UK Politician Arrested Over Twitter 'Stoning Joke' 422
History's Coming To writes "The BBC is reporting that a Tory city councillor has been arrested over a 'joke' he posted to Twitter suggesting that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a UK based writer, be stoned to death. The full tweet read, 'Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really.' Following complaints he was arrested under the Communications Act 2003 and bailed. He has since apologized. This comes on the same day that a conviction for a Twitter 'joke' about blowing up an airport was upheld."
Doing in wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously he should have phrased it "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome columnist?"
Re:Doing in wrong... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well the UK turns a blind eye on women abuses in their own country by middle-eastern and northern african immigrants, but a politician makes a crude joke and they're all over it. The UK is doomed.
Parent couldn't be more wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Are you fucking kidding?
There's a hell of a lot wrong with this country but that's not one of the problems. The UK has been one of the most active in the world in dealing with the problem of arranged marriages, and other abuse. We've been pouring a fortune into it with a number of high profile convictions, as well as countless other cases of assisting people in getting out of those kind of situations. Our country even intervenes politically and legally as far as it can in situations where people have been t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And he would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky kids...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Asshat (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Asshat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Asshat (Score:5, Funny)
That all depends on who you ask.
I was not aware that Yasmin was a Muslim in support of democracy and women's rights. Knowing that now, I think asking for her to be stoned to death enhances the joke. It's much funnier.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Asshat (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read through all the comments to this article and I haven't seen anyone yet suggest that the councillor was perfectly serious, just hoped he could get away with it. Perhaps he wasn't expecting that this would push someone over the edge to do what they have already been wanting to do to her for years, but there is no question that it was one conservative from one culture helping to legitimise the view of another in another.
It is interesting to ask whether speech protections should include the right to say, "Give an opinion that I don't like and I shall call for your death."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FuckingNickName says,
It is interesting to ask whether speech protections should include the right to say, "Give an opinion that I don't like and I shall call for your death."
That's the single most insightful (and perhaps inciteful) comment in this whole discussion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wtf? You seriously think there was ever any remote likelihood that anybody would actually try and stone her to death?
A Muslim woman publicly and prominently stands up against the Islamic religious authorities? I think there's every chance she's at risk of violence, and that there are those who would like to stone her to death (although that might be difficult for them to implement, so I expect they'd content themselves with other means).
And she rightly says, "If I, as a Muslim woman, had said about him what he said about me then I would be arrested in these times of the war against terror."
Re:Asshat (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, but he still shouldn't be arrested for it!
Your freedom to swing your words stops at deathtreats.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>Your freedom to swing your words stops at deathtreats.
Not in the US where the supreme court has ruled again-and-again that speech is fully protected. The only exception is if the person issuing the death-threat is holding a gun or knife at the time, and the victim is in immediatee danger. This politician clearly wasn't endangering anybody since he was nowhere near the victim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? It's for the courts to decide if he's guilty of a crime, and for the police and prosecution to charge him with what is possibly a crime.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All he asked was a rhetorical question. Many times, I've asked if it were possible to have someone flogged like in the old British Navy and no one takes it seriously. Has asked if she could be stoned - NOT shot; not beaten to death with a cricket bat; but stoned, as in an old fashioned fantasy sort of way.
The real morons here are the folks who are taking this seriously.
Re:Asshat (Score:5, Informative)
Not that it entirely defends his poor joke but he was reacting to her recent assertion that politicians have no right to criticize human rights abuses such as stoning women in Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor jokes in poor taste are not crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Parliament and the courts in the UK would seem to disagree with you.
Re: (Score:3)
*poke*
I can't tell if he's real or not. It's like seeing a mirage while high.
Re: (Score:2)
Where, legally speaking, is the line between a threat and a joke, assuming all you're seeing is text and no body language?
Re:Asshat (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually it sounds like an appropriate response to her column then. She should be stoned. After all, she apparently thinks it's okay. Oh...I missed the part where she thinks it's okay for "others" to be stoned. Sorry 'bout that!
Re:Asshat (Score:5, Interesting)
asked if she could be stoned - NOT shot; not beaten to death with a cricket bat; but stoned, as in an old fashioned fantasy sort of way.
s/n old fashioned fantasy/ current, 3000 mile to the southeast/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I excerpted the quote. Read the entire quote, and make sure to keep reading what's after the quote.
So, should Paul Kanjorski be arrested for inciting violence? Or do any words qualify for you as
Is English your third language? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what planet you are from, but "Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death?" is not a rhetorical question here on planet Earth. It is a direct request. In the USA said person could go to jail for life if somebody read the request and actually granted it. This is in fact quite appropriate. Blasting such a request across the internet to hundreds of thousands of people, any one of which could be an instable nutbag, is gross negligence at best, and any death resulting from gross negligence is and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Re:Is English your third language? (Score:5, Insightful)
"...should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
As long as "the full extent of the law" is to require the speaker to live with the the guilt and shame of having said something which inadvertently led to someone's death, I agree with you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>In the USA said person could go to jail for life if somebody read the request and actually granted it.
No they wouldn't. Look at members of the KKK who routinely say blacks should be lynched, but they never get arrested for it, even after the act happens. The speech remains protected, and the KKK person would only be arrested if he assisted in the crime.
Epic Fail (Score:3, Interesting)
The statement of an opinion: "Blacks should be lynched" is protected by the first amendment. The request "would someone please lynch [name of black person]" is not a statement, and is not protected by the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you propose how to distinguish between a "rhetorical" threat against a person's life, and an actual threat against a person's life? I've tried to think of a few ways, and for all of them this would fall on the "actual" side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The mistake people make is they think twitter or face book (etc.) is like talking to your 3 best friends at the local pub.
Then they broadcast it to thousands (millions?) of people.
To me both this and the linked articles were CLEARLY jokes.
I can't believe the asshat of a judge in the "blow up the airport" joke.
But.. people do get fired for saying something dumb and then hit "reply all" to the corporate mailing list.
I think the line should be clear for twitter that it's like standing on a building shouting th
Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd also argue that the next Briton who accuses the US of being "less free" than Europe must be stoned.*
*Not must "must be" in the sense of "somebody should go out and make sure that..." but more in the sense of "It's obvious that... is already..."
Re: (Score:2)
It is also illegal in the US, but the threat has to be credible. Are threats with no credibility (i.e. a man with no arms saying "I'm going to strangle you!") still illegal in the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
It's absolutely ridiculous...anyone with a modicum of reason would assume that it was a joke. Making a threat is enough to investigate, in many cases, but a clear joke does not warrant arrest.
Funny part is, though, that he is now a victim of a stupid law that he may have been a party to legislating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...except direct calls for violence against individuals and groups. And that is exactly what this is. He didn't even add a smiley... how is this to be interpreted as a joke? The guy does not deserve full punishment for this, but arrest and prosecution are warranted IMHO,
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
You need to put it his comments in context. She said that UK politicians have no right to comment on things like stoning of women in Iran, presumably because that's a Muslim thing and she's a "political correctness" extremist who would sooner allow an innocent teenager to die a horrible death than dare insult precious male Muslim feelings. He shouldn't have even apologized, never mind get arrested. It's obviously a sarcastic response to her comments and in no way an incitement to violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
And even if it were a purposeful incitement to violence --
Who is truly responsible there -- the person urging violence, or the people who actually take it upon themselves to commit the violence that is urged??
Are we all so stupid as to do everything some twit exhorts us to do??
Re: (Score:2)
He posted a public request for the woman to be murdered. He even suggested a specific weapon. How could he follow through any more than that -- start suggesting exact times and places?
Suggesting a weapon that is not a cultural norm, in fact, is culturally ridiculous, should make one think that there is another reason for the choice of weapon. For example, if he had asked why someone doesn't drive a stake through Robert Pattinson's heart, further investigation shows Mr. Pattinson to be the actor portraying a vampire in tween/cougar fantasy movies. My guess is that either Yasmin is a staunch defender of Sharia Law and he's making an observation, or he's just being bigoted and making a jo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It takes just one determined (and mentally ill) person who does not see this as a joke for a murder to happen. This is one of the main reasons why this kind of 'joke' is not acceptable.
However, if you assume someone of that sort of mental illness, you can't guarantee he/she'll misinterpret anything else you say as an "order" to murder someone. If you start down the path of kowtowing to people whose mental deficiencies give them homicidal tendencies, you don't solve any problems. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. So mentally ill persons are also barred from watching action movies? novels? pictures? thoughts of their own? Not to mention that you can easily coax a fragile person into committing murder without literally asking for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sam Kinnison said it best, "You'd have gotten the same thing from the Monkees!". Crazy people might interpret nearly anything as a command from God to do a crazy thing if that's what they're predisposed to. If we're going to restrict speech based on the possibility that a crazy person might mis-interpret it, then we can't say anything at all, including "Hi" or an acknowledging grunt. Of course, silence might also be "creatively" interpreted....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you honestly think that someone who would murder based on this tweet wouldn't have committed murder anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. People become enamored with people in power, or thing a quid pro quo might hold. There is far more motivation to commit this crime-for-request when a person in power requests it versus if I were to post it on twitter/fb.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any sane person can see that this is a joke. Those that aren't sane are at risk for violent behavior already and -anything- can put them over the edge. Plus, this was a guy on a city council. A city. council. I don't know about you, but the people on my city council I really don't care what they say personally or not. This isn't an MP, this isn't the Queen, this isn't David Cameron or Nick Clegg saying this its some random city council member.
Free speech should be free speech, especially whe
Re: (Score:2)
You missed my point. Besides a city councillor is hardly some 'person in power.'
Anyone who would commit murder because of a tweet would commit murder anyway. If it wasn't this, it'd have been something else. Saying the tweet caused the murder is infantile. Or do you really think that Lennon and Reagan wouldn't have been shot if Catcher in the Rye hadn't been published?
Re: (Score:2)
It won't teach him a lesson because he didn't make a death threat. Instead it instills fear into other people who have to increasingly worry about what they say and how they say it.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nine time out of ten, people who say this really mean "I don't really believe in free speech at all". And you are not number ten.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it fucking does. At least, it means you don't have to answer to the government for your speech. What ELSE would it mean? Is it just one of those general principles that people give lip service to but find a reason for its inapplicability in every specific case where it comes up?
Torn... (Score:2)
On one hand... it seems odd to get arrested, convicted, etc., for a joke.
On the other hand, saying "oh come on guys, it was just a joke!" seems like it could easily turn into the "insanity" plea. True in some cases, but easy to claim for pretty much anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, he hasn't physically done anything. It'd be different if he bludgeoned someone to death and then claimed he was only kidding.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, saying "oh come on guys, it was just a joke!" seems like it could easily turn into the "insanity" plea.
Unlikely. See, what most people don't know and never bother to find out because they're too busying being incensed over people "getting off" under an insanity plea, is that while you don't go to jail if you plead insanity, you instead go to a prison mental ward... where you can be kept forever. That's right - if you just plead out of a 10-20 year sentence by claiming you were insane, you just opted into a potential life sentence. The state can keep you locked up in the mental ward until they believe you're
Re: (Score:2)
Not all the time, according to speakout.com, which I cannot paste due to Chrome, bah.
Yes, I know that can happen and has happened, but the point is it's a subjective hard-to-verify excuse. "Oh, I wasn't threatening, I was joking! He's just overreacting!"
Is that what htis is? Meh, probably not. Hence the "torn" part of my post. But I'd rather not, at some point, get threatened, have my threatener stopped short of something he might have done, and have him get off because he was "joking." ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the average time "served" for someone who successfully pleads insanity vs the average time actually served by those convicted of the same crime? What is the recidivism rate for each? Without those, exceptional cases, no matter how ma
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Worthless? Pointing out that what the previous post said happened, as though it happened all the time, does not happen all the time? I guess a percentage would be nice. I haven't found one yet.
So we're stuck apparently. Neither of us has the numbers you want, right? I'm not sure why the burden of proof is on me at this point.
Unfortunately, I have looked/read online and can only find usage and "success" rates, but not rates of success getting a lower time-served sentence (asylum vs. prison).
I <3 Oracle and SCO!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm wondering what the context is here. What provoked him to make this "joke"?
I think there ought to be an exception for jokes, but only funny ones. That solves the loophole, and punishes people for making bad jokes. Win-win.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Wait... was that a joke?
Ridiculous (Score:2)
Ridiculous. I can appreciate that talking about bombs while going through airport security is not appropriate, but a joke on Twitter? Come on already! Who says who says what. Don't like it, don't follow him - that's sort of the whole point of how these social networks work.
Re: (Score:2)
I can appreciate that talking about bombs while going through airport security is not appropriate.
I honestly can't even appreciate that. And honestly the people TALKING about bombs while going through airport security aren't all that likely to be carrying one.
i live in California. (Score:2)
The problem with political jokes (Score:5, Funny)
He tried to say he wasn't even on Twitter.... (Score:5, Funny)
....at the time the joke was made, but police didn't believe him since he had no Alibhai.
In Other News.. (Score:2)
Mojo Nixon is charged with inciting violence against Don Henley.
Nanny state (Score:3, Informative)
A day doesn't pass that either one of the tabloids is blasting the government for not acting on a perceived threat or an official or government department coming out with what should really be considered an outrageous policy.
A nice one was (yesterday?) the stopping of the head of MI6 from boarding a plane to the US because she had a can of hairspray larger than the allowed 100 milliliters in her bag.
Yes it's outside of the allowance but hey she's not exactly your typical terrist!
In the UK common sense has been outlawed.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the system does no longer allow for a further assessment of the situation.
This should not be construed as special treatment or profiling but instead seen as the next logical step.
At least that's how it used to be and people would generally feel much better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice demonstration of "reasonable restrictions" (Score:5, Insightful)
...and more specifically, how a law that on the surface seems perfectly reasonable can be so easily misused.
The law is against menacing, the statement -- made publicly, not directed at any given person -- is
"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
Any sensible person can see there is no threat there, it's just someone being a drama queen. But it violates the letter of the law and it's politically expedient to ignore the obvious.
Similarly,
"Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."
is not a serious solicitation to murder; it's just someone being an ass. Or making a point in an offensive way, given that he says he was responding to a comment by Alibhai-Brown that no politician has the right to comment on human rights abuses, including the stoning of women in Iran.
I would presume that this [bbc.co.uk] is the program in question, though I haven't listened to it so don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
Any sensible person can see there is no threat there
This is a literal threat. This says, literally, that the speaker will detonate something at an airport, unless his demands are met. The only way to not perceive this as a threat is by reading between the lines and assuming a context that's just not there. When you say this kind of thing at a bar to a friend, where the context is well understood by everyone in the audience (they know you personally!), it is clear that this is merely a hyperbolic expression. When you post this on a widely publicized site like
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Ever seen _My Cousin Vinnie_? The sheriff accuses Ralph Macchio's character of shooting a convenience store clerk. He replies, in an incredulous tone: "I shot the clerk". The sheriff later introduces this in court as a confession. That's about w
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nice demonstration of "reasonable restrictions" (Score:5, Insightful)
Your dedication to the principle of freedom of speech is touching.
Maybe that wouldn't be as effective as being nasty.
There's no slander involved here.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he shouldn't make that point in an offensive way? Maybe he should dispute points and present his opinions. Or would he rather just slander everyone to death?
I find your post extremely offensive. You shouldn't be legally allowed to offend me. I've already called the police. I know you'll cooperate and accept your conviction because you clearly agree people shouldn't be allowed to offend other people.
Bob Dylan better not visit the UK (Score:5, Funny)
He sings, "Everybody must get stoned!"
Inciting violence! Against everybody!
Has the entire world gone mad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Both the twitter posts cited in the article are jokes in poor taste by frustrated people, but are they evidence of intent to kill someone or blow up a plane? People bent on that sort of act rarely advertise their intent on some public media.
What's next? Being prosecuted for threatening to kill someone's character in World of Warcraft?
When I was a cop there were dozens of times that angry and/or frustrated people made comments (to me or to others) like "I'll kill you" or "You're dead if you do that again" or something similar. You have to make allowances for frustration and understand it's only human nature to make threats. Of course, it's different if you think they might actually do what they say, but that's not the usual case - people who are going to attack you just do it, they don't threaten first.
The difference is that on twitter (indeed, the internet in general) there's a permanent record. That plus a stupid/malicious prosecutor plus a judge who doesn't understand human nature is a recipe for damn stupid legal decisions.
So what was the joke? (Score:2)
I don't get the joke. can someone explain it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He then "said she should be stoned."
The implication here is that she has no right to complain about him wanting to have someone stoned.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The joke is that the woman who he "said should be stoned" said that no British politician should be able to complain about stoning in Muslim countries, because Muslim culture allows for stoning. He then "said she should be stoned." The implication here is that she has no right to complain about him wanting to have someone stoned.
Dude...that's so meta...I think you just blew my mind. It's like when the Offspring sold T-shirts with the Napster logo on them, and Napster sued them for copyright infringement.
Equality under the law (Score:2)
It cuts both ways. If a Muslim cleric calls for stoning unbelievers and we arrest him, we have to be equally heavy handed with non-Muslims making similar statements.
I feel sorry for "airport guy" who has suffered far more than the case warrants - but he has failed to think it throug
Morning Announcements (Score:2)
Is Wendy Testaburger using your lunch money to buy heroin?
Will someone stone a journalist to death for me?
I'm just asking the hard questions.
Signing off, this is casey miller
At least he didn't tweet - (Score:2)
.
Flipped? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretend for a moment that a Muslim posted on Twitter that a UK politician should be stoned to death. Considering the attempted murder of a MP recently and the UK removing YouTube videos, I'm sure that they'd get arrested. I doubt slashdotters would stand up for him in the same manner as they're doing for this jerk.
Sid she say Jehovah??? (Score:4, Funny)
Now look, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even...and I want to make this absolutely clear...even if they do say "Jehovah".
Apologized? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apologized? What did he apologize for? Even if he meant it, whatever happened to freedom of speech? Forget it. I already know the answer. The corrupt governments of the world are abolishing it and/or never implementing it in the first place.
What Yasmin Alibhai-Brown originally said (Score:3, Informative)
Re:About The news (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone please stone spammers to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really.
Re:About The news (Score:5, Funny)
My goodness! I can't believe you would seriously stone someone just for spamming. People like you should be shot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stoning is far too good for spammers. They should be burned at the stake.
Re: (Score:2)
you find the spammers and i'll bring the rocks..
Re: (Score:2)
You left out the part about amnesty international! There goes the joke.
You mix up Britain and England (Score:3, Insightful)
>Where do you have greater freedom of speech and presumption of innocence: Britain or Saudi Arabia?
On balance I'd say Britain
>Where are you more likely to be harassed by police for trivialities: Britain or Saudi Arabia?
Not sure, do you have the figures that you could share with us?
>Every day the two look more alike.
Evidence from, say the last 5 days: could you give us five separate summaries to prove this point?
>And now I will commit a crime in the eyes of England:
I suppose you mean "in the laws
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)