Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jamie Thunder

GET UPDATES FROM Jamie Thunder
 

The Law is a Twit

Posted: 09/10/2012 00:00

What's the difference between Madeleine McCann and Pope John Paul II? You won't go to prison for telling jokes about Pope John Paul II.

Admittedly Matthew Woods, who has been sentenced to 12 weeks in prison for his comments on Facebook, didn't only make jokes about Madeleine McCann - he also made light of the disappearance and tragically likely death of April Jones.

It's probably the latter that was responsible for his upcoming time at Her Majesty's pleasure. The jokes weren't funny, and making them while the case is so raw was always likely to have some sort of backlash if they found a wider audience, as he found when a 'vigilante mob' showed up at his house.

Woods doesn't seem like a particularly sympathetic character - according to the Evening Standard, he smirked when he was led from the dock. But whatever you think of his sense of humour, you have to question the constitution of whichever member of the public found what he said (and I won't repeat it here) so distressing.

This would be very different had he deliberately directed them to April Jones's family, but so far there's no suggestion he did, or even that they've seen them. The court case, sentence, and resulting coverage, of course, makes it far more likely that they will. Instead, members of the public reported him to police. Those members of the public, well-meaning as they almost certainly are, need to grow up.

I've yet to find anyone who agrees with the sentence itself, which is ludicrously harsh and will presumably be overturned. But some people have defended his conviction on the grounds it's similar to shouting the comments in a public place, which would land you with a public order offence.

It's a tempting analogy, but it doesn't hold. Shouting in public can travel to people who just happen to be in the area at the time, and so is a form of particular carelessness. In contrast, the only ways people would have seen his comments are if they were friends with him on Facebook, or were searching for 'April Jones'. If it's the first, they've made the decision to follow him. If it's the second, well, we'd best all stop making dead baby jokes in case someone who's miscarried overhears.

Facebook (if you don't impose privacy controls) and especially Twitter are strange things: semi-public forums many of us still think of as entirely private. Recent high-profile cases around 'terrorist threats' to Robin Hood Airport, rioters, and racism towards footballers have thrust social media and the law into the ring, and they're still warily circling each other.

The current situation can't hold. Matthew Woods is not the only person who's made April Jones jokes, and he's not the only one to have done so from an identifiable social media account. He might just have been the only one unlucky enough to have been spotted and reported.

But even aside from the arbitrary nature of his prosecution and the bizarrely strict sentence he's received, this is a prosecution that should never have been brought. Matthew Woods was crude; that someone can be imprisoned for making the wrong joke at the wrong time is what's really offensive.

 

Follow Jamie Thunder on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jdthndr

FOLLOW UK
 
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
02:36 PM on 10/24/2012
the Nazis won over there, yes? Who knew. Don't like it, don't read it. Liberty is dead in the UK. Good luck getting it back.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:08 PM on 10/13/2012
Perhaps an epitaph for Woods...when he shakes of his mortal coil...

Here lies Wood, inside wood,

One Wood inside another,

One of these woods is very good,

But we cannot praise the other.
11:00 AM on 10/13/2012
Bet his Mum n Dad r well proud of him ..........
08:35 AM on 10/10/2012
April smiles are heavenly,
Pink ribbons in her hair,
Every smile angelic,
Her memory...a prayer.
Be strong in heart, let faith endure,
Find courage in your pain;
Wait for Heaven's promise,
April will come again.
For April is that time of year,
to celebrate new birth;
God's promise of a brand new life,
When Easter comes to earth...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Booth
01:08 PM on 10/10/2012
borderline tacky roann, sorry.
05:23 PM on 10/09/2012
Oh dear where do I start? Woods is mere ordure - can we have a consensus that mocking a dead child is not "fun" nor "edgy". Now then, I do not like the police. What if I suggest a "Raoul Moat Legend" page? Free speech - nobody has the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Where does it end? Anti-semitism, Islamophobia? The Ched Evans Twitter trial? I would be happier if plod caught more burglars and muggers and fewer bloggers and tweeters. Or do you want a UK version of Bahrain, Burma, Cuba, Egypt, China, Gabon, Iran, Sudan, Uzbekistan?
This comment has been removed.
03:12 AM on 10/09/2012
I am often critical of the laws in the US, but at least a nation that places a huge moral and legal premium upon first-amendment rights to free speech would never send someone to prison for a tasteless remark.

I am fearful of the climate the law has created in Britain, where statutes designed to prevent offense or 'hate speech' have impinged on free speech everywhere. And nobody seems to object - both reactionary moral indignation from the right (the Daily Mail) and political correctness on the left (the Guardian) seem appeased by sending a kid to gaol for a tasteless but harmless joke. It is frightening.
12:19 AM on 10/09/2012
Seems strange that a comment albeit crass can land someone in jail. Although I do remember Salman Rushdie's book, the Mohammed Cartoons/caricatures etc. were all beacons of free speech even although there were plenty of people 'offended'
This ruling is wrong. It will get overturned upon appeal, but it does set a bad precedent.
03:14 AM on 10/09/2012
I do not believe it will be overturned on appeal. The ruling is perfectly within the law as it stands. The problem is with the law in this country, which is slowly impinging on freedom of expression.
10:33 PM on 10/08/2012
I agree there have been a lot of cases recently, ok it wasnt in the best taste but lots of people put sick jokes on also racist sexist and homophobic,are they going to arrest everybody if you look at frankie boyles twitter feed he will be the next.I think the government dont like criticism so they are sending a message to people watch what you say because were watching you.
10:19 PM on 10/08/2012
Good article. I'm offended by things i read everyday. But i don't think the police/courts should be involved. Really don't they have more important things to do
08:18 PM on 10/08/2012
I agree with what you say - freedom of speech also means the freedom to offend people.
I don't know what this man said but if he was identifiable surely social ostracism would have been enough, until he found it within himself to apologise.
01:53 PM on 10/09/2012
Freedom of speech is a hard won right. It's the right to express an opinion openly and freely. With freedom comes responsibility, it is not about being abusive and offensive.
07:11 PM on 10/09/2012
What if what one has to say offends others?
Is the definition of free speech an absence of the possibility of others taking offence at what one has to say?
08:15 PM on 10/08/2012
tragic as the April case is,
It is a not acceptable to take away our freedom of speech.
Only 2 weeks ago these pages were full of comments slating muslims for rioting over some harmless cartoons. The main replies stated the uk & usa have freedom of speech and nothing can be done.
silly,offensive & insensitive comments yes, right to deny freedom of speech no
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:29 PM on 10/08/2012
I agree that social media content is not public because one has to take action to expose oneself to it. One also has to actively seek the specific content which it holds and can't 'accidentally' or 'unwillingly' expose themselves to it. This 'public content' argument uses section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 which is a bizarre paragraph which can only be used abusively.

There's a community of social authoritarians within positions of employment in various government departments which are seeking to criminalize speech on the grounds that it causes offense. These people prefer to sex up the vernacular they use as a permission giver for aggression by using terms such as 'substantial distress' (an oxymoron) or 'serious wrongdoing'.

DPP Keir Starmer is a keen advocate for criminalizing 'offensive' communications according to the interview he participated in on a radio station a few weeks ago. He is a very dangerous man to many people who will never harm anyone. He wishes to rip people's lives and families to pieces by putting people who use 'offensive' language in prison, causing untold and completely unnecessary damage to communities throughout the UK.

A government which places it's citizens in prison for words they uttered, no matter how offensive, is infinitely more dangerous than the people they place in prison for such behaviour could ever be.
06:59 PM on 10/08/2012
I think you have to look at freedom of speech vs the illegality of exposing minors to adult themes. You have the freedom to talk about the most depraved sex acts you wish, but say it in front of a child and you're committing a crime, even though it's your freedom of speech. The same applies here; except his comments were made to grossly offend and violate the minds of their readers

I think it's also important to note his comments were paedophilic and child molestation-themed, so of course that adds to the obscenity

And about your point on it being in the semi-public domain, what if a friend of his 'shared' the comments via Facebook and April's family happened to see them then - who would be responsible for that? What if that person was unknowingly friends with April's family? Woods was the original author and intentionally placed the comments into the public domain, where he knew people would find and share his comments while knowing fully well how grotesquely offensive they were
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:34 PM on 10/08/2012
The internet is not a children's toy. Accessing the internet is difficult to do unless one has an expensive piece of equipment to facilitate them, either a smartphone or computer. Or has access to such equipment.

Children's access to the equipment which enables exposure to the internet should be regulated much like pornography is. No selling to people under the age of 18 for example. Parental responsibility cannot be overstated.
06:04 PM on 10/08/2012
Ridiculous that jokes can lead to an appearance in court, what a pathetically puritan country we are becoming. I remember all sorts of sick jokes about public tragedies going round the school yard/work place, some clever and funny others not so much. Should we all turn ourselves in?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Booth
05:51 PM on 10/08/2012
granted he should have had more sense/taste/sympathy but (not having read the post) it can't have been as offensive as the blanket coverage on certain news channels. it bordered on the obscene to my mind. news presented as soap opera.