Be Excellent To Each Other

A civil servant is to be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act for publishing a story about the kidnap, rape, mutilation and murder of Girls Aloud band members Cheryl Cole, Nadine Coyle, Sarah Harding, Nicola Roberts and Kimberley Walsh, and ends with the sale of various body parts on eBay. Full story here

That sounds fucking awesome, frankly. They should make a film of it.

It still strikes me as bonkers that we should criminalise anything for being "obscene". It's a sliding scale from there down to "a bit racy", isn't it? The line drawn is entirely arbitrary and down to the individual tastes of the policepersons who refer it, the CPS bods who decide whether to prosecute, and the judge who hears the case. Given the number of public schoolboys involved, you'd think you'd get away with it; but apparently not.

And in any event, who does it hurt? No one. If you're allowed to think it (and nothing should be banned from being thought about), you should be allowed to set it to paper, draw it, make a cartoon of it or shout it from the roof tops.

Daft, thought-police nonsense.

Exactly, this was the argument I failed to get across to some people on RG when they were supporting the banning of Manhunt 2.

They're pro censorship too, from then it's just a matter of where you draw your little arbitrary line, what if that's at a point that bans GTA4? Resi 5? That's no sillier than wanting Manhunt 2 banned.

That he's being prosecuted for writing a story?

I read a bit of that story. It was really nasty, and if one of the people involved saw it they'd probably feel very, very afraid for their life. As for whether or not they should be prosicuted, I'm not sure - but if someone wrote something like that about my wife they'd better hope the police got to them first.

On the other hand:

Would you feel comfortable if someone had written a similar story about your wife?

EDIT: dammit, beaten by grim...

I presume the assumption is that by writing the story he'll no doubt incite violence against said crap band. It's pretty insulting that its broadly assumed that people will mimic anything 'criminal' they read or play in real life.

If the chap who wrote it emailed the story to Girls Aloud or to Mrs Grim... then yeah, you'd have a point, as that could amount to "assault" (legally meaning putting someone in fear of being attacked).

As it is, it was posted on Usenet, ffs. What are the odds that the Girls Aloud people would read it? It wasn't a story aimed at them, it was just something he wrote, that happened to get into the public eye.

I'd be happy for him to be arrested for whatever constitutes threatening behaviour, but not for producing an 'obscene publication'.

Can I write one about you, then?

He put it in the public eye, though.
I agree with Craster on this one.

I think if you did I'd be more worried about your social life than shin's life.

That would be an "incitement to [insert crime here]" charge* - this is under the Obscene Publications Act.

*And would require him to have implied or explicitly stated that he wanted someone to go and do this, and for him to have intended someone to do so. Or something along those lines.

I think I agree with this. If only because the CPS's track record with making obscenity prosecutions stick is so poor that he might have a better chance of getting away with it now.

How about I just fucking ban you from this forum so I don't have to be made to feel like wanting to kill you every time you shit your pink crap across my screen?

As I said - it wasn't aimed at them. He didn't intend for them to be threatened by it, and intention is a key component of an assault conviction.

If I write a letter to my brother about how much I would really like to drop kick you in the balls for being so gingerbeardy, and he forwards it to you, should I be prosecuted? It's the same thing. He (a) didn't intend for it to be threatening to them (if he did they'd be doing him for assault - so we can assume they have no evidence of intent for assault); (b) didn't write it in a manner that was going to incite violence and (c) posted it somewhere where the objects of the story were massively unlikely to come across it.

Given how much vitriol is spewed on here about certain people in the public eye (recent examples including any politician you care to name, but particularly Palin), I'm amazed that any of you think he deserves to be sent to prison for this.

Under the Obscene Publications Act, would he still be breaking the law if he wrote this and kept it to himself?

See - it's not very nice when people say nasty things, is it? Doesn't matter if they mean them or not, because you've got no way of knowing. Obviously, I'm not going to ban you. And that was just one line. These stories were much worse, and much, much longer.

Heh - I think the "Publication" bit is important. But I'm not sure if, say, someone coming across it on your hard drive or finding it under your bed would count as publication.

I don't think any of the vitriol on here would put the subject in serious fear for their life. That is disturbing creepy stuff.

I don't think Shin means it's great that he's being prosecuted for writing it, more that she thinks it's great that he wrote it. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding her

I disagree, it wasn't cheap at all. He made his point well.

You've missed the point - I'm not going to ban you, and your pink posts don't bother me in the slightest. But it still made you feel bad, I'm sure.

So it's just the level of detail that determines how much of a threat you're making, is it? I bet we could get Comical pissed off enough about someone that he coudl go on at length about battering them. Should he be prosecuted? Answer - No.



Maybe so - but why should that be illegal?

She said as much in her second post.

And Grim... proved a point that it's not nice to have nasty things written about you.

Am I getting confused?

We're not talking about a harmless fantasy here, it was as sick as it's possible to get. And on the internet, that's VERY sick.

If I lived next to the warped individual that wrote it, I'd be worried too.

Can we have a show of hands for anyone who has read any part of this story? I haven't.

No, it was just offensive. It didn't make Shin feel like she was going to be dismembered and sold on eBay. Plus - it was a comment directed at Shin, not a comment about her posted in the bowels of Usenet or emailed to a mate of yours.

Because as I said, reading it would most likely put the subject in a state of fear for their life. That he put it somewhere where they are unlikely to come across it doesn't make it any less in the public domain.

He probably just had lots of time to kill in between waiting for his EVE skills to finish.

So? Why should something being "sick" be illegal, though? That's the sole reason he's being prosecuted for it; because it's "obscene". Remember that a lot of people think a lot of the games we play or the porn films we watch are "obscene"

In your opinion, is there no line anywhere you cannot cross?

Alright, but say if someone had said the same thing in the bowels of usenet and it got back to Shin anyway - same thing, just a bit delayed.

Not really. There's a huge difference between insulting someone you've already had interaction with, and writing a sick story about murdering and mutilating named celebrities. At the very least, the police should search his house and his computer, to make sure he's not collecting knives, keeping tabs on their movements and taking photographs of their front doors.

Who decides where the line is though? Should anything written in fiction be prosecutable?

True, but it could be argued that as Girls Aloud are public figures, there are certain things that come with that status that are desirable (awards, FHM photoshoots etc.) and others that aren't so desirable (slash fiction, fake porn photoshops etc.)

I would consider it far more threatening for a creepy fic-writer to write something similar about Mrs. Jones from number 25 down the road than it would be for him to write it about a person/group of people that are very much in the public eye.

Perhaps that's wrong though, I guess we should all be considered equal, but I would find it hard to apply in practice.

//edit: Cor lummy this thread moves fast.

Quite possibly, but I bet people said that about Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan back in the day. Just harmless loners with strange hobbies and no friends...

That's the second part of the debate. Mr Chris may be arguing there is no line at all. I don't think I am comfortable with that assertion.

Possibly, but there's the 'stalker' factor to consider too. They're both pretty creepy, just in different ways.

I can't see how you can ban this but not ban every crime novel ever then, or any game that involves any law breaking.



Bollocks, he didn't threaten them at all.

If that's the new law every 2nd post of Comical's he should be arrested for.



DINGDINGDINGDING!

Once you accept the setting of a line in written fiction it's not even a slippery slope. You've got everything banned depending entire on which completely arbitrary point you decide is "offensive". And all the lines are 100% arbitrary and all are exactly as valid as each other. Banning this is no more or less sensible than banning an episode of the Bill with a ram raid, or the film Saw, or Bullit because he's speeding or the kid's story where the main character forgets to return a library book.

What about popular fiction about real people then? There was a novel not that long ago that went into great detail about two guys plotting to kill George Bush. He may have been momentarily worried about that - but it was fiction.

He would have to have intended for them to be threatened for him to have committed a crime. I could see all sorts of things that could get published that may, inadvertantly, if I had an active imagination, make me worried, but none of them should be illegal. Intent is the key to the majority of crimes on the statute book.



It being "in the public domain" isn't the sole determinant of whether he's committed a crime though.

As I said - if they had the remotest chance of doing him for assault, harrassment, incitement to violence or any of a number of other crimes, they'd have a go. Obviously the extraneous evidence didn't at all suggest that he was threatening Girls Aloud.

Didn't some guys stick a mod of some game on the internet that had Jack Thompson's face onto the people you shot? Should they be prosecuted for that?

And you haven't answered my other point - should comical be prosecuted for posting in his blog about how he wants to stave in some thick person who's made him angry?

If it doesn't directly hurt anyone*, no. No line for "obscenity". Otherwise we're back to Lady Chatterly's Lover being argued over in court, and Mary Whitehouse's sour mug on the telly every fucking day.

*E.g. defamation, directly intended threats etc.

It's not, but it has to be part of free speech to allow it.

EVERYTHING is going to offend someone if they choose to be.

I'm sure, for instance that an episode of the Bill with a hit and run upsets many victims and families, so should we ban it?