LONDON Americans often cite free speech when controversial statements offend certain groups of people, but what if you went to jail for making an ill-humored joke on Facebook? That's what happened to one British man recently, over his status update. But the case raises questions about free speech laws in the U.K. <\/p>\n
Matthew Woods, 20, became one of the most hated people in the U.K. after posting an offensive status update on Facebook about an abducted 5-year-old girl. Woods \"offensive\" comments included sexually aggressive and suggestive references, which attracted a number of supportive and equally derogatory replies. <\/p>\n
Woods was charged by British police under section 127 of the U.K. Communications Act 2003, which found that his message was \"grossly offensive\" or \"of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.\" He was arrested \"for his own safety,\" reports The Guardian, following the comments posted on Facebook about 5-year-old April Jones, who was abducted close to her home in Machynlleth, Wales early this month. <\/p>\n
The British media capitalized upon the conviction: Was Woods' comment truly \"criminal?\" <\/p>\n
Free speech and social media's delicate dance <\/p>\n
Despite being the closest ally to the United States on political, economic and defense matters, by comparison the U.K.'s free speech principles feel archaic and its laws stagnant in the digital age. <\/p>\n
It was the same law that found Paul Chambers, 28, of Northern Ireland, guilty of unlawfully sending a message that was also deemed \"grossly offensive\" or \"of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,\" in 2010, after he tweeted that he would \"[blow] the airport sky high!\" after his flight was cancelled following poor weather at Robin Hood Airport, U.K. <\/p>\n
Chambers' conviction was subsequently quashed on a second appeal at the U.K. High Court in London earlier this year. The judge in the Chambers' case noted in his ruling: <\/p>\n
\"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humor, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [the Communications Act].\" <\/p>\n
While U.S. prosecutors could have charged Chambers with terrorism offenses, U.K. prosecutors instead opted to charge him by the contents of his tweet, despite being arrested initially by British anti-terror police. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Read the original: LONDON Americans often cite free speech when controversial statements offend certain groups of people, but what if you went to jail for making an ill-humored joke on Facebook? That's what happened to one British man recently, over his status update Continue reading
\nU.K. man jailed over Facebook status raises questions over free speech<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"