4 ms·

Interesting case: drunken tweet to a small follower count, deleted after 20 minutes, leading to prosecution and conviction. The Online Safety Bill which is due

Interesting case: drunken tweet to a small follower count, deleted after 20 minutes, leading to prosecution and conviction. The Online Safety Bill which is due to be passed, with further empower institutions to police 'harmful messages'. I guess ideological conformity is a good thing for stable society?

onion2k 5y ago
I guess ideological conformity is a good thing for stable society? I don't think this is about "ideological conformity". No one is stopping you thinking, or saying, whatever you want at any time. The problem is when you use a platform to broadcast that message to a wider audience, especially one like Twitter that will show your posts to people who don't follow you.
- mantas 5y ago
  That's like prosecuting for saying wrong stuff out in a street because someone may have heard our and friends' chat.
- conradfr 5y ago
  > No one is stopping you (...) saying, whatever you want at any time. Well it seems this law actually does that.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Only if you think there's no difference between saying something and publishing it on the internet. When I said "saying" I mean that in a literal sense - speaking to people face to face. That is not the same as publishing something.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      FYI, and this is in the article, the law used to prosecute the man was written to prevent you from saying offensive things over the telephone. This distinction between a voice and a megaphone doesn't apply to this particular situation because the law itself makes no such distinction.
    - throwaway684936 5y ago
      There are still slander laws, so you're wrong.
- candiodari 5y ago
  The problem is that that is never, ever, where it stops. There's always people that society suddenly decides are "really important", usually the most dumb-witted, cruel abusers you can come up with. And of course, the rules don't apply to them. Just look at the president of France, if you want to see a particularly bad fuckup. He, and his wife, have confessed, publicly, on TV, repeatedly to having a paedophilic relationship, where she abused her job to fuck children (she was even cheating on her husband doing it). He was 15, she was 40 years old at the time. Not only have they not been sued (in France, both would be punished) Needless to say, a whole bunch of people were sued for stating this during the campaign, as well as for a bunch of other negative things they said about him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Macron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Macron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron#Personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron#Personal_life
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    The linked article say that they met when he was 15 and that they became a couple when he was 18. "in France, both would be punished" It seems absurd to me that both the victim and the abuser would be punished. Do you have any source for this?
  - onion2k 5y ago
    a whole bunch of people were sued for stating this during the campaign The burden of proof for libel action is very different to the burden of proof for criminal liability. It's the difference between civil and criminal law - they're worlds apart. You can't really compare the two, despite them both being based around the act of writing something on the internet. Posting something potentially libellous on Twitter won't get you convicted of a crime, but it absolutely could get you sued.
    - candiodari 5y ago
      They both said on TV they fucked when he was 15/16, and while she was in a power relationship over him (as his French teacher). Pointing out there might be a problem with that doesn't violate libel laws for a whole host of reasons. Likewise, public confessions satisfy the standard of proof for criminal liability. If you say "I'm glad I killed this guy" next to what looks like a corpse with 100 people watching, you can be convicted of murder without the police so much as checking it's indeed a corpse, based on testimony (does not even need to be direct testimony, done in court, it can be a police officer saying one of the hundred confirmed this to them) of one person. If you say it on TV, well the laws on this predate TVs, I'm sure it will work the same. And, technically, since he was a minor, French law says the public prosecutor HAS to sue the adult (ie. her), no choice. Don't you love "someone think of the children" laws? Needless to say, this didn't happen.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > No one is stopping you thinking, or saying, whatever you want at any time. They literally arrested and prosecuted someone for an off color joke. This is as straightforward a case of “them” stopping you from saying what ever you want at any time as it gets.
gmac 5y ago
I assume your question is ironic. This case looks like an appalling over-reaction by an increasingly authoritarian state.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cm2187 5y ago
It’s also disturbing that the police complains it is not given the means to combat knife crime but thinks it is a good use of their resource to police politeness on twitter.
- dazc 5y ago
  The police like to chase easy targets and social media offers up lots of opportunities to prove how well they are doing their job. The only people who are scared of the police in the UK are middle class, normally law abiding citizens. One minor slip-up and they will be on you like a ton of bricks.
  - _0ffh 5y ago
    Yeah, they really like their soft targets, don't they? On the other hand, a gathering of young men who believably signal that they're totally down for a bit of street violence, now that's not such an attractive target to confront.
- tored 5y ago
  What is typical for organization like police is that they prioritize things that gets the best statistics in a spreadsheet, not the best result for society.
  - soco 5y ago
    Which only shows their activities are graded with wrong criteria. But as we all know from office life, picking valid criteria for performance ratings is an adventure by itself...
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    Yes, if you ever have trouble getting them to take a problem seriously then log each recurrence separately and ask for a reference each time.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  Are the police really motivated by this? Or are specific senior figures who are in they public eye and thus don’t want their “reputation” shamed on social media the real individuals pushing for these kinds of legislation? I’d wager most police officers couldn’t give a rats arse what someone posts online given the barrage of verbal abuse they likely get each day. They would much rather see the streets safer.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
The fact he was drunk doesn't really have much to do with it. It wouldn't be an excuse for running somebody down in his car or stabbing someone and shouldn't be here.
- VBprogrammer 5y ago
  Drunk in charge of a communications device is hardly on the same scale as driving a vehicle. One is likely to cause actual bodily harm. The other is most likely to result in minor embarrassment, except in a few wild outlier cases.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    True but you can argue the punishment isn't on the same scale either. If I vandalised your car or even stole it then being drunk wouldn't be a reasonable defence in those cases either.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  It actually might be an excuse to some degree. Diminished capacity is considered in many jurisdictions, and defendants who can demonstrate diminished capacity at the time of the offense can often get lesser sentences.
  - cjrp 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_intoxication_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_intoxication_in_Engl... > Where the defendant is on trial for a crime of specific intent, his state of intoxication will be relevant to whether he formed the required intent.[8] This may prevent the defendant from having the required mens rea. If the defendant's intoxication is so significant as to prevent any sort of intent, this can lead to acquittal.

onion2k 5y ago

I guess ideological conformity is a good thing for stable society? I don't think this is about "ideological conformity". No one is stopping you thinking, or saying, whatever you want at any time. The problem is when you use a platform to broadcast that message to a wider audience, especially one like Twitter that will show your posts to people who don't follow you.

mantas 5y ago
That's like prosecuting for saying wrong stuff out in a street because someone may have heard our and friends' chat.
conradfr 5y ago
> No one is stopping you (...) saying, whatever you want at any time. Well it seems this law actually does that.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Only if you think there's no difference between saying something and publishing it on the internet. When I said "saying" I mean that in a literal sense - speaking to people face to face. That is not the same as publishing something.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    FYI, and this is in the article, the law used to prosecute the man was written to prevent you from saying offensive things over the telephone. This distinction between a voice and a megaphone doesn't apply to this particular situation because the law itself makes no such distinction.
  - throwaway684936 5y ago
    There are still slander laws, so you're wrong.
candiodari 5y ago
The problem is that that is never, ever, where it stops. There's always people that society suddenly decides are "really important", usually the most dumb-witted, cruel abusers you can come up with. And of course, the rules don't apply to them. Just look at the president of France, if you want to see a particularly bad fuckup. He, and his wife, have confessed, publicly, on TV, repeatedly to having a paedophilic relationship, where she abused her job to fuck children (she was even cheating on her husband doing it). He was 15, she was 40 years old at the time. Not only have they not been sued (in France, both would be punished) Needless to say, a whole bunch of people were sued for stating this during the campaign, as well as for a bunch of other negative things they said about him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Macron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Macron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron#Personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron#Personal_life
- ttybird2 5y ago
  The linked article say that they met when he was 15 and that they became a couple when he was 18. "in France, both would be punished" It seems absurd to me that both the victim and the abuser would be punished. Do you have any source for this?
- onion2k 5y ago
  a whole bunch of people were sued for stating this during the campaign The burden of proof for libel action is very different to the burden of proof for criminal liability. It's the difference between civil and criminal law - they're worlds apart. You can't really compare the two, despite them both being based around the act of writing something on the internet. Posting something potentially libellous on Twitter won't get you convicted of a crime, but it absolutely could get you sued.
  - candiodari 5y ago
    They both said on TV they fucked when he was 15/16, and while she was in a power relationship over him (as his French teacher). Pointing out there might be a problem with that doesn't violate libel laws for a whole host of reasons. Likewise, public confessions satisfy the standard of proof for criminal liability. If you say "I'm glad I killed this guy" next to what looks like a corpse with 100 people watching, you can be convicted of murder without the police so much as checking it's indeed a corpse, based on testimony (does not even need to be direct testimony, done in court, it can be a police officer saying one of the hundred confirmed this to them) of one person. If you say it on TV, well the laws on this predate TVs, I'm sure it will work the same. And, technically, since he was a minor, French law says the public prosecutor HAS to sue the adult (ie. her), no choice. Don't you love "someone think of the children" laws? Needless to say, this didn't happen.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> No one is stopping you thinking, or saying, whatever you want at any time. They literally arrested and prosecuted someone for an off color joke. This is as straightforward a case of “them” stopping you from saying what ever you want at any time as it gets.

gmac 5y ago

I assume your question is ironic. This case looks like an appalling over-reaction by an increasingly authoritarian state.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cm2187 5y ago

It’s also disturbing that the police complains it is not given the means to combat knife crime but thinks it is a good use of their resource to police politeness on twitter.

dazc 5y ago
The police like to chase easy targets and social media offers up lots of opportunities to prove how well they are doing their job. The only people who are scared of the police in the UK are middle class, normally law abiding citizens. One minor slip-up and they will be on you like a ton of bricks.
- _0ffh 5y ago
  Yeah, they really like their soft targets, don't they? On the other hand, a gathering of young men who believably signal that they're totally down for a bit of street violence, now that's not such an attractive target to confront.
tored 5y ago
What is typical for organization like police is that they prioritize things that gets the best statistics in a spreadsheet, not the best result for society.
- soco 5y ago
  Which only shows their activities are graded with wrong criteria. But as we all know from office life, picking valid criteria for performance ratings is an adventure by itself...
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  Yes, if you ever have trouble getting them to take a problem seriously then log each recurrence separately and ask for a reference each time.
hnlmorg 5y ago
Are the police really motivated by this? Or are specific senior figures who are in they public eye and thus don’t want their “reputation” shamed on social media the real individuals pushing for these kinds of legislation? I’d wager most police officers couldn’t give a rats arse what someone posts online given the barrage of verbal abuse they likely get each day. They would much rather see the streets safer.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

The fact he was drunk doesn't really have much to do with it. It wouldn't be an excuse for running somebody down in his car or stabbing someone and shouldn't be here.

VBprogrammer 5y ago
Drunk in charge of a communications device is hardly on the same scale as driving a vehicle. One is likely to cause actual bodily harm. The other is most likely to result in minor embarrassment, except in a few wild outlier cases.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  True but you can argue the punishment isn't on the same scale either. If I vandalised your car or even stole it then being drunk wouldn't be a reasonable defence in those cases either.
rndgermandude 5y ago
It actually might be an excuse to some degree. Diminished capacity is considered in many jurisdictions, and defendants who can demonstrate diminished capacity at the time of the offense can often get lesser sentences.
- cjrp 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_intoxication_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_intoxication_in_Engl... > Where the defendant is on trial for a crime of specific intent, his state of intoxication will be relevant to whether he formed the required intent.[8] This may prevent the defendant from having the required mens rea. If the defendant's intoxication is so significant as to prevent any sort of intent, this can lead to acquittal.