War with Facebook

[PELHAM 10]

Yes I did and it's interestign because the same statement was writen and publishged by a Jounalist here without any juristical

No you didn't because that statement would be legal in the UK as well. Read the 2nd half starting with the word 'All' - that is the illegal bit.

[Beagle 684]

Do we discuss this article here or something else, or am I completely confused?

[PELHAM 10]

Do we discuss this article here or something else, or am I completely confused?

Yes you need to look at the actual post to see why he was arrested. Go to google, search Azhar Ahmed, and then select images. You will then see the wording of the facebook post and all will become clear.

The media can't report his actual words because that would be prejudicial. So looking at a purposely vague media story isn't helpful.

[Serclaes 0]

It's a little different than that in Germany. You can't "offend" groups of people like the soldiers, the politicians, the lawyers, the SPD etc. like "Lawyers are full of shit".

You can however be sentenced for offending specific people, like "y, x and z are full of shit".

To this Azhar I can say one thing: It's Great Britain and those were british soldiers. Go to Afghanistan and see how much they care about fallen british soldiers. So I think he should show a little respect to the society he's living in.

Additionally, I'll hold it like Voltaire. "I do not agree with your opinion, but I'd give my life for your right to tell it."

[mrcash2009 0]

Lets get some perspective, have you seen and read the most outlandish, threatening, aggressive, racist, argumentative comments openly posted on all kinds of violent/military/news & political videos on you-tube alone? One comment from this chap on "facebook" ... and its now a real world type issue, complete bollocks. My point to log it here and is missed, is the key word facebook, Pelham openly admits public = facebook, well, public = the entire internet if that is the case. Rules applied different on that site, yet all manner of anything you can analyse about his comments you can find one click away & even more open than a facebook page.

Difference? People post there true ID on facebook as they are sold to do and then get monitored, bringing it right back to the source of the thread. So as regards Pelhams anaysis on the matter, it puts it into perspective, what it does show is people are sucking this brainwashing up like that's the norm, its not. I dont condone his comments, buts its nothing you wont hear on a Saturday night out in the uk in a chain of pubs. So, does this overly wordy angry person need to be arrested for it? No.

As I mentioned, its just cases & examples to send a message. IN some ways its even pathetic, think of the money spent getting that arranged, could have been time spent catching some real bad people. What if 100,000 people repeat the same thing on facebook? What if 99,999 of them were white, and 1 wasn't? What if that was swapped around?, exactly how would it be dealt with? That's my point about pathetic.

Edited March 15, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

The reason he was arrested is for the legal reasons I gave. People of all races are regularly arrested for public order offences related to internet postings and others are arrested in public places for the same offences every day. Are you seriously trying to say they only arrested him because he is Asian? If you look at previous cases, the Law relating to Public Order and what he wrote you will quickly realise he is being treated no differently to anyone else.

One thing to be aware of is the police would not have acted without several people making a complaint. I am well aware people are making racist comments in return and the same thing should happen to them. His comments have created a spiral of public order problems and will cost West Yorkshire thousands of pounds because his trial will have to be heavily policed as well. So I guess it's best if people think about what they write and don't break the law in the first place.

One thing I find irritating is that several websites are excusing his crime because of the killings of a rogue US soldier (that guy needs whole life tariff minimum BTW). The Afghan killings happened on Sunday 11th and the comments were posted on Thursday 8th so the two incidents aren't even connected.

Edited March 15, 2012 by PELHAM

[Dwarden 1124]

I believe this is pretty stupid, isn´t the UK supposed to be a state where you can freely express yourself? And the boy does have a valid point, we get absolutely no figures how many civilians have been killed during the war.

actually the data leaked thru Wikileaks from both Iraq and Afghanistan, clearly shows that US and NATO forces keep very detailed reports about majority of killings against civilians, found remains and all investigation cases happening ...

in fact less than 0.01% was caused by good guys by incident and even less was on purpose

reading these reports even shown awesome fact that one squad discovered 'unacceptable' actions of another squad etc.

and sadly the majority of civilians suffer from no security in region, not the army ...

it's tragedy when soldier goes crazy and kills civilians but it's same tragedy when crime gangs do this for ransom or terrorists do that for w/e cause e.g. on trade market ...

i find very strange that now lot of people talk about Taliban like they some sort of 'peaceful' organization ignoring these tens thousands executed people by this same Taliban and forgot there is way more people driven outside theirs own homes by them aswel

Edited March 15, 2012 by Dwarden

[mrcash2009 0]

People of all races are regularly arrested for public order offences related to internet postings and others are arrested in public places for the same offences every day. Are you seriously trying to say they only arrested him because he is Asian?

No, you are part implying I did, I just threw it out as a example of how ludicrous it is, and my point was about thousands doing the same thing on the site & how it would be dealt with as a question (to show how ridiculous it actually is on a large scale). Maybe every one on facebook posts the same and they shut facebook down?

One thing to be aware of is the police would not have acted without several people making a complaint.

*** A MASSIVE KEY POINT HERE, GLAD YOU POSTED ABOUT IT ****

Several people who have a choice not to look at it (a comment in a site you choose to log into and who you see and converse with, within a far corner of a database on a server)? Stazi informant mindset fools they are then aren't they, thats the worrying mindset, that people think it should need complaining about when they arent self aware enough to know the net is full of it and life in general and they should maybe move on and get over it all things considered.

I am well aware people are making racist comments in return and the same thing should happen to them.

You do realise that accepting this as a norm opens things to spread further into that little thing called "deemed to be". You can call for it and they all get arrested, but you are enforcing this mindset as a norm by doing that, the things people SHOULD be arrested for in the real world make this look like disney, this is just thought police bullshit. It would be different if someone is harassing/stalking/making direct personal threats human to human through it, but not some idiots little angry rant. I cant wait for the day you post something that falls into the "deemed" category and you get a knock at the door. Whats you facebook page? I will track it and deem something you post and make the complaint to trigger the process, nice & easy right?

His comments have created a spiral of public order problems and will cost West Yorkshire thousands of pounds because his trial will have to be heavily policed as well. So I guess it's best if people think about what they write and don't break the law in the first place.

Really, or is it that people who complained "triggered" this for them to get involved and then make costs? In bold is the message this example sends, and is the future of social (engineering) Networking. So the cost of the police getting involved becuase people triggered the process through bothering to complain (bigger picture I mentioned about the whole net if thats the case) that created that cost is the "fault" of some snotty rant by a no one on a webpage?

I see it that hes a prat, it doesn't take a genius to work it out, hes threatened no one, just a sweeping statement of nothingness, no one got killed because of it, part of his point is true, and ALL that needed was a termination of account and black list ... NOT, the physical world police arresting him and that process needed. If you cant see that and accept this enjoy the future.

Also you have to take into consideration employment, real life criminal record, the face that police are trigger happy on taking DNA just in general, all that and someone asks him, so how did you get this blemish on a criminal record? He says "I posted a few sentences on facebook (a website) that was a bit angry" .... hmmmmm.

I speak of the bigger picture in all this and based under the facebook example and point of the thread, just to make that clear.

What if BIS started informing agencies and when someone posts something wrong based on forum rules they got police at the door, I mean, realy? That alright? No shutting down of account and IP block of some kind? What if this spread to all forums and video sites? Realy think it through.

Heres another example, trawl through facebook and find anything you deem that fits the catagory you mention that offends you and meets the requirement, now call the police ... so they have to act on every case you pass? You have to look at the fact this process is so easily implemented all on the whim of someone you never meet reporting it, also its open to abuse, blackmail, and so on ... its open season for milking.

Final scenario:

You have a close friend or relation far away using facebook, you post openly "I will kill you next time I see you" ... (and is meant as a joke and they know it, much like saying you will kill someone for making a mess, throw away comment so to speak) ... some unknown tinterweb facebook fool reads it, interprets it and calls the police ... its that easy to get the ball rolling, think about that too.

Edited March 15, 2012 by mrcash2009

[st_dux 26]

You do realise that accepting this as a norm opens things to spread further into that little thing called "deemed to be". You can call for it and they all get arrested, but you are enforcing this mindset as a norm by doing that, the things people SHOULD be arrested for in the real world make this look like disney, this is just thought police bullshit. It would be different if someone is harassing/stalking/making direct personal threats human to human through it, but not some idiots little angry rant.

Agreed. That's why I'm glad that there are no legal restrictions on "hate speech" in the United States -- unless you're actively threatening someone or seeking only to incite violence, you can say whatever you'd like. If someone is spouting racist commentary that the majority finds deplorable, why does it need to be illegal? The marketplace of ideas will sort itself out.

[mrcash2009 0]

Yes, "hate speech" another little law device having its lines blurred into "deemed" *insert interpretation*, Im actually quite surprised based on what Pelham has written on these forums that he seems to accept this so easily, you surprise me mate, you really do. I hope you can see the bigger picture "angle" I was going for here based on the threads topic.

The overall point is to force it into the minds of the social network minions that this will happen and you best accept it, it doesn't need to be legal in any way, you do the thing the net has done forever and that ban people, or maybe take it to the ISP level if its really needed (even that in this case isnt). NO NEED AT ALL to take it to the local bobby arresting you at your home, that is pathetic.

Its this blanket approach thats the issue, I bet if you know the police involved in the case I BET you off record they think its pathetic waste of time for them to go through the costly process for teenagers little rants, also I hope it does cost them (remember the financial situation of UK services right now) every time some fool makes a complaint to trigger the process, it will show it up for what its worth, and thats nothing.

Then again maybe this approach has its benefits to cause these issues, certainly sets people off on one another, perfect in some ways.

You can take it further and say that "you will be arrested by simply staying in your own home", using a PC at home is now by law "public" think about that too.

Edited March 15, 2012 by mrcash2009

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Using a PC at home isn't 'public', it's the way information is shared that is public. Facebook's license agreement states that you are personally responsible for the level of privacy for all content you create on the site, and provides options for all content to be shared publicly or privately - same as you have the option to make any other information you create in other mediums, public, or private.

Also, this idiot's facebook post was unsolicited; it wasn't made in debate with another person or made in direct response to content created by another facebook user so it cannot be compared to commenting on a youtube video - he's the bloke posting the video not the retards commenting on it. He made a conscious decision to make his statement 'public' within Facebook's own terms, and within their terms all content on Facebook is subject to the laws of the country where the content is created. Suggesting that a group of people should be killed, or subjected to acts of violence isn't legal in the UK, and if people choose to report the offence, the duty of the police is to investigate it regardless of the medium through which the statement became public.

Admittedly, if he'd done it outside on the high street he'd probably get the shit kicked out of him rather than be allowed to carry on until the police arrived; but unfortunately nobody has developed technology allowing people to be punched in the face over the internet, so we must rely solely on police procedure. However, consider that the actions Facebook take to reprimand people who cause offence on their site is to delete the content and deny their service to the user - which is effectively censorship. The police on the other hand will merely fine the bloke for causing offence and suggest that he refrain from doing so again in future or face further reprimands - if he's truly committed to his beliefs, nowt is stopping him from writing further inflammatory statements on FB, beyond a wish to avoid further police entanglement; he wont be imprisoned for it.

We live in an odd country where it's perfectly legal for private companies or individuals to completely censor other people or media outlets who might say things that cause the plaintiff to lose money; and impose severe financial penalties for breaking the court's ruling. Yet if the state itself reprimands people for saying dumb, inflammatory things that might result in violence and loss of life; in order to encourage them to be more considerate in what they say, and maintain the peace - it's completely unacceptable.

[PELHAM 10]

Yes, "hate speech" another little law device having its lines blurred into "deemed" *insert interpretation*, Im actually quite surprised based on what Pelham has written on these forums that he seems to accept this so easily, you surprise me mate, you really do. I hope you can see the bigger picture "angle" I was going for here based on the threads topic.

I can see the bigger picture. Riots and extreme violence have started for less. He has put his whole community at risk from the far right beyond the actual distress and harassment this may have caused to bereaved families and others. The basic problem is many will not read this and think 'what a prat' and move on. There is a minority who will immediately be looking to travel there and cause trouble. If people can't behave reasonably they need a little reminder because extremism of all kinds is growing in the UK. It happens every weekend now. Tickets for the football are too expensive so they have found something else to do.

That is why they have laws about incitement and public order. It's to try and keep a lid on things before it spirals out of control. The UK is far from being 1 nation, it's a collection of communities. The Police spend much of their time trying to keep the peace.

There is also a historical angle to think about RE West Yorkshire. It's where the main cell involved in the London Bombings got together. West Yorkshire Police are on constant alert for signs of extremism of any kind, including the EDL mob, because they don't want similar things to happen again. There are valid reasons why this is taken seriously.

I don't think they are being heavy handed, there are many examples of arrests of this kind over the past few years. This only affects UK citizens so does not affect all users on Facebook but their own nations may have similar laws.

RE what I have said before about other governments, this guy will not be tortured, killed, held without trial or given a disproportionate sentence, he will not be held on remand till the trial. His family with not be threatened by the state, imprisoned or lose their jobs. The maximum sentence could be 6 months but that is highly unlikely, it will probably just be a fine. His human rights have not been breached in any way, there is a law, it's possible he has broken it, he will get a fair hearing. He may possibly be found not guilty. So whats the problem?

If you live in the UK and don't like the fact that Public Order offences apply to the internet, vote for a parliamentary debate, write to your MP or vote for a party that plans to scrap it.

Edited March 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

Using a PC at home isn't 'public', it's the way information is shared that is public. Facebook's license agreement states that you are personally responsible for the level of privacy for all content you create on the site, and provides options for all content to be shared publicly or privately - same as you have the option to make any other information you create in other mediums, public, or private.

I know that, I was just putting forward the point about posting and arrest from home, pushing a point a bit more than needed, but all things considered it still has a flavour of it.

Also, this idiot's facebook post was unsolicited; it wasn't made in debate with another person or made in direct response to content created by another facebook user so it cannot be compared to commenting on a youtube video - he's the bloke posting the video not the retards commenting on it.

Although if it was, would the same happen anyway? I used youtube as an example of racism & threats, clearly facebook has a different way of working, and my point is how long this extremism & rioting (london last year) knee jerk reaction to anything "deemed" slips further into a blurred line.

Facebook take to reprimand people who cause offence on their site is to delete the content and deny their service to the user - which is effectively censorship.

So that's an issue but arrest is ok in the real world even though he could still clearly say the same offensive crap again to kickstart round 2? Plus the police getting involved can also cause attention (as it did with the media and even Sky news) and the cost and further start an issue between them. Mind you its the scare subject of the current times so no wonder it got plastered all over the media.

Its no more censorship than any forum banning a poster, I just dont see how facebook gets this marter status in terms of that.

We live in an odd country where it's perfectly legal for private companies or individuals to completely censor other people or media outlets who might say things that cause the plaintiff to lose money; and impose severe financial penalties for breaking the court's ruling. Yet if the state itself reprimands people for saying dumb, inflammatory things that might result in violence and loss of life; in order to encourage them to be more considerate in what they say, and maintain the peace - it's completely unacceptable.

I never said it wasn't acceptable, I was stating that it could have been done in different ways than it did, based on some text on a website.

Well what we actually have is the extremism/race "thing" underpinning and smoke screening face books approach and worry of other peoples reactions (which I clearly have mis understood, there are really some people that are worse reactors than cause it seems).

I did state before, if 100,000 white users said the same, how would it get dealt with? And before anyone shoots off at the race hip, I use it as examples not a real point.

If you live in the UK and don't like the fact that Public Order offences apply to the internet, vote for a parliamentary debate, write to your MP or vote for a party that plans to scrap it.

The clamp down on the internet is been on the go for some time, point taken but I have this sneeking feeling its a fixed position and will only expand further later.

Its much like minority report, all this preventative, possible could cause harm, potentially waffle, when all you do is ban them from a site, just like the way the whole internet has worked from year dot. I understand the point about knee jerk reactions with the area he lives in that Pelham points to, that is another factor and a good point, I just wonder how long it takes before extremism & rioting are just old news in terms of reasons and then it spreads more open, that being my point overall.

We shall see I guess.

Edited March 16, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

I just wonder how long it takes before extremism & rioting are just old news in terms of reasons and then it spreads more open, that being my point overall.

We shall see I guess.

It can't unless they pass new laws. Public Order only covers certain things. Clamping down further is very unlikely as it would clash with existing UK and EU law. There would also be great public opposition, including from me, I think the balance is ok as it is.

If you ever need legal guidance this is a very useful website:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/index.html

Edited March 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[nettrucker 142]

Agreed. That's why I'm glad that there are no legal restrictions on "hate speech" in the United States -- unless you're actively threatening someone or seeking only to incite violence, you can say whatever you'd like. If someone is spouting racist commentary that the majority finds deplorable, why does it need to be illegal? The marketplace of ideas will sort itself out.

if this bill passes than your freedom of free speech will go down the drain. Read this . . .

A new bill, HR 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, also known as the “Trespassing Bill,†is soon to be signed into law by President Obama. This bill effectively criminalizes protest and will hurt protest groups and movements such as Occupy quite hard.

The bill as states that anyone who knowingly “enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so†with the “intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in or [in] proximity to, any restricted building or grounds†or “impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions†will be punished with a fine or “or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.†(emphasis added)

here's the link to the complete article

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29673

It is unbelievable that most Americans still believe that they can trust their own Government. Really sad.

[PELHAM 10]

Too late trucker - it passed congress with a vote of 399-3 and was signed into Law by Obama yesterday. It doesn't criminalise protest at all. It simply temporarily stops people occupying areas where dignitaries are visiting or jumping the fence at the White House. You will still be able to protest peacefully from the sidewalk.

Good old Globalresearch.ca, always economical with the truth. Make sure you read the attached PDF of the bill where you will discover the law only applies to areas temporarily restricted by the US Secret Service at the time and permanently only to the grounds of the White House and residence of the Deputy President.

Trying to say this is a nation wide restriction on protest is a huge distortion of the reality.

Edited March 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[Tonci87 163]

So basically people can protest in places where nobody will notice them/where they can protest until the end of days. Very effective....

[PELHAM 10]

So basically people can protest in places where nobody will notice them/where they can protest until the end of days. Very effective....

They can protest in the street outside, just not in the building where the President is visiting. Can't see a problem with that myself. That is why it passed congress with an almost unanimous vote, there is nothing wrong with it. Read the thing yourself:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr347ih.pdf

Make sure you get to the last page where it defines the 3 places where this law will come into force.

Edited March 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[Tonci87 163]

They can protest in the street outside, just not in the building where the President is visiting. Can't see a problem with that myself. That is why it passed congress with an almost unanimous vote, there is nothing wrong with it. Read the thing yourself:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr347ih.pdf

Make sure you get to the last page where it defines the 3 places where this law will come into force.

Ah OK, that sounds reasonable. I think this legislation is OK as long as it doesn´t restrict protests in "public" places

[nettrucker 142]

IMHO it's just the beginning. It pratically means you can not protest in front of the White House where the President resides. So where do you go and protest when you're not agreeing with the current political agenda of your country or with the President himself?

Edited March 16, 2012 by nettrucker

[Tonci87 163]

of the White House or its grounds, or

the Vice President’s official residence or its

grounds;

I understan it that way that it is still ok to protest in front of the fence, right?

[PELHAM 10]

I understan it that way that it is still ok to protest in front of the fence, right?

Yes, you can protest outside the grounds of the whitehouse but you can't climb the fence or pitch a tent on the front lawn. Terrible affront to human rights you know, not being able to camp on the whitehouse lawn lol.

@Nettrucker - got anything resembling anything truthful to say on this?

[nettrucker 142]

No . . . not at the moment Pelham. But I'm firmly convinced that this bill will be amended in the future or they will try to pass additional bills which will restrict more and more the right for peaceful protest and free speech. Not withstanding the occupy movements we haven't seen any mass demonstrations yet and the time will come where more and more Americans will hit the streets to protest . . . believe me. Furthermore also the right of free speech will be more and more restricted on the Internet. All western governments are very busy to try and get control on the Internet . . . face book and other social network sites are just the very beginning.

Good old Globalresearch.ca, always economical with the truth.

Well I'm neither right nor left wing when it comes to my political point of views. I'm reading "Global reseach" to get a different point of view to what the mainstream media outlets are reporting. And for being honest I believe that most articles are nearer to the truth and actual situation rather than CNN's or FOX 's news reporting.

I personally am a truther rather than a conspiracy theorist. Fact is that the situation is very complex . . . all over the world we are facing difficulties just to make a living, if you just earn a normal salary. Our economies are close to total collapse due to imminent bankruptcy in the near future.

The main reason why we are in this mega mess is due to the corruption in our society. If we are unable to find a solution to this widespread disease we are doomed. For being honest I'm waiting for the next stock crash which will happen within the end of 2013 if we make it that far, might be even earlier. And the stock crash in 2008 will be a picknick in confront of what we will face.

It would take me a book to write to cover all my findings. I'll tell you what . . . I personally believe that the European Union was the first step towards the "new world order", furthemore I'm convinced that our economies are ruined by design. There's nothing natural in all the risk of bankruptcies and financial meltdown in all the Western world. It is not due to economist making mistakes. They know exactly what they are doing.

My apologies for going off topic but these things are somehow related to what is happening around us all over the world.

may I ask you a question Pelham? Have you ever read John Perkins book "Confessions of an Economic hitman". His book doesn't shine for his writing skills because he's not a writer, but the point is the revealing of economic warfare methods used by the US since after worldwar two to loot and exploit other countries natural resources. In case the country in questions is not favouring US interests the country will be subject to regime change. Once favoured regime change is achieved

the countries economy is being systematically destroyed by heavy debt . . . which the relevant country can not pay back. IMF and the worldbank were major players on the economic battlefields all over the world.

The US is doing it still today. This has to stop . . . the wars have to stop.

Thanks in any case for enlighten me on the bill but it's just one small piece of the big picture.

Peace bro:)

Edited March 17, 2012 by nettrucker

[mrcash2009 0]

Remember this is about facebook thread :)

EDIT:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115927/How-Facebook-cost-job-One-applicants-rejected-bosses-check-profiles-social-media-sites.html

Next time you start to upload pictures of nights out on to Facebook, or moan about your day on Twitter, bear in mind that you could be risking your career.

One in five bosses have rejected an applicant because of their profiles on social networking sites, according to a UK company’s report on the technology industry.

Why do people even bother? So many things everybody says day to day about all manner of things, anyone know what "off the record" means any more? Dear me. I realise you have privacy settings, but what does that really mean on this site, once you share with someone they can show what you posted or screengrab or a friend of a friend and so on. I have a friend who screen captures via his smart phone and sends the attachment to email of the facebook conversation, now, the conversations are just silly and funny banter, although I bet the others are not privvy to it.

BTW I have a few friends with Smart Phones .. or as I like to call them, "facebook implemented non firewalled trojan app track modules" .. I use a basic email add and low and behold I get an email "please confirm your facbook account" through my email and then 2 SMS messags to my phone about checking out facebook profiles, not once did I use the site, totally and the mercy of people using app plugins on smart (sly) phones putting my info in address book, matching the data, or adding something through facebook and bam, spam fest, privacy eh. Even if it was scam ones, your still at the mecy of someone smart phone, what they added, how much & what apps they shoved into it with no care at all.

Edited March 17, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Another one bites the dust:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/UK_student_jailed_for_%27racist%27_Twitter_posts_about_footballer_Fabrice_Muamba?dpl_id=399241

A student who mocked Bolton footballer Fabrice Muamba on Twitter has been sent to prison for his 'racist' comments. Police forces around the UK received complaints about Liam Stacey who made the remarks after Muamba collapsed on the pitch during a match.

Stacey, 21, admitted an offence of inciting racial hatred. He was today given a 56-day sentence at Swansea Magistrates' Court. He wept as he was handcuffed and led away. His defence noted he admitted his guilt as soon as police in Swansea arrested him, that he was drunk a the time, and claimed he was not a racist and had friends from ethnic minorities.