I just checked in on Britain to see how it’s doing, and . . . yep, its government officials are prosecuting people for bad tweets again:
A MAN who sent a “grossly offensive” tweet about Captain Sir Tom Moore the day after his death has avoided a jail sentence as he was handed a community payback order.
Joseph Kelly, 36, posted on Twitter that “the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn” on February 3 last year.
Kelly, of Castlemilk, Glasgow, was found guilty of sending the message following a trial at Lanark Sheriff Court in January and returned to the court for sentencing on Wednesday.
Not a nice thing to say, I’ll grant. But check out the extraordinarily dramatic way in which this total non-issue is being discussed in Scotland:
Sheriff Adrian Cottam told Kelly he passed the “custody threshold” but there is a presumption against prison if there is an alternative.
The tweeter “passed the ‘custody’ threshold,” but “there is a presumption against prison if there is an alternative.” For a rude tweet.
He sentenced him to a community payback order comprising 18 months of supervision and 150 hours of unpaid work, and said the punishment should act as a deterrence to others.
“18 months of supervision and 150 hours of unpaid work.” “The punishment should act as a deterrence to others.” For a rude tweet.
Sheriff Cottam said: “My view is, having heard the evidence, that this was a grossly offensive tweet
“The deterrence is really to show people that despite the steps you took to try and recall matters, as soon as you press the blue button that’s it.
“It’s important for other people to realise how quickly things can get out of control.
What, exactly, got “out of control”? A guy wrote something on Twitter, some other people read that something on Twitter, and then . . . what? The tweeter’s lawyer said that his client “took steps almost immediately to delete the tweet but the genie was out of the bottle by then.” What “genie”? What “bottle”? What is supposed to have happened here?
The government contends that the tweet was “grossly offensive,” but it never explains why it should have the power to superintend this realm in the first place. Such as it exists at all, the state’s logic is circular, with any inquiry about the why being met with a reiteration of the what. The report notes that:
The charge under the Communications Act said Kelly made a post to the public using social media that was “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, and that did utter offensive remarks about Captain Sir Tom Moore, now deceased”.
But, again, that’s the what — as is this justification from the official who managed the prosecution:
“What the accused chose to write, when and how it was said, can only be regarded as grossly offensive.”
So? Anyone?
The defense lawyer in the case told the media that his client:
had only a handful of followers when he posted the tweet and did not realise how widely it would be shared.
I cannot resent a lawyer for making arguments that he is obliged to make under existing law, but the British should not lose sight of the fact that, in a free country, none of those things should matter in the slightest. The right to free speech is not contingent upon how many followers one has, or how widely one’s words are shared, and nor is it obviated when some two-bit plod is offended. The government defended its prosecution on the grounds that the man being posthumously insulted “had become known as a national hero, who stood for the resilience of the people of a country struggling with a pandemic and the services trying to protect them.” But this, too, ought to be totally irrelevant. If one is unable to say rude things about popular figures, then one isn’t free. At some point, presumably, the Brits will come to demand better. Alas, today is not going to be that day.