A man who posted “despicable” comments on his Facebook page about missing youngster April Jones has been jailed for 12 weeks.
I don’t suppose anyone will readily leap to the defence of Matthew Woods’ comments. Clearly he has a problem with taste – but then, who hasn’t made a tasteless remark at some point in their lives? I can certainly recall making dark comments about the dismembered body of a suicide at my feet while waiting for the coroner’s folks to come along and declare that the body parts were, indeed, deceased. The difference here is that while my remarks may have been tasteless and insensitive, they weren’t plastered all over the Internet, so no one was likely to gaol me – not even the BT Police who were joining in.
You either believe in free speech or you do not. There are no inbetweens. If you do – and I do – then you have to take an absolute position, which means defending scrotes like Matthew Woods when they make obnoxious remarks that may well offend the eagerly offended. After all, those people who queued up to be offended could have just ignored it, couldn’t they? The magistrate could have told the CPS to grow the fuck up and dismissed the case as not worthy of being brought in the first place. Come to that, the police could and should have told the professionally offended to grow a pair. They could, they should, but in the land of free speech, free speech died and over at Cats, we see why:
Sden
October 9, 2012 at 5:29 am
What is most outrageous is that someone here could be so willing to defend a person capable of making such cruel and appalling statements on the basis of “freedom of speech”. I think the Jones’ should be given far more consideration and “freedom” to be left to deal with the horrifying situation that they face without having to be subjected to comments which are so amazingly insensitive. I would in fact argue that this was far more than a ‘crappy joke’. He didn’t just say it, he posted it online for the world to read. I would say this is worse than treason. If any of you have children and could begin to understand the pain inflicted under circumstances like this I would suggest you should be ashamed of yourselves for suggesting Matthew Woods’ actions were anything short of criminal. For those of you who don’t, maybe one day you will understand the true ignorance displayed in what you have written above.
Sden is clearly a totalitarian who does not believe in free speech, let alone understand the principle. He or she is such a cretin they cannot grasp where their stance will take us – indeed is already taking us – to the realms of thought crime. No, I am not ashamed to defend Woods’ right to free speech, for the defenders of free speech will sometimes have to defend those they find abhorrent, to defend speech that is abhorrent, for their speech today is my speech tomorrow. A lesson Sden should be taking seriously and the only ignorance here is that displayed in his or her comment. Worse than treason, FFS! What a jerk.
Thing is, Sden is probably in the majority in this brave new world of the Twitter and Facebook generation… We are the ones who are out of step.
LR, well put. If your last paragraph is true (and it looks as though it is) then it makes depressing reading.
John, I think part of the problem is age related – the younger generation are now too far away from our war for freedom plus they have had years of brainwashing to make them the way they are.
It’s only us old fogies that remember freedom and the way the world was, when you never bothered to lock the house if you were away for the day and you could own a gun by the simple expedient of going to a gunsmith and buying one.
Another nail in the coffin of freedom.
Very good post which if people would ctually read it and think about it there might be a majority who would agree; regrettably we seem to live in a frontally lobotomised society whose opinions are formed by the BBC and the Daily Mail, and freedom means being free to be a PC, institutionalised lefty.
Other sorts of freedom are not permitted.
Many (most) comments in the DM on this subject are in agreement with Longrider. Quite rightly too.
What I find amazing is the speed of prosecution and sentencing. How many times do we read about Johnny Chav beating someone up in the street only for the court case to drag on and on and when he is finally found guilty, sentencing is held over for months of consideration.
Yet post something on bookface or twatter that someone somewhere finds offensive and the “full weight of the law” is brought to bear in no time flat.
Indeed. You can beat someone up, but woe betide you if you hurt their feelings.
“No, I am not ashamed to defend Woods’ right to free speech”
Good for you – neither am I. You are right – free speech is an absolute position.
Hear hear.
Now the situation appears to be that if a white bloke tells a dodgy joke, he can expect 12 weeks in chokey. While if a brown one goes off on one, he can expect a suspended sentence.
In both cases the judges seem to think they’ve inherited the cloak of the old Lord Chamberlain, able to dictate what people can or cannot say in public and misuse legislation which was meant to deal with harassment between individuals to apply to what should come under publishing law.
Amnesty International and Liberty ought to be looking at these cases, but I don’t suppose they will.
the dismembered body of a suicide
Wow, they were *absolutely determined* to do it, weren’t they !
She put her knickers on her head and then put her head on the railway line. Yes, she was very determined.
Poor woman, must have a tortured soul to choose such a violent end. RIP
A paranoid schizophrenic unfortunately. Yes, a very sad story. Her parents accosted us at the nearby bridge fearing the worst. I felt very sorry for them.
Echoing Ivan here.
Sounds like a contemptible piece of shit but I defend his right to be a contemptible piece of shit!
Whatever happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?
DaveE.
We need a more nuanced approach to this. I have zero connection to the April Jones case and live far from her community. If I were to make jokes about poor April on my Facebook page, I would expect to be unfriended and hopefully taken to task by my friends and family. Or perhaps encouraged to seek help since that sort of thing is out of character for me. I should not be fearing prosecution.
Mr Woods presumably made some horrible comments that any reasonable person would find grossly offensive. If he made them in isolation, they fall in the grounds of free speech. And I have no shame in saying he should not be jailed. Castigated, yes. Imprisoned. No.
If he made persistent offensive statements on a “Find April Jones” page or on her parents accounts, then I believe it could fall under harassment and we should not underestimate the emotional impact of such actions. But that does not seem to be the case here. And because that does not seem to be the case, I find this almost as frightening and disturbing as the abduction and murder of a 5 yr old. And I say that as a parent of a precious, beautiful 5 yr old.
Quite. The line between harassment and being a dick is a relatively easy one to navigate.
Most of us here are agreed that free speech needs to be defended- but what will we do to defend it?
I urge everyone here to write to their MP, sign petitions, join the Facebook groups campaigning to reverse the law, and don’t let this fuss die down and be forgotten!
It’s not just the Communications act 2003, it’s the public order act 1986 (see http://www.reformsection5.org.uk).
Also, consider the the Equality act 2010, and the idea that people and companies can be sued if anyone overhears an offensive comment at work. The sinister nature of this comes from two points
1. Every person bear you becomes a potential spy and snitch on you for anything you say that they don’t like.
2. The bitterness and resentment for the gagging of free speech is directed against the person deciding to be offended, not the government for making the law (or ailing to repeal it).
The government can almost shrug its shoulders and say “it’s you who are deciding this” when in fact it means that the standards are set by the most vociferous, most intolerant individuals. It’s not even vaguely democratic, and in fact if you do need to go against the majority, surely that act should be on the side of free speech?
Sounds good: “I urge everyone here to write to their MP.”
Yes but who exactly is urging us? Anon rnd?
When the British throw off the yoke of the anti-individual EU and declare themselves to live in a free country; then they may get to have free speech as was intended by G-d (or by the Big Bang[tm])