4 ms·

Can you cite some examples of people being prosecuted for saying things on twitter that aren't, you know, bomb threats or holocaust denial etc.

hartator 8y ago
Tommy Robinson got jailed for filing outside of a court room.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Contempt of court (attempt to unduly influence court proceedings); perhaps unduly strict in the UK but in no way Twitter or Internet-specific. And getting arrested was I suspect part of the protest.
paganel 8y ago
Here it goes, from a few days ago (I'm not the OP): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arre... Sorry for the Daily Mail link but it looks like the mainstream press hasn't catch up on the subject. Afaik transphobia is not on the same level with "bomb threats or holocaust denial" but apparently people get arrested for it.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Daily Mail reporting will be grossly inaccurate on this subject. I suspect this was not for a single incident but as part of a campaign of harrasment. There's a lot of that going on against trans people at the moment, often enabled by twitter and the gutter press.
  - paganel 8y ago
    Boris Johnson has practically said the same thing in his latest editorial in The Telegraph [1], i.e. that that woman was transphobic and that the U.K. police should focus on other more stringent tasks (like knife crime). Transphobia is ugly but it’s not on the same level as Holocaust denial and people shouldn’t get arrested for it. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/10/police-wasting-time-arresting-twitter-transphobes-could-tackling/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/10/police-wasting-t...
    - pjc50 8y ago
      Boris Johnson is one of the men who lied about Europe so often the EU made the Euromyths page in an attempt to stem the tide. He's not a reliable source (in any case that's an opinion piece), and nor is the Telegraph. There's a culture war going on, trans people are the current wedge issue, and people like Boris are absolutely part of it. Again, we need the underlying facts, which I suspect include a longer history of targeted harassment rather than a driveby twitter insult.
      - paganel 8y ago
        Johnson himself said the woman was a transphobic, him lying should mean that the woman was in the right and not a transphobic at all. I know about his past records, I only mentioned him to show that the story was real and mainstream, not some journalistic hack (like some of the stuff published in the Daily Mail).
  - rspeer 8y ago
    Yes. The arrest was for harassment and doxxing, not for misgendering. paganel, when you say "Sorry for the Daily Mail link" it sounds like you know you're citing a source that will be extremely untrustworthy on this topic, and then did it anyway.
- 7Z7 8y ago
  The Daily Mail is in the top three newspapers, by circulation, in the UK. And far far more read than the broadsheets. How is it not considered the "mainstream"?
  - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
    "Mainstream" does not mean "reliable". After all, we have CNN in the States.
    - 7Z7 8y ago
      I didn't suggest reliable
switch007 8y ago
"Section 127 [of the Communications Act 2003] has been used to prosecute a young man who tweeted his frustration about being unable to see his girlfriend due to airport closure. His tweets, which were made without intent to carry out their content or incite others to do so, resulted in his conviction for being a menace under the Act – thankfully that conviction has now been overturned;" https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protest/speech-offences https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/free-spee... "according to Miller on Wednesday this week, he found himself answering questions — for 34 minutes – from an officer from Humberside Police... On that account, Miller says things such as ‘trans women are not women’" https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/is-it-now-a-crime-to-like-a-poem-about-transgenderism/ https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/is-it-now-a-crime-to-l... "In 2016, British police detained and questioned 3,300 people for making ‘offensive’ comments on social media " https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/will-making-jokes-about-vegans-soon-be-a-hate-crime/ https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/will-making-jokes-abou...
- Ntrails 8y ago
  1) I can't see a description of what he said, but if it's the case I remember he said something about blowing the airport up and someone reported it to police as a threat. Twitter is a broadcasting service, and you're responsible for how it is read. You don't get a pass because you totally didn't mean it that way. I can't get upset about this one. 2) & 3) Doesn't sound like arrest/prosecution? I don't doubt a lot of things got reported to police, and they followed up by talking to the person.
  - switch007 8y ago
    The OP mentioned arrest. You then wanted example of prosecution. I cited 3,300 cases of being detained and questioned, but that clearly didn't satisfy. There does not need to be 100s of successful prosecutions a year for there not to be consequences of police action (whether it be warnings, being detained, arrests, prosecutions, jail) and for there to be serious chilling effects. EDIT: > You don't get a pass because you totally didn't mean it that way I'm no lawyer, but isn't intent a critical part of analysing someone's actions in prosecution (and perhaps why Liberty mentioned it)?
Mirioron 8y ago
This isn't quite Twitter, but I think Instagram is close enough: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 Teenager was found guilty of "sending a grossly offensive message" because she cited lyrics of a song in memory of a dead friend.
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  And yet, Jay-Z, or whoever made the song quoted, was able to release this lyric in the public without causing a problem. (I'm not saying this is right or wrong, because I don't know what the lyric is, but the double standard should trouble everyone.) Implicit in all this nonsense is a "right not to be offended" which is absolutely impossible to enforce and protect without Orwellian levels of tyranny, which a lot of people seem to think is perfectly fine. Language changes, slang changes even faster, people like 4chan like to stir up trouble by showing how easy it is to manipulate the public perception. There's literally no way to define "hate speech" in an objective way without having to constantly modify the definition. And just as it is possible to be inadvertently guilty of "hate speech" because of ignorance (e.g., I didn't know the word "gyp" was a slur against Romani.) it's even more possible to engage in hate speech without using any of the explicitly proscribed language. As an example, for this conversation, I'm going to define "grot" to be a racial slur against someone I am hypothetically prejudiced against. Does me calling someone a "grot" count as hate speech, when no one knows what it means? What if the word catches on among my friends (who are also hypothetical bigots) enough so that a common acquaintance knows what we mean when we use it. Does that count? How many people need to recognize this meaning of "grot" before it becomes something you can't say on TV? How many people need to recognize this meaning before you can be arrested in the U.K.? What if I can incite a crowd to violence by chanting "Grot!" over and over? Yeah, we'd all probably agree that's problematic speech, but where's the dividing line? If you ask me, people who make "hate speech" laws are a bunch of grots because it's impossible to enforce them objectively and consistently.
  - Faark 8y ago
    > And yet, Jay-Z, or whoever made the song quoted, was able to release this lyric in the public without causing a problem. Context matters. Saying otherwise is either uninformed or dishonest. Performing a song containing "the roof is on fire" is different than just yelling the phrase. And yes, how others perceive your behavior is partially your responsibility. Just like people might kill you in self-defense if they perceive you as threat, even in case your gun was just a theater prop. Regarding your "where is the line"... communication always requires interpretation and there will never be an "objective and consistent" line. I'm sure i could easily rewrite your example to fit a law of every country in existence. As for the US, I could go for "Defamation Per Se", in other words were implicit in all this nonsense is a "right not to be talked bad about" which is absolutely impossible to enforce and protect without Orwellian levels of blah blah blah So yes, we will always argue about were line are drawn, just like others will try to overstep them without consequences. That's part of life.

hartator 8y ago

Tommy Robinson got jailed for filing outside of a court room.

pjc50 8y ago
Contempt of court (attempt to unduly influence court proceedings); perhaps unduly strict in the UK but in no way Twitter or Internet-specific. And getting arrested was I suspect part of the protest.

paganel 8y ago

Here it goes, from a few days ago (I'm not the OP): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arre... Sorry for the Daily Mail link but it looks like the mainstream press hasn't catch up on the subject. Afaik transphobia is not on the same level with "bomb threats or holocaust denial" but apparently people get arrested for it.

pjc50 8y ago
Daily Mail reporting will be grossly inaccurate on this subject. I suspect this was not for a single incident but as part of a campaign of harrasment. There's a lot of that going on against trans people at the moment, often enabled by twitter and the gutter press.
- paganel 8y ago
  Boris Johnson has practically said the same thing in his latest editorial in The Telegraph [1], i.e. that that woman was transphobic and that the U.K. police should focus on other more stringent tasks (like knife crime). Transphobia is ugly but it’s not on the same level as Holocaust denial and people shouldn’t get arrested for it. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/10/police-wasting-time-arresting-twitter-transphobes-could-tackling/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/10/police-wasting-t...
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Boris Johnson is one of the men who lied about Europe so often the EU made the Euromyths page in an attempt to stem the tide. He's not a reliable source (in any case that's an opinion piece), and nor is the Telegraph. There's a culture war going on, trans people are the current wedge issue, and people like Boris are absolutely part of it. Again, we need the underlying facts, which I suspect include a longer history of targeted harassment rather than a driveby twitter insult.
    - paganel 8y ago
      Johnson himself said the woman was a transphobic, him lying should mean that the woman was in the right and not a transphobic at all. I know about his past records, I only mentioned him to show that the story was real and mainstream, not some journalistic hack (like some of the stuff published in the Daily Mail).
- rspeer 8y ago
  Yes. The arrest was for harassment and doxxing, not for misgendering. paganel, when you say "Sorry for the Daily Mail link" it sounds like you know you're citing a source that will be extremely untrustworthy on this topic, and then did it anyway.
7Z7 8y ago
The Daily Mail is in the top three newspapers, by circulation, in the UK. And far far more read than the broadsheets. How is it not considered the "mainstream"?
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  "Mainstream" does not mean "reliable". After all, we have CNN in the States.
  - 7Z7 8y ago
    I didn't suggest reliable

switch007 8y ago

"Section 127 [of the Communications Act 2003] has been used to prosecute a young man who tweeted his frustration about being unable to see his girlfriend due to airport closure. His tweets, which were made without intent to carry out their content or incite others to do so, resulted in his conviction for being a menace under the Act – thankfully that conviction has now been overturned;" https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protest/speech-offences https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/free-spee... "according to Miller on Wednesday this week, he found himself answering questions — for 34 minutes – from an officer from Humberside Police... On that account, Miller says things such as ‘trans women are not women’" https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/is-it-now-a-crime-to-like-a-poem-about-transgenderism/ https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/is-it-now-a-crime-to-l... "In 2016, British police detained and questioned 3,300 people for making ‘offensive’ comments on social media " https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/will-making-jokes-about-vegans-soon-be-a-hate-crime/ https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/will-making-jokes-abou...

Ntrails 8y ago
1) I can't see a description of what he said, but if it's the case I remember he said something about blowing the airport up and someone reported it to police as a threat. Twitter is a broadcasting service, and you're responsible for how it is read. You don't get a pass because you totally didn't mean it that way. I can't get upset about this one. 2) & 3) Doesn't sound like arrest/prosecution? I don't doubt a lot of things got reported to police, and they followed up by talking to the person.
- switch007 8y ago
  The OP mentioned arrest. You then wanted example of prosecution. I cited 3,300 cases of being detained and questioned, but that clearly didn't satisfy. There does not need to be 100s of successful prosecutions a year for there not to be consequences of police action (whether it be warnings, being detained, arrests, prosecutions, jail) and for there to be serious chilling effects. EDIT: > You don't get a pass because you totally didn't mean it that way I'm no lawyer, but isn't intent a critical part of analysing someone's actions in prosecution (and perhaps why Liberty mentioned it)?

Mirioron 8y ago

This isn't quite Twitter, but I think Instagram is close enough: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 Teenager was found guilty of "sending a grossly offensive message" because she cited lyrics of a song in memory of a dead friend.

ConceptJunkie 8y ago
And yet, Jay-Z, or whoever made the song quoted, was able to release this lyric in the public without causing a problem. (I'm not saying this is right or wrong, because I don't know what the lyric is, but the double standard should trouble everyone.) Implicit in all this nonsense is a "right not to be offended" which is absolutely impossible to enforce and protect without Orwellian levels of tyranny, which a lot of people seem to think is perfectly fine. Language changes, slang changes even faster, people like 4chan like to stir up trouble by showing how easy it is to manipulate the public perception. There's literally no way to define "hate speech" in an objective way without having to constantly modify the definition. And just as it is possible to be inadvertently guilty of "hate speech" because of ignorance (e.g., I didn't know the word "gyp" was a slur against Romani.) it's even more possible to engage in hate speech without using any of the explicitly proscribed language. As an example, for this conversation, I'm going to define "grot" to be a racial slur against someone I am hypothetically prejudiced against. Does me calling someone a "grot" count as hate speech, when no one knows what it means? What if the word catches on among my friends (who are also hypothetical bigots) enough so that a common acquaintance knows what we mean when we use it. Does that count? How many people need to recognize this meaning of "grot" before it becomes something you can't say on TV? How many people need to recognize this meaning before you can be arrested in the U.K.? What if I can incite a crowd to violence by chanting "Grot!" over and over? Yeah, we'd all probably agree that's problematic speech, but where's the dividing line? If you ask me, people who make "hate speech" laws are a bunch of grots because it's impossible to enforce them objectively and consistently.
- Faark 8y ago
  > And yet, Jay-Z, or whoever made the song quoted, was able to release this lyric in the public without causing a problem. Context matters. Saying otherwise is either uninformed or dishonest. Performing a song containing "the roof is on fire" is different than just yelling the phrase. And yes, how others perceive your behavior is partially your responsibility. Just like people might kill you in self-defense if they perceive you as threat, even in case your gun was just a theater prop. Regarding your "where is the line"... communication always requires interpretation and there will never be an "objective and consistent" line. I'm sure i could easily rewrite your example to fit a law of every country in existence. As for the US, I could go for "Defamation Per Se", in other words were implicit in all this nonsense is a "right not to be talked bad about" which is absolutely impossible to enforce and protect without Orwellian levels of blah blah blah So yes, we will always argue about were line are drawn, just like others will try to overstep them without consequences. That's part of life.