3 ms·

If you post something offensive and direct it at someone I'd say it's harassment and you could be taken to court. Just saying something offensive though, undir

If you post something offensive and direct it at someone I'd say it's harassment and you could be taken to court. Just saying something offensive though, undirected, should not be an offence. Or at least it should be a new category of offences not deserving of jail time. I seriously doubt it the people who got jailed for certain tweets walked up to a policeman in the street and made the same comment they would get the same punishment.

mpyne 12y ago
> I seriously doubt it the people who got jailed for certain tweets walked up to a policeman in the street and made the same comment they would get the same punishment. That's true, but there's a difference between being offensive to the government and being offensive to people. The government is supposed to be able to take that kind of punishment (which is, after all, why these related rights are enshrined in the very first Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights). So I'd caution about focusing attention on offensive speech only on how it applies when that speech is directed against government and its agents, or society as a whole, since the possible kinds of damage would be different if directed against individuals.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  I agree, I should have made my point clearer. I suppose a better analogy would be the person shouting the tweet in a public place where a police officer was present to witness it. They aren't directing the offensive comment at anyone. In that situation I doubt an arrest would be made.
6d0debc071 12y ago
In theory, speech in the UK has for some time been subject to tight controls even outside the internet. Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, as modified in 1994, states that 'A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress. ... A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.' (Above text somewhat abbreviated.) There's also section 5, which is more or less the same offence but without intent, which has a fine (level 3) as it's penalty. I believe the latter is the one more commonly used. But it strikes me that much of the day to day interactions people have with the legal system are subject to what you might call a policeman's 'give a fuck' level, rather than being a reflection of their potential powers from statute.

mpyne 12y ago

> I seriously doubt it the people who got jailed for certain tweets walked up to a policeman in the street and made the same comment they would get the same punishment. That's true, but there's a difference between being offensive to the government and being offensive to people. The government is supposed to be able to take that kind of punishment (which is, after all, why these related rights are enshrined in the very first Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights). So I'd caution about focusing attention on offensive speech only on how it applies when that speech is directed against government and its agents, or society as a whole, since the possible kinds of damage would be different if directed against individuals.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
I agree, I should have made my point clearer. I suppose a better analogy would be the person shouting the tweet in a public place where a police officer was present to witness it. They aren't directing the offensive comment at anyone. In that situation I doubt an arrest would be made.

6d0debc071 12y ago

In theory, speech in the UK has for some time been subject to tight controls even outside the internet. Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, as modified in 1994, states that 'A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress. ... A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.' (Above text somewhat abbreviated.) There's also section 5, which is more or less the same offence but without intent, which has a fine (level 3) as it's penalty. I believe the latter is the one more commonly used. But it strikes me that much of the day to day interactions people have with the legal system are subject to what you might call a policeman's 'give a fuck' level, rather than being a reflection of their potential powers from statute.