Man arrested over fatal crash Facebook photos (UK)

there is no freedom of speech in europe.
you get arrested for asking questions.
not surprising.

Dang now I want to see the pictures.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: BrianFlanders

free speech and libel are 2 different things in law, speech is usually to a small audience libel is when someone writes something which has a wider audience, IIRC if you have to issue an apology because of something you said it must be done to the same size audience which you initially said it in front of.

I think it happens a lot when people assume free speech includes written words which it does not.

Muddled thinking is not my specialty. You might have to translate.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

OK, if you say something that is speech if you write something that is not speech, in this case it was posted online not verbal, sorry for my lack of clarity

a reply to: UpIsNowDown
I don't know US laws but in the UK there is a specific legal definition between digital/electronic communication and face to face speech/showing pictures to someone.
I can insult someone face to face and show them a picture of some dead person and it would not be a crime, but online in the UK (including text/picture messages sent from mobile phone) it becomes a crime to 'grossly' insult etc.
It is a strange inconsistency in the law.
I've never fallen foul of the law in digital communication because I think about what I post, but I don't think it should be a crime to offend someone online, same as it is not a crime in face to face real life.

vpn services must sell really good in the uk

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: BrianFlanders

OK, if you say something that is speech if you write something that is not speech, in this case it was posted online not verbal, sorry for my lack of clarity

I'm afraid you're still going to have to clarify. I still don't understand what the hell you're talking about.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Of course it has to be a crime to state something online it is the same as publishing in a paper, if there is no basis in truth then you can be held for defamation of character/libel/slander, I am not a lawyer so not sure which

If you have ever watched "have I got news for you" Ian Hislop will always say "allegedly" at the end if he is somehow incriminating someone, he does that to protect himself

Eg If I write online somewhere that I saw Jose Mouriniho stealing something (fun from football), he can sue me for libel, if I say that down the pub and it goes no further, end of issue unless I was heard by someone who represented Jose

Speech and written words are not the same in the eyes of the law

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Dam you need to go back to school

Speech is not the same as written words

Have a link to defamation cases to help

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Dam you need to go back to school

I can spell "damn" better than you can.

Speech is not the same as written words

It is if you have any common sense.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

lol, yet you state you can not understand the difference between spoken words and typed

I dont wish to have a constant back and forth with you that then delves into name calling, so I will leave you to your own version of laws as "common sense"

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

I dont wish to have a constant back and forth with you that then delves into name calling, so I will leave you to your own version of laws as "common sense"

Well, now that I have your permission to have my own opinion, I guess I will do so.

originally posted by: dantanna
there is no freedom of speech in europe.
you get arrested for asking questions.
not surprising.

Always amazes me how many people not from Europe seem to believe this kind of rubbish.

While you guys establish the difference between spoken word and published word in law, I have to point out the guy in the OP was arrested for publishing a picture which was taken in a public place. It is not illegal to take a picture in a puiblic place but it seems publishing it is, if it causes someone distress etc.
That is the element of censorship/punishment I question.
And to repeat, I of course condemn the person for publishing the pics, but I would not support such an act to be made criminal.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Has he been charged?

Seems to me like the kind of thing where the sensible thing to do would be to let him off with a caution for being such a moron in the first place but to have him charged I think would be a bit too far.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: dantanna
there is no freedom of speech in europe.
you get arrested for asking questions.
not surprising.

Always amazes me how many people not from Europe seem to believe this kind of rubbish.

Well, this thread isn't exactly going leaps and bounds towards proving them wrong.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
It doesn't say, my guess is he'll be released on police bail while they chat to the Crown Prosecution about what to do next.
It very much crosses into our freedom of sharing pics legally taken in public places. That in my opinion threatens our safety when dealing with authority. Some police/authority already hate it that we can legally film them.
I value that freedom, regardless of how much I condemn the person who took a pic of the dead woman.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Firstly I do not see this as an issue of 'free speech.' There's no speech involved for one thing and he wasn't attempting to make a political statement. At best, he's someone with no filter to comprehend that taking images of a crash fatality is a no-no. Let's extend more benefit of the doubt to him and say he also didn't realise posting the pictures (couple of hours later) might cause distress to the young woman's family and friends. I guess maybe (aged 44) he'd never learned that gore and corpses aren't enjoyed by the public and breach the T&Cs of nearly all social media platforms.

It's a stretch.

So he's charged under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and here's the relevant clause (bolded mine):

(b)any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

The bolded part is an accurate description of the images he posted. Sure enough, there are a minority of ATSers who'll say 'indecent or grossly offensive' is a matter of opinion. Somebody will say 'it's not the guy's fault that people took offence'. Out in the real world the consensus on images like these is they are offensive and indecent. If it went to a Jury there's a huge likelihood they'd all see the whole context of what he did as offensive and indecent. He's not charged with being offensive/indecent in taking the pictures...the charges are about transmitting them.

The underlined part is the burden of the Crown to prove. Did he set out to cause offence? He'll say he didn't. In which case, he'll be asked to explain exactly what he hoped to achieve in posting the images. Unless he's a functioning moron, it's highly likely he wanted to attract attention because what other reason could there be? I think he'll have a hard slog to convince anyone he didn't expect to cause distress and anxiety.

He's a sick bastard if nothing else.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
He's a sick bastard if nothing else.

Agreed.
It would not be an offence to hold the printed picture up in a real life situation though, that is the problem I have with laws defining separate 'offense/distress' through a different medium.
Granted he'd probably get a beating and rightly so if he did it in the community of the deceased, my issue is with the criminality solely because it was in an electronic format.

I agree the emotions run high in such situations, but I am looking solely at the current law. It would be an easy way to censor say police brutality or whatever if the 'distressed person' does not need to be related.
I'm using extreme examples of a despotic state but every loss of freedom starts somewhere.

Bastard yes, but my take is solely on criminal law and freedom to show a legally taken picture in electronic format as you can printed on a sign and held up in town.
That freedom, no matter how repugnant.
...or make face to face freedoms banned like electronic? Whatever, the law as it stands is inconsistant.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

If there's a law in the UK against doing so, then he broke the law. Personally I don't know UK law with regards to publication of accident photos or recently deceased individuals.