Student sentenced to jail term for racially offensive tweets

[Magn]

Well, I can't really debate the lawful aspect of it, because I'm not a UK lawyer, but I can do philosophy on it.

I think that most people would agree that incitation to violence is a crime.

Defamation (lying about someone is a way that makes them look bad) is a crime and should rightly be one to the extent that it makes a meaningful impact on a stable person's life (notably, when the portrayal makes the person look really bad and is applied on a wide scale like a publicity).

A physical assault makes such an impact and is a crime and the above simply constitutes a similar assault of a psychological nature (which can make an equally meaningful impact).

Personally, I'd also make public crucifixion of a living person's character (to the point where it's applied like a publicity and money is put into it), truthful or not, a crime if the accusations pertain to areas that are considered private (ex: what happens in the person's bedroom between 2 consenting adults where nobody gets hurt).

Generic racist remarks clearly don't apply to those areas if they don't incite to violence and are too generic to apply someone in particular, but at the same time, I would not legally penalize the resulting social stigma that follows (ex: potential employers not hiring the person based on his character).

[Agronaut]

the act didnt become illegal til it was posted in foreign country. the laws of the host country were not broken and renforced by the first amendment. if anything they should have gone to the international court for prosecution. they couldnt because host country isnt apart of the international court system. further more there was no violation in the uk on top of that. if he had posted something localy the judge would have had jurisdiction. what is posted on the net would fall under ICCPR and the uk is part of that treaty. not only did the judge go beyond his jurisdiction he broke international law doing it.

[flutterby]

Laws apply to the country where the action was made.

[Bishop]

Yes flutterby, but that isn't the totality of it. If the UK had not prosecuted the US could have applied for jurisdiction if the servers were only located there. The UK are fully within their rights to prosecute for an action that originated in their jurisdiction though. IMO the sentence was overboard.

[flutterby]

I agree with you totally.

[Agronaut]

1. Jurisdiction
A. the act didnt take place on U.K soil
B. the act wasnt public til was posted on U.S soil
C. Jurisdiction would have fallen under interpool/ international courts

2. Crime
A. no crime was commited in the U.k, what was on his comp/cell would have been protected by
privacy rights til it became public.

3. International law
A. his freeom of expression is covered by ICCPR .

[flutterby]

It honestly could have been tried in either country. My law professor said that as long as part of the crime occurs in one 'jurisdiction' it can be tried.
Our law says one thing, therefore it wouldn't be tried here because it isn't considered a crime here.

[Agronaut]

yah but no part was committed in the u.k. the jurisdictional problem isnt the crime but were the crime happend. the would maybe work in interstate/international comerce in the case of more then one country arguing for jurisdiction.

it dosnt real matter jurisdiction real isnt the important part. i can think of 2 international laws that are being violated. more importantly both of them asside hes still protected under ICCPR .

me i think the kid is a douche how ever the law is the law. judges like this should removed from office and disbarred. legislation from the bench is a dangerous thing. its a judges job to uphold law not make it.

[flutterby]

Swansea University, is in Wales part of the UK. He typed it on his computer/phone in Wales, therefore he committed the crime in the UK. Hence... they can claim jurisdiction.

[Agronaut]

like i said privacy rights, it didnt become public til it reached america

[flutterby]

It becomes public at the time the public can read it. He was arrested AFTER it became public. He tried to blame it on someone else and erase the page completely.
Explain to me, how a hacker in any country can be prosecuted even though the information does not become public? Or internet predators? There are things that
never come to light to the public that are crimes in country they are committed.

[Agronaut]

the law wasnt broken til it became public. a computer hacker could send a virus allday long to himself and not break the law.if he had wrote it in diary it wouldn't have broken the law. once it came into view of the public it was not only slander it was criminal in this case.

in any event he without a doubt open to litigation in cival court. no way arround that, both parties are located in the U.k. only way you could dodge that fireball if the assets were located in another country .

i dont think ICCPR would protect him in cival but i could be wrong