Twitter : Being Offensive

[Burnsy2023]

here are all of the comments by the way...

Link removed due to swearing in comments.

What a ****

 

[Burnsy2023]

Isn't public order act or something like that? Police are generally lenient to a degree if you trust those police tv programmes.

s5 POA. Cause or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress in a public place.

 

[Kamwah]

It's the stupidity the worlds heading to. You can't say something mean on the internet!

 

[doofer]

Life's not a Disney Movie. If you post personal information on the internet then all the more fool you. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that people are getting arrested for saying anything online, sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.

It's pathetic beyond belief when 'Celebs' complain. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the ****ing kitchen. Simplez.

 

[Danthus]

He was arrested for the death threat he sent him.

No he wasn't, he was arrested for sending a malicious communication. That itself speaks volumes.

 

[estebanrey]

No he wasn't, he was arrested for sending a malicious communication. That itself speaks volumes.

So does this....

Following threatening and anti-gay tweets sent to young British diver Tom Daley, police have said they are currently forced to ‘make it up as they go along’ in Twitter abuse cases, as the 17-year-old behind the original message received anti-gay abuse from the public.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/08/0...r-tom-daley-gay-hate-and-death-threat-tweets/

WTF???? They making up the law as they go along, no matter what you think of the tweeter how can this be a good thing?

 

[Danthus]

That isn't a serious story.

 

[Danthus]

For ***** sake people, read the thread.

The guy was arrested for the death threat, not for the stupid comment.

No, he was arrested for sending a malicious communication, not for threatening to kill him.

 

[Moothead2]

No he wasn't, he was arrested for sending a malicious communication. That itself speaks volumes.

And part of the Malicious communications act is threats. Do you really think they'd arrest him for his first tweet?

 

[wannabedamned]

The guy in question was a complete **** I read through his twitter during the incident, and he really was a vile person.

He threatened to drown the daley, Which fair enough, most definitely hollow threats, But threats cant be ignored.

So in answer to the question, Should people be punished for saying stuff on twitter?

Abuse + threats = Yes, Just as they would be in real life. Harassment and threats carry punishments by the law

In this persons case, I'm glad what happened did. Even if it is considered heavy handed, Its just nice to see ******** suffer for being scum

 

[Danthus]

And part of the Malicious communications act is threats. Do you really think they'd arrest him for his first tweet?

Threatening to kill someone is a separate offence than that of sending a malicious communcation.

So why wasn't he charged with the former?

 

[estebanrey]

That isn't a serious story.

What isn't? Pink News isn't the Daily Mash you know.

 

[wannabedamned]

Threatening to kill someone is a separate offence than that of sending a malicious communcation.

So why wasn't he charged with the former?

Possibly because the threats were part of the malicious communications? They were all part of the same vein, I cant imagine they would give each message a separate category, they can all be considered malicious.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Threatening to kill someone is a separate offence than that of sending a malicious communcation.

So why wasn't he charged with the former?

No it isn't.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
(1) Any person who sends to another person—
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

 

[Danthus]

Possibly because the threats were part of the malicious communications? They were all part of the same vein, I cant imagine they would give each message a separate category, they can all be considered malicious.

You seem to be missing the point, the threat to kill was not taken seriously.

 

[OhEsEcks]

You seem to be missing the point, the threat to kill was not taken seriously.

Says who? If a threat is made the police have to treat it seriously.

 

[wannabedamned]

You seem to be missing the point, the threat to kill was not taken seriously.

Says who? it was part and parcel of the malicious communications..

 

[Danthus]

No it isn't.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

Section 16 Offences against the Person Act covers threats to kill.

It is an offence in its own right.

 

[Danthus]

Says who? If a threat is made the police have to treat it seriously.

Says who? it was part and parcel of the malicious communications..

So if the Police thought the threat was genuine then surely he would have been charged with that offence?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Malicious communications covers communications that contain threats. He also sent a barrel load of malicious communications. It was enough to charge him with just malicious communications.