[3GScottishUser]

From BBCi (28/09/2005):

A man who used his mobile phone to replay footage of a beheading in Iraq to a hotel shop worker has been jailed for 60 days.
Subhaan Younis, 23, played the images to shocked Charlotte McClay last September at a hotel in Glasgow.

Sentencing him at the city's district court, the stipendiary magistrate said he could not understand why Younis had the images on his phone.

Euan Edment said jail was a fitting penalty for the breach of the peace.

The magistrate told Younis: "I struggle to understand why you had images on your phone entailing the death and degradation of another human being, regardless of their religion or race.

"Miss McClay was shocked, upset and distressed by the images. This is a serious offence and something she will remember for a long time, perhaps for the rest of her life."

The magistrate said he did not accept Younis's claim that he had told Miss McClay he was going to show her the beheading and he believed she was interested in seeing it.

The court had heard how Younis, of Baliol Street, Glasgow, had been speaking to Miss McClay in the shop at the Moathouse Hotel in the city's Congress Road on 27 September 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4289892.stm

[Ben]

That's disgusting! And I'm talking about the jail sentence, not the beheading.

Various videos are available on sites like Ogrish.com for free, detailing such acts. While obviously it's a little sick to be carrying such footage with you on your mobile, just the thought of being jailed for showing it to someone else makes my stomach churn. Surely if the shop worker somehow suffered through seeing such images on a 2" screen then she should have been seeking financial compensation - but prison?!

[Hands0n]

Too right. An indictment of our times, unfortunately? Or a return to earlier times when public executions and suchlike were the norm? I well remember that a while ago there was an email circulating with a URL pointing to a Western website that holds execution footage amongst other similarly gory detail. This particular one started doing the rounds soon after the atrocity, it was purported to be of Ken Bigley's beheading! I did not even attempt to open the link.

Misuse of the Multimedia capability of the mobile phone is bound to continue to be reported. As 3G enables even more potential to access larger amounts of information the extension from the Internet into the mobile phone world will continue to grow. While majorly used for [its intended] benign purposes, it is inevitable that abuses will occur.

Fortunately instances such as that reported by the Beeb are not commonplace, I would sincerely hope!

That said, and without wishing to offend anyone at all, one has to consider how this technology could or would be used in the so-called Third World where such [as perceived by us] atrocities are commonplace. Nations where, for instance, public execution is still the norm, if not mainstream.

Not a 3G technical issue at all, but a philosophical one [introduced by the technology] that is a real nest of worms!

Edit: Why do I support the custodial sentence? I think that we must have some limits and zone of order. Going beyond those limits should result in some punitive response. Who sets those limits? Society in general, and it has a history of winding those back over time. So maybe in a few years it will be de rigeur to be carrying and sharing such material.

[3GScottishUser]

I suspect the severity of the sentence will send a clear message to others who might be tempted to shock and intimidate others using this technology. Its quite amazing how many youngsters have 'happy slapping' 3gp videos on their handsets and find that type of harrassment 'entertainment'. Lots of that stuff is now being exchanged daily mainly using Bluetooth (cost factor) by youngsters who have newer video capable phones.

I think we shall all have to think carefully about what we show others in the future as the consequences may not be as one expected.

[miffed]

From a "Big Picture" perspective - although I agree , it is a bit sick to view this kind of stuff , part of me is glad that people ARE seeing it and getting shocked by it
After all , a headline saying "Englishman beheaded by Iraqi soldier" will shock in a mild sort of way for a few hours and then be forgotten by the majority
Whereas seeing that video (I have also been shown it) leaves you with a sick , empty feeling for a long time - Which is EXACTLY how we should be feeling about such a terrible deed

I don't want to make this too political - But I feel we (as a community) really do need to know that this horror really does go on in order to make our judgements on those that deal with them (i.e. Voting etc )

But anyway - I feel the sentence was a bit harsh , I have known people get less fore physical violence

[solo12002]

Lads

Some good points have been made, I agrree with 3SGU, Video phones clearly have there uses, robberys, RTA etc are some of them, but to download ppl being beheaded etc is not on ,as pointed out we have kids at scholl being buillied, how would we feel if one of our family was raped and this was recored on to a 3G mobile etc, or you kids undressing in the local pool or going to the local loo to be videoed by some bloke, would we accept it, somehow I dont think so.

Im only sorry the jail term was not in years rather than months, and ben raised a good point all these things can be download, but surely we should stosp this were we can ISPs need to closed down these types of sites, look at Iraq, if their web sites were closed down we would not be seeing this type of suff on the net and TV companies should also face jail for showing it .

[Ben]

As an advocate of free speech I think jail sentences and censorship set a disturbing precedent. Yes, if he showed the shopkeeper images that disturbed her then he should be taken to court and fined, but imprisonment? It's the magistrates comment "I struggle to understand why you had images on your phone entailing the death and degradation of another human being" that really worries me, as if the sentence is somehow related to the fact that the man had the content on his phone, not just that he showed it to someone.

WRT ISP's closing such content down - isn't it better that it exists where we can see it, so we can monitor and understand it, educating ourselves against it, rather than driving such practices underground where they will continue unmonitored and misunderstood?

[Hands0n]

It is my belief that unfettered free speech [as it is heralded these days] is something of an anathema [curse] in itself. A noble proposition, but one that really does not work.

"Free Speech" is one thing, and I am certainly an advocate of such. However, the publication and dissemination of images and video of assault, murder, rape, paedophillia and any other number of violations of the individual or society cannot be included or considered free speech - in my opinion of course.

If, for example, free speech is to be extended to such matters as Internet or Mobile Phone content, then we must embrace it wholly. That will mean that free speech should then encompass not only that which we are discussing above but also other [normally considered] abhorrent material such as images of paedophillia and, for that matter, anything and everything. Then we may have fully embraced this notion of free speech - but at what price? All of these examples of free speech have one or more direct victims and uncountable indirect victims.

In that mindset I believe that the draconian action taken against the individual who showed the murder to the colleague got off lightly with only 60 days, a token incarceration.

The moral dilemmas being posed by modern day technology will continue and intensify at each development. This will be a discussion that will be perpetual.

[Frasman77]

Can't resist throwing in my lawyerly tuppenceworth in here, even if it's off topic (apologies for that)

I don't know the specifics of the offence but I would expect the act of showing the woman in question the video clip would have been a breach of the peace - which is wide enough to cover just about everything that could reasonably be seen to cause alarm and distress. I'm quite sure the nature of the material in question influenced the decision to prosecute, though, which leads us back to the whole free speech debate.

[Hands0n]

@Frasman77 - thanks for the "lawyerly tuppenceworth" :) very appreciated and definitely not off topic. I had wondered oft times how "breach of the peace" is interpreted. I guess that, without a specific offence applicable to the act committed something more loosely fitting is appropriate.

That, in itself, may cause alarm among the more liberal free speech proponents and I must confess that something quite so loose and vague does have disturbing connotations. Sensibly applied, maybe, it is not to be feared. But these are strange times indeed!