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
Here lies Wood, inside wood,
One Wood inside another,
One of these woods is very good,
But we cannot praise the other.
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...
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.
This ruling is wrong. It will get overturned upon appeal, but it does set a bad precedent.
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.
Is the definition of free speech an absence of the possibility of others taking offence at what one has to say?
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
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.
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
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.