Thoughtcrime!

[Rolling Thunder]

Gentlemen, a worrying case of, well, what I can only be described as the increasingly authoritarian nature of the British government - has come to light. For those of you who live within our Isles, it will no doubt be known that very recently, our armed forces suffered the worst single attack in Afghanistan since the beginning of operations there, resulting in the deaths of six service members.

Mr Azhar Ahmed, of West Yorkshire, saw fit to post this thoroughly odious diatribe in regards to the deaths of the soldiers in question:

"People gassin’ about the deaths of soldiers. What about the innocent families who have been brutally killed… The women who have been raped… The children who have been sliced up…! The enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmful familys. All soldiers should DIE and got to HELL. THE LOWLIFE FOKKIN SCUM! got a problem go and cry at your soldiers grave & wish them hell because thats is where she is going”

And has now been charged with incitement to racial hatred. Now, as odious, unpleasant and frankly stupid as I find these kind of views, at no point do they conceivably constitute either an incitement to religious or racial hatred as they contain no reference to religion or racism, let alone the whether facebook constitutes a public forum or not. His point, while spectacularly vile, is a political one, and I am as a citizen of Great Britain not particularly happy about the idea of political viewpoints disliked by the majority - or even by a minority - being criminalized.

More links:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/315572/news/...own-side.html/
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16187397

[Phier]

The problem with the internet is people who should be punched in the mouth, can still say what they want while keeping their mouth at bay.

So while the UK's method is far more 1984 like than I like, I do wish there was a way to punch through a monitor.

So perhaps the proper punishment for this crime should be a summons of the offender, and the others posting in the forum. The offender would be given a chance to restate his opinion in the presence of the others. At which time the lights in the room would go out for 30 seconds. At the end of 30 seconds the lights would be turned back on, and first aid administered as needed.

[atheniandp]

The problem with the internet is people who should be punched in the mouth, can still say what they want while keeping their mouth at bay.

So while the UK's method is far more 1984 like than I like, I do wish there was a way to punch through a monitor.

So perhaps the proper punishment for this crime should be a summons of the offender, and the others posting in the forum. The offender would be given a chance to restate his opinion in the presence of the others. At which time the lights in the room would go out for 30 seconds. At the end of 30 seconds the lights would be turned back on, and first aid administered as needed.

Then you don't believe in freedom of speech. Good. Neither do I. I'm sure a good majority of people don't either, so why do people fool themselves into subscribing to liberal democracy, and promote this system worldwide?

[Adar]

So perhaps the proper punishment for this crime should be a summons of the offender, and the others posting in the forum. The offender would be given a chance to restate his opinion in the presence of the others. At which time the lights in the room would go out for 30 seconds. At the end of 30 seconds the lights would be turned back on, and first aid administered as needed.

I like the idea.

And I actually proposed something similar in a sexual harassment trial. They guy was tried for sexual harassment and the girl for physical abuse as she kicked him in a way that wasn't proportional to the offense he made.

In that case I would like to see a rule stating that a person may press charges for sexual harassment or immediately conduct a "free kick" (and punching if appropriate) on the harasser.

[mehzel]

He dosent even deserve to be in the country.

[Babur]

The problem with the internet is people who should be punched in the mouth, can still say what they want while keeping their mouth at bay.

So while the UK's method is far more 1984 like than I like, I do wish there was a way to punch through a monitor.

So perhaps the proper punishment for this crime should be a summons of the offender, and the others posting in the forum. The offender would be given a chance to restate his opinion in the presence of the others. At which time the lights in the room would go out for 30 seconds. At the end of 30 seconds the lights would be turned back on, and first aid administered as needed.

well thankfully freedom of speech is protected in the US

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

His point, while spectacularly vile, is a political one, and I am as a citizen of Great Britain not particularly happy about the idea of political viewpoints disliked by the majority - or even by a minority - being criminalized.

I agree, I bet this tool is embarrassed and ostracized simply because his comments were made public. Good enough, I say.

The problem with the internet is people who should be punched in the mouth, can still say what they want while keeping their mouth at bay.

So while the UK's method is far more 1984 like than I like, I do wish there was a way to punch through a monitor.

So perhaps the proper punishment for this crime should be a summons of the offender, and the others posting in the forum. The offender would be given a chance to restate his opinion in the presence of the others. At which time the lights in the room would go out for 30 seconds. At the end of 30 seconds the lights would be turned back on, and first aid administered as needed.

It's a pretty funny concept no doubt, but be careful what you wish for.

[NotYetRegistered]

People like this should be summoned by court to a public forum and have all their bs utterly destroyed.

[Claudius Gothicus]

It's a sad event... clearly our societies(and Legal Systems specifically) still haven't found a way to deal with both what is said in everyday life and what is said in our increasingly ''parallel world'', the internetz, appropriately.

Because let's face it, crying fire in a crowded theater or organizing fascist like marches around minority neighborhoods will never be the same that posting some stupid paragraphs on the internetz.

[Himster]

Idiots like this should only be laughed at and ridiculed, any more attention than that is more than they deserve.

[Markas]

Quite a few of the 2000 people that 'liked' the 'Azhar Ahmed Scumbag' FB profile (the vast majority of which are racist remarks) reported Ahmed to the police and it seems there were so many of them the poilce had little choice but to intervene. I have to but wonder if any of these peole will also be prosecuted.

If this country is fine with arresting 19 year-olds for having an opinion that isn't liked by the majority then we may as well vote in Norsefire for our moral and political guidance. The charges and the justifaction for them sound like bunkam and a mere panic-response by the police.

[Himster]

If this country is fine with arresting 19 year-olds for having an opinion that isn't liked by the majority then we may as well vote in Norsefire for our moral and political guidance. The charges and the justifaction for them sound like bunkam and a mere panic-response by the police.

No way, I'm reading V for Vendetta right now. Freaky.

[magpie]

While the guy was on a rant to put it mildly. As far as I can see its a bit of a stretch to charge him with racist abuse.

Now perhaps insulting her majestys armed forces is a crime? or could his comments border on treason?

[ronm100]

He is not being punished for a different opinion, he is being punished for dishonoring the soldiers of his country!
I wouldnt expect anyone with the surename "Ahmed" to support a war against a muslim faction, but this is just crossing the line!

[AqD]

He is not being punished for a different opinion, he is being punished for dishonoring the soldiers of his country!

Explain please how this dishonoring does harm to anyone?


Punishing people for this kind of crap is no different than muslims punish people for burning Quran, or not wearing hijab, or other 10,000 things they believe which insult or dishonor others.

It's simply stupid. IMHO people who believe themselves insulted or dishonored by something should get punched instead because they're being irrational.

[DarthLazy]

Alot of people do not like the military and some downright hate it (me) .

[Matthias]

Yeah, there really is no reason that he should be in any sort of legal trouble. Can anyone give me a good reason?

The problem with the internet is people who should be punched in the mouth, can still say what they want while keeping their mouth at bay.

No, that's not the problem with the internet (or any public forum), that's what's great about free speech. If you want to shut people up with physical harm, I'm afraid you're living in the wrong country, because it isn't legal here.

[Rolling Thunder]

Its not 'free speech' its being an ass with socially unacceptable behavior.

The Framers would appear to disagree with you, as they neglected to put in a "being an ass" exemption to the First Amendment.

[Phier]

The Framers would appear to disagree with you, as they neglected to put in a "being an ass" exemption to the First Amendment.

*sigh*

Actually no, the framers would be firmly on my side. I can demonstrate this very simply.



Alexander Hamilton dueling Aaron Burr, 1804.

Its the vice president of the USA, vrs the secretary of the treasury.

Dueling only declined when it became used more for murder than honor, long after every framer was dead.

[Matthias]

Its not 'free speech' its being an ass with socially unacceptable behavior.

Wow. So who gets to define what "being an ass with socially unacceptable behavior" is? I mean, Rush Limbaugh would have to go in for daily beatings, if not hourly, under that subjective standard.

So, you want people who you deem to be asses to get punched in the face, and have this enforced (somehow) by the government. Hmm. Seems pretty darn authoritarian.

It's morally wrong - these service men and women fight for our country and he is basically spitting back in their faces.

Whether it's morally wrong is completely subjective. Who gets to decide what is morally wrong?

Is Britain going to fall apart because of this? Will it cause lots of harm to society? Or will the government going after people with opinions harm society more?