• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

UK judge sentences teen to 4 years incarceration for offensive post on Prince Harry

Chairman Tickles

Chairman Tickles

Banned
LONDON (AP) — A U.K. judge has sentenced a teenager who created an "abhorrent" online image of Prince Harry to 4 years and three months in a young offenders' institution.

Judge Rebecca Poulet lambasted student Michal Szewczuk, 19, for creating an image of Harry with a pistol to his head against a blood-spattered background. The post, which was shared a few months after Harry married biracial ex-actress Meghan Markle, included the phrase "See Ya Later Race Traitor."

Szewczuk pleaded guilty to two counts of encouraging terrorism and five counts of possession of terrorist material. He was sentenced at London Criminal Court alongside Oskar Dunn-Koczorowski, 18, who admitted two counts of encouraging terrorism.

Poulet says the posts "are abhorrent as well as criminal by reason of their clear intention to encourage terrorist acts."
Click to expand...
apnews.com

UK judge sentences teen for abhorrent post on Prince Harry

A U.K. judge has sentenced a teenager who created an "abhorrent" online image of Prince Harry to 4 years and three months in a young offenders' institution.
apnews.com apnews.com

0_thp_chp_061218slug_3386jpg-jpg.806325


Oi m8, u don have a loisense to be postin' dem edgy imagery on dat publik space innit

Too bad he didn't post this instead.

806146-22b526c28313ea3490364b11f5fd06ed.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ooohhhhhh daaaammmnnn, lawd o lawd, white boy was mad as fuck. What a real hero to the Viking cause, post a horribly photoshoped image online. Though I am curious what his Pornhub search history is.
 
Have to wonder if that was an image of just someone random, if they would have used the same charges/sentences.

I'm not for this, it clearly needs to die but that was a bit extreme on the sentencing.
 
If he pleaded guilty to "encouraging terrorism" and "possession of terrorist material" I don't see any problem with the sentence.
 
I googled it a bit and I don't think that article does justice to the pair's online presence. They were getting into actual terrorist propaganda territory. Way beyond that one image.
 
Last edited:
This is dumb. Dumb post. Dumb sentence. Kid should be free to post whatever dumb fucking opinion he has. But it's not worth 4 years of his life.
 
edition.cnn.com

Far-right teen who branded Prince Harry ‘race traitor’ jailed for four years | CNN

A far-right teenager who reportedly branded Prince Harry a “race traitor” and suggested he should be shot after his marriage to Meghan Markle has been jailed in Britain for four years and three months.
edition.cnn.com edition.cnn.com

Key highlights would include, justifying rape of women and children for the Aryan race, and owning a training manual for al Qaeda. The article in the OP leaves out a lot of information.
 
Last edited:
sevoro said:
edition.cnn.com

Far-right teen who branded Prince Harry ‘race traitor’ jailed for four years | CNN

A far-right teenager who reportedly branded Prince Harry a “race traitor” and suggested he should be shot after his marriage to Meghan Markle has been jailed in Britain for four years and three months.
edition.cnn.com edition.cnn.com

Key highlights would include, justifying rape of women and children for the Aryan race, and owning a training manual for al Qaeda. The article in the OP leaves out a lot of information.
Click to expand...
Until he acts on those beliefs. He shouldn't be jailed for that post or possible future crime. Until ether you can prove that he conspired to act those beliefs. If the brits want to jail every person that made an edgy meme, a lot of teens would be in jail too
 
M1nion said:
Until he acts on those beliefs. He shouldn't be jailed for that post or possible future crime. Until ether you can prove that he conspired to act those beliefs. If the brits want to jail every person that made an edgy meme, a lot of teens would be in jail too
Click to expand...
While I would agree with you, that is not what they were jailed for, remember 'possession of terrorist materials', there is no way a lawyer can defend that. If anything the only thing that could be debated would be how long the sentence should be. I think the headlines just take away too much from the actual case and reasons of imprisonment.

Also there's just way too much stacked against him, a medical report indicating he has no remorse, actually connecting with other like-minded individuals, also seems like they continually posted all of this on social media.
 
Last edited:
M1nion said:
This is dumb. Dumb post. Dumb sentence. Kid should be free to post whatever dumb fucking opinion he has. But it's not worth 4 years of his life.
Click to expand...
Ok, this was my first thought too, except once I read that he pleaded guilty "encouraging terrorism" and "possession of terrorist material", then there's gotta be more to the story. And then after this:

sevoro said:
edition.cnn.com

Far-right teen who branded Prince Harry ‘race traitor’ jailed for four years | CNN

A far-right teenager who reportedly branded Prince Harry a “race traitor” and suggested he should be shot after his marriage to Meghan Markle has been jailed in Britain for four years and three months.
edition.cnn.com edition.cnn.com

Key highlights would include, justifying rape of women and children for the Aryan race, and owning a training manual for al Qaeda. The article in the OP leaves out a lot of information.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Lock him up. Fuck that kid.
 
sevoro said:
While I would agree with you, that is not what they were jailed for, remember 'possession of terrorist materials', there is no way a lawyer can defend that. If anything the only thing that could be debated would be how long the sentence should be. I think the headlines just take away too much from the actual case and reasons of imprisonment.

Also there's just way too much stacked against him, a medical report indicating he has no remorse, actually connecting with other like-minded individuals, also seems like they continually posted all of this on social media.
Click to expand...
That makes even less sence. Posting terrorist material? Owning Terrorist material? I can buy The anarchist cookbook from Amazon right now. Read mein kampf. Fucking watch a terrorist attack on YouTube and hit the like button. Just because an opinion or one people disagrees with it, should not be a jailable offense. Mental state has nothing to do with it particular matter. Just because someone's mental state is something now does not mean that this person is predisposition commit these crimes in the future.
 
falcs said:
Ok, this was my first thought too, except once I read that he pleaded guilty "encouraging terrorism" and "possession of terrorist material", then there's gotta be more to the story. And then after this:



Yeah. Lock him up. Fuck that kid.
Click to expand...
How in the fuck do you encourage terrorism?
 
M1nion said:
That makes even less sence. Posting terrorist material? Owning Terrorist material? I can buy The anarchist cookbook from Amazon right now. Read mein kampf. Fucking watch a terrorist attack on YouTube and hit the like button. Just because an opinion or one people disagrees with it, should not be a jailable offense. Mental state has nothing to do with it particular matter. Just because someone's mental state is something now does not mean that this person is predisposition commit these crimes in the future.
Click to expand...
UK law makes it illegal, might not be illegal where you're from but it is in the UK. How do you argue against that?
 
M1nion said:
How in the fuck do you encourage terrorism?
Click to expand...
Dunno...

Judge: "Why did you create that image? Was it just an artistic expression of some sort or where you trying to convey a malicious message to persons who might be inclined to terrorise?"

Stupid Kid: "The second one."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Last edited:
sevoro said:
UK law makes it illegal, might not be illegal where you're from but it is in the UK. How do you argue against that?
Click to expand...
Ok, i guess im not making my point clear enough. A state entity has no right pass judgement on speech. No matter how dumb it is. People should have the right to express any view point without the fear of reprisal.
 
Last edited:
M1nion said:
Ok, i guess im not making my point clear enough. A state entity has no right pass judgement on speech. No matter how dumb it is. People should have the right to express any view point without the fear of reprisal.
Click to expand...

According to the prosecutor, the kid's posts "convey a message of the threat of and/or use of serious violence against others, in order to advance a political, ideological and racial cause and in this way encourage terrorism."

Seems like the UK has laws that specifically prohibit encouraging terrorism. There needs to be line drawn at some point between freedom of speech/opinion and actually trying to actively commit or contribute violence and/or terrorism. These kids seem to have crossed that line.

You want to make a rape/murder/genocide joke? That's fine. Go for it. But if you show a pattern of behaviour that suggests you might actually commit the crime or engage in some way with others who might, then fuck your freedom of speech I say.
 
Last edited:
falcs said:
According to the prosecutor, the kid's posts "convey a message of the threat of and/or use of serious violence against others, in order to advance a political, ideological and racial cause and in this way encourage terrorism."

Seems like the UK has laws that specifically prohibit encouraging terrorism. There needs to be line drawn at some point between freedom of speech/opinion and actually trying to actively commit or contribute violence and/or terrorism. These kids seem to have crossed that line.

You want to make a rape/murder/genocide joke? That's fine. Go for it. But if you show a pattern of behaviour that suggests you might actually commit the crime or engage in some way with others who might, then fuck your freedom of speech I say.
Click to expand...
You are talking about speech that could lead to future crime? Have fun with that.
 
M1nion said:
Ok, i guess im not making my point clear enough. A state entity has no right pass judgement on speech. No matter how dumb it is. People should have the right to express any view point without the fear of reprisal.
Click to expand...
So you believe that telling others to go out and commit violent acts against others is totally fine?
 
sevoro said:
So you believe that telling others to go out and commit violent acts against others is totally fine?
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klanmember's speech and created the "imminent danger" test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[6]

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In short yes. That's my view point.
 
What kind of "possession of terrorist material" was that?

Calls to violence are not OK even in US (which tolerates hate speech, banned in EU)
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind in Britain standing in public holding a camera pointed at the sky can be trumped up to 'Gross disturbance of the Public order'. And that carries actual jail time. They can turn anything into a terrorism incitement charge. If the kids plead then it sounds like they were coerced to do so by the defense. They may have been facing the prospect of much harsher charges owing to al qaeda booklet which you can freely find and download using google on their home computers.
 
Last edited:
M1nion said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klanmember's speech and created the "imminent danger" test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[6]

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In short yes. That's my view point.
Click to expand...

That's the US. This case is in the UK. And evidently, although the laws may be similar, there is enough diffence in the laws that what these kids did is considered illegal.
And frankly, I'm OK with the UK's version of the law in this scenario. Just like I agree with the laws against gun ownership down here I'm Australia.
 
fuck anyone who is a racist piece of shit, this is good. dont care if he is a teen, learn to respect people. hating on other peoples opinion is fine, hating on people because they are different is not.
 
M1nion said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klanmember's speech and created the "imminent danger" test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[6]

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In short yes. That's my view point.
Click to expand...

There are studies that show hate speech has harmful effects on the people subjected to said hate speech. As such, I'm not one for free speech for 'everyone'. All actions have consequences, even expressing opinions (especially harmful opinions).

 
falcs said:
That's the US. This case is in the UK. And evidently, although the laws may be similar, there is enough diffence in the laws that what these kids did is considered illegal.
And frankly, I'm OK with the UK's version of the law in this scenario. Just like I agree with the laws against gun ownership down here I'm Australia.
Click to expand...
Sorry not you. But someone asked got my view point, and I gave it. They define it very well, and I base my views off of it.
 
Last edited:
sevoro said:
There are studies that show hate speech has harmful effects on the people subjected to said hate speech. As such, I'm not one for free speech for 'everyone'. All actions have consequences, even expressing opinions (especially harmful opinions).

Click to expand...
Sticks and stones. You can call me all the hatful words in the world and I wouldn't care. Or you could hold the most most fucked up opinions. Still wouldn't care. But the second you throw me in jail for words/opinions, is where I draw the line. Because no one can control ideas or information. People will develop biasis naturally over time. Just expressing them shouldn't warrant someone to be deprived of freedom.

Going to add to this. Even if that person is expressing those fucked options or mean name calling should not be jailed.

Also. Harmful opinions. Who gets to determine what's harmful or not? How do you know what opinion you can express with out ending up in jail? Just because an opinion offends someone or the state does not warrant depriving someone of their freedom. What I'm getting at here. If you or anyone else is offend by a opinion that's a "you" problem, not a "me" problem.
 
Last edited:
M1nion said:
Sticks and stones. You can call me all the hatful words in the world and I wouldn't care. Or you could hold the most most fucked up opinions. Still wouldn't care. But the second you throw me in jail for words/opinions, is where I draw the line. Because no one can control ideas or information. People will develop biasis naturally over time. Just expressing them shouldn't warrant someone to be deprived of freedom.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, kinda impossible to sway someone from their beliefs and that's not my intention.

That's you though others in the world will not feel the same, maybe to the point where a law is created to stifle such views. My question then becomes do you change what is already established and seems to be working or just let it be?
 
sevoro said:
So you believe that telling others to go out and commit violent acts against others is totally fine?
Click to expand...
Hollywood made an entire film based on the aftermath of the assassination of President Bush, which was shown in the film. If that didn't cross the line of illegality, this hardly does.

I will say both are in incredibly poor taste however.

Edit - I know we're talking about the clown-shoes UK here. Subjects of the crown have do not have the same rights as American citizens, and it damn sure shows here. I maintain that the best of their society broke off 300 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Torrent of Pork said:
Hollywood made an entire film based on the aftermath of the assassination of President Bush, which was shown in the film. If that didn't cross the line of illegality, this hardly does.

I will say both are in incredibly poor taste however.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know anything about the legality of such a film. However, the kid had a patterned behaviour. Look at the article posted by MilkyJoe and see if the two are comparable.


www.independent.co.uk

Teenage neo-Nazis jailed for threatening to attack Prince Harry and other targets

Men were members of Sonnenkrieg Division, the ‘third generation’ of neo-Nazi terrorist group National Action
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Misleading as shit op. Those assholes were imprisoned for terrorism activities and trying to encourage others to commit acts of terrorism -

"Among other things, the imagery suggested the Duke of Sussex was a "race traitor" who should be shot, glorified the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, and said white women who date non-white men should be hanged.

The material was "uniformly violent and threatening" and "the nature of the violence includes rape and execution", Judge Rebecca Poulet QC said."

"Suggested targets included non-white and Jewish people, and the effect was to overtly encourage lone acts of violence against members of the public, the judge added. "

It also looks like one of them is a pedophile -

"She said Szewczuk also maintained an "extremely violent and aggressively misogynistic" blog that encouraged the rape, torture and murder of women and babies."

"Terrorism and criminality were encouraged, as was the transgression of what it caricatured as slavish morality, with sexual violence and paedophilia both advocated. "

"Detectives found Szewczuk - then a computer science student at the University of Portsmouth - in possession of bomb-making instructions, documents describing how to conduct Islamist terror attacks and a "white resistance" manual."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48672929

I see no problem with putting these 2 clowns behind bars for a few years.
 
DunDunDunpachi said:
Yes, these 18 and 19 year olds need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the jam for the threat they pose to society. I hope UK citizens have their blunt-tip knives at the ready to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
Can you prove they aren't a threat to society? Can you convince a jury?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Is the 4.5 year prison sentence enough?
49
885
bender replied
[UK] Bans social media access for under 16's
2 3 4 5 6
270
719
Ipsi replied
RTTP: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
7
384
jason10mm replied
UK Lawyer threatened with prosecution... for picking up garbage in the river
2
51
172
jason10mm replied
UK lawmakers approve lifetime smoking ban for today's under-18s
News  2 3
108
1K
JonSnowball replied
Top Bottom