dealing with the issue.

And let's not forget, that when we are talking about oppressive speech of harmful intent, we are not talking about a simple problem of ignorance. The perpetrator has an intent to cause harm.

[Vulgarian]

You would not consider that an escalation? From oppressive use of speech to physical violence? If you think that is a valid way of dealing with it then you won't mind me giving you a kick in the teeth if you say something oppressive to me (or perhaps I would bundle you into the back of a van to spend a night in a cell, then place a barrage of other restrictions upon you and your liberty).

 

The discussion here has been limited so far to the question of speech and how it is dealt with by the state. We could look at a range of crimes/disagreements and ask how they should be dealt with. I would only see arrest as legitimate in cases of physical violence, theft, breach of contract, maybe a few other things. In some of these cases physical violence is not involved, but I agree that force may be used. So why not with speech?

 

I particularly think that we should deal with speech differently. Being able to express your views without fear of reprisal from the state is essential to creating a free society. We are aware of the limitations of democracy and how it represents dissenting views. The ability of people who hold such views to express themselves can easily be stifled when limitations on speech are in place. I think the best and most fair way to find our limits is to have a level playing field in terms of what can be said; there is then no argument that anyone's views are being forcibly suppressed. A system which puts strong limits on expression is patently abusable. I appreciate that different voices and the people who own them carry varying amounts of weight in society, and that awareness of this and the problems inherent in it is low, but if this situation is ever to be tackled it needs education, not threats.

 

What impact do you think the government's current approach to speech is having? Is it changing views, or merely suppressing them? If it is changing them, it is largely through threat of force, and therefore fear, that this change is being effected, and this is the wrong way to do it. It involves weighing up different voices and their ability to oppress, and then discriminating what can be said depending on that. It creates a discriminatory system which, though having good intentions, actually serves as a tool of oppression itself, and causes resentment and uncertainty about what is correct speech. It is a lazy and ineffective way of dealing with serious problems which are inherently human, and which require a more informative approach.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You would not consider that an escalation? From oppressive use of speech to physical violence? If you think that is a valid way of dealing with it then you won't mind me giving you a kick in the teeth if you say something oppressive to me (or perhaps I would bundle you into the back of a van to spend a night in a cell, then place a barrage of other restrictions upon you and your liberty).

The escalation I thought you were referring to was the involvement of some entity or person using physical coercion to bring someone to some form of account for their use of oppressive speech. I do not necessarily consider the use of this physical coercion to be an escalation. It depends on how serious the crime is considered to be.

 

But in any case, I am not sure whether this is where the issue for discussion really seem to lie, as you seem to take issue with the involvement of the State deciding on matters surrounding speech. The State doesn't necessarily have to arrest someone but could order them to present themselves at a Court at the penalty of a very large fine, for example. I think, as you have done, that it is better to move away from this issue of force that arrest involves and focus on permissible speech. The manner by which the State deals with people who break the law can be addressed separately.

 

The discussion here has been limited so far to the question of speech and how it is dealt with by the state. We could look at a range of crimes/disagreements and ask how they should be dealt with. I would only see arrest as legitimate in cases of physical violence, theft, breach of contract, maybe a few other things. In some of these cases physical violence is not involved, but I agree that force may be used. So why not with speech?

 

I particularly think that we should deal with speech differently. Being able to express your views without fear of reprisal from the state is essential to creating a free society. We are aware of the limitations of democracy and how it represents dissenting views. The ability of people who hold such views to express themselves can easily be stifled when limitations on speech are in place. I think the best and most fair way to find our limits is to have a level playing field in terms of what can be said; there is then no argument that anyone's views are being forcibly suppressed. A system which puts strong limits on expression is patently abusable. I appreciate that different voices and the people who own them carry varying amounts of weight in society, and that awareness of this and the problems inherent in it is low, but if this situation is ever to be tackled it needs education, not threats.

Again, I was very much of your thinking of this idea that a free society needs to be one where all speech is free for the reasons you have mentioned. But to say again, I am starting to think that this idea of a more free society is flawed.

 

When you have these dominance discourses that maintain an oppressive understanding of people who are not white, heterosexual, etc. then a society which has absolute freedom of speech is not a level playing field. Understandings are shaped by the dominant discourse, as a result of the manner by which power structures have developed. Those who are misunderstood and mischaracterised by this language are not as free as those use it. The use of such speech doesn't just hurt feelings of people whose feelings have been historically hurt, but is a method of trying to push that person outside of a society as marking them as something 'other' to everyone else. It is incredibly damaging to that person and to society as a whole. These discourses lead to repression, suppression or marginalisation in society and they deny these people a voice in their society. There isn't simply a varying of weight given to different views but a situation that ensures an already existing stark imbalance between those who have a very strong voice and those who have little. Not a level playing field. It is the sanctioning of any authority's role to step in and educate but also punish particular forms of speech that involve the most damaging aspects of these discourses that is approved for its role in levelling the playing field. It prevents people from taking a step to wilfully harm others by relying on their more powerful position.

 

I think you seriously mistaken when you say the problems with unequal discourses is low in a society of absolute speech. The use of oppressive speech is extremely common in society. What is not so common is its use in consciously harmful ways, such as through insults. I think what holds this back is awareness of consequences to some degree. Though I do think a great deal also involves a concomitant societal awareness of what is not acceptable. But this acceptablility has largely come from legalities surrounding speech, I think. But how do you think those who are oppressed are to challenge their oppression? Why should it even be them who has to challenge it or challenge it alone? I just wonder what you think the target of racist speech, for example, is to do. What if they are called a derogatory term, do they shrug their shoulders and walk on?

 

But let's be clear. I think the furthest step that could ever be taken is where oppressive speech is definitely used to cause harm, i.e. where there is wilful intent. I don't think I have too much of concern for the cost to someone's freedom of expression where there attempts to stifle this very particular form of expression.

 

Abuse is the problem though. Where is the line drawn. Where sexuality and race might be or seem to be clear cut, would we also bring in sexist language that has an intent to harm or what about where it relates to someone's weight. With the former, I am quite comfortable with that but would not think so with the latter. But it's a fine line.

 

 

 

 

[Vulgarian]

When you have these dominance discourses that maintain an oppressive understanding of people who are not white, heterosexual, etc. then a society which has absolute freedom of speech is not a level playing field.

 

I meant a 'level playing field' in terms of what is permissible in law, not in terms of the power that different discourses carry. I thought that you might misinterpret that!

 

I think you seriously mistaken when you say the problems with unequal discourses is low in a society of absolute speech. The use of oppressive speech is extremely common in society. What is not so common is its use in consciously harmful ways, such as through insults. I think what holds this back is awareness of consequences to some degree. Though I do think a great deal also involves a concomitant societal awareness of what is not acceptable. But this acceptablility has largely come from legalities surrounding speech, I think. But how do you think those who are oppressed are to challenge their oppression? Why should it even be them who has to challenge it or challenge it alone? I just wonder what you think the target of racist speech, for example, is to do. What if they are called a derogatory term, do they shrug their shoulders and walk on?

 

I disagree that awareness of what is acceptable speech has been shaped largely by legality. The momentum behind changing awareness has been very much broader than that, and legislation has played a only supporting role, though one which has not always worked well. As I mentioned, the legislation surrounding speech has caused confusion, resentment, and victimisation of people who have fallen foul of it, sometimes at points on which it oughtn't to have encroached to begin with.

 

A person who uses oppressive speech probably has low understanding of the harm it can do. What outcome does criminalising him for using it serve? He has learned nothing except that he has crossed an arbitrary, and very hazy, line that the state has drawn. He has learned nothing of why this has happened, the reasoning behind it, or how to better understand the harm he may or may not have done. This helps nothing. It's a stupid and lazy way of dealing with harmful speech. Instead of throwing the man in a cell for a night, or taking some of his money, or hampering his ability to find work, all of which are harmful to him, education should be provided by the authorities. There should be state involvement in challenging the dominant discourse, and it should amount to education, encouragement, awareness campaigns, etc. Traditional forms of punishment are ineffective, and as harmful to the perpetrator as they are to the victim, and as such can be considered retaliatory.

 

There will always be a dominant discourse to the exclusion of others to some degree. I don't believe we can ever escape this; it is deep rooted, and related to our tendency to form tribes, to establish norms, to seek privilege and power over others, to marginalise outsiders. The best that you can hope for is to raise awareness of these tendencies so that people can recognise when abuses of power are occurring, and understand why that can be a problem, and to reduce the privilege of the dominant discourse. We have attained some success in this as a society, and such abuses are less acceptable than they once were.

 

Abuse is the problem though. Where is the line drawn. Where sexuality and race might be or seem to be clear cut, would we also bring in sexist language that has an intent to harm or what about where it relates to someone's weight. With the former, I am quite comfortable with that but would not think so with the latter. But it's a fine line.

 

The drawing of lines and the balancing of the potential harm of certain kinds of speech is so full of problems that it is not right, in my view, to use this arbitrary decision making as a justification for the use of force by authorities. Verbal abuse is not something to be criminalised. It is a form of expression. It can indeed make use of the power imbalance of to give it weight but this itself is not always a problem either. If oppression is systemic, such as that it extends substantively and perniciously to other areas of life and causes real problems, then the issue is far wider then the instance of verbal abuse, and that is something that must be tackled. If the discourse imbalance is being invoked to simply add weight to abuse, where someone is merely expressing their displeasure, but it holds little substantive power elsewhere, is this to be opposed? If I want to imprecate the Polak bastard who willfully sold me a defective car, and curse him and all his countrymen with seven curses, I am indeed invoking my privileged discourse to add weight to this well deserved abuse! However, this oppression does not really extend to any other areas of life. I do not, or try not to, make any substantive discrimination between different people.

[Amadeus]

Yay, a thread that has derailed into a TLDR slagging fest on what Mods do. Great

 

On the original point: As many others have mentioned, it does indeed depend on the context of what the girl posted. We don't know that so we can't really comment either way.

 

What we can clearly establish is that the law has a problem keeping up with technology and its uses. You just have to think back to the Robin Hood airport case, where some poor bloke was busted because he posted an angry tweet that caused some clipboard soldier to go into full John McClane mode. That case was ridiculous and showed the shortcomings of the current system, namely some jobsworth being able to seriously affect a person's life, or, if you look at it from the side of the Wannabe Seal Team 6 member, one silly tweet holding the potential to seriously screw your own life.

 

So until the law catches up, you have to be aware of the potential consequences and the reach of your words. Ten years ago, that bloke would have kicked the cat and mumbled his infamous words into his beard and there would have been no case. These days, Jobby Jobsworth saw it on twitter, smelt a promotion and rang the alarm. Common sense prevailed in the end, but it shows you the risks we run using these platforms every day.

 

I personally can't see the police being a big fan of these reports either, with every offended Dick, Tom and Harry these days calling the fuzz to report that someone called them fat on Facebook or a twat on Twitter. They have better things to do. As with all things law, it takes time to adjust and change. You could always also just act in an at least reasonably responsible manner. That goes for the people posting as well as the people reporting, may it be on Bookface, Twatter or even in these sacred online halls, where we have seen our own fair share of people complaining in all sorts of legal ways over the years.

 

[Vulgarian]

Yay, a thread that has derailed into a TLDR slagging fest on what Mods do. Great

 

Huh? It's called a discussion. You mightn't read it but me and LDV will!

 

On the original point: As many others have mentioned, it does indeed depend on the context of what the girl posted. We don't know that so we can't really comment either way.

 

What we can clearly establish is that the law has a problem keeping up with technology and its uses. You just have to think back to the Robin Hood airport case, where some poor bloke was busted because he posted an angry tweet that caused some clipboard soldier to go into full John McClane mode. That case was ridiculous and showed the shortcomings of the current system, namely some jobsworth being able to seriously affect a person's life, or, if you look at it from the side of the Wannabe Seal Team 6 member, one silly tweet holding the potential to seriously screw your own life.

 

So until the law catches up, you have to be aware of the potential consequences and the reach of your words. Ten years ago, that bloke would have kicked the cat and mumbled his infamous words into his beard and there would have been no case. These days, Jobby Jobsworth saw it on twitter, smelt a promotion and rang the alarm. Common sense prevailed in the end, but it shows you the risks we run using these platforms every day.

 

I personally can't see the police being a big fan of these reports either, with every offended Dick, Tom and Harry these days calling the fuzz to report that someone called them fat on Facebook or a twat on Twitter. They have better things to do. As with all things law, it takes time to adjust and change. You could always also just act in an at least reasonably responsible manner. That goes for the people posting as well as the people reporting, may it be on Bookface, Twatter or even in these sacred online halls, where we have seen our own fair share of people complaining in all sorts of legal ways over the years.

 

It's fine to take stock of the current situation, but do you think we should be dealing with it differently? What is OK to say and what's not? When should authorities have the power to step in, and what should happen when they do? That's what I'm trying to get at.

[Amadeus]

Correct, it got TLDR for me. Each to their own.

 

What is OK to say and what's not? That's based on current laws but also open for discussion on how the law should change. It's not as if the people making the laws aren't aware of it. It's finding the right balance and means to regulate our modern lives that's the problem.

[Lonan3]

Huh? It's called a discussion. You mightn't read it but me and LDV will!

 

 

 

It's fine to take stock of the current situation, but do you think we should be dealing with it differently? What is OK to say and what's not? When should authorities have the power to step in, and what should happen when they do? That's what I'm trying to get at.

If it's just you and LDV, I doubt that anyone else in the entire universe would read it!

 

The thing you seem unable to comprehend is that words can be used as an offensive weapon. words can cause real harm - both mental and, ultimately, physical. When that happens, when genuine hurt is produced (and I'm ignoring your inane comparison with kids arguing in the playground) then the perpetrator of the hurt/harm has to be prepared to be held responsible for his or her actions in exactly the same way that someone who punches someone in the face would be.

Many of us may be thick-skinned enough to ignore what someone says - but there are vulnerable people for whom such abuse has possibly permanent effects. As I've already pointed out, the case you're spewing out your views about involves the death of a young lad, possibly as a result of bullying. A lad who was so hurt by it that he went into the woods, put a rope on a tree and actually hanged himself. A horrible death and a terrible waste of a young life caused by - and I will say 'allegedly' - by thoughtless assholes whose every breath is a waste of good, fresh air. If those same assholes are responsible for continuing public comments after his death - comments that will devastate the already distraught parents of the lad - then I'd personally be content to see them prosecuted, although I'd far rather they suffered a similar fate to their victim.