thin line. many people got sent to jail in England for celebrating too enthusiastically online during the anti-immigrant riots.
The only thing I ever saw about people online being sent to jail were these two .
Parlour, of Seacroft, Leeds, who called for an attack on a hotel housing refugees and asylum seekers on Facebook, became the first person to be jailed for stirring up racial hatred during the disorder.
Kay was convicted after he used social media to call for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set alight.
So if you consider that ‘too enthusiastic’ I uh… have a different definition of that.
Ah, sorry about that, I figured that you would use some translator tool on it if you wanted to verify my source.
I ran it through a few different ones but DeepL seemed to handle it best:
Tap for full translation.
Court rules that likes on social media can already be a criminal offense
Social media has been nothing new for a long time, yet courts are still dealing with issues related to it. Or rather: hate speech is and remains a huge issue. Now comes a question: is a simple “like” already punishable?
Yes, at least according to the Meiningen Regional Court. In a recently published decision, the regional court found that even a like can be a punishable offense. Specifically, this is the case if the liked post contains punishable content.
The case in question is the double murder of a police officer in the district of Kusel at the beginning of the year. At the time, a hunter and poacher reacted to a vehicle stop with lethal force. The crime was also a major topic on social media, with an overwhelming majority of people expressing shock at this double murder.
But not exclusively: one Facebook user wrote in a post “Not a single second of silence for these creatures”. At least one user liked this post and for the Meiningen public prosecutor’s office this was already a criminal offense (it is not known whether and how the original author is being investigated, but it can be assumed).
According to the Berlin criminal and media lawyer Ehssan Khazaeli, who was commissioned by the accused, the Facebook user had “made himself liable to prosecution both for denigrating the memory of deceased persons under Section 189 StGB and for rewarding and approving criminal acts under Section 140 StGB”, as the lawyer writes in a blog post (via Tarnkappe).
Is a “like” already “condoning”?
An extensive search was carried out against the person who pressed the “Like” button, and the authorities gained access to the accused’s home, vehicle and cloud storage. Khazaeli criticized the decision: “By liking a post, it remains clear that it is the post of another person - there can be no question of ‘taking ownership’,” said the lawyer.
Khazaeli went on to say that a like is not a “personal mental statement”, and certainly not an endorsement of a crime. “The post is linked to the culture of mourning and the funeral service for the two police officers, not to the murder as such. You can and should find that distasteful, but it is not relevant under criminal law,” says Ehssan Khazaeli.
The lawyer intends to lodge a constitutional complaint against the decision in the coming months: “It’s not about the individual case, but about the fundamental question of whether simply liking something on social media can be a criminal offense.”
I don’t speak German, but it sounds like what happened is that a lawyer pointed out that liking that post could be illegal under new laws, and is trying to get it struck down. So yes ‘could’ is carrying a lot of weight in this case.
And to be clear I’m as left as possible and anti-authoritarian, I just fail to see how being a massive racist and calling for people to be killed (and how to hide your identity, in posts following it) and then forwarding those messages to the police is somehow a Big Brother situation.
there were 6 arrests for social media crimes, including the one for the woman who actually kicked off the protests by sharing a fake name about the kid who attacked the concert
but that’s beyond the point. let’s look at the comment for Kay, one that you mentioned, that caught a sentence of 38 months
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it”
that’s the portion that says he “called for hotels to be set alight”
see, to my interpretation he was saying “i would not care if they set fire to the hotels”. in the US, this would be very strongly covered under free speech. why? because it’s an opinion. in the US you can say “I believe that [xyz] should happen” and that is a belief. an opinion- something that cannot be censored. in the UK, not so much. but even in the US, you could be held legally responsible in some way depending on the interpretation of the law
and likewise, the platform hosting that controversial speech can face legal consequences. from serious fines to potentially even criminal charges depending on the enthusiasm of the government. (governments that are getting progressively more authoritarian and trigger-happy the world over)
the point I was trying to convey is that a website like this instance of Lemmy or any other must follow rules in order to stay out of legal hot water. how can you fault them for that?
if you believe this is not the correct thing to do, then you can pay money to host a website and then you can put your ass in front of the ringer to handle potential legal consequences for not doing your part to stop it. i don’t fault the mods in the slightest.
just for reference though, let’s compare and contrast the comment that got Kay arrested and put in jail and then some comments in this thread
a lot of comments in this thread are being deleted, let me see if i can catch some before they are deleted
“This bit of news does not bother me at all”
“I mean, I thought we were gonna eat the rich, but this will do.”
“this will probably lead to the increased militarisation [sic] of ceo security teams. People can start going after their family”
using the same level of scrutiny, each one of these comments could justify a sentence in the ballpark of 38 months like what happened with Kay
this is what i mean. the internet today is changing and social media admins need to change with the times or the hammer of the law can screw them. users here spamming about mod abuse do not fully understand
He also said “every man and his dog should smash [the] f*** out of Britannia hotel (in Leeds)”, then he took his posts and:
After being warned by another Twitter user that he could be jailed, Kay tweeted: “I can categorically tell you now, I will not be arrested by Northants Police.”
During the posts, Kay said he was a Reform voter, accused police of two-tier policing and told someone who said the screenshot and posts could land him in jail that they were delusional.
He also copied Northamptonshire Police into one of the messages after being warned he could face court action by another user.
He didn’t just go to jail for a couple posts, he made a bunch of them and then after being warned they were illegal forwarded them to the police.
This guy is a dangerous if moronic racist, and really only has himself to blame.
You’re talking about being ‘silenced’ as if it’s being done by some monolithic organization; it’s not a government action, they can make whatever rules they want. You are free to make your own instance with your own rules.
using the same level of scrutiny, each one of these comments could justify a sentence in the ballpark of 38 months like what happened with Kay
That is an assertion that I highly doubt and I while at first glance your comment seems well enough thought out, I actually don’t see a lot to support the assertions made.
governments that are getting progressively more authoritarian and trigger-happy the world over
this is what i mean. the internet today is changing and social media admins need to change with the times or the hammer of the law can screw them.
You are advocating for literally “Obeying in advance” to authoritarian regimes on a left leaning decentralized social media network.
The only thing I ever saw about people online being sent to jail were these two .
So if you consider that ‘too enthusiastic’ I uh… have a different definition of that.
Depends on where you live. There’s a very similar case in Germany from 2 years ago compared to what’s going on now.
In Germany a cop was murdered and someone posted on Facebook: “Not a single second of silence for these creatures.”
The courts have ruled that even “liking” a comment/post like that could be a crime.
https://winfuture.de/news,131418.html
Edit: since the post is locked…
Ah, sorry about that, I figured that you would use some translator tool on it if you wanted to verify my source.
I ran it through a few different ones but DeepL seemed to handle it best:
Tap for full translation.
Court rules that likes on social media can already be a criminal offense
Social media has been nothing new for a long time, yet courts are still dealing with issues related to it. Or rather: hate speech is and remains a huge issue. Now comes a question: is a simple “like” already punishable?
Yes, at least according to the Meiningen Regional Court. In a recently published decision, the regional court found that even a like can be a punishable offense. Specifically, this is the case if the liked post contains punishable content.
The case in question is the double murder of a police officer in the district of Kusel at the beginning of the year. At the time, a hunter and poacher reacted to a vehicle stop with lethal force. The crime was also a major topic on social media, with an overwhelming majority of people expressing shock at this double murder.
But not exclusively: one Facebook user wrote in a post “Not a single second of silence for these creatures”. At least one user liked this post and for the Meiningen public prosecutor’s office this was already a criminal offense (it is not known whether and how the original author is being investigated, but it can be assumed).
According to the Berlin criminal and media lawyer Ehssan Khazaeli, who was commissioned by the accused, the Facebook user had “made himself liable to prosecution both for denigrating the memory of deceased persons under Section 189 StGB and for rewarding and approving criminal acts under Section 140 StGB”, as the lawyer writes in a blog post (via Tarnkappe).
Is a “like” already “condoning”? An extensive search was carried out against the person who pressed the “Like” button, and the authorities gained access to the accused’s home, vehicle and cloud storage. Khazaeli criticized the decision: “By liking a post, it remains clear that it is the post of another person - there can be no question of ‘taking ownership’,” said the lawyer.
Khazaeli went on to say that a like is not a “personal mental statement”, and certainly not an endorsement of a crime. “The post is linked to the culture of mourning and the funeral service for the two police officers, not to the murder as such. You can and should find that distasteful, but it is not relevant under criminal law,” says Ehssan Khazaeli.
The lawyer intends to lodge a constitutional complaint against the decision in the coming months: “It’s not about the individual case, but about the fundamental question of whether simply liking something on social media can be a criminal offense.”
I don’t speak German, but it sounds like what happened is that a lawyer pointed out that liking that post could be illegal under new laws, and is trying to get it struck down. So yes ‘could’ is carrying a lot of weight in this case.
And to be clear I’m as left as possible and anti-authoritarian, I just fail to see how being a massive racist and calling for people to be killed (and how to hide your identity, in posts following it) and then forwarding those messages to the police is somehow a Big Brother situation.
there were 6 arrests for social media crimes, including the one for the woman who actually kicked off the protests by sharing a fake name about the kid who attacked the concert
but that’s beyond the point. let’s look at the comment for Kay, one that you mentioned, that caught a sentence of 38 months
that’s the portion that says he “called for hotels to be set alight”
see, to my interpretation he was saying “i would not care if they set fire to the hotels”. in the US, this would be very strongly covered under free speech. why? because it’s an opinion. in the US you can say “I believe that [xyz] should happen” and that is a belief. an opinion- something that cannot be censored. in the UK, not so much. but even in the US, you could be held legally responsible in some way depending on the interpretation of the law
and likewise, the platform hosting that controversial speech can face legal consequences. from serious fines to potentially even criminal charges depending on the enthusiasm of the government. (governments that are getting progressively more authoritarian and trigger-happy the world over)
the point I was trying to convey is that a website like this instance of Lemmy or any other must follow rules in order to stay out of legal hot water. how can you fault them for that?
if you believe this is not the correct thing to do, then you can pay money to host a website and then you can put your ass in front of the ringer to handle potential legal consequences for not doing your part to stop it. i don’t fault the mods in the slightest.
just for reference though, let’s compare and contrast the comment that got Kay arrested and put in jail and then some comments in this thread
a lot of comments in this thread are being deleted, let me see if i can catch some before they are deleted
using the same level of scrutiny, each one of these comments could justify a sentence in the ballpark of 38 months like what happened with Kay
this is what i mean. the internet today is changing and social media admins need to change with the times or the hammer of the law can screw them. users here spamming about mod abuse do not fully understand
He also said “every man and his dog should smash [the] f*** out of Britannia hotel (in Leeds)”, then he took his posts and:
He didn’t just go to jail for a couple posts, he made a bunch of them and then after being warned they were illegal forwarded them to the police.
This guy is a dangerous if moronic racist, and really only has himself to blame.
You’re talking about being ‘silenced’ as if it’s being done by some monolithic organization; it’s not a government action, they can make whatever rules they want. You are free to make your own instance with your own rules.
That is an assertion that I highly doubt and I while at first glance your comment seems well enough thought out, I actually don’t see a lot to support the assertions made.
You are advocating for literally “Obeying in advance” to authoritarian regimes on a left leaning decentralized social media network.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/obeying-in-advance
You’re making a good case for free speech absolutism.