Skip to comments.April Jones: Matthew Woods jailed for Facebook posts about missing 5 year old
Posted on 10/08/2012 9:37:35 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
A Lancashire man who posted offensive comments on Facebook about missing five-year-old April Jones has been jailed for 12 weeks.
Matthew Woods, 20, made a number of derogatory posts about April and missing Madeline McCann.
He appeared at Chorley Magistrates' Court where he admitted sending a grossly offensive public electronic communication.
Woods, of Eaves Lane, Chorley, was handed the maximum sentence.
Chairman of the bench, magistrate Bill Hudson, said his comments were so serious and "abhorrent" that he deserved the longest sentence they could pass, less a third to give credit for his early guilty plea.
Mark Bridger, 46, appeared at Caernarfon Crown Court earlier charged with April's murder.
He is also charged with child abduction and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
This guy didn’t come up to anyone at a funeral.
Are we free then to say anything? Absolutely and without reservation?
One might indulge in any speech they wish but that does not mean it will be without consequence.
No, it would not be OK, but it would not be a cause to put someone in jail. People have way too hard a time separating private action from government action. If someone made a crude comment about your mother at her funeral, punch the person or ask them to leave. But the person should not be arrested and jailed.
What you say makes sense however i bet we could agree as to what constituted not free speech but rather a vile attack.
That is not to say that agreed upon meaning would not be warped at some future date by a judge but that’s another story altogether.
This story i do not see as free speech.
Punch them and likely have to go through the legal system? They person making the crude unwanted statements should be facing prosecution not I.
Agreed. Free speech is not the right to slander others.
If the feds choose which ideas and thoughts may be debated in the public then they choose which ideas may not be debated or spoke of.
They would love for us to believe free speech is something it is not. PC/diversity has already stifled much free speech.
Mohommed may finish it off
Only in America...
Free speech means you cannot be punished by the government for speech, which is what happens in places other than America.
Obama would use this law to arrest every Freeper.
I don’t disagree the man is an ass, and need a punch in the face.
I do disagree he needs to be arrested.
As another poster stated, if you punched him in the face then you would be the one arrested.
He’s a vile human being.
Actually, no we couldn't - and it doesn't matter if we could, the government certainly couldn't.
You can sue for damages for slander or libel, but you can’t put anyone in jail over it.
Isn't that how West barrow Baptist get the funding they need to be a PITA. Law suits on people who they push over the edge.
If you don't what people to insult you on Facebook, twitter, whatever socialist media, don't put your life on the internet.
What this guy did was tacky and obnoxious, but he got the attention that he wanted.
You don’t think vile speech is recognizable by common sense?
The government should not swoop down and punish people who "say the wrong thing".
At the same time, I would like a lot more leeway to express my outrage, and beat the snot out of people who say things they shouldn't. The First Amendment limits what Congress can do in the face of vile speech. I, personally, would like a free hand to deal with it.
I want more violence in society. I think it would be good for us to have citizens take out the trash a little more often.
Government with common sense, right. You might want to go see a doc about that one.
“As another poster stated, if you punched him in the face then you would be the one arrested.”
Perhaps. Or it could be provocation.
“Hes a vile human being.”
I don’t disagree. I do disagree vile speech should be criminalized, simply because it is vile.
Obviously it isn't.
Do you want this administration defining and punishing "vile speech" for example?
First it was libel, now the “fighting words” defense?
Inoffensive speech doesn’t need protection.
“If you don’t what people to insult you on Facebook, twitter, whatever socialist media, don’t put your life on the internet. “
If you don’t want to be robbed don’t go outside.