Freedom of speech or malicious content

Spelunker

Spelunker

Well-Known Forumite
I've just read an interesting article where a young Asian lady was sentenced to 250 hours of community service for agreeing that anyone wearing a help for heroes t shirt should expect to get beheaded.
Appalling as it is she tweeted this before it was identified that it was a member if the armed forces involved otherwise the judge said he would have jailed her.

So where do you draw the line, I agree that this is an extreme case but could a comment such as ones seen in this forum be construed by the courts in the same light .

Take for instance where a business has been named as providing a crap service do we not face the risk of the business taking action and deeming that the comments are malicious and have a resulted in a financial loss.

Where does freedom of speech end?
How far can we really go before exposing ourselves to legal censure.
 
Withnail

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Spelunker said:
... could a comment such as ones seen in this forum be construed by the courts in the same light .
Click to expand...

There was an incident, several years ago now and before i was registered upon here, of a chap who threatened some sort of massacre type event in the town centre. At least that's what i think he said, he swiftly edited it and got rather scared by the response, claiming it had been a joke.

Poor Admin had the Force at his door if memory serves, though what consequences there were i do not know. Perhaps Adders could fill us in on the rest of the story?
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Withnail said:
There was an incident, several years ago now and before i was registered upon here, of a chap who threatened some sort of massacre type event in the town centre. At least that's what i think he said, he swiftly edited it and got rather scared by the response, claiming it had been a joke.

Poor Admin had the Force at his door if memory serves, though what consequences there were i do not know. Perhaps Adders could fill us in on the rest of the story?
Click to expand...

There was a 'heat of the moment' (sort-of) bomb-threat, not so long back - that all got retracted and deleted before there was any official involvement, I believe...

I once suggested that, when I take over, there wouldn't be enough lampposts for some group (I forget which) - nothing has happened about that - so far...
 
Spelunker

Spelunker

Well-Known Forumite
It seems that now speech is not as free as we think and given the manpower required to screen social media it could be that the revelations from GCHQ aren't that far from the mark.
However the tinterweb is now getting regulated.
Prosecutions are taking place where there once were no rules and I do believe that users are unaware that the tweet or posting could get them in bother.
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Spelunker said:
It seems that now speech is not as free as we think and given the manpower required to screen social media it could be that the revelations from GCHQ aren't that far from the mark.
However the tinterweb is now getting regulated.
Prosecutions are taking place where there once were no rules and I do believe that users are unaware that the tweet or posting could get them in bother.
Click to expand...

I think since Sally Bercow got done, people are suddenly a lot more reticent on Twitter. The recent 'release of a 65-year-old man' in the Yewtree investigations was not followed by a mass 'outing' of his identity...
 
monkey bidness

monkey bidness

Well-Known Forumite
Spelunker said:
I've just read an interesting article

So where do you draw the line, I agree that this is an extreme case but could a comment such as ones seen in this forum be construed by the courts in the same light .

Take for instance where a business has been named as providing a crap service do we not face the risk of the business taking action and deeming that the comments are malicious and have a resulted in a financial loss.

Where does freedom of speech end?
How far can we really go before exposing ourselves to legal censure.
Click to expand...

Defining what is 'crap' would be key to a defence against such charges. Unfortunately on this forum some claims of poor service are ill-defined, very subjective, lack a clear viewpoint which might allow the reader to make their own judgement and , crucially lack specific facts which can be tested and/or addressed. Under these circumstances the best defence might be " My client is a Twat of the First Water M'lud and no sensible, intelligent reader would have taken this diatribe seriously!"
Also it should be taken into account just how profoundly invisible our beloved Forum is on the national/international stage and any possible Reputational and/or Commercial Damage must be minimal.
Cheers
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
monkey bidness said:
" My client is a Twat of the First Water M'lud and no sensible, intelligent reader would have taken this diatribe seriously!"
Click to expand...

That defence didn't work ( at least initially ) in the infamous Robin Hood Airport bombing tweet trial, where no sane person can have possibly believed that it was real for a millisecond. There is always the risk of 'being made an example of'.
 
monkey bidness

monkey bidness

Well-Known Forumite
Gramaisc said:
That defence didn't work ( at least initially ) in the infamous Robin Hood Airport bombing tweet trial, where no sane person can have possibly believed that it was real for a millisecond. There is always the risk of 'being made an example of'.
Click to expand...
Point taken, however may I draw m'luds attention to my last point, viz, actually audience to which our average post is exposed. Tweets can be international, whereas our 'umble posts are v parochial. ( this is not intended for one minute to cast nasturtiums on your own International Renown, your honour.)
 
Withnail

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
My understanding of the case mentioned in the OP, limited as it is to a short section on the radio news, is that it is not entirely dissimilar to the 'Robin Hood Airport' case - the woman in question was suggesting that someone wearing a 'Help for Heroes' shirt deserved to be beheaded essentially on crimes against fashion.

Crass and extremely poor taste, certainly, but a criminal offence? I'm not hugely convinced. There are comedians out there that make their living from saying such things.

Spelunker said:
... she tweeted this before it was identified that it was a member if the armed forces involved otherwise the judge said he would have jailed her.
Click to expand...
Is this bit right? I'm also failing to see why this would make it any worse.
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
People who are supposed to be protecting us will sometimes 'make an example' of someone who is actually causing no real problem in the (usually) mistaken belief that this will cause a real potential offender to think again..

..and, it looks like they've 'done something'..
 
monkey bidness

monkey bidness

Well-Known Forumite
Gramaisc said:
People who are supposed to be protecting us will sometimes 'make an example' of someone who is actually causing no real problem in the (usually) mistaken belief that this will cause a real potential offender to think again..

..and, it looks like they've 'done something'..
Click to expand...
Jobsworth Syndrome Protecting their arses
 
A

andy w

Well-Known Forumite
Whilst I class myself as a libertarian, I can't share the shock horror that GCHQ has been traweling the internet snooping on people's gibberish that they have posted, give enough rope to people and all that. What I would expect is safeguards and a system of accountability that would stop abuses of power.
Yes freedom of speech and it's limits are open for interpretation, but surely just as actions freedom must include responsibility as well.
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
The more they have access to, the more they will be swamped by the information at their disposal - just type a few 'alarming' words into the search on here and see how many hits you get...
 
Spelunker

Spelunker

Well-Known Forumite
Withnail said:
My understanding of the case mentioned in the OP, limited as it is to a short section on the radio news, is that it is not entirely dissimilar to the 'Robin Hood Airport' case - the woman in question was suggesting that someone wearing a 'Help for Heroes' shirt deserved to be beheaded essentially on crimes against fashion.

Crass and extremely poor taste, certainly, but a criminal offence? I'm not hugely convinced. There are comedians out there that make their living from saying such things.


Is this bit right? I'm also failing to see why this would make it any worse.
Click to expand...

The article was in today's i and that is what was quoted from the judge.

I think that the Internet has gone from being totally unregulated to being regulated in a haphazard way.

Do I really care if GCHQ are listening in - not really
But......

If social media is going to be policed then at least we all should be aware of the rules ( smiley face)

You would be surprised how far up this forum appears on a google search .

And how long will it be before the ambulance chasers start trawling the web for cases to make money from.
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
I don't mind too much who snoops on what, as long as they are competent - but, I do worry about the 'pretending to do a job' brigade acting beyond their abilities.

There was the case, a few years ago, of the chap in Scotland who was interviewed under caution for putting his son on eBay for a joke - and it took them eighteen months to get round to chasing him...

We've had the 'acting beyond competence' example here only lately of the the blue ribbon activists being threatened.
 
Spelunker

Spelunker

Well-Known Forumite
Here it is


Chairman of the bench, Nigel Orton, told her she could have been jailed for the tweet but magistrates accepted she had not known it was a soldier who had been killed when she sent it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top