Here is what was said

There is [isome[/i of what was said - "Also posted were comments of a more sexually explicit nature."


And that is the correct argument. And identifies the correct wider discussion. The subjective answer is that a court has decided (has had to decide) that what was said was so offensive that only a custodial sentence would do. Which does get us into the greyest of grey areas - does the court decide on what the "imprisonable offensiveness" level is? Well, I suppose if there is an offence, then it has to. But the court isn't meant to be [imaking[/i the law, just applying it. So on what does it base its rulings?

Obviously it is impractical and impossible to have a complete lexicon of permissible and impermissible things to say. And that is also before you even get into greyer areas such as context, intention and ambiguity.

Should therefore people be allowed to say absolutely whatever they want, wherever they want, without any restriction or recourse? I would firmly say not. But if there are to be legal limits, who makes them, and how, and how does a person know what the rules are?

Given the impossibility of specifying every unacceptable phrase, is there any other way than allowing the courts to simply impose their views, in any individual case, on the (clearly inaccurate) basis that a court on any given day "knows" what is unacceptable and to what degree?

The worst laws in terms of causing offence are surely the blasphemy laws. Why should domebody be jailed for making remarks about a fictional being that doesnt exist because it offends somebody that is naive enought to believe in such a being?

The Go Compare man offends me, can i report that to the police?

No but abuse him on Twitter and plod will be round

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-chambers

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-chambers

rlAnd another – this time, jailed for wearing an 'offensive' t-shirt.rl

That's actually a bloody good article. But I still don't knwo what Wood said, in order to be jailed. Some of his "jokes" have surfaced, but it seems to be the case that the "worst" excesses for which he is doing time are not for public consumption.

This is nuts.

The message in the case reports should at least be:

This man said x,y and z. X is bad, but y and z are imprisonable. So take note, and don't come out with stuff like this yourself".

Whereas I can take no lesson from Mr Wood's case. For I know there are things I may say on Facebook that are so bad, I will be jailed, but I am not allowed to know what those things are. However if ever up on a charge, I would presumably be jailed because I "should have known".

To report, in full, what he said that has got him jailed, would upset no-one. The upset (such as whatever it was) was caused by whoever it was that read his utterings and was grievously offended by them. No such person could possibly be re-offended by reading a report of what they already know he wrote.

So why can we not be told what it was, and if we are not to be told, then what is the point?

Keir Starmer announces review into new guidelines for policing social media, to avoid a "chilling effect" on free speech- "we have to protect the right to be offensive"

rlhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19910865rl

Any coincidence that the butt of the jokes that got these two oddjobs sent down were young white females? Young white female victim = more public outrage, more public outrage = higher likelihood of prison term.

May as well wear a t-shirt saying 'F**king Bl*ck C**ts' on it. You'll just get a slap on t'wrist for that.

The feller with the t-shirt. That sentance is a joke. Who has he harmed? Nobody. He is a knobrash but he hasn't done anything to warrant a custodial sentance. Same with the facebook guy.

A few years ago a fan of the heavy metal band Cradle of Filth was arrested for wearing one of their T-shirts bearing the logo "Jesus is a c***". Can't remember whether they did him for a public order offense or blasphemy.

I remember a guy getting prosecuted for wearing a Dead Kennedys "Too Drunk to F***" back in the day. Think he got fined