Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Watch it marty, or you'll be my next cunting target 
Tory councillor arrested over Twitter stoning post
- Thread starter Stoat Boy
- Start date
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Surely the onus is on the prosecution to prove it is threatening?
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Indeed. Innocent before guilty, and all that shizz.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
#iamspartacus I think you'll find is better.
edit: didn't notice you'd already mentioned it, bah, I'm just confused today
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
chickenshits, you should do it properly and leave the hashtag off
DaRealSpoon
Do not try and bend the spoon...
From my home yard ennit... Big up the E. R. D. massive!! 
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Obviously there is a serious issue to be looked at here. How responsible are we for off-the-wrist comments, these being the lifeblood of Twitter.
On the other hand, it is a tory councillor so fuck him and may he feel the wrath of Chakribati for this.
I know we should not celebrate potentially dodgy legal proceedings cos where does that route take us etc. But it is a tory councillor.
On the other hand, it is a tory councillor so fuck him and may he feel the wrath of Chakribati for this.
I know we should not celebrate potentially dodgy legal proceedings cos where does that route take us etc. But it is a tory councillor.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Maybe we should defend the fucker, But half heartedly....
Why should we not?
When we have had offences of sending malicious, etc. communications in writing, or by phone, for as long as I can remember why should sending the same message by some new channel of communication be exempt?
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Why should we not?
When we have had offences of sending malicious, etc. communications in writing, or by phone, for as long as I can remember why should sending the same message by some new channel of communication be exempt?
Because the so called message is not sent directly to the person concerned but is simply a written version of an expressed opinion.
Alternatively, "Bunch of people with real lives" ...
No. You wouldn't have to prove anything. The prosecution would have to prove that you intended it to be threatening or that you knew that it was directed at people who may be threatened by it (i.e. pretty much that you intended it to be taken seriously) (Public Order Act 1986, ss.4, 4A and 5).
There is nothing different about the legislation available to deal with communications made via Twitter compared to those made by other means of electronic communication.
It isn't though. You retain control of what the people you send the message to in the pub (i.e. if any of them look like they are taking it seriously you can intervene and correct their misinterpretation). You have NO control over how the vast majority of people who receive it on Twitter understand or react to it.
A bulletin board is a little different in that any particular post is viewed in a context (the thread) which gives a lot more indication of meaning that a single tweet which whilst it may usually be viewed in the context of a sequence could be viewed as a single communication in a way that a single post on a bulletin board couldn't.
That said, comments on bulletin boards could well fall foul of malicious communication laws, etc.
quimcunx
imprimeo, lamino, distribuo
Public embarrassment and having to make an apology would hurt more than a fine I'd think. People recognise being arrested is OTT which gives him a bit of sympathy. And we don't want that.
I say defend it and the other one because we'll all be on twitter sooner or later and who knows when it might be us who just thought we were making a bad-tempered comment of little consequence.
They don't have be sent directly to the person concerned by the other means ... and there they are often a spoken versions of an expressed opinion.
There really is no mileage in trying to demonstrate how Twitter and Facebook and all the new means of communication are being unfairly victimised by the law. They are not. They are being treated in exactly the same way as older means of communication (despite the fact that they are arguably more damaging / dangerous by way of the fact they are far more widely distributed and rapid in their impact).
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Yes fair play but why not prosecute? What is the difference?
fen_boy
Exits gracefully.
Threats to kill, by the way, is hardly a new piece of legislation. It arises from s.16 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It is a serious offence, carryiong a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat intended to cary it out, just that the person to whom it was communicated was intended to believe it. The only way the police could possibly establish whether this was the case or not in relation to a threat made via Twitter would be by arrestuing and interviewing the person making it about their intent.
Bomb threats and hoaxes are also subject to specific legislation which has been around since 1977 at least (s.51 Criminal Law Act 1977) although recently added to (s.114 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001). Again the intention is that someone be induced to believe it, not that it would be carried out. There is no need for the info. to be particularly specific (i.e. it need not name a place) and in the case of the 2001 offence it includes threats to place things in the future as well as that have already been placed. The legislation is deliberately widely drawn. Bomb threats really are not something sensible people should joke around with in anything like a public situation ....
Bomb threats and hoaxes are also subject to specific legislation which has been around since 1977 at least (s.51 Criminal Law Act 1977) although recently added to (s.114 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001). Again the intention is that someone be induced to believe it, not that it would be carried out. There is no need for the info. to be particularly specific (i.e. it need not name a place) and in the case of the 2001 offence it includes threats to place things in the future as well as that have already been placed. The legislation is deliberately widely drawn. Bomb threats really are not something sensible people should joke around with in anything like a public situation ....
Because it is plain from the context (i.e. repeating something that has already been communicated, at the time of a decision made in relation to that original communication) that it is NOT intended to be taken as genuine by anyone. Something being repeated by thousands of immature fools is clearly not the same as something communicated by one individual.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Lead article in some libby greeno paper should be enough 'First they came for the Tory Wankers'
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
It's a very fine line, though. You could just as well say he was an immature fool who's threat was NOT intended to be taken as genuine by anyone.
What if there's a real terrorist in amongst those people who DOES intend to make an attack? The same logic would suggest that we investigate them all to make sure. Better safe than sorry you know.
It's not the same at all. If one person randomly posts something you have absolutely no idea what the circumstances are unless you ask them (i.e. you arrest and interview them). Anything else is absolutely a guess. And there is every possiblity that a single communication may be taken as serious by some random person receiving it.
Where thousands of people are doing so, and explaining why they are doing so, it is not a guess at all to conclude that they are not intending it to be taken as being serious and there is no realistic chance of anyone taking any of them seriously.
Why should we not?
When we have had offences of sending malicious, etc. communications in writing, or by phone, for as long as I can remember why should sending the same message by some new channel of communication be exempt?
It shouldn't be exempt but the CPS need to gain a better understanding of what is or isn't a joke. I don't think they graps the flippant nature of tweets or take this into account enough.
It is not the law but authoritarianism in office that has both corrupted the conception of criminal liability and led to a reliance on the purifying power of law whenever official taboos are broken and someone pollutes the world of literalism. We live under a system of fetish, in the original sense. Our petty masters are in terror of chaos and seek the reassurance of ritual and magical formula to force the world into a pattern that looks like control.
I think they understand that perfectly well. But just because it is intended as a joke does not mean that it is not a criminal offence. It is people who use Twitter who need to get a better understanding of what amounts to a criminal offence, and of subjects which are not appropriate as the subject of "jokes" in a public communications medium ...
Similar threads
