London Riots

[Nepenthe]

Well, what? You want me to put it into a sentence? "Sure, they can arrest them for posting on the web."

 

Just the same as, say, putting up posters on the walls. Just because it happens on ze internet, doesn't make it "not real".

They can arrest people for putting up posters?

 

If they were posters designed to incite criminal behaviour, disturbing the peace, racial hatred etc etc... Or an "I will give x money if so and so is killed" type of poster

 

It's that fine line between freedom of speech and all that jazz. Although technically I don't think the european countries actually have that as a specific founding principle like they have in the states.

it can be littering, too! ;D

[Gromnir]

Well, what? You want me to put it into a sentence? "Sure, they can arrest them for posting on the web."

 

Just the same as, say, putting up posters on the walls. Just because it happens on ze internet, doesn't make it "not real".

They can arrest people for putting up posters?

 

that is kinda a naive statement.

 

your ex-girlfriend makes 10,000 posters with a less than flattering picture o' you accompanied by the following statement: "i slept with him once and now i have chlamydia"

 

what if the "poster" had your name, address, phone #, and social security on it? has a "poster" with the vitals o" you and 49 other folks along with, "let's party like it"s 1999!"

 

am hopeful you thinks the above is offensive posters, no? admittedly, in the US we is more tolerant o' speech than is pretty much all o' europe, but even in the US we got limits on free speech.... and, returning to your earlier query, the question o' the extent o' 1st amendment protections regarding online speech is less clear than one might suppose. the internet is a bit o' a problem for SCOTUS... for many reasons. the public forum doctrine were changed from a shield to a pairing knife by the Rehnquist Court. the reason why hari-krishnas cannot pass out their flowers (and solicit donations) in airports is 'cause the framers didn't conceive of airports in 1791... or 1868? (am not gonna even try to explain incorporation via xiv due process and its impact on the original intent arguments.) the internet has been likened to a public utility analogous to tv and radio more than once, so if george carlin's 7 words could be censored on radio to protect kiddies, then what did that suggest for legislation such as the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and Child Online Protection Act (COPA)? little cindy lou who, and other cute and largely hypothetical children, is the greatest threat to free speech protections in the US. perhaps thankfully, SCOTUS has had to ignore a goodly amount o' precedent to protect online speech, but that means we gots a rather flimsy foundation o' protections for online speech.

 

btw, type "Bong Hits Jesus" into your favorite search engine. might be enlightening to see just how stoopid is the restrictions on what you may print on a poster, even here in the good old US o' A. as we said, beware o' cindy lou who.

 

regardless, am betting that oro can come up with innumerable poster examples that could/should be criminalized. our first reaction, particularly in the US, is to cry "free speech" whenever we sees any kind o' censorship. nevertheless, is some kinda censorship that makes good sense, even to a staunch defender o' individual rights.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 17, 2011 by Gromnir

[Nightshape]

*wishes grommy would get back in his cage*

[Orogun01]

that is kinda a naive statement.

 

your ex-girlfriend makes 10,000 posters with a less than flattering picture o' you accompanied by the following statement: "i slept with him once and now i have chlamydia"

 

what if the "poster" had your name, address, phone #, and social security on it? has a "poster" with the vitals o" you and 49 other folks along with, "let's party like it"s 1999!"

am hopeful you thinks the above is offensive posters, no? admittedly, in the US we is more tolerant o' speech than is pretty much all o' europe, but even in the US we got limits on free speech.... and, returning to your earlier query, the question o' the extent o' 1st amendment protections regarding online speech is less clear than one might suppose. the internet is a bit o' a problem for SCOTUS... for many reasons. the public forum doctrine were changed from a shield to a pairing knife by the Rehnquist Court. the reason why hari-krishnas cannot pass out their flowers (and solicit donations) in airports is 'cause the framers didn't conceive of airports in 1791... or 1868? (am not gonna even try to explain incorporation via xiv due process and its impact on the original intent arguments.) the internet has been likened to a public utility analogous to tv and radio more than once, so if george carlin's 7 words could be censored on radio to protect kiddies, then what did that suggest for legislation such as the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and Child Online Protection Act (COPA)? little cindy lou who, and other cute and largely hypothetical children, is the greatest threat to free speech protections in the US. perhaps thankfully, SCOTUS has had to ignore a goodly amount o' precedent to protect online speech, but that means we gots a rather flimsy foundation o' protections for online speech.

 

btw, type "Bong Hits Jesus" into your favorite search engine. might be enlightening to see just how stoopid is the restrictions on what you may print on a poster, even here in the good old US o' A. as we said, beware o' cindy lou who.

Actually, I was just thinking on the amount of harm that it can incite. Your example is a clear harm since it divulges personal information to the public, but if someone put up a poster saying "Everyone who reads this, go jump off a bridge" Could it really be called a danger since no one would be likely to follow its advice?

 

regardless, am betting that oro can come up with innumerable poster examples that could/should be criminalized. our first reaction, particularly in the US, is to cry "free speech" whenever we sees any kind o' censorship. nevertheless, is some kinda censorship that makes good sense, even to a staunch defender o' individual rights.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Why would you think that?

[Gromnir]

*wishes grommy would get back in his cage*

 

hmmmm

 

our wishes include stuff such as the following:

 

cure for cancer

 

renewed serious human space exploration in our lifetime

 

solutions to the endemic problems o' the third world

 

etc.

 

more simple and personal?

 

a really good bigos recipe that don't require +20 ingredients and +2 hours of prep

 

for don delillo to gets back to his 1982-1991 form

 

a second season of wonderfalls

 

...

 

you know, nightshade/shape (whatever) don't rate anywhere on our wish list. go figure.

 

"Why would you think that? "

 

well then, perhaps we give you too much credit. in any event, am gonna note that your bridge jumping analogy gots a serious flaw: folks didn't jump off the bridge. people in london did riot as directed and prompted. again, is a different standard here in the US, but even we gots stuff such as hate speech and incitement. there is a general prohibition on prior restraints, but that ain't an issue once criminal behavior has occurred. brandenburg v. ohio has the test you is looking for... includes immediacy and likelihood o' action by audience. with the riots you got actual action. nevertheless, none o' this changes the fact that we bets that if you put your mind to it, you could come up with examples of posters and online posts that goes beyond free speech protections.

 

btw, am guessing you didn't follow our suggestion with the Bong Hits Jesus thing, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 17, 2011 by Gromnir

[Nightshape]

*wishes grommy would get back in his cage*

 

hmmmm

 

our wishes include stuff such as the following:

 

cure for cancer

 

renewed serious human space exploration in our lifetime

 

solutions to the endemic problems o' the third world

 

etc.

 

more simple and personal?

 

a really good bigos recipe that don't require +20 ingredients and +2 hours of prep

 

for don delillo to gets back to his 1982-1991 form

 

a second season of wonderfalls

 

 

HAHAHA!

 

You actually cheer'd me up.

[Orogun01]

"Why would you think that? "

 

well then, perhaps we give you too much credit. in any event, am gonna note that your bridge jumping analogy gots a serious flaw: folks didn't jump off the bridge. people in london did riot as directed and prompted. again, is a different standard here in the US, but even we gots stuff such as hate speech and incitement. there is a general prohibition on prior restraints, but that ain't an issue once criminal behavior has occurred. brandenburg v. ohio has the test you is looking for... includes immediacy and likelihood o' action by audience. with the riots you got actual action. nevertheless, none o' this changes the fact that we bets that if you put your mind to it, you could come up with examples of posters and online posts that goes beyond free speech protections.

 

btw, am guessing you didn't follow our suggestion with the Bong Hits Jesus thing, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Wait, now I'm confused. Who did they arrest, the ones who originally incited the riots or people who were inciting after the fact?

 

I actually did the Jesus thingy, but I don't see how it applies since it was on school property not the Internet.

[Gromnir]

"Why would you think that? "

 

well then, perhaps we give you too much credit. in any event, am gonna note that your bridge jumping analogy gots a serious flaw: folks didn't jump off the bridge. people in london did riot as directed and prompted. again, is a different standard here in the US, but even we gots stuff such as hate speech and incitement. there is a general prohibition on prior restraints, but that ain't an issue once criminal behavior has occurred. brandenburg v. ohio has the test you is looking for... includes immediacy and likelihood o' action by audience. with the riots you got actual action. nevertheless, none o' this changes the fact that we bets that if you put your mind to it, you could come up with examples of posters and online posts that goes beyond free speech protections.

 

btw, am guessing you didn't follow our suggestion with the Bong Hits Jesus thing, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Wait, now I'm confused. Who did they arrest, the ones who originally incited the riots or people who were inciting after the fact?

 

I actually did the Jesus thingy, but I don't see how it applies since it was on school property not the Internet.

 

 

...

 

you mentioned posters, no? is what we initially responded to after all.

 

"They can arrest people for putting up posters? sick.gif"

 

first you expressed consternation over internet posts, then tangible posters... and no, it weren't on school property in Morse. you didn't actually read beyond some first couple lines of a caption, eh? no worries. in any event, you will learn more if you actual read.

 

as for the distinction of "incite after the fact," am curious where you is going with that? might wanna read that linky too.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Very interesting piece, digging through the court data, and actually making some sober 'academic' points. LINK.

 

Example:

 

The boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham have the highest levels of poverty and youth unemployment in London, matched only by Hackney. But unlike Hackney, they saw relatively little rioting.

 

There was looting in Bow, Whitechapel, Stratford, Plaistow and Beckton, but not on the scale seen elsewhere.

 

The borough of Brent, which also has significant deprivation and high crime, was also notably quiet.

 

"Compared to surrounding boroughs Newham was relatively calm," said the acting borough police commander, Sean Vickers.

 

Part of the reason may be that there are relatively few shops selling expensive goods in Tower Hamlets and Newham. However, from the court data, few people from these two boroughs travelled to other areas to loot either.

[Gorgon]

.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Gorgon

[obyknven]

No Rights In Britian ..er Riots

 

[Walsingham]

No Rights In Britian ..er Riots

 

 

Wow, all star team you're building here.