Free Speech

[HenrySwanson]

Well obviously I'm not an expert in UK speech laws. I have no idea whether saying that a white guy pulled a headscarf is inciting violence. But I'd think not.

And I know even less, hence my initial apprehension.

Is the intent therefore this part of the tweet:

If this is true, then all hell is about to break loose.

EDIT: I should say I'm not expecting clear cut answers, because I don't think we have them at this point in time.

 

[Danoff]

German court gives woman harsher punishment than convicted rapist for calling him 'disgraceful pig'

The woman was found guilty of defaming the man, who was convicted for gang-raping a 15-year-old girl in Hamburg in 2020.

www.deccanherald.com

Definitely filed under strange.

EDIT:

A good breakdown here:

Did the German justice system convict a woman for insulting a person who gang raped a minor?

New York Post writes A German woman was handed down a harsher sentence than a convicted rapist after she called him a “disgraceful rapist pig.” Maja R, 20, was jailed for a weekend after she was f...

skeptics.stackexchange.com

I do not understand how a country like Germany can include laws which lock people up for such statements, even for just a few days. Is there any more to this story or is "disgraceful/disgusting pig/freak" the only basis for jailing her?

From my perspective, losing freedom of speech is one of the scariest and most devastating aspects of imagining living in another country. The US has its issues with gun crime and medical care. But on the balance I'll gladly take those for in exchange for being able to call a rapist a disgusting pig and not being jailed over it. It's downright barbaric.

Edit:

Counterpoint, in some states in the US women can't get the abortions they need. That is also barbaric. Not sure I'd pick Texas or Louisiana over Germany right now.

 

[MatskiMonk]

From my perspective, losing freedom of speech is one of the scariest and most devastating aspects of imagining living in another country.

Perhaps, but it's also likely to be the lesser of two evils. You can entirely avoid messaging threats of violence to people if you don't want to deal with the consequences of it. You're unlikely to get over your kids being shot in school as easily or quickly, and you don't really have any power over if that happens.

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps, but it's also likely to be the lesser of two evils. You can entirely avoid messaging threats of violence to people if you don't want to deal with the consequences of it. You're unlikely to get over your kids being shot in school as easily or quickly, and you don't really have any power over if that happens.

I like that you identify both as evils.

I do want to call out that calling someone a "disgraceful pig" is not messaging a threat of violence to that person. This is merely the personal expression their opinion of another person based on their actions. That act of self expression is fundamentally protected in my country. You identify restriction of this kind of speech as evil, and yet you kinda try to pretend that it's a non-issue, because I can just prevent myself from expressing certain opinions. It is true that I could literally survive under those circumstances, knowing that my expression was suppressed by a controlling government.

But survival is not my ultimate goal. So it does not drive me to go find the safest country to live in and conform to their laws. In the end, we all die somehow. Self-expression is a more fundamental goal and aspect of my existence to me than survival.

There is a spectrum of course. How much elevated risk would I take compared to how much squashed self-expression. The US is not perfectly principled in its application of free speech, even now, despite the progress we've made. And I would certainly consider my ability to engage in self-expression to be much reduced were I to live in an anarchistic or dictatorial state, simply due to my likelihood of encountering violence. So it's not like I don't consider some kind of balance between personal risk and self-expression. But on the balance I would rather live someplace where I can call a rapist a disgraceful pig.

I'm afraid the US is not long for this kind of freedom. So maybe my choices are evaporating. All the more reason to complain that Germany is doing wrong here.

 

[Famine]

Is there any more to this story or is "disgraceful/disgusting pig/freak" the only basis for jailing her?

In essence, she shared a minor's personal information on social media with... not entirely couched threats to him and a little incitement to violence into the mix. The name-calling is just a thing that also happened which makes it a good story.

As he was a minor at the time of the offence (and part of a gang who raped a different minor; it's not clear whether he actually raped her or if he was found guilty due to being part of a group that perpetrated it*) he may not have faced any jail time. The woman is not a minor and it seems she got a weekend of cooling off in the cells but no record as a result.


*This being one of very, very few ways that a woman can be convicted of rape in the UK

 

[Danoff]

In essence, she shared a minor's personal information on social media with... not entirely couched threats to him and a little incitement to violence into the mix. The name-calling is just a thing that also happened which makes it a good story.[/size]

Ok, so she's fully allowed to call him a disgraceful pig - even identifying him by name in doing so right? Because she absolutely should be allowed to identify him on social media and call him a disgraceful pig based on his conviction of rape. What kind of threats did she make?

Edit:

Is it this?

“Aren’t you ashamed when you look in the mirror?” she asked, calling him a “disgraceful rapist pig” and a “disgusting freak”.

She also told the criminal that he “couldn’t go anywhere without getting kicked in the face” and said, “let’s hope you are just locked away”.

So the part where she crosses the line is where she suggests that he may face violence as a result of his history? I still don't see the part where she should be jailed. We allow FAR worse in the US.

 

[Duke]

Perhaps, but it's also likely to be the lesser of two evils. You can entirely avoid messaging threats of violence to people if you don't want to deal with the consequences of it. You're unlikely to get over your kids being shot in school as easily or quickly, and you don't really have any power over if that happens.

Over the last 20 years, there have been an average of 15 school shooting casualties (injuries and deaths) per year in the US. There are about 4.6 million K-12 students in the US.

That means there is a 0.00033% chance that your kid is going to be a victim of a school shooting in a given year. Actually, that number is significantly too high, since about 40% of "school shooting" victims are actually suicides. But let's go with it.

So in reality, the risk of your kid getting shot in school is insignificant. If that is the tradeoff, is it worth giving up a significant portion of your right to free speech? A right that you use every day?

 

[Famine]

So the part where she crosses the line is where she suggests that he may face violence as a result of his history?

I have a limited grasp of the case and German law, but it appears that she sent actual threats and shared his phone number on Snapchat - the latter of which would probably, as he's still a minor, qualify as a child protection offence. I'm not sure exactly what qualifies her for a weekend in the clink, but it's probably not the pig comment.

Germany does have some restrictive laws on expression in some regards - largely around Nazi stuff - but it's probably not applicable here.

 

[Danoff]

I have a limited grasp of the case and German law, but it appears that she sent actual threats and shared his phone number on Snapchat - the latter of which would probably, as he's still a minor, qualify as a child protection offence. I'm not sure exactly what qualifies her for a weekend in the clink, but it's probably not the pig comment.

Germany does have some restrictive laws on expression in some regards - largely around Nazi stuff - but it's probably not applicable here.

That would be totally different. If she threatened him, I can see some kind of legal action being taken. In the US maybe that's a restraining order. I wonder if she really did make explicit threats though. The German reporting below implies that she did not leak his phone on the internet, but used his phone number, which had been leaked already, to contact him and tell him what she thinks of him.

Not showing up for court is also a bad play. Most of the articles are calling it jailing for "defamation" rather than threats which I guess is just incorrect? If so, that's a pretty big journalism error. It doesn't seem clear that she did anything other than tell him he's a pig and that he can't go anywhere without getting kicked in the face. And while that's not exactly an admirable way to handle the situation, I'm rather appalled that she ended up behind bars over it. Even moreso that it appears to be direct communication rather than publicly inciting others to take action.

43

The Hamburg newspaper, Morgenpost reported on 16 Jun 2024, in an article Stadtpark-Vergewaltigung – Frau hetzt gegen Beschuldigten: „Ekelhafte Missgeburt“ (City park rape – woman incites against accused: “Disgusting monster”)

Nachdem die Vorwürfe gegen den Geschädigten bekannt wurden, wurde auch seine Identität im Internet veröffentlicht – inklusive seiner Handynummer, die auf dem Messenger-Dienst Snapchat kursierte. Im November 2021 nahm die Angeklagte dann über WhatsApp Kontakt zu dem Mann auf. Dabei soll sie ihm auch gedroht haben, dass er nirgendwo mehr hingehen könne, „ohne auf die Fresse zu kriegen“, so die Anklage.

As per Google translate:

After the allegations against the injured party became known, his identity was also published on the Internet - including his cell phone number, which was circulating on the messenger service Snapchat. In November 2021, the defendant then contacted the man via WhatsApp. She is also said to have threatened him that he would no longer be able to go anywhere “without getting kicked in the face,” according to the prosecution.

The "injured party" in this case being the 16-year-old rapist, a juvenile as far as German law is concerned .

The article explains his personal details were illegally leaked, including his phone number. The woman who was later sentenced had no personal connection to either the rape victim nor the rapist, but wrote him personal messages to the effect that he "would not be able to go anywhere without being kicked in the face".

So this was not about insults uttered to a public audience, but threats directed against the person specifically. German law usually seeks to deter vigilantism. The woman also refused to appear to two of her court hearings, which I would speculate limited the options for the judge further.

She was sentenced to "Freizeitarrest" - detention in jail for the weekend as to not interfere with school or work. It is legally different to regular jail: it means the woman was sentenced as a juvenile as well, and it will not become part of any police record. Also during Freizeitarrest, you are not in a regular cell and do not have contact to inmates. Freizeitarrest is supposed to be a deterrent by giving an idea how unpleasant jail time can be, although its effectiveness is debated.

So, to answer the multiple parts:

did the German justice system convict
Not sure, really. The articles say "richterliche Anordnung". I think a judicial order that takes someone's freedom away is always the result of a conviction (there are other kinds of Anordnung that are not), but I am not firm enough with legal terms to say this with any certainty.

a woman for insulting a person
It was not just for insulting him. There was also a threat with physical violence sent directly to him via his phone.

who gang raped a minor
Yes (as far as I can make it out these were multiple smaller gangs, not one large gang of ten people, but that is probably not very relevant). The rapist was an adolescent himself, which it not part of the question but was legally relevant for sentencing.

If so, did she receive a harsher sentence than the rapist?
It probably felt to her that way, yes. Legally no. One weekend of Freizeitarrest does not leave a police record, does not require long-term supervision by a probation or parole officer and has none of the restrictions probation brings with it. It is, in almost all respects, easier than a sentence on probation except that you actually see the inside of the jail (albeit not in the same cells as people convicted of serious criminal activity). It is not a criminal punishment; it is what judges might use for minors when they feel a criminal punishment is not warranted but a mere telling off is not enough.

(There is some some ambiguity in the word "harsh". Google gives as first meaning "jarring to the senses". In that sense, the weekend in jail is certainly harsher because most people would tend to agree with the woman. I used the more plain meaning of "severe" in terms of freedoms removed, given that probation does not mean "do what you want", and future prospects, which will be limited for the convicted rapists by their police record).

Edit:

Trying to do a little more digging about US law and how this would look. It seems like it would barely even qualify for a restraining order. The "kicked in the face" comment would have to be interpreted as a threat of violence in order to get a restraining order, and while I don't know what the threshold would necessarily be, it seems like it might just qualify. Hard to say.

As to whether it is a "true threat" sufficient to make it a criminal speech in the US, not a chance. There are multiple reasons why it seems clear that it's not a "true threat".

 

[MatskiMonk]

A right that you use every day?

I am not sending threats to people I don't like every day and I'm reasonably sure I could already be prosecuted for doing so if I were. Of all the laws to be worried about in the UK at the moment, I can hand on heart say it's not one that concerns me.

 

[HenrySwanson]

As he was a minor at the time of the offence (and part of a gang who raped a different minor; it's not clear whether he actually raped her or if he was found guilty due to being part of a group that perpetrated it*)

There are reports that DNA was found connecting 9 to the rape. Other reports say it was from sperm.

He should have spent time behind bars regardless of if he raped her anyway, the disgusting pig.

I am not sending threats to people I don't like every day and I'm reasonably sure I could already be prosecuted for doing so if I were. Of all the laws to be worried about in the UK at the moment, I can hand on heart say it's not one that concerns me.

Sorry, but if someone was part of a gang who raped someone close to me AND they didn't spend a minute in a detention facility I would probably send a similar message that they

"would not be able to go anywhere without being kicked in the face".

I'd gladly take the punishment, and if that makes me less of a person to some people so be it.

 

[Danoff]

The issue that I have with this case is not so much that I want to enact social justice against someone who got too light of a sentence. I'm not going around looking for people's phone numbers to harass them. I'm more concerned with whether "defamation" can really get you jailed in Germany (absent a threat), and I'm concerned with some of the statements that seem to qualify as threats. The idea that a person has done bad things, and speculating that the person might be violently attacked, is something I could see myself wandering into. Here on GTP we've discussed how someone who says the kinds of things that Donald Trump says are likely to encourage in violence against themselves. That's not a threat, but it could be taken to be one. If I went on Xitter and said that I'd not be surprised if someone attacked the ex-president over some nasty thing he said, did I threaten him? Germany seems to be thinking yes.

Now you might say that it's worse because it's a direct message in this case. I'd say it might be worse if it's a general Xitter post, because it might be designed to incite others to act.

In the US, a "true threat" is a statement that puts someone in fear of bodily harm or death.

Whether a statement is a true threat depends on:

1. What the speaker intended and their state of mind.
2. Whether they knew how their speech would affect the receiver and said it anyway.
3. Whether they could reasonably carry out the threat.
4. How the receiver reacted.

Source: https://www.freedomforum.org/true-threats/

I think in this case in Germany the lady sending the message may have failed all 4 of those tests. Only one of them needs to be failed to prevent the speech from being criminal here. My hypothetical post on Xitter would also fail these tests. I think the tests actually do matter from a principled perspective. It attempts to separate angry speech meant to offend, or speech meant to pontificate or joke, from speech used to establish a state of duress.

Open discourse is an essential component of society. And I truly believe that includes discourse about violence and potentially violent repercussions. It bothers me that Germany doesn't protect this. It won't keep me up at night, but I expect that it might occupy more of my thoughts if I lived in Germany.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'd gladly take the punishment, and if that makes me less of a person to some people so be it.

Accepting or acknowledging the legal repercussions for what you said (or did) in advance wouldn't make you less of a person, it just makes you sensible.
Engaging in performative righteous anger when it comes to sex offenders on the other hand... perhaps not.

edit:

Just to refer back to what I'd said in my previous post, the government attempting to criminalise protest (The Police, Crime and Courts bill, for example), is a bigger deal to me than not being able to directly threaten someone who the judiciary has already dealt with.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Accepting or acknowledging the legal repercussions for what you said (or did) in advance wouldn't make you less of a person, it just makes you sensible.
Engaging in performative righteous anger when it comes to sex offenders on the other hand... perhaps not.

I am not sensible at times; I am a human.

Again:

if someone was part of a gang who raped someone close to me (who was FIFTEEN) AND they didn't spend a minute in a detention facility I would probably send a similar message that they

"would not be able to go anywhere without being kicked in the face".

Sorry, not sure I understand the "performative righteous anger" remark....

edit:

Just to refer back to what I'd said in my previous post, the government attempting to criminalise protest (The Police, Crime and Courts bill, for example), is a bigger deal to me than not being able to directly threaten someone who the judiciary has already dealt with.

1) IMO justice wasn't done.
2) It may be a bigger deal, but it's still a free speech issue that (it seems) America has a better handle of.

 

[MatskiMonk]

1) IMO justice wasn't done.

Would you regard justice having been done had you sent the message? If not, perhaps the correct, and possibly more effective thing to do in the long run, is to protest the courts, or the judicial branch directly regarding sentencing. I'd imagine protesting lenient sentencing for rapists would be very popular... the down side of actually achieving something, might be that it takes a bit more effort.

It may be a bigger deal, but it's still a free speech issue that (it seems) America has a better handle of.

Possibly, I'm not necessarily supporting either the US, German or UK systems.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Would you regard justice having been done had you sent the message?

No. It would be a small piece of justice but wouldn't rectify the courts mishandling.

If not, perhaps the correct, and possibly more effective thing to do in the long run, is to protest the courts, or the judicial branch directly regarding sentencing. I'd imagine protesting lenient sentencing for rapists would be very popular... the down side of actually achieving something, might be that it takes a bit more effort.

Which I would do too. That seems to be what many Germans have done.

Possibly, I'm not necessarily supporting either the US, German or UK systems.

Which seems to have the best, would you say?

 

[Danoff]

Just to refer back to what I'd said in my previous post, the government attempting to criminalise protest (The Police, Crime and Courts bill, for example), is a bigger deal to me than not being able to directly threaten someone who the judiciary has already dealt with.

Agreed. Although I don't think this actually rises to the level of an actionable threat.

I wonder if you're commenting on German law criminalizing protest, or if it's UK law. I'd be interested to hear more if you care to elaborate.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It would be a small piece of justice but wouldn't rectify the courts mishandling.

I would disagree. With no connection to either the perpetrator, victim, judiciary or legislature, and having (I assume) not legal training, answering one crime - of which you don't have all the details - with another (potential*) crime, is not justice. Now, I'm not saying it's not understandable to want to do that, but enough honesty and self awareness needs to exist that somebody deciding to take justice into their own hands cannot be expecting to do so within the protection of law*.

*The question here, which is what Danoff seems to be getting at - is take away the fact you want to rage against a criminal, is it actually wrong to say that kind of stuff to anybody.

Which I would do too. That seems to be what many Germans have done.

Okay, so.. do you? I mean, there's sentencing decisions in this country that many would consider to be wrong or inappropriate, have you taken to the streets in complaint, or even written to your MP?

Which seems to have the best, would you say?

I honestly can't. In the context of Danoff's statement regarding how it might affect his decision to live somewhere, it wouldn't factor in to my preference between the three. Day to day Policing would be more of a factor, but even then it's likely the overall crime rate I'd probably take into account.

Agreed. Although I don't think this actually rises to the level of an actionable threat.

Probably not, I agree, but at the same time, it's not an off-hand remark either, the intent is clearly malicious. The 4 qualifiers you posted for True Threat seem to make sense, but it's still about picking a point prior to actual action to penalise somebody.

I wonder if you're commenting on German law criminalizing protest, or if it's UK law. I'd be interested to hear more if you care to elaborate.

In terms of protest, English law. It's a different scenario to your concerns around defamation in Germany.

Personally I'm a strong believer in protest primarily as a function of our democracy, it is vital given representation in our democracy is poor, laws are co-written by un-elected people in roles they literally inherit, and signed into law by a completely unelected head of state (the King). If you think about that scenario in the context of your signature, it is a vital tool for those that may have their rights voted away by people who have never been elected to represent us.

With that background, consider that the government passed a law that amongst many other things criminalises one person protesting (or even just incitement to) if the senior police officer on the scene decides it might disrupt an organisation in the vicinity of the protest. Or indeed, any protest that causes "serious annoyance".

So, going back to @HenrySwanson wanting to serve justice by texting potentially actionable threats to a sex offender and then finding out that potentially this might be an offence itself, imagine my suggestion of peaceful protest that could potentially effect change in future, rather than pointless but cathartic vigilantism, being met with (up to) a 12 month prison sentence, because somebody was disrupted or annoyed by it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I would disagree. With no connection to either the perpetrator, victim, judiciary or legislature, and having (I assume) not legal training, answering one crime - of which you don't have all the details - with another (potential*) crime, is not justice.

Why not?

Part of justice is punishment.

Him having even a smidgen of fear because of the text from that girl is more punitive than the lack of incarceration.

Also, are you referring to the German girl or my hypothetical?

Okay, so.. do you? I mean, there's sentencing decisions in this country that many would consider to be wrong or inappropriate, have you taken to the streets in complaint, or even written to your MP?

I will try to if I come across one as egregious as that from now on.

So, going back to @HenrySwanson wanting to serve justice by texting potentially actionable threats to a sex offender and then finding out that potentially this might be an offence itself, imagine my suggestion of peaceful protest that could potentially effect change in future, rather than pointless but cathartic vigilantism.

Define pointless.

 

[UKMikey]

Government drops appeal over climate activist who held sign outside UK court

Judge had thrown out case against Trudi Warner, whose sign told jurors they had a right to acquit ‘according to conscience’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Danoff]

In terms of protest, English law. It's a different scenario to your concerns around defamation in Germany.

Personally I'm a strong believer in protest primarily as a function of our democracy, it is vital given representation in our democracy is poor, laws are co-written by un-elected people in roles they literally inherit, and signed into law by a completely unelected head of state (the King). If you think about that scenario in the context of your signature, it is a vital tool for those that may have their rights voted away by people who have never been elected to represent us.

With that background, consider that the government passed a law that amongst many other things criminalises one person protesting (or even just incitement to) if the senior police officer on the scene decides it might disrupt an organisation in the vicinity of the protest. Or indeed, any protest that causes "serious annoyance".

So, going back to @HenrySwanson wanting to serve justice by texting potentially actionable threats to a sex offender and then finding out that potentially this might be an offence itself, imagine my suggestion of peaceful protest that could potentially effect change in future, rather than pointless but cathartic vigilantism, being met with (up to) a 12 month prison sentence, because somebody was disrupted or annoyed by it.

In the US we sometimes protest by laying down in the street.

Granted, our protests often involve arrests, but we have way stronger protections than someone getting annoyed or disrupted. From my perspective, it seems so... British to say that you can protest as long as it's polite and quiet. I agree with your example that this is more concerning than whether your comments to someone constituted a veiled threat. Your example is directed to speech that seems more fundamental to actual social functioning.

I'd suspect that our Westboro Baptist style protests with their deranged attacks on homosexuality would run afoul of multiple provisions of UK law. Because I'm guessing you can't attack gay people (verbally) and also can't picket a funeral in the UK. And while I personally don't want to go yelling about gay people in the street or picketing a funeral, I'm very protective of the ability to protest and speak about things which others consider offensive.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Why not?

In this country justice is provided by the rule of law, not by individuals deciding what's wrong, who should be punished for it, and what that punishment should be, or how long it should last. As I say, it's doubtless understandable in some cases that people cannot accept that, and it's not so much that I have a problem with people doing that - but I do have a problem when they think they should be exempt from the law if they do so.

Part of justice is punishment.

Another part is rehabilitation. Are you as ready to help rehabilitate a rapist as you are to punish them?

Also, are you referring to the German girl or my hypothetical?

I assume you're making your hypothetical analogous to the German case, so both I guess.

I will try to if I come across one as egregious as that from now on.

Good.

Define pointless.

No beneficial outcome. If it's not effective, it's pointless, if it is effective then the 'small piece' of justice you wanted may have come at the cost of your own freedom (well done, you played yourself). It's also still just words - if you were actually intending to go kick someone in the head, it's better not to evidence premeditation.

In the US we sometimes protest by laying down in the street.

Wilful obstruction of the public highway? That's up to a year imprisonment I believe.

I'm guessing you can't attack gay people (verbally)

Freedom of expression doesn't extend to hate speech, and attacking someone on the basis of the sexual orientation is classed as hate speech.

and also can't picket a funeral in the UK

I think this would be covered a number of ways, but in the act I mentioned above it might fall under...

(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person—
(i)does an act, or
(ii)omits to do an act that they are required to do by any enactment or rule of law,
(b)the person’s act or omission—
(i)creates a risk of, or causes, serious harm to the public or a section of the public, or
(ii)obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large, and
(c)the person intends that their act or omission will have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (b) or is reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.
(2)In subsection (1)(b)(i) “serious harm” means—
(a)death, personal injury or disease,
(b)loss of, or damage to, property, or
(c)serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity.

From my perspective, it seems so... British to say that you can protest as long as it's polite and quiet

From my perspective, I get that - but at the same time, it's very easy to perceive the restrictions being in place simply to render protest either ineffectual or illegal.

while I personally don't want to go yelling about gay people in the street or picketing a funeral, I'm very protective of the ability to protest and speak about things which others consider offensive.

Which I partially agree with. As I say, protest against the government is vital - protest against corporations desirable, and protest against other people, much less useful. A better way would to have a population educated enough and well integrated enough that hatred based on race, colour, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality etc. etc. etc. would fizzle out... but that's not the case, instead I'd suggest what America has, in a society that condones hatred, and pays a price for it. Whether that price is worth more or less than constitutional free speech, I don't know.

 

[Danoff]

A better way would to have a population educated enough and well integrated enough that hatred based on race, colour, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality etc. etc. etc. would fizzle out... but that's not the case, instead I'd suggest what America has, in a society that condones hatred, and pays a price for it. Whether that price is worth more or less than constitutional free speech, I don't know.

Offensive protest may be one of the ways we educate ourselves.

 

[HenrySwanson]

In this country justice is provided by the rule of law, not by individuals deciding what's wrong, who should be punished for it, and what that punishment should be, or how long it should last. As I say, it's doubtless understandable in some cases that people cannot accept that, and it's not so much that I have a problem with people doing that - but I do have a problem when they think they should be exempt from the law if they do so.

As long as it meets a logical point of threatening violence then I agree that they shouldn't be exempt from the law.

....But that doesn't detract from the fact that justice was not provided in this instance.

Another part is rehabilitation. Are you as ready to help rehabilitate a rapist as you are to punish them?

Of course. Providing they've been punished accordingly.

Same as I wouldn't want too long a sentence as I read that it doesn't do much for deterrence.

I assume you're making your hypothetical analogous to the German case, so both I guess.

Both would be examples of righting a wrong.

I'd be more inclined to send such a message if I was close to the victim as in my hypothetical, but understand why the German girl did what she did.

No beneficial outcome. If it's not effective, it's pointless, if it is effective then the 'small piece' of justice you wanted may have come at the cost of your own freedom (well done, you played yourself). It's also still just words - if you were actually intending to go kick someone in the head, it's better not to evidence premeditation.

Evidently it rattled the gang rapist so it's somewhat effective.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Offensive protest may be one of the ways we educate ourselves.

I'm not seeing any positive results from J6 yet.

Thing is, both you and Tex have made compelling arguments in other discussions regarding the derivation of laws - or less obvious rights, from basic concepts. You've done this to the point it seems you can say certain things objectively. When somebody is calling for those rights to be ignored, you could consider them to be objectively wrong in their opinion (opinion may/does lead to action), so why waste society's time protecting their right to be objectively wrong? They can think it, they can say it on their private property, but why allow that to go any further?

If I've worded that badly, I apologise, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Man jailed for offensive social media posts in wake of recent disorder | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Contrasted with:

Family 'forgive' van driver who left boy, 7, dying on road after hitting him

William Brown was struck in Folkestone, Kent, just weeks before Christmas

www.standard.co.uk

I'm not sure I have what it takes to work in the criminal justice system.

 

[TexRex]

I don't get it. Criminal conviction for public expression short of legitimate threats of violence is bad (while civil litigation for other matters may or may not be appropriate), but what's that to do with the family of a slain child forgiving the convicted perpetrator ahead of sentencing? Rather than two conflicting things, these are just...two things.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I don't get it. Criminal conviction for public expression short of legitimate threats of violence is bad (while civil litigation for other matters may or may not be appropriate), but what's that to do with the family of a slain child forgiving the convicted perpetrator ahead of sentencing? Rather than two conflicting things, these are just...two things.

It's more my increasing awareness of the problems with justice through the court system. *

I saw this:

“We need change to happen immediately but hopefully this will shine a light on it today.”
The mother is campaigning for a change in the law to make hit-and-runs where someone dies a maximum life imprisonment offence

And also this:

Speaking after the hearing Ms Brown said: 'I just feel that it's really inappropriate to be in this court given the severity of the case. But this is the law as it stands today.

'I was hoping for more serious charges. And with the aggravating features I think it should have been dealt with at Crown Court.

'That's why we're hoping for change. We would like an amendment to the law which would allow cases like this to be elevated to the Crown Court.'

(From: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dmits-fleeing-scene-collision-killed-boy.html)

And reflected that I probably wouldn't have what it takes to be a part of such a system as it is, and likely will continue to be. I think I prefer more absolutes (for better or worse) and so couldn't have a career in the legal system.


* EDIT: As in, I know it's the best we have but there seem to be so many "wrong" decisions

 

[Danoff]

I'm not seeing any positive results from J6 yet.

Thing is, both you and Tex have made compelling arguments in other discussions regarding the derivation of laws - or less obvious rights, from basic concepts. You've done this to the point it seems you can say certain things objectively. When somebody is calling for those rights to be ignored, you could consider them to be objectively wrong in their opinion (opinion may/does lead to action), so why waste society's time protecting their right to be objectively wrong? They can think it, they can say it on their private property, but why allow that to go any further?

If I've worded that badly, I apologise, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at.

Well J6 wasn't a protest. It was a riot aimed at preventing the government from functioning.

Why protect someone's right to be wrong? Mostly because there's nobody I trust to be the arbiter of what is wrong.

 

[TexRex]

Why protect someone's right to be wrong? Mostly because there's nobody I trust to be the arbiter of what is wrong.

Certainly the government isn't fit to be. No government is. So wrongness alone doesn't justify action unless specific and legitimate injury is linked to wrongness as by fraud (criminal) or defamation (civil), but then strong protections should still be apparent in how action is taken in such instances.

But social penalty? Yeah. Great. Bring it on. Shame wrongness. Shun it. Condition association however you see fit, as is your right.