govern yourselves accordingly

[Stephanie]

just saw that a bloke has been found guilty for an offensive captain tom tweet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-60198140

pretty sure I've seen worse both in our illustrious forum history and on twitter, so I'm a bit baffled about this one.

[IvanV]

They were found guilty of the following offence.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

The Twitter Joke Trial was also under this section of the Act. It took 3 appeals to quash the conviction. At the third appeal, the prosecution didn't even turn up and it was quashed by default. Because they could see from the defence presented that they were going to lose. This was the one where a person annoyed with the problems at Doncaster Airport, that they were due to fly from, suggested it would be "blown sky high" if they didn't sort themselves out.

The problem is that if you are an ordinary person, or indeed a plod, or indeed someone charged with the offence, and read the wording of the Act, you would natually think that it it outlaws subject matter of an "offensive" nature on social media, etc. And thus apparently it acts as a substantial limitation on freedom of speech.

But this was never its original purpose or intention. It was about controlling harassment, stalking, blackmail and the activities of organised criminals. But as always happens, once it is on the statute book, people read the words that they see in front of them, and give them their natural meaning.

If you are charged with this, first of all you have to realise it doesn't mean what it looks like. And that is a big ask, because it would never occur to most people. Then you need a specialist lawyer to try and persuade to the judge or magistrate that it doesn't mean that. But in most cases, they don't realise. Because there is a repetitive appearance in the media of people being found guilty like this. And so in practice it is repeately used as the restriction on freedom of speech that it looks like.

[El Pollo Diablo]

It's terribly drafted legislation, really. So broad as to be effectively meaningless, and that means that it's applied selectively. And that discrimination in application doesn't ever seem to apply, say, to men sending unsolicited photos of their genitalia to women, which is clearly all of indecent, obscene and menacing.

[Woodchopper]

just saw that a bloke has been found guilty for an offensive captain tom tweet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-60198140

pretty sure I've seen worse both in our illustrious forum history and on twitter, so I'm a bit baffled about this one.

Maybe we've just become desensitized by the torrent of abusive behaviour on Twitter and other digital forums.

Back in British meatspace its a crime to use words or other means to intentionally cause alarm or distress (and where doing so isn't reasonable behaviour). The offending tweets would probably have crossed that threshold if they had been said out loud to someone who admired Major Tom. But I see that sort of thing regularly on Twitter, and I go out of my way to avoid getting into contentious debates on that forum.

People shouldn't gratuitously say or write things that they know will upset others. That's bullying.

The problem with Twitter is that most of the time its impossible to get a conviction (even if the person writing can be identified they probably live in another country). Maybe the difference is that this time someone complained, and it was feasible to actually take them to court.

[Stephanie]

just saw that a bloke has been found guilty for an offensive captain tom tweet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-60198140

pretty sure I've seen worse both in our illustrious forum history and on twitter, so I'm a bit baffled about this one.

Maybe we've just become desensitized by the torrent of abusive behaviour on Twitter and other digital forums.

Back in British meatspace its a crime to use words or other means to intentionally cause alarm or distress (and where doing so isn't reasonable behaviour). The offending tweets would probably have crossed that threshold if they had been said out loud to someone who admired Major Tom. But I see that sort of thing regularly on Twitter, and I go out of my way to avoid getting into contentious debates on that forum.

People shouldn't gratuitously say or write things that they know will upset others. That's bullying.

The problem with Twitter is that most of the time its impossible to get a conviction (even if the person writing can be identified they probably live in another country). Maybe the difference is that this time someone complained, and it was feasible to actually take them to court.

That's a fair point tbh, i have seen many many terrible things, and probably written some myself (not sure anything quite like that mind, but depends on the interpretation innit)

[plodder]

Might also be a generational thing. Young people using the twitter never have the probity, gravitas or self-respect that old judges do.

[shpalman]

Might also be a generational thing. Young people using the twitter never have the probity, gravitas or self-respect that old judges do.

It's because of all the classic literature they've read.

[IvanV]

Back in British meatspace its a crime to use words or other means to intentionally cause alarm or distress (and where doing so isn't reasonable behaviour). The offending tweets would probably have crossed that threshold if they had been said out loud to someone who admired Major Tom. But I see that sort of thing regularly on Twitter, and I go out of my way to avoid getting into contentious debates on that forum.

I'm somewhat at a disadvantage never having seen the tweet, nor having any idea of its contents at all. All I know is that it was "grossly offensive", and it occurred after Moore's death.

Being "grossly offensive" in general should not be a crime, because we do acknowledge some kind of freedom of speech in this country, albeit that there are some speech crimes like libel and menace, et. There a lot that is grossly offensive and not "intentionally causing alarm or distress". Distress is not the same thing as taking offence, though many people would like it to be. Maybe this tweet did go beyond offensiveness, and constitute some kind of harassment to some persons still alive at the date of it. But I don't know that. But I'm sure you will fill me in if it is clear that it did.

Meanwhile, I reiterate my considerable concerns about the misuse of this act to curtail freedom of speech. I did once see a quantification of how many times people have been found, or pleaded, guilty, and it was not a small number.

[lpm]

Not sure why you didn't just google it and read the actual words. The various tabloids happily repeat it in their reporting.

[IvanV]

Not sure why you didn't just google it and read the actual words. The various tabloids happily repeat it in their reporting.

Possibly because I thought it was that bad, it wouldn't be repeated and I wouldn't find it.

I've seen it now. Obviously I don't like seeming to defend such a horrible thing to say. But I really don't think we should be prosecuting people for this kind of thing. It isn't intentionally directed at specific people to cause alarm or distress, understanding distress as meaning something quite different from taking gross offence. It is not harassment. If we outlaw this kind of a thing, what else do we outlaw?

[Sciolus]

I blame Princess Di. In the same way that certain people felt like they were BFFs with her and were overwrought with imaginary grief when she died, now certain people feel like they were BFFs with Moore -- sorry, I mean "Captain Tom", apologies for being grossly disrespectful -- and created a cult of worship that made him untouchable. So even people whose closest connection to Moore is that they have "family who served in the armed forces"* feel entitled to take offence on his behalf. Tossers.

* but who don't know what "give their life for the [sic] country" means.

[wilsontown]

I just wanted to say that the thread title is lovely...

[Bird on a Fire]

Typical UK.

Say it about some old white fought for his country defending the NHS not making it political makes you proud to be British auld c.nt and they lock you up in jail and throw away the key.

Say it about a Libyan child and they make you Home Secretary and then PM.

[Millennie Al]

People shouldn't gratuitously say or write things that they know will upset others. That's bullying.

Really? So saying "Trump lost the election" and "Trump won the election" are both bullying?

[Stephanie]

And the online safety bill has some interesting stuff in it, for eg making a digital pile on a criminal offence, and increasing protection for MPs, which makes sense given MPs can't bear to hear from their constituents as it is https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... afety-bill

[IvanV]

And the online safety bill has some interesting stuff in it, for eg making a digital pile on a criminal offence, and increasing protection for MPs, which makes sense given MPs can't bear to hear from their constituents as it is https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... afety-bill

The 2003 Act alread makes it illegal to "send[s} by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is ... of a[n] ... menacing character". The only reason I can think we need something new is that maybe the words "by means of a public electronic communications network" are sometimes a method of avoiding prosecution. We also need to be sure that when they talk about "threatening" they do actually mean sending credible threats, in the manner of a blackmailer or organised criminal. When my primary school teacher said, as he regularly did, "I'll put a bomb under your chair", that wasn't a credible threat. It was just his way of trying to give the impression that there would be unpleasant consequences to misbehaviour.

What worries me is this "false communications offence". I'm not worried about what it is actually supposed to be. What I'm worried about is what it is called, and what it might be distorted to. Lots of authoritarian countries outlaw false communications, and use it to prevent any kind of political opposition. This one is supposed to cover harmful falsehoods like bomb hoaxes - which are already illegal - and extending it to other harmful falsehoods. But I can just see authoritarian dictators pointing to this and going, "Look you are no different". And stretching the meaning of it in an authoritarian direction.

[noggins]

I think* i should be able to tweet anything I like back (short of actual credible threats of harm that would be offences) to a tweet that pops up in my feed.

*on second thoughts maybe not.But my point is that a lot of social media feels like a private conversation rather than ranting in a loudspeaker in the town square. Of course Its neither but we havent worked out what it is yet.

[Trinucleus]

Interesting that the people who complain about snowflakes and cancel culture are surprisingly easy to offend

[dyqik]

Interesting that the people who complain about snowflakes and cancel culture are surprisingly easy to offend

And ban so many books </US>

[plodder]

And the online safety bill has some interesting stuff in it, for eg making a digital pile on a criminal offence, and increasing protection for MPs, which makes sense given MPs can't bear to hear from their constituents as it is https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... afety-bill

The 2003 Act alread makes it illegal to "send[s} by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is ... of a[n] ... menacing character". The only reason I can think we need something new is that maybe the words "by means of a public electronic communications network" are sometimes a method of avoiding prosecution. We also need to be sure that when they talk about "threatening" they do actually mean sending credible threats, in the manner of a blackmailer or organised criminal. When my primary school teacher said, as he regularly did, "I'll put a bomb under your chair", that wasn't a credible threat. It was just his way of trying to give the impression that there would be unpleasant consequences to misbehaviour.

What worries me is this "false communications offence". I'm not worried about what it is actually supposed to be. What I'm worried about is what it is called, and what it might be distorted to. Lots of authoritarian countries outlaw false communications, and use it to prevent any kind of political opposition. This one is supposed to cover harmful falsehoods like bomb hoaxes - which are already illegal - and extending it to other harmful falsehoods. But I can just see authoritarian dictators pointing to this and going, "Look you are no different". And stretching the meaning of it in an authoritarian direction.

Would this ban bots?

[IvanV]

Interesting that the people who complain about snowflakes and cancel culture are surprisingly easy to offend

People can take offence at almost anything. And it is not even necessarily manufactured offence. Which is a good reason that causing offence shouldn't be illegal.

[bjn]

Interesting that the people who complain about snowflakes and cancel culture are surprisingly easy to offend

People can take offence at almost anything. And it is not even necessarily manufactured offence. Which is a good reason that causing offence shouldn't be illegal.

It was Blair's crap attempt to have the blasphemy laws not be specific to Christianity.

[tom p]

And the online safety bill has some interesting stuff in it, for eg making a digital pile on a criminal offence, and increasing protection for MPs, which makes sense given MPs can't bear to hear from their constituents as it is https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... afety-bill

The 2003 Act alread makes it illegal to "send[s} by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is ... of a[n] ... menacing character". The only reason I can think we need something new is that maybe the words "by means of a public electronic communications network" are sometimes a method of avoiding prosecution. We also need to be sure that when they talk about "threatening" they do actually mean sending credible threats, in the manner of a blackmailer or organised criminal. When my primary school teacher said, as he regularly did, "I'll put a bomb under your chair", that wasn't a credible threat. It was just his way of trying to give the impression that there would be unpleasant consequences to misbehaviour.

What worries me is this "false communications offence". I'm not worried about what it is actually supposed to be. What I'm worried about is what it is called, and what it might be distorted to. Lots of authoritarian countries outlaw false communications, and use it to prevent any kind of political opposition. This one is supposed to cover harmful falsehoods like bomb hoaxes - which are already illegal - and extending it to other harmful falsehoods. But I can just see authoritarian dictators pointing to this and going, "Look you are no different". And stretching the meaning of it in an authoritarian direction.

I rather like the idea of "false communications" being an offence. Be nice to see Dorries behind bars.
Lock her up! Lock her up!

[bmforre]

... Be nice to see Dorries behind bars.
Lock her up! Lock her up!

If she's to be inside for long she must be set to meaningful activity.
What kind of vocational training might be suitable?

[tom p]

... Be nice to see Dorries behind bars.
Lock her up! Lock her up!

If she's to be inside for long she must be set to meaningful activity.
What kind of vocational training might be suitable?

Kangaroo anus taste-tester is pretty much the only thing she has ever demonstrated any prowess at