有啲硬膠係唔抵可憐

有時睇香港中文傳媒報英國新聞,就睇到頭都擰,有兩條硬膠喺Facebook煽動人地參與騷亂,被英國嘅Crown Court判咗坐四年,因為中文傳媒報導得太簡約,就話英國依家打擊言論自由,或判得太重。

我唔否認David Cameron係一件膠,但以案情論,呢次判四年,輕手喇。

Global Post: 2 jailed over Facebook posts meant to incite British rioters

Both men pleaded guilty: Blackshaw for using Facebook to create the event “Smash Down Northwich Town” — with a date, time and location — for “massive Northwich lootin'”; and Sutcliffe-Keenan for creating a page on the social networking site called “Warrington Riots.”

Blackshaw had called for people to gather “behind maccies” — believed to be the McDonald’s restaurant, where the police turned up to arrest him, AFP reports.

Sutcliffe-Keenan told the court that he had been drinking when he set up his page, with a time and date for the event “Let’s Have a Riot in Latchford,” and that when he awoke with a hangover the next morning, he removed the page and apologized.

呢單嘢惡劣過迪迪尼案十萬倍,你Create個event,有齊時間地點話要Smash Down Northwich Town,或者整個page要搞Warrington Riots,大佬,Crown Prosecution Service唔告你班茂利係騷亂主謀已經執到,有被告夠膽死話飲大咗至create個event出嚟,你叫我點信你?

呢兩件茂利,都係被CPS落案告犯Serious Crime Act 2007 section 46,條文係咁

Encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of one or more of a number of offences; and

(b)he believes—

(i)that one or more of those offences will be committed (but has no belief as to which); and

(ii)that his act will encourage or assist the commission of one or more of them.

(2)It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(ii) whether the person has any belief as to which offence will be encouraged or assisted.

(3)If a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)—

(a)the indictment must specify the offences alleged to be the “number of offences” mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection; but

(b)nothing in paragraph (a) requires all the offences potentially comprised in that number to be specified.

(4)In relation to an offence under this section, reference in this Part to the offences specified in the indictment is to the offences specified by virtue of subsection (3)(a).

而且s.47, s.48, s.50, s.51有成堆免責理由俾佢打,但呢次真係太膠,好多騷亂同BBM嘅信息有關果陣,你Facebook發啲咁嘅膠嘢,你想甩身咁易呀?

呢兩件硬膠唔抵可憐,有啲小學雞行為係唔做得,呢個唔係戴咗頭盔咁講「要炸迪迪尼」,然後被人告條膠到爆嘅「濫用警力罪」。



3 thoughts on “有啲硬膠係唔抵可憐

  1. 香港傳媒很多時候把外國新聞中相似的事件當作是同一件事,
    這次正是將政府告人同卡梅倫”封鎖FB/BBM”的言論混為一談.

    誠然,如果針對性地將明顯有預謀,
    發表細節詳盡的暴力行動計劃,邀請他人加入之人緝捕歸案,
    就算不能告”煽動”,也能告”企圖/教唆擾亂秩序”等罪行,
    此等執法行動,相信任何有民主自由的國家都會認同.

    不過,如果好像卡梅倫和保守黨議員們所言,
    要”永久禁止曾參與騷亂者使用社交網”,
    甚至”在有需要時全面封鎖社交網”,
    這樣就明顯是打壓言論自由,
    跟中東獨裁政權和中共成為了一丘之貉.

    幸好在民主的國度,會有強大的在野黨和公民社會去抗衡這種構思.
    美國政府為應付網絡攻擊搞 internet killswitch 也波折重重,
    卡梅倫如果要搞針對社交網的 killswitch 恐怕只會更難.

  2. 互聯網係介面工具,用得其所,合理合法,可以保障促進言論自由,但如果大賊以至恐怖份子,利用互聯網作奸犯科,又關言論自由事?!

    殺人放火搶掠係實實在在發生,虛擬網絡豈可作犯罪藉口?

    當然,話說回頭,若因為有人煽動騷亂,無限上綱到要斷然封閉網絡,等於愚蠢到砍掉手腳來避沙蟲。( 警察沒有截取通訊以至竊聽等緊急權力嗎 ? )

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *