Ship of Fools: Arrested for tweeting?

Thread: Arrested for tweeting? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025467

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Community service for tweeting.

I'm wondering what law she broke in tweeting that people who wear a certain t-shirt should be beheaded. It would take a huge stretch of the imagination to believe she intended to personally behead people. Or intended to instruct others to behead people. Unlike the rape and arson threats that followed and were aimed at an individual person she was commenting on anyone who wears an item of clothing. You can't even accuse her of targeting a specific race, gender whatever.

[ 08. June 2013, 14:05: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Well I hope this kind of behaviour also attracts a sentence.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

@mudfrog I think if they are just saying it. Then it's stating an opinion. If they were to run up to people and literally threaten them then yes that's behaviour that isn't acceptable. But just to hold a protest and hold up banners? While it can be distasteful and upsetting if the alternative is to ban everyone from expressing their hatred of anything. ...

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I actually agree - the whole thing about 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' is an absolute nonsense, if you ask me.
A crime is a crime, an assault is an assault, a slander is a slander, whether or not they are 'hate' originated - which usually means saying something not nice about gay people and Muslims...and now Goths, apparently.

I am waiting for the day when a Salvation Army band is arrested for playing 'Now Thank We All our God' in the High Street because a Muslim is offended by us deliberately and insensitively playing "the Son and him who reigns with them in highest heaven" while Muslims might be listening!

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Maybe it's just me, but I'm all for any punishment the powers that be are willing to level against anyone who tweets anything...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Community service for tweeting.

I'm wondering what law she broke in tweeting that people who wear a certain t-shirt should be beheaded.

According to this Guardian article, she "admitted a charge of sending a malicious electronic message."

IANAL, but I think the statute in question might be the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm all for any punishment the powers that be are willing to level against anyone who tweets anything...

--Tom Clune

Ooh, that is diabolical! Perfect comment for a "get off my lawn" reference, but I kinda hate twitter too. [Waterworks]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Incitement to crime is a crime; the people in the picture do seem to have a case to answer.

The picture strongly suggests that they are completely serious in their views and should thus be taken seriously. Whereas punishing someone for what is intended as a joke in an essentially frivolous medium seems heavy-handed.

In cases where it is not obvious where the boundary lies between behaviour that is in some way offensive or provocative and an actual crime, there is much to be said for the police caution as an appropriate official response.

However, one has to assume that the magistrate in question knows the law and is applying it within the limits of the discretion that the legal system gives him. Unless there's evidence to the contrary...

His remarks emphasise the context; maybe such a tweet could constitute "behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace" when it is received by a community still in shock from a brutal murder in their midst, whilst being more harmless when seen in isolation from that context.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Perfect comment for a "get off my lawn" reference...

Well I retired a couple of months ago, so I'm right on schedule...

--Tom Clune

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Community service for tweeting.

I'm wondering what law she broke…

This one, I think. It's scope and usage are still fairly new and being explored. There's quite a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of a law like this.

I'm interested that she pleaded guilty, presumably on the advice of her lawyers. I wonder if there are other cases in the offing for those who tweeted threats in response?

[ 08. June 2013, 14:52: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
This one, I think.

From the legislation-

quote:
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance...to another, he...persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

Give this power to our H&As, I say.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
In cases where it is not obvious where the boundary lies between behaviour that is in some way offensive or provocative and an actual crime, there is much to be said for the police caution as an appropriate official response.

Remember, a caution is an admission of the offence - Caution

M.

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

What the story appears to be saying is that a young woman tweeted a stupid remark saying that anyone wearing a particular item of clothing deserved to be beheaded. For this she has received a non-custodial sentence.
Lots of other people read her tweet and then sent her tweets threatening to rape her and burn down her house and as far as we know nothing at all is done to them.
Seems a little one-sided to me.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Give this power to our H&As, I say.

FWIW, I don't have any power at all -- and I still abuse it. Be careful what you wish for...

--Tom Clune

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
What the story appears to be saying is that a young woman tweeted a stupid remark saying that anyone wearing a particular item of clothing deserved to be beheaded. For this she has received a non-custodial sentence.
Lots of other people read her tweet and then sent her tweets threatening to rape her and burn down her house and as far as we know nothing at all is done to them.
Seems a little one-sided to me.

I don't agree with prosecuting over this sort of thing but I wonder if your reaction, and the reaction of others on her, would be the same if it was a white skinhead saying that anyone wearing a Muslim group tee shirt should be beheaded?
I may be misreading you but there are a lot of people round her wqho are very keen on giving certain groups the benefit of the doubt while being totally convinced of the evil of the EDL.

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by George Spigot:
@mudfrog I think if they are just saying it. Then it's stating an opinion. If they were to run up to people and literally threaten them then yes that's behaviour that isn't acceptable. But just to hold a protest and hold up banners? While it can be distasteful and upsetting if the alternative is to ban everyone from expressing their hatred of anything. ... [/QUOTE
I take it that you are also happy for the EDL to express an opinion then? Or do you think they should be prevented from doing so? I wonder if this thread would even have been started if everyone's favourite villains had been involved.

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:

quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
What the story appears to be saying is that a young woman tweeted a stupid remark saying that anyone wearing a particular item of clothing deserved to be beheaded. For this she has received a non-custodial sentence.
Lots of other people read her tweet and then sent her tweets threatening to rape her and burn down her house and as far as we know nothing at all is done to them.
Seems a little one-sided to me.
I don't agree with prosecuting over this sort of thing but I wonder if your reaction, and the reaction of others on her, would be the same if it was a white skinhead saying that anyone wearing a Muslim group tee shirt should be beheaded?
I may be misreading you but there are a lot of people round her wqho are very keen on giving certain groups the benefit of the doubt while being totally convinced of the evil of the EDL.

I don't see how you have come to that opinion based on what I have written.
The woman commented (stupidly and offensively) on a crime that had already been committed. The other tweeters were threatening to commit crimes in the future. Obviously the police would have taken into account the fact that most of that would have been a stupid over-emotional reaction to an offensive remark, but I wonder why one group was allowed to get away with it*, and the other wasn't.

* As far as we know. If it turns out that others are being prosecuted for their responses then fair enough.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by George Spigot:
@mudfrog I think if they are just saying it. Then it's stating an opinion. If they were to run up to people and literally threaten them then yes that's behaviour that isn't acceptable. But just to hold a protest and hold up banners? While it can be distasteful and upsetting if the alternative is to ban everyone from expressing their hatred of anything. ... [/QUOTE
I take it that you are also happy for the EDL to express an opinion then? Or do you think they should be prevented from doing so? I wonder if this thread would even have been started if everyone's favourite villains had been involved.

For anyone to be allowed to express their opinion? Depends on how it's done but basically yes. If the alternative is to keep arresting people for expressing their opinion then yes. This case was a little different as the wording of the tweet was in the form of a threat. Albeit a threat that was transparently a joke and not aimed at any one group.

If the EDL staged a violent protest or started forcing people to hear their vile opinions that's different. But simply for voicing their opinion? No.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

There are those Christians who cry "Persecution" when it turns out that someone had merely disagreed with them - or, in the case of SSM or OoW or whatever, when someone had taken what Jesus said, rather than what the Bible had been reinterpreted as saying.

It isn't just Muslims who protest improperly (that is, while ignoring the clear proscriptions of their faith)

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Here's an idea. Instead of arresting the EDL for protesting why not out protest them.

http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/bnp-edl-hate-fascist-badgers-473597.html

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I think TessaB has a point that shouldn't be overlooked. It's fairly creepy to think that the people who threatened this girl could get off scott-free when she is convicted of a crime for what seems to me to be a much less obnoxious offense.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Community service for tweeting.

I'm wondering what law she broke in tweeting that people who wear a certain t-shirt should be beheaded. It would take a huge stretch of the imagination to believe she intended to personally behead people. Or intended to instruct others to behead people. Unlike the rape and arson threats that followed and were aimed at an individual person she was commenting on anyone who wears an item of clothing. You can't even accuse her of targeting a specific race, gender whatever.

Surely the fact that somebody WAS recently beheaded whilst wearing such a t-shirt has some bearing on this. The tweet can certainly be interpreted as condoning the act and encouraging future violence in a way that other jokes about "shooting people' etc eg Jeremy Clarkson's recent effort don't because it's not like anyone in UK does go and shoot unionists in front of their families.

People making threats to the tweeter should also be pursued. Has anybody else noticed a really, really creepy trend of men attacking women with whom they disagree on line by saying they deserve to be raped. That is a really horrible misogynistic turn surely that used not to be standard??

[ 09. June 2013, 08:01: Message edited by: Evangeline ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Behead all beheaders.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Behead all beheaders.

Whatever you do don't tweet that!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0