Ship of Fools: "Grossly offensive"

Thread: "Grossly offensive" 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=027348

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Two things interest and concern me about the case of Robert Riley , sentenced to 8 weeks custody, after pleading guilty to sending a "grossly offensive or malicious message" (language found in the UK Communications Act 2003:

- I am inclined to agree with Riley's own expression of surprise, on his twitter feed, that of all his crass, racist and otherwise offensive tweets, it was the ones concerning the murder of a teacher that led to him being reported to the police.

- I am amazed that he was advised to plead guilty and I wonder if this is one of the many inequalities in the legal system - had he been better educated and able to afford to be better represented, surely he would have been advised that the charge against him would be very difficult to prove?

I am concerned that having a bad sense of humour on the internet seems to have been criminalised and any or all of us could be at risk, but, as well, that it's people who have already been dealt a tough hand who are going to be least able to avoid the consequences of a moment's bad taste.

What do you think?

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

I think you might want to change your sig line Johnny Cash.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

I think you might want to think about changing your signature. [Biased]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I think you might want to change your sig line Johnny Cash.

Have you googled it?

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I think you might want to change your sig line Johnny Cash.
Have you googled it?

Nope. Just reminded me of the line from Folsom Prison Blues.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What do you think?

I think I have very little sympathy for the man, or anybody who thinks that publishing that "he would have killed not only Maguire but all her school colleagues" was anything less than criminal.

This is not 'bad taste', or 'humorous' or any other euphemism you'd like to deploy. And honestly, I'd want to see everyone who ever called for anyone to be assaulted, raped or murdered over the internet to be fined, heavily, and their access to social media platforms terminated permanently.

Seriously, why on Earth should anyone have to put up with this nonsense?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Doc Tor
[Overused]

What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.

And it is so much easier to control what we type than what we say - there really is no excuse.

Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor

Hear hear. (Sorry, pet peeve of mine, these cowardly internet snipers)

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor

What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.

Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
- I am amazed that he was advised to plead guilty and I wonder if this is one of the many inequalities in the legal system - had he been better educated and able to afford to be better represented, surely he would have been advised that the charge against him would be very difficult to prove?

What makes you think it would be difficult to prove?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

If you think that threatening her colleagues on the internet is humorous, surely you can see how funny it is that he's going to jail? Hilarity ensues as his "I just open my mouth and funny stuff comes out" attitude encounters other offenders.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor

What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.
Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.

It'd be an offence if he phoned the school up and said that. It'd be an offence if he wrote to the school and put it in writing. It'd be an offence if he went to the school gates and shouted it across the playground.

Saying it in his local pub would be merely stupid. He could have done that, and he wouldn't be a convicted criminal serving an eight-week sentence. He chose not to, and now look...

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I am not a big reader of the Hell board but even so can think of several examples where physical violence against someone has been referred to, often involving rusty farm implements. I wouldn't call these jokes but obviously they were not genuine threats of violence either.

If the prosecuting authorities considered Mr Riley's remarks to be real threats of violence, or incitement to violence by others, then they could have prosecuted him for harassment, assault, incitement etc.

If he had directly emailed the teachers his thoughts that they should be killed, I would agree that should be a crime because that shows an intent to cause them distress. But I don't think that posting grossly offensive communications on twitter should be. If that is how the Communications Act is being interpreted, I would be glad to see it amended.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Obviously Mr Riley is an obnoxious half wit but his conviction fails the J.S. Mill test, inasmuch, as it doesn't appear to have been addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks outside the house of a teacher.

There was a celebrated incident, comparatively recently, where a gentleman jocularly threatened to blow up Robin Hood airport (who said irony was dead) when it appeared that the snow might prevent him from hooking up with his beloved. He was duly convicted of having sent a threatening message and the conviction was only subsequently quashed when, various freedom of speech types rode into battle on his behalf. Now with all due respect to Nick Cohen and David Allan Lane we cannot really expect them to sally forth on behalf of every weapons grade moron who avails themselves of the twittersphere to tell us all what a pratt they are. Still, if they can't be nicked for harassment, or whatnot, they are effectively being subjected to a custodial sentence for being doubleplusungoodthinkful which is not the kind of route a representative democracy ought to be heading down. I'm not a free speech fundamentalist but I feel about the free speech fundamentalists much as I feel about the animal rights people, that whilst I don't buy into the entire bill of goods, that they are right that we ought to be seriously raising our game.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.

If you told someone to their face they should be killed, you could be subject to arrest for assault. Everything on the internet is addressed to everyone in the world. Therefore "he should be killed" is perforce the same thing as "you should be killed" because unless the victim of your death threat is permanently offline, they are part of the audience.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Obviously Mr Riley is an obnoxious half wit but his conviction fails the J.S. Mill test, inasmuch, as it doesn't appear to have been addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks outside the house of a teacher.

J.S. Mill didn't live in a world so connected that threats made in Singapore show up instantly in Timbuktu. EVERYTHING you post on the internet is potentially addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks. That the mob has not yet assembled is a technicality. Mobs can assemble really fast.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

The mob could be about to assemble, but since he has no reason to think that the mob is going to assemble, it seems much more like drunken ranting to me than practically trying to incite.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Also, it can be pretty discombobulating to be the target of hatecrime. I deliberately trivialised that comment to remove the effect of what I had from neighbours - not online, but I would have sworn I could sense the loathing radiating up through the floorboards. Not here. But even thinking of what happened about 7 years ago gives a twinge. It doesn't need a mob to be nasty. On the other hand, if no-one tells you about it, no harm's done.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Now with all due respect to Nick Cohen and David Allan Lane ...

Just for the record, I think that's David Allen Green. (He's a lawyer - best not risk his umbrage!) [Biased]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I'm not a free speech fundamentalist but I feel about the free speech fundamentalists much as I feel about the animal rights people, that whilst I don't buy into the entire bill of goods, that they are right that we ought to be seriously raising our game.

Can you explain to me how threatening to kill a murdered teacher's colleagues counts as an example of free speech that needs protecting? Cheers.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
That the mob has not yet assembled is a technicality.

The non-assembly of the mob is always a technicality. When the mob turns up, or is likely to turn up, it is incitement. When no mob is in sight it is self indictment as a clueless moron. I'll stop here. One of us come from a country which has a good record of upholding freedom of speech. I don't. If we had a first amendment we would have fewer convictions of this sort and that would be a good thing.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I'm not a free speech fundamentalist but I feel about the free speech fundamentalists much as I feel about the animal rights people, that whilst I don't buy into the entire bill of goods, that they are right that we ought to be seriously raising our game.
Can you explain to me how threatening to kill a murdered teacher's colleagues counts as an example of free speech that needs protecting? Cheers.

In much the same way as a threat to blow up Robin Hood Airport needed protecting. The point about free speech is not the inherent value of the speech. If that were the case I would hold that free speech should defend the works of Bonhoeffer, Barth and Dom Gregory Dix and that there should be an absolute ban on Mein Kampf, The Face Of Janus and 120 Days Of Sodom. The point about free speech is not the value judgement as to which speech is worthwhile but the openness to speech which is offensive.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The point about free speech is not the value judgement as to which speech is worthwhile but the openness to speech which is offensive.

But there is a qualitative difference between being offensive and calling for murder.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
That the mob has not yet assembled is a technicality.
The non-assembly of the mob is always a technicality. When the mob turns up, or is likely to turn up, it is incitement. When no mob is in sight it is self indictment as a clueless moron. I'll stop here. One of us come from a country which has a good record of upholding freedom of speech.

It's so cute that you think that.

quote:
I don't. If we had a first amendment we would have fewer convictions of this sort and that would be a good thing.

The first amendment is dead. In the US he almost certainly would have received a longer sentence for harassment, stalking, assault, terroristic threatening, and a host of other things.

Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[snip]
Saying it in his local pub would be merely stupid. He could have done that, and he wouldn't be a convicted criminal serving an eight-week sentence. He chose not to, and now look...

If he said it in his local pub, there would be the chance that someone sensible would tell him not to be a dick, and/or someone more handy would punch him in the face. Either way, he'd receive immediate social feedback on his idiocy, and might reconsider his position.

If I went into a pub and Riley were drinking there, I'd probably leave, as I wouldn't care to hear him talking shite. One Twitter, one is virtually sitting in the pub with people you would cross to road to avoid. I stay off it myself. There's enough stupid in my life already.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Can you explain to me how threatening to kill a murdered teacher's colleagues counts as an example of free speech that needs protecting? Cheers.
In much the same way as a threat to blow up Robin Hood Airport needed protecting. The point about free speech is not the inherent value of the speech. If that were the case I would hold that free speech should defend the works of Bonhoeffer, Barth and Dom Gregory Dix and that there should be an absolute ban on Mein Kampf, The Face Of Janus and 120 Days Of Sodom. The point about free speech is not the value judgement as to which speech is worthwhile but the openness to speech which is offensive.

While I would agree that protecting the free speech of ideas is entirely necessary, "I'm going blow up an airport" is not a coherent philosophical system. It is a comment designed, at best, to tie up an awful lot of police time working out whether or not the threat is credible, and at worst, the prelude to someone bombing an airport.

Perhaps I'm some filthy censoring Statist lackey, but I can't see free-speech argument in either the Robin Hood airport tweet or the one under discussion.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The point about free speech is not the value judgement as to which speech is worthwhile but the openness to speech which is offensive.
But there is a qualitative difference between being offensive and calling for murder.

The news reports are being all coy about what he actually said. Did he call for murder?

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The first amendment is dead. In the US he almost certainly would have received a longer sentence for harassment, stalking, assault, terroristic threatening, and a host of other things.

Really? You surprise me. My impression of US law was that the sentences are generally more severe, but largely for doing stuff rather than just saying stuff, and that you could be as obnoxious in word (vide Fred Phelps) as you wished without fear of prosecution.

The elephant in the room however, is the ungovernable nature of the internet. I don't suppose this unpleasant chap would have been prosecuted (or even pursued) for this particular piece of trollery had he been based outside of the UK. There are a lot of people who seem to think that Twitter and Facebook come with a built-in cloak of impregnability and there seems little chance of anyone resolving that issue. The demands made of those companies to police their content in a timely manner are impossible to meet. You can't ask individuals to exercise their choice not to access social media - everyone else does, and avoiding it oneself doesn't render one immune to its consequences. Perhaps we just have to get used to it.

▲

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
While I would agree that protecting the free speech of ideas is entirely necessary, "I'm going blow up an airport" is not a coherent philosophical system. It is a comment designed, at best, to tie up an awful lot of police time working out whether or not the threat is credible, and at worst, the prelude to someone bombing an airport.

Perhaps I'm some filthy censoring Statist lackey, but I can't see free-speech argument in either the Robin Hood airport tweet or the one under discussion.

Who gets to decide that your comments are the second coming of Thomas Aquinas and his comments are just a waste of police time? The point is that the burden of proof ought to rest with the state when it comes to prosecute people. If someone starts a General Election thread on the Ship and I post something to the effect of 'One Tory, One Bullet' lots of people will be entitled to conclude that I am being a bit of a twat but if the fuzz start going after me it would be reasonable to conclude that they had lost their sense of proportion.

The thing is that it ought not to be the state which judges the worthwhileness of your utterance. Most utterances, probably including this post, are eminently forgettable and lots of them are entirely shite. But it is only the government's job to say "steady on now" if I say something like "If Doc Tor had any balls, he'd put a cap in Alan Cresswell's ass" (I am now banking on the fact that I have invoked the identities of two of the Ship's best and noblest personas) and actual violence takes place, and that this could have been anticipated, then I expect the law to get all medieval on my bottom. But in most other instances I would expect something between a hostly rebuke or planking.

Generally, the punishment for malicious horrible sentiments ought to be the loss of regard from one's peers, not a jail sentence. Unless said sentiments lead to violence.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The first amendment is dead. In the US he almost certainly would have received a longer sentence for harassment, stalking, assault, terroristic threatening, and a host of other things.
Really? You surprise me. My impression of US law was that the sentences are generally more severe, but largely for doing stuff rather than just saying stuff, and that you could be as obnoxious in word (vide Fred Phelps) as you wished without fear of prosecution.

To a large extent, it depends on where you are in the US (and which state you are in). But, for example, in the northeast US, most of the states have rewritten their laws to such an extent that if someone claims that a comment you made caused them emotional distress, you're doing time. I no longer feel that I can criticize the government at all (particularly not the cops or criminal injustice system) without fear of official reprisal.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.
If you told someone to their face they should be killed, you could be subject to arrest for assault. Everything on the internet is addressed to everyone in the world. Therefore "he should be killed" is perforce the same thing as "you should be killed" because unless the victim of your death threat is permanently offline, they are part of the audience.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Obviously Mr Riley is an obnoxious half wit but his conviction fails the J.S. Mill test, inasmuch, as it doesn't appear to have been addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks outside the house of a teacher.
J.S. Mill didn't live in a world so connected that threats made in Singapore show up instantly in Timbuktu. EVERYTHING you post on the internet is potentially addressed to a mob with torches and pitchforks. That the mob has not yet assembled is a technicality. Mobs can assemble really fast.

See that's the difference, if you told someone to their face that 'they should be killed' you could be prosecuted but it would be a 'he said she said' case. If you shouted it at them in the street you would be committing verbal assault.You could be prosecuted but it would be unlikely. Tweeting it or blogging it or screen printing pamphlets is incitement to commit an act.
It's also on permanent record. My point still stands, their is a difference between saying something and publishing something, it's far more offensive and threatening to put it in print for the world to see.

[ 09. May 2014, 20:38: Message edited by: lapsed heathen ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Tweeting it or blogging it or screen printing pamphlets is incitement to commit an act.
It's also on permanent record. My point still stands, their is a difference between saying something and publishing something, it's far more offensive and threatening to put it in print for the world to see.

That is so bizarre to me - I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that you think that. Posting something online is so unlikely to lead to violence, or to anyone taking you seriously when you've demonstrated that you're a certain kind of troll, that it seems to me that it's far less offensive to post something online where people are free to ignore it. Saying something in person can lead to violence a lot more easily and can lead to people not being allowed/ comfortable in public spaces because they can't ignore the offensiveness.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Who gets to decide that your comments are the second coming of Thomas Aquinas and his comments are just a waste of police time? The point is that the burden of proof ought to rest with the state when it comes to prosecute people.

Which is pretty much where we are now.

The two cases that stick in my mind are the Lord whatisface accused of being a paedophile, and the trolls who went after Caroline Criado-Perez for campaigning for Jane Austen on the tenner. The Lord was able to use libel law to, quite effectively, crush his detractors and get pretty much all of them. Criado-Perez's harassment resulted in just two convictions out of the thousands who threatened to rape and kill her.

No, I'm not expecting Twitter to monitor tweets real-time. I am expecting them to use the ban hammer more effectively, or even just once in a while. It's not a human right to use that particular platform.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Was there not some pushback in the US when some GOP stars used crosshairs on a target Democrat "who should be shot" just before an actual Congress-person was shot by a suggestible male?

The GOP-creatures used the "free speech" line until they realised how badly that played among real voters.

But, no, they didn't go to jail

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Amanda Hess wrote an article
Why Women are not welcome on the internet about being cyberstalked and talks about the state of the laws and actual protection in the United States. This and several other cases have pushed me away from the "Absolute Free Speech means you can make anonymous death threats" position. Threats are not always clearly rhetorical bluster. There have been cases where the online threats are followed by real life stalking.

[ 10. May 2014, 03:26: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Tweeting it or blogging it or screen printing pamphlets is incitement to commit an act.
It's also on permanent record. My point still stands, their is a difference between saying something and publishing something, it's far more offensive and threatening to put it in print for the world to see.
That is so bizarre to me - I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that you think that. Posting something online is so unlikely to lead to violence, or to anyone taking you seriously when you've demonstrated that you're a certain kind of troll, that it seems to me that it's far less offensive to post something online where people are free to ignore it. Saying something in person can lead to violence a lot more easily and can lead to people not being allowed/ comfortable in public spaces because they can't ignore the offensiveness.

Yeah I understand where your coming from, I don't fully understand it myself. It took some persuasion to convince me to go with the notion that the media we have today is a whole other kettle of fish to what I grew up with.
It's a bit like this. Before social media you had your rows face to face, if it ended in fisty cuffs at least it ended. Now what happens is a back n forth of tweets, face book posts or blogs goes out, people who don't know the parties involved get involved or form opinions of the parties based on just text. No contextual cues to help them decide right or wrong just the biases they bring with them. This is so different from verbal argy bargy that it requires different rules of behaviour. Yes, the law is heavy handed about it but it's not without reason, no big loss of freedom of speech or right to respond is lost or compromised, in fact clear and precise communication is encouraged by this.
We know a troll when we see one but their are a lot of people who cant tell the difference.

[ 10. May 2014, 09:11: Message edited by: lapsed heathen ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It'd be an offence if he phoned the school up and said that. It'd be an offence if he wrote to the school and put it in writing. It'd be an offence if he went to the school gates and shouted it across the playground.

Saying it in his local pub would be merely stupid. He could have done that, and he wouldn't be a convicted criminal serving an eight-week sentence. He chose not to, and now look...

From the newspaper report, it seems that Riley's tweets weren't aimed at any particular person, but generally made to the world at large. In that case, wouldn't they be more like the example in your second paragraph than your first?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

It's a good point about the inflationary nature of the Web.

Plus there's the ominous power of anonymity. Usually when the troll is brought to court, s/he is just such an inadequate, dimwitted no-hoper as the present instance - but on the receiving end, you don't know that. It takes uncommon strength of character to be the object of violent threats and not begin to imagine a RL stalker - film and TV will helpfully model this for you.

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

That he was jailed is utterly insane. He should have been made to do community service like Berlusconi.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.
And it is so much easier to control what we type than what we say - there really is no excuse.

It's about proof. It is easier to prove someone has posted something on social media than it is to prove they've said it. Even things that have been published online then deleted can often be found cached elsewhere on the web.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It'd be an offence if he phoned the school up and said that. It'd be an offence if he wrote to the school and put it in writing. It'd be an offence if he went to the school gates and shouted it across the playground.

Saying it in his local pub would be merely stupid. He could have done that, and he wouldn't be a convicted criminal serving an eight-week sentence. He chose not to, and now look...
From the newspaper report, it seems that Riley's tweets weren't aimed at any particular person, but generally made to the world at large. In that case, wouldn't they be more like the example in your second paragraph than your first?

No. He might think he's showing off to his mates, but he's not. They are published. They are, in effect, in print for the whole world to see, including the people he's threatening.

If someone is so verbally/textually incontinent that they can't help themselves but issue death threats, and not realise that those threats are then broadcasted to the furthest ends of the Earth, I'm going to suggest Twitter is not for them.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
- I am amazed that he was advised to plead guilty and I wonder if this is one of the many inequalities in the legal system - had he been better educated and able to afford to be better represented, surely he would have been advised that the charge against him would be very difficult to prove?
What makes you think it would be difficult to prove?

Paul Chambers finally winning his case on appeal sets a strong recent precedent that I think a good lawyer would have been able to exploit. As Gildas says, David Allen Green can't offer pro bono defence to every idiot, but it seems unfair that it's one's ability to engage decent representation that ultimately determines whether you get a criminal record.

The reduction of Legal Aid in the UK is going to lead to a lot of injustice in my view.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No. He might think he's showing off to his mates, but he's not. They are published. They are, in effect, in print for the whole world to see, including the people he's threatening.

To my mind, it's unclear where the line ought to be drawn and it seems to me that there's a wider uncertainty as to how social media comments ought to be treated. You say it's criminal to have typed these off-colour remarks on Twitter, but not to have uttered them in a public place (a pub). But where is the dividing line between the two? Should making the same remarks on a platform at a public meeting be illegal, for example?

It seems to me that there's a world of difference between directly communicating with someone (by, for example, writing a letter) and writing something that a possible victim might or might not chance upon.

quote:
If someone is so verbally/textually incontinent that they can't help themselves but issue death threats, and not realise that those threats are then broadcasted to the furthest ends of the Earth, I'm going to suggest Twitter is not for them.

Is 'death threats' the correct term to describe Riley's comments? I haven't seen his actual tweets, but according to the Guardian report he joked about Maguire's colleagues requiring stab vests and that he 'would have killed not only Maguire but all her school colleagues'. If that's an accurate summary, is it a 'death threat'?

To say 'if I was in Person A's position, I would not only have killed Person X, but also Persons Y and Z' seems to me quite different than saying 'I'm going to kill Y and Z'.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
To my mind, it's unclear where the line ought to be drawn and it seems to me that there's a wider uncertainty as to how social media comments ought to be treated. You say it's criminal to have typed these off-colour remarks on Twitter, but not to have uttered them in a public place (a pub). But where is the dividing line between the two? Should making the same remarks on a platform at a public meeting be illegal, for example?

I'm not saying it's criminal. I'm pointing to the current state of the law in England and Wales which says it's criminal.

If I make a speech at a public meeting which I mention the recent murder of a teacher, and say in the killer's position I would have gone on to kill the rest of the staff too - what do you think? If I replace the name of a dead teacher with the name of Stephen Lawrence, and say I would have gone on to kill the rest of his family too - what do you think?

And "off-colour"? Please. Off-colour is the realm of smutty jokes and mild innuendo*. Saying that you'd have killed all the other teachers in a school where one of the teachers has just been killed is not "off-colour".

*a woman walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre, so the barman gave her one.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If I make a speech at a public meeting which I mention the recent murder of a teacher, and say in the killer's position I would have gone on to kill the rest of the staff too - what do you think?

I think it might depend on the kind of language used, the setting, possibly even the audience. I don't think it automatically follows that offensive language ought to be illegal. What do you think?

This incident made me think of Tony Martin, who was initially found guilty of murder after he shot and killed one of two burglars in his home (the verdict was later reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility because of some mental issues he had). As I'm sure you recall, that stirred up quite a bit of debate about what rights homeowners should have to protect their home.

I presume you don't agree that it should be illegal, as part of a debate, to advance the view that homeowners ought to be able shoot intruders? It's surely not a great leap from there to saying 'if I was Tony Martin, I would've shot them both'?

quote:
If I replace the name of a dead teacher with the name of Stephen Lawrence, and say I would have gone on to kill the rest of his family too - what do you think?

I'm not sure why you think this might produce a different result?

quote:

And "off-colour"? Please. Off-colour is the realm of smutty jokes and mild innuendo. Saying that you'd have killed all the other teachers in a school where one of the teachers has just been killed is not "off-colour".

'Rude' or 'tasteless' might have been more apposite. But whatever term used, I'd still say they don't appear to be death threats.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
The reduction of Legal Aid in the UK is going to lead to a lot of injustice in my view.

It seems to me that the system is already letting people down. I've long disliked Dave Lee Travis, but even I felt sympathy for him when I learned that he is facing financial ruin to pay the legal fees for successfully defending himself against sex charges.

Something seems to have gone wrong, in my view, if the state can concoct some charges against you and you then have to pay out of your own pocket to prove that those charges are false.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
'Rude' or 'tasteless' might have been more apposite. But whatever term used, I'd still say they don't appear to be death threats.

That's nice. What does the legal profession say? What do the threatened teachers say? What does your opinion matter in a legal issue? Or mine for that matter?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's nice. What does the legal profession say? What do the threatened teachers say? What does your opinion matter in a legal issue? Or mine for that matter?

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at. With the words 'what do you think?' the OP invited us to discuss the issue.

We don't have to discuss issues, of course. But if we don't wouldn't we have to close this site down?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
'Rude' or 'tasteless' might have been more apposite. But whatever term used, I'd still say they don't appear to be death threats.

Okay, let's take a look at this bit, since it seems to be the nub of the matter.

When is a death threat not a death threat? Should a death threat always be illegal, only illegal sometimes, or never illegal? And for afters, how are the (a) police and (b) the object of the threat, going to be able to differentiate between an actual death threat and the merely crass?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor

What trolls like Riley seem unable to 'get' is that it is as offensive to post offensive remarks as it would be to utter them to someone's face.
Well yes but he wouldn't get fined for saying it to some ones face. The fact is it's more offensive to put it in print, virtual or otherwise.

Death threats are illegal, and putting someone in fear of attack is a form of assault that is also illegal. So it would probably depend how convincing you were when you said it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

When is a death threat not a death threat?

When it's hyperbole? In certain quarters, "I'm going to fucking kill you, you <epithet>" is a normal expression of mild irritation. If we put everyone that has ever uttered those words in jail, we'd have an economic boom driven by the massive wave of prison-building, followed rapidly by a massive crash when everyone discovered that there were no taxpayers left because they were all in prison.

Change the context, and exactly the same words could be a realistic death threat.

It's hard to parse nuance on twitter.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

In Canada, the Criminal Code says:

quote:

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Idem

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So, "I'll get you and your little dog too" is not just one, but two offences.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, let's take a look at this bit, since it seems to be the nub of the matter.

When is a death threat not a death threat?

When it isn't a death threat?

quote:
Should a death threat always be illegal, only illegal sometimes, or never illegal? And for afters, how are the (a) police and (b) the object of the threat, going to be able to differentiate between an actual death threat and the merely crass?

Further to Soror Magna's post, s. 16 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861 says (emphasis supplied):

quote:
A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Since Riley was convicted of sending malicious communications, presumably the police didn't believe he'd sent a death threat? The fact his comments weren't directed towards any particular teacher suggests to me that this wasn't a threat. Also, would one perceive these tweets to be a threat when read in the context of his other, similarly-wacky tweets?

Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :

From the article, it seems that he wasn't convicted simply for his comments about the teachers, but also "...countless other vile messages [which] were racially and religiously aggravated..."

The Independent reports that he 'called the Nazi death camp Auschwitz a "health spa", and suggested that Muslim babies should be drowned.' The BBC reports that he was accused of tweeting the name of the boy who has been charged with the murder.

So this doesn't seem to be about death threats.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

So, to conclude: the person or persons at whom the threat is aimed have no clue as to whether the threat is idle boorishness, a vague wish that the world would be a better place without them, or actually meant. The only way to differentiate is have the police investigate, arrest the suspect and interrogate them to ascertain whether they are in fact a gobshite or a murderer-in-waiting.

Which is, more or less, exactly the position we have now.

None of this is a free speech issue, either. People are still perfectly free to express their disenchantment of people, places and policies - just not with threats of extreme personal violence.

Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :

Also, we have laws against inciting racial or religious hatred. You don't have to be actually planning violence to be an offender.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Since Riley was convicted of sending malicious communications, presumably the police didn't believe he'd sent a death threat?

DNF. People are often tried on lesser charges if the prosecutor doesn't think they can get a conviction, for whatever reason, on the greater charge. That someone is convicted for manslaughter doesn't mean the DA didn't think he was guilty of murder.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
None of this is a free speech issue, either. People are still perfectly free to express their disenchantment of people, places and policies - just not with threats of extreme personal violence.

Exactly.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Yeah I understand where your coming from, I don't fully understand it myself. It took some persuasion to convince me to go with the notion that the media we have today is a whole other kettle of fish to what I grew up with.
It's a bit like this. Before social media you had your rows face to face, if it ended in fisty cuffs at least it ended. Now what happens is a back n forth of tweets, face book posts or blogs goes out, people who don't know the parties involved get involved or form opinions of the parties based on just text. No contextual cues to help them decide right or wrong just the biases they bring with them. This is so different from verbal argy bargy that it requires different rules of behaviour.

I agree with this bit.

quote:
Yes, the law is heavy handed about it but it's not without reason, no big loss of freedom of speech or right to respond is lost or compromised, in fact clear and precise communication is encouraged by this.

And here is where I disagree. That simply hasn’t been the way that has played out on this side of the pond in my experience. The anonymity and technical savvy of the trolls is such that the scarier types of direct threats are still not being dealt with because they can't be traced (although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).

Meanwhile, other people have simply upped the ante in terms of what counts as ‘threatening.’ I once tried to contact an old friend because I was worried about him given some of the things I had heard were going on in his life and some of the dreams I had been having about him. He didn’t remember me and, as it turned out, didn’t want to talk to me - but I couldn’t have known that until he actually told me, at which point I ceased all contact. But that didn’t matter - I had already brought a relentless campaign of police harassment down on my head.

One of the oh-so-many absurdities was a conversation with a sociopathic police officer* in which he asked me if I was afraid I was going to hurt said person. I said no, of course not, I was simply worried about him and wanted to talk to him, but if he didn’t want to talk to me, that was his choice. The conversation moved on but he said later ‘so you said earlier that you were really afraid that you were going to physically hurt X.’ I insisted that I had not said such a thing, that I had in fact said the exact opposite, that I wasn’t at all worried that I was going to hurt him and I didn’t think he was in any physical danger. But by the time I realized I was dealing with a completely deranged human being the damage was done. The criminal justice system in the US is so profoundly broken I’m not sure it can be fixed, which is a problem you all don’t necessarily seem to have.** But if you create a tool that can be used to suppress speech, you have to realize that sooner or later it is going to fall into the hands of people who will use it to suppress speech they simply don’t like (because, for example, it threatens their arbitrary position of power and authority). How much do you trust your police and prosecutors not to use their authority to suppress the speech of people who are critical of them and the way they do things? Is anyone going to care if prisoners start getting charged with incitement of a riot for failing to obey a prison guard's orders or a previously unknown prison rule? What about being charged with damaging state property for self harm, or a sex offense for masturbation?

*lesson learned: do not ever talk to the police.

** I tremble for my country when I reflect that G-d is just.

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If you told someone to their face they should be killed, you could be subject to arrest for assault. Everything on the internet is addressed to everyone in the world.

So do you agree with the claim that blogging counts as harassment because it is upsetting to the person being written about, even though as far as anyone can tell, the writer is simply stating facts that are in the public record?

quote:
That's nice. What does the legal profession say? What do the threatened teachers say? What does your opinion matter in a legal issue? Or mine for that matter?

You may have heard of the jury system? Not that it ever gets used in this country anymore, and not that it’s necessarily that great when it is used since, for reasons beyond my comprehension, prosecutors are allowed to straight-up lie to judges and juries, but the US does have a theoretical tradition of requiring that a jury of your peers actually find you guilty of the crime. (And yes, I know this case is not in the US).

I still think the solution to bad speech is more speech.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So do you agree with the claim that blogging counts as harassment because it is upsetting to the person being written about, even though as far as anyone can tell, the writer is simply stating facts that are in the public record?

Is it harassment to state something once? Or does it require a consistent behavior over a long period of time? Rules are different for public figures than for private figures, also, and this can't be helped and indeed shouldn't.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is it harassment to state something once? Or does it require a consistent behavior over a long period of time? Rules are different for public figures than for private figures, also, and this can't be helped and indeed shouldn't.

I don't think it's harassment to state something once; I think it requires a consistent behavior over a long period of time and notification that the behavior is unwelcome. Maryland law agrees that this is the case; Delaware law does not - any single act of communication which causes a person fear, alarm, distress, or annoyance can be considered harassment.

On the other hand, Maryland keeps ruling that recording cops as they go about their public duties in their public uniforms violates their two-party consent rule against wiretapping and surveillance, whereas Delaware is a one-party consent state, so who knows where all these chips are going to land.

But perhaps this is getting a bit too tangential to the intended purposes of the thread by making it about the US and US law.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

saysay, I'm going to call you on this:

quote:
(although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).

- the evidence is that the Twittersphere and social media generally is anti-feminism, anti-women, internationally.

There's currently a BBC program on i-player (so UK only) called Blurred Lines deliberately referencing the Robin Thicke song, discussing the way women are portrayed in the media that argues that there is a misogynistic feedback loop happening, amplified by social media. It's giving permission to people who are misogynist to see their behaviour as acceptable because they see jokes, videos and media being "ironically" anti-feminism and think that they can follow.

This documentary was triggered by the death threats that Caroline Criado-Perez received for campaigning for women's faces on UK banknotes and the torrent of abuse received by women appearing on Newsnight, famously Professor Mary Beard but it's there for any woman on the show.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Having read a very interesting article about Caroline Criado-Perez's own tweets (which I'm trying, but struggling to find again) I'm not sure she's any kind of poster girl for how to behave on Twitter.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Oh, found it: The Hysteria of Caroline Perez.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I didn't say she was a poster girl, but the threats were bad enough to go to court.

That article also is more of the attitude shown by people like Rod Liddle, who said that women just had to 'man up' and ignore the abuse (it's in the Blurred Lines program). That was challenged by research showing that this minor Twitter abuse grows through a feedback cycle and is making women less safe and less accepted. What is actually happening is women are being pushed out of the public sphere by following those recommendations.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Yeah, you're covering yourself in glory with this, Anglican't.

Firstly, linking something which labels a woman as 'hysterical' is highly problematic. I'm going to let others tell you why if you don't know already.

Secondly, while she clearly needs a lesson from Rook as to the imaginative deployment of idiomatic Anglo-Saxon, telling someone who's just received hundreds of rape and death threats to just ignore it and calm down - well, it's not going to go down too well. Perhaps you could think of a worse situation that she should get upset over and let us know?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Privilege. Why do so many people with dicks think that people without them should put up with their abuse? Vile, horrific abuse in wholesale quantities. "Just put up with it, you hysterical bitch. We men know what's best for you so STFU."

It goes beyond sickening.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
saysay, I'm going to call you on this:

quote:
(although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).
- the evidence is that the Twittersphere and social media generally is anti-feminism, anti-women, internationally.

There's currently a BBC program on i-player (so UK only) called Blurred Lines deliberately referencing the Robin Thicke song, discussing the way women are portrayed in the media that argues that there is a misogynistic feedback loop happening, amplified by social media. It's giving permission to people who are misogynist to see their behaviour as acceptable because they see jokes, videos and media being "ironically" anti-feminism and think that they can follow.

This documentary was triggered by the death threats that Caroline Criado-Perez received for campaigning for women's faces on UK banknotes and the torrent of abuse received by women appearing on Newsnight, famously Professor Mary Beard but it's there for any woman on the show.

I thought that was a very waffly programme, though, full of anecdotal stuff. For example, Germaine Greer saying that misogyny has got worse - how does she know this? I think the internet has given misogyny greater expression, for sure, but I remember 50 or 60 years ago, and there was fierce misogyny where I lived. For example, we had men only bars.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
saysay, I'm going to call you on this:

quote:
(although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).
- the evidence is that the Twittersphere and social media generally is anti-feminism, anti-women, internationally.

That doesn't mean that no supporters of feminism will threaten those who disagree with them. That type of behavior can pop up anywhere.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the internet has given misogyny greater expression, for sure, but I remember 50 or 60 years ago, and there was fierce misogyny where I lived. For example, we had men only bars.

I would agree with this but add a modifier. That greater expression is also greater magnification. Smaller things can cause greater harm. Yes, as a society we have reduced misogyny, but the pervasive nature of our electronic world gives more weight to the troglodyte than would otherwise be the case.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
That doesn't mean that no supporters of feminism will threaten those who disagree with them. That type of behavior can pop up anywhere.

And there's something about the perceived anonymity of facebook, twitter and the like that leads people to feel able to say the foulest things online, as though all the rules of civilized behaviour are abandoned.

Now, you could argue that it is more honest, in that people say what they really think rather than what is polite, but I don't think that's even true - people often seem driven to compete to say the foullest, most offensive thing about someone, in some kind of sophomoric insult competition with their virtual "mates".

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

I'm not sure it the anonymity that gives these people courage to post the stuff they post, I'v seen stuff from people who are known to each other that would make your hair curl. I suspect it's anonymity in some cases and the 'home ground' illusion for others. Some playing to the gallery and a lot of shit stirring by bored idiots.

If we assume the best way to deal with it is to block/ ignore these people then that must apply whether the target is male or female. If we take the view that name and shame is the best way then 'manning up' is not an option but for it to work as intended it needs to be from both sexes, no use men manning up and the girls taking offence. Both must strongly react to the provocation or it just becomes another example of sexism where you get to abuse men and defer to the weaker sex.
The fact is it's the abuse that's the problem, not the target. Whichever way you handle it.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
saysay, I'm going to call you on this:

quote:
(although I have certainly learned that one cannot criticize feminism or certain female public figures without expecting that someone is going to threaten to beat and rape you).
- the evidence is that the Twittersphere and social media generally is anti-feminism, anti-women, internationally.

I'm not arguing for the universality of my experience in this area; I completely avoid the Twittersphere because it has all of the disadvantages of other social media (no context clues, etc.) and a character limit which just seems guaranteed to lead to misunderstandings and hate and disengagement (people showing off rather than actually listening to each other and engaging with other people's points). You don't have to believe me (obviously), but the fact is that some of the most vicious comments I've gotten have been in response to things like blogging my objections to Slutwalk. It seems completely bizarre to me - you'd think that feminists wouldn't engage in that sort of behavior (and given the anonymity of the internet maybe it's not even feminists doing it), but it is what it is.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I went from this threaded Twitter and found this story about someone being visited by the police after fact checking an anti UKIP Twitter meme. This worries me far more than the case in the OP.

Carys

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yeah, you're covering yourself in glory with this, Anglican't.

Firstly, linking something which labels a woman as 'hysterical' is highly problematic. I'm going to let others tell you why if you don't know already.

Secondly, while she clearly needs a lesson from Rook as to the imaginative deployment of idiomatic Anglo-Saxon, telling someone who's just received hundreds of rape and death threats to just ignore it and calm down - well, it's not going to go down too well. Perhaps you could think of a worse situation that she should get upset over and let us know?

Thank you for that.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quetzalcoatl - I think the aggressiveness of the misogyny is worse. I can think of instances where I've been youth working and heard, for example, a young lad - 16/17/18 - talking about what he'd made his girlfriend do for him sexually. He was talking to a mixed crowd, and it was all about him, nothing about her. I asked the girls later why they hadn't told him he was being selfish and abusive, and they just shrugged.

Secondly, the things the teenage boys I work with say and say they do is far more abusive than anything I remember from when I was their age, and from what I heard 10 years ago from the same age group.

Now I realise this is as anecdotal as that program, but I do get the impression that the world is more misogynist.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
From the article, it seems that he wasn't convicted simply for his comments about the teachers, but also "...countless other vile messages [which] were racially and religiously aggravated..."

The Independent reports that he 'called the Nazi death camp Auschwitz a "health spa", and suggested that Muslim babies should be drowned.' The BBC reports that he was accused of tweeting the name of the boy who has been charged with the murder.

So this doesn't seem to be about death threats.

But note the first point I made in the OP: he posted some vile stuff, but the tweet that triggered complaints was the one about Mrs Maguire.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it isn't any more offensive (to me) to tweet "he shoulda stabbed 'em all" or something like that than to tweet stuff mocking the victims of Auschwicz. The second is equally offensive to the first.

On the other hand, my view is that neither should be a criminal offense. And since something becomes a crime when it is "grossly" offensive, rather than "offensive", and the grossness of offensiveness is an entirely subjective judgement, it isn't the kind of law I want more of.

And no matter how revolted I am at some of the things posted about Professor Mary Beard, and CC-P, I don't think they should be crimes either.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I went from this threaded Twitter and found this story about someone being visited by the police after fact checking an anti UKIP Twitter meme. This worries me far more than the case in the OP.

Carys

Yes. That is a shocker, if true. What a waste of police time.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0