Twitter : Being Offensive

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.
 
OldCoals said:
No he wasn't, he was arrested for sending a malicious communication. That itself speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

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/
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
OldCoals said:
Threatening to kill someone is a separate offence than that of sending a malicious communcation.

So why wasn't he charged with the former?
Click to expand...
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.
 
OldCoals said:
Threatening to kill someone is a separate offence than that of sending a malicious communcation.

So why wasn't he charged with the former?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
wannabedamned said:
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.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point, the threat to kill was not taken seriously.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom