3 ms·

There have been a number of troubling free speech cases in the UK over the last few months. In July, a 17-year-old was arrested during the Olympics for tweetin

• josephlord 14y ago
  I think that there is a difference between sending abusive messages to or at a particular person or group with the purpose of offending and from publishing them to your own contacts and subscribers. For me one could (at least if repeated) constitute criminal harassment and the other is free speech. Some of the example you give fall on different sides of the line for me. Racist messages may be a different matter. It is pretty clear that the UK does not have free speech in that area (including face to face - inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence) and I'm not sure that is a bad thing although I would like to imagine it is better to hear everything and beat racism with arguments that sounds like a naive view. So from your list: Tom Daley - probably an overreaction. Angry tweet mob response probably sufficient. Prolonged harassment of less popular people in more need of police intervention. Carlton Cole - Potentially criminal on or offline. I wouldn't argue against police involvement. Praising Brevik - shouldn't lead to arrest (unless racist itself) although might get you watched. Dale Cregan fan - shouldn't be criminal just nasty and dumb. April Jones - Ridiculous. Unless posted to the family or on a memorial site. Soldiers - I don't think this should be a matter for the police or law enforcement at all. [EDIT - The Poppy Case is I think completely ridiculous and he should have just been ignored and not given the attention especially as it sounded (on the radio news) like he had just posted to his friends on FB. If he sent it to fan page for the British Legion or a support page for those who had lost family in conflict it may be worth the police having a chat with him although as a one off I don't think it should be prosecuted even in that scenario.]
• brackin 14y ago
  Decisions seem to be based on public pressure or context. The man posting the picture of poppy's burning was arrested because it was Remembrance Day. Because of common law these cases are each setting precedence. Although many may believe it wouldn't go farther than this. There's nothing stopping judges ruling that publicly disagreeing with a political party or common held belief is a form of defamation. If people rally around a case the police and courts are forced to react with harsh sentencing. Morally these people are in the wrong but a moral justification is different to a legal one. Paul Chambers was found guilty for sending menacing electronic communication. He tweeted that he would blow up Robin Hood Airport when it closed after heavy snow. I've seen worse sarcastic tweets than this in my stream before, after the listed cases these tweets could result in legal action.
  • aes256 14y ago
    > Decisions seem to be based on public pressure or context. That in itself is quite alarming, that the justice system seems to be bowing to the whim of the mob. More worrying is that, in each of these cases, there were people who initially brought the communications to the attention of the police. In each case there was some busybody, with nothing better to do, who thought some hijinks on the Internet was worthy of a police investigation. I have no doubt that the number of these cases being reported in the national news (at a rate of one every 1-2 weeks over the last six months) is re-enforcing the view that reporting offensive content to the police is an appropriate and proportionate action. > Paul Chambers was found guilty for sending menacing electronic communication. Chambers' conviction was quashed in July, in a rare display of common sense.
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]