|
|
|
|
|
5th November 2022
|
|
|
The jailing of two police officers for offensive WhatsApp messages sets a terrifying precedent. By Andrew Tettenborn See
article from spiked-online.com |
|
|
|
|
| 25th September 2022
|
|
|
But we should be careful what we wish for. Several senior lawyers are now raising concerns about this conviction. By Kate Maltby See
article from inews.co.uk |
|
When incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don't always get a police response, something is wrong
|
|
|
| 7th August 2022
|
|
| 31st July 2022. See article from reclaimthenet.org |
Hampshire Constabulary sent five police officers to arrest a man in Aldershot for a Facebook post containing an image that made Progress Pride flags (flags
that combine the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rainbow pride flag with a chevron containing the blue, pink, and white stripes of the transgender flag) look like a swastika. The image that the man was arrested for posting has been widely
shared online by thousands of social media users, including Reclaim Party leader and free speech activist Laurence Fox, who was present when the man was arrested. Harry Miller, a former UK police officer and chairman of the UK political party
Reclaim, was also arrested for attempting to obstruct the arrest of the man who posted the transgender flag swastika. Miller also accused the police of trying to shakedown the man during this visit by offering to downgrade the crime to a non-crime if
the man agreed to pay £60 and attend a Community Awareness Course that would give him a mental toolbox that will enable him to keep out of trouble in the future. Miller and the man were subsequently released without charge. According to Hampshire
Constabulary, the man was released under investigation but it will be taking no further action against him. Miller was released under investigation but inquiries are ongoing and it's still a live investigation.
Donna Jones, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and Isle of Wight, expressed concern about the proportionality and necessity of the police's response to the incident. She said: When incidents on social
media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don't always get a police response, something is wrong, Jones said. As Police Commissioner, I am committed to ensuring Hampshire Constabulary serves the
public as the majority of people would expect. It appears on this occasion this has not happened.
Jones added that she will be writing to the UK College of Policing to make them aware of the incident and encourage greater
clarification on the guidance in order to ensure that police forces can respond more appropriately in the future. Offsite Comment: When did memes become a police matter? 2nd August
2022. See article from spiked-online.com
We need to put our dimwitted, would-be Stasi back in its box. Update: Hampshire Police scraps its hate crime re-education course 7th August 2022. See
article from dailymail.co.uk
Hampshire Police were revealed to have been more or less forcing people accused of online insults to attend a hate crime re-education course or else face prosecution for the insult. Hampshire Constabulary was among three forces in the country that ran
the two-hour re-educational sessions for people accused of racism, sexism, misogyny and transphobia. The Orwellian scheme was funded out of the force's Police and Crime Commissioner's budget, but faced controversy when an army veteran was
arrested for a trivial gay pride insult which showed four LGBT pride flags positioned to make a swastika. No doubt other victims of the police harrasmment have been forced into attending but this time around the victim had contact with friends
that could generate enough publicity to get the police deservedly shamed. Donna Jones, Tory Police Commissioner for Hampshire, said that she is ending the contract with the company which manages the programme. |
|
|
|
|
| 30th January 2022
|
|
|
Slagging off Captain Tom should not be a criminal offence. By Ian O'Doherty See article from spiked-online.com |
|
|
|
|
| 18th August 2021
|
|
|
Two men have been sent down for sharing a racist video about Priti Patel. By Andrew Tettenborn See article from
spiked-online.com |
|
The Law Commission proposes law to censor internet speech that is claimed to be 'harmful'
|
|
|
| 21st July
2021
|
|
| See press release from
lawcom.gov.uk See Law Commission report [pdf] from
s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com |
The Law Commission has published recommendations to address the harms arising from online abuse . The recommendations include a coherent set of communications offences to more effectively target harmful communications while increasing protection for
freedom of expression. More than 70% of UK adults have a social media profile and internet users spend over four hours online each day on average. Whilst the online world offers important opportunities to share ideas and engage
with one another, it has also increased the scope for abuse and harm. A report by the Alan Turing institute estimates that approximately one third of people in the UK been exposed to online abuse. The recommendations, which have
been laid in Parliament, would reform the "communications offences" found in section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 ("MCA 1988") and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 ("CA 2003"). These offences do not
provide consistent protection from harm and in some instances disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression. The reforms would address the harms arising from online abuse by modernising the existing communications
offences, ensuring that the law is clearer and that it effectively targets serious harm and criminality. The recommendations aim to do this in a proportionate way in order to protect freedom of expression. They also seek to "future-proof" the
law in this area as much as possible by not confining the offences to any particular mode or type of communication. The need for reform The laws that govern online abusive behaviour are not working
as well as they should. The existing offences are ineffective at criminalising genuinely harmful behaviour and in some instances disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression. Reliance on vague terms like "grossly
offensive" and "indecent" sets the threshold for criminality too low and potentially criminalises some forms of free expression that ought to be protected. For example, consensual sexting between adults could be "indecent", but
is not worthy of criminalisation. Other behaviours such as taking part in pile-on harassment, which can be genuinely harmful and distressing are not adequately criminalised. Additionally, the law does not effectively deal with
behaviours such as cyberflashing and encouraging serious self-harm. The result is that the law as it currently stands over-criminalises in some situations and under-criminalises in others. This is what the Commission's
recommendations aim to correct. Recommendations in detail: The harm-based offence The Commission is recommending a new offence based on likely psychological harm. This will shift the focus away from
the content of a communication (and whether it is indecent or grossly offensive) toward its potentially significant harmful effects. The recommended new harm-based offence would criminalise behaviour if:
The defendant sends or posts a communication that is likely to cause harm to a likely audience in sending or posting the communication, the defendant intends to cause harm to a likely
audience the defendant sends or posts the communication without reasonable excuse .
Within the offence, harm refers to serious distress. This threshold is one well-known to the criminal law, including in offences in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Reasonable excuse would include whether the communication was
or was meant as a contribution to a matter of public interest. Media articles would be exempt from the offence. This new offence could also capture pile-on harassment -- when a number of different individuals send harassing
communications to a victim. The fact that the offence is context-specific means it could be applied where a person deliberately joins a pile-on intending to cause harm. Recommendations in detail: new offences
To complement the harm-based offence, the Law Commission has made recommendations to ensure the law is clearer and protects against a variety of abusive online behaviour.
Cyberflashing: The Sexual Offences Act 2003 should be amended to include the sending of images or video recordings of genitals, for example, "dick pics" sent via AirDrop.
To recognise the violation of a victim's sexual autonomy without their consent, the offence would require either that the defendant intends to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or if the defendant is acting for a sexual
purpose, the defendant is reckless as to whether the victim is caused alarm, distress or humiliation.
Encouragement or glorification of serious self-harm: An offence to target intentional encouragement or assistance of self-harm at a high threshold (equivalent to grievous bodily harm).
Sending flashing images with intent to induce a seizure : A specific offence for sending flashing images to people with epilepsy with the intention of inducing seizures. Knowingly false
communications : A defendant would be liable if they knowingly send or post a communication that they know to be false and they intend to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience, without a reasonable
excuse.
Threatening communications : We recommend a specific offence targeting communications that contain threats of serious harm.
It would be an offence where the defendant intends the victim to fear the threat will be carried out or the defendant is reckless as to whether the victim fears that the threat will be carried out. The
offence defines "serious harm" as including serious injury (equivalent to grievous bodily harm in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861), rape and serious financial harm.
The reforms, if enacted, involve a shift away from prohibited categories of communication (eg "grossly offensive") to focus on the harmful consequences of particular communications. Our aim is to ensure harmful
communications are appropriately addressed while providing robust protection for freedom of expression.
|
|
Repeal Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and expunge all convictions for internet insults
|
|
|
|
29th May 2021
|
|
| 16th April 2021. Sign petition from petition.parliament.uk |
Repeal Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and expunge all convictions of those whom have been persecuted under this section of the law. As well as acknowledge that the UK internet also shares our respect for peoples freedoms of speech and
expression. Over the last decade, people have been convicted [with record] under the pretence of personally/potentially grossly offensive material (of which no definition is given) over jokes and petty arguments on the internet
via social media and other platforms. It is because of the increase of these cases that a growing number of people are concerned for their own online safety and the devastating real world ramifications under this section of law, that this petition has
been created and signed.
Update: Government response 29th May 2021. The petition has received 16124 signatures and so warrants a government response as follows: We are committed to making the UK the safest place to be online
while upholding rights to freedom of expression. The Law Commission is currently reviewing harmful and abusive communications online. The Government recognises the importance of free speech, particularly in the context of online
communications. Current UK legislation protects the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, this right is qualified and may be restricted in some circumstances,
including where there may be a serious intent to cause harm or incite hatred against others. We are committed to ensuring the criminal law keeps pace with changes in technology, while also taking into account harmful
communications online. Against this background, the Government has asked the Law Commission to review existing laws related to harmful and abusive communications online. This review is considering sections 127(1) and 127(2) of the Communications Act 2003
and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, determining whether these laws need amending and updating with new offences to account for a range of harms online including pile-on abuse, cyberflashing and self-harm. Existing communications offences are important for protecting people from criminal activity, including online. However, we recognise that some elements pose problems, including vagueness in terms such as grossly offensive, obscene and indecent, which the Law Commission highlights in their consultation paper. The Law Commission's proposals are therefore an important step towards addressing such limitations.
The Law Commission has now consulted on provisional proposals for reform. They will publish final recommendations by the summer, which the Government will carefully consider. Subject to final proposals, the Government may be
minded to take these forward into legislation, where necessary and appropriate to do so. When considering potential reforms, we will guarantee strong protections for citizens from harm while upholding the right to freedom of expression.
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
|
|
Scottish police arrest a man for insulting Sir Tom Moore on Twitter
|
|
|
| 20th
February 2021
|
|
| 8th February 2021. See
article from boingboing.net See
article from bbc.co.uk |
Captain Sir Tom Moore is a retired British soldier who has been canonised by the British media for good work in fundraising for the NHS' coronavirus campaign. Of course the over the top praise has led to the occasion ironic comment, joke or even the
occasional insult. But be warned contrary views do not go down well with the police. Now a man has been charged in Lanarkshire in connection with an offensive social media tweet about Captain Sir Tom Moore. A Police Scotland spokeswoman said:
On Friday 5 February 2021, we received a report of an offensive tweet about Captain Sir Tom Moore who died on Tuesday 2 February. A 35-year-old man has subsequently been arrested and charged in connection with
communication offences and is due to appear at Lanark Sheriff Court on Wednesday 17 February. And BoingBoing notes the irony. Of course the police boasted about their arrest to the press, so now millions of people worldwide have read the
illegal tweet: The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn.
Update: Charged 20th February 2021. See article from reclaimthenet.org A Scottish man from Glasgow has
been charged over a tweet against Sir Tom Moore. The man pleaded not guilty in court. On February 3, a day after Moore's death, the man tweeted: The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella,
buuuuurn. A few days later, Kelly was charged under the Communications Act of 2003 , which prohibits the sending of electronic communications that could be deemed grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing, nature. The
decision to charge Kelly caused a stir on social media. Actor and political activist Laurence Fox tweeted: The police should do their jobs, which is to investigate actual crime, not arresting idiots who tweet idiotic
things. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any open society. Protect it, even if you don't like or agree with it.
|
|
Policeman is charged with making a joke about George Floyd on a WhatsApp group
|
|
|
| 21st
January 2021
|
|
| See article from independent.co.uk
|
A policeman has been charged with a criminal offence after allegedly sending a supposedly grossly offensive image of the arrest of George Floyd to colleagues. He will appear in court charged with sending the image by means of a public electronic
communications network, contrary to the Communications Act 2003, on May 30 last year. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said the charge against the Devon and Cornwall Police sergeant came after an altered image of George Floyd's
arrest in the US was shared within a WhatsApp group that included a number of other police officers and staff. An IOPC spokesman added that they had investigated the image after it was brought to their attention by Devon and Cornwall Police. The
officer is due to appear before Newton Abbot Magistrates' Court on January 28, the IOPC said. Of course the public aren't being allowed to judge for themselves, and the joke has been kept secret. |
|
The Law Commission is consulting on changing the much abused 'malicious communications' law that is used to prosecute internet insults
|
|
|
| 11th September
2020
|
|
| See press release from lawcom.gov.uk See
consultation paper [pdf] from s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com See
discussion of the idea in a blog from decoded.legal |
Reform of the law is needed to protect victims from harmful online behaviour including abusive messages, cyber-flashing, pile-on harassment, and the malicious sharing of information known to be false. The Law Commission is consulting on proposals to
improve the protection afforded to victims by the criminal law, while at the same time provide better safeguards for freedom of expression. In our Consultation Paper launched on 11 September 2020, we make a number of proposals for
reform to ensure that the law is clearer and effectively targets serious harm and criminality arising from online abuse. This is balanced with the need to better protect the right to freedom of expression. The proposals include:
A new offence to replace the communications offences (the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (MCA 1988) and the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003)), to criminalise behaviour where a communication would likely cause harm.
This would cover emails, social media posts and WhatsApp messages, in addition to pile-on harassment (when a number of different individuals send harassing communications to a victim). This would
include communication sent over private networks such as Bluetooth or a local intranet, which are not currently covered under the CA 2003. The proposals include introduction of the requirement of proof of likely harm.
Currently, neither proof of likely harm nor proof of actual harm are required under the existing communications offences.
Cyber-flashing -- the unsolicited sending of images or video recordings of one's genitals -- should be included as a sexual offence under section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This would ensure that additional
protections for victims are available. Raising the threshold for false communications so that it would only be an offence if the defendant knows the post is false, they are intending to cause non-trivial emotional,
psychological, or physical harm, and if they have no excuse.
The consultation period will run until 18 December 2020.
|
|
But presumably it is all worthwhile so as to hype up 'online harms' and the need for a UK internet censor
|
|
|
| 30th December 2019
|
|
| See article
from dailymail.co.uk |
Britain's first police unit for tackling supposed online hate crime has brought charges against less than 1% of the cases it has investigated. Scotland Yard's online hate crime hub has logged 1,851 incidents since its launch in April 2017 and 17
cases, or 0.92%, resulted in charges. And of those seven have led to prosecutions, Freedom of Information figures show. There are three more cases pending a charging decision from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The £1.7million scheme, launched
by London mayor Sadiq Khan, has however resulted in 59 being given youth referrals, harassment warnings or have been noted as apologising. The Metropolitan Police said the £326,344 needed for the pilot year of the hub was funded by the Mayor's Office
for Policing and Crime (MOPAC). Following the trial, a unit of five officers led by a detective inspector was given a £323,829 budget for 2018/19 and £363,000 in 2019/20 by the police force. Scotland Yard said the unit now deals with both online and
offline cases, reviewing every hate crime reported to the Met on a daily basis. The low number of charges is thought to be due to the high CPS charging threshold for online hate, and the difficulties investigators face in obtaining information from
social media companies. |
|
BBC 3 documentary The Nazi Pug: Joke or Hate?
|
|
|
|
6th August 2019
|
|
| See article from patheos.com See
docuenatary from bbc.co.uk |
The Nazi Pug: Joke or Hate? is a BBC 3 documentary. Markus Meechan (known on YouTube as Count Dankula) is the victim of a travesty of justice as he was found guilty of posting a YouTube video judged grossly offensive and containing
menacing, anti-Semitic and racist material. The video was a joke. but what does the prosecution of a YouTube comedian mean for freedom of expression. The BBC asks: is a censorious state overstepping the mark? Or are there some things you just shouldn't
joke about? BAFTA-nominated filmmaker Dan Murdoch (Britain's Forgotten Men; KKK: The Fight for White Supremacy) returns with this documentary following Markus as he explores London's comedy scene, to see what stand-ups can get away with, and why
there's a backlash against edgy humour. Matthew Berlow, of Glasgow Friends of Israel, said of the BBC documentary: Are we really at the stage when we can now laugh at the painful deaths of six million human
beings and call it edgy comedy?
Berlow has also called on YouTube to remove the original Count Dankula joke video that has
know been viewed 4.3 million times. He claimed that YouTube is perpetuating the crime that Meechan was convicted of. |
|
Chelsea Russell's ridiculous conviction for quoting rap lyrics quashed on appeal
|
|
|
|
27th February 2019
|
|
| See article from spiked-online.com
|
In 2017, Chelsea Russell, a Liverpool teenager with Asperger's syndrome, paid tribute on her Instagram profile to a 13-year-old friend who died when he was hit by a car. She quoted the lyrics of a rap song, I'm Trippin" by Snap Dogg,
alongside the phrase 'RIP Frankie Murphy. Many other teenagers used the lyrics to pay tribute to Murphy. A year later, Russell's profile came to the attention of the police, who decided to arrest her and have her charged. The lyrics she quoted Kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga
were found in court to be grossly offensive and Russell was convicted of a hate crime . For nothing more than quoting rap lyrics, she was placed on an eight-week, 8am-to-8pm curfew, fitted with an ankle tag, and fined £585. Last week, the
conviction was overturned on appeal. Russell's defence lawyer slammed the initial verdict as ridiculous, akin to the actions of a totalitarian state. Offsite Comment: Chelsea Russell and the depravity of PC
27th February 2019. See article from spiked-online.com by Fraser Myers
|
|
Conviction of holocaust denial being grossly offensive upheld on appeal
|
|
|
| 13th February
2019
|
|
| See article from bbc.co.uk |
A musician found guilty of broadcasting grossly offensive anti-Semitic songs has had her conviction upheld. Alison Chabloz has written many politically incorrect, humorous and insulting songs often targeted at jews but also more generally against the
PC establishment. The songs have been published on many internet platforms including YouTube. In May she was convicted of three charges relating to the songs and was given a suspended jail sentence by magistrates which she appealed against.
A judge at Southwark Crown Court has upheld her conviction ruling the content was particularly repellent. In the songs Chabloz suggested the Holocaust was a bunch of lies and referred to Auschwitz as a theme park. Chabloz was convicted of two
counts of sending an offensive, indecent or menacing message through a public communications network and a third charge relating to a song on YouTube. She was sentenced to 20 weeks' imprisonment, suspended for two years and banned from social
media for 12 months. During the appeal Adrian Davies, defending, told judge Christopher Hehir: It would be a very, very strong thing to say that a criminal penalty should be imposed on someone for singing in polemical terms about matters on which
she feels so strongly. The case started as a private prosecution by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism before the Crown Prosecution Service took over. The group's chairman, Gideon Falter, said: This is the first conviction in the UK over Holocaust
denial on social media. |
|
MPs suggest that internet insults should be punished with a career ending registration on a new internet insults offenders database
|
|
|
| 22nd January 2019
|
|
| See article from
telegraph.co.uk |
People convicted of insulting people online should be named and shamed on a government register of offenders under new laws to censor social media, says an all-party committee of MPs. The Commons petitions committee claimed new laws were needed to
combat online harms because current legislation was not fit for purpose and self-regulation by the social media firms had failed. The committee was responding to a petition, backed by more than 220,000 people, from reality TV star and model Katie
Price who demanded new online laws and a register of offenders after her disabled son, Harvey, was viciously trolled for his condition, colour and size. The MPs believe a criminal law, which covered online abuse and included proper recognition of
hate crimes against disabled people, will achieve what the petition is looking for from a register, as criminal convictions will show up as part of a Disclosure and Barring Service check, said the MPs. The committee said a high proportion of
abusive content related to football with most shockingly the name of Harvey Price used by fans as an insult for someone's ability as a footballer. |
|
The Law Commission seems to side with the easily offended and seeks to extend the criminalisation of internet insults
|
|
|
|
4th November 2018
|
|
| See press release
from lawcom.gov.uk See scoping report |
Reforms to the law are required to protect victims from online and social media-based abuse, according to a new Report by the Law Commission for England and Wales. In its Scoping Report assessing the
state of the law in this area, published today [1st November 2018] the Law Commission raises concerns about the lack of coherence in the current criminal law and the problems this causes for victims, police and prosecutors. It is also critical of the
current law's ability to protect people harmed by a range of behaviour online including:
- Receiving abusive and offensive communications
- "Pile on" harassment, often on social media
- Misuse of private images and information
The Commission is calling for:
- reform and consolidation of existing criminal laws dealing with offensive and abusive communications online
- a specific review considering how the law can more effectively protect victims who
are subject to a campaign of online harassment
- a review of how effectively the criminal law protects personal privacy online
Professor David Ormerod QC, Law Commissioner for Criminal Law said: "As the internet and social media have become an everyday part of our lives, online abuse has become
commonplace for many." "Our report highlights the ways in which the criminal law is not keeping pace with these technological changes. We identify the areas of the criminal law most in need of reform in
order to protect victims and hold perpetrators to account." Responding to the Report, Digital Minister Margot James said: "Behaviour that is
illegal offline should be treated the same when it's committed online. We've listened to victims of online abuse as it's important that the right legal protections are in place to meet the challenges of new technology.
"There is much more to be done and we'll be considering the Law Commission's findings as we develop a White Paper setting out new laws to make the UK a safer place to be online. Jess Phillips MP,
Chair, and Rt Hon Maria Miller MP, Co-Chair, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Domestic Violence and Abuse and Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of Women's Aid, welcomed the Report saying: "Online
abuse has a devastating impact on survivors and makes them feel as though the abuse is inescapable. Online abuse does not happen in the 'virtual world' in isolation; 85% of survivors surveyed by Women's Aid experienced a pattern of online abuse together
with offline abuse. Yet too often it is not taken as seriously as abuse 'in the real world'. "The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Domestic Violence and Abuse has long called for legislation in this area to be
reviewed to ensure that survivors are protected and perpetrators of online abuse held to account. We welcome the Law Commission's report, which has found that gaps and inconsistencies in the law mean survivors are being failed. We support the call for
further review and reform of the law". The need for reform We were asked to assess whether the current criminal law achieved parity of treatment between online and
offline offending. For the most part, we have concluded that abusive online communications are, at least theoretically, criminalised to the same or even a greater degree than equivalent offline offending. However, we consider there is considerable scope
for reform:
- Many of the applicable offences do not adequately reflect the nature of some of the offending behaviour in the online environment, and the degree of harm it can cause.
- Practical and cultural
barriers mean that not all harmful online conduct is pursued in terms of criminal law enforcement to the same extent that it might be in an offline context.
- More generally, criminal offences could be improved so they
are clearer and more effectively target serious harm and criminality.
- The large number of overlapping offences can cause confusion.
- Ambiguous terms such as "gross
offensiveness" "obscenity" and "indecency" don't provide the required clarity for prosecutors.
Reforms would help to reduce and tackle, not only online abuse and offence generally but also:
- "Pile on" harassment , where online harassment is coordinated against an individual. The Report notes that "in practice, it appears that the criminal law is having little effect in punishing and deterring
certain forms of group abuse".
- The most serious privacy breaches -- for example the Report highlights concerns about the laws around sharing of private sexual images. It also questions whether the law is
adequate to deal with victims who find their personal information e.g. about their health or sexual history, widely spread online.
Impact on victims The Law Commission heard from those affected by this kind of criminal behaviour including victims' groups, the charities that support them, MPs and other high-profile victims.
The Report analyses the scale of online offending and suggests that studies show that the groups in society most likely to be affected by abusive communications online include women, young people, ethnic minorities
and LGBTQ individuals. For example, the Report finds that gender-based online hate crime, particularly misogynistic abuse, is particularly prevalent and damaging. It also sets out the factors which make online
abuse so common -- including the disinhibition of communicating with an unseen victim and the ease with which victims can be identified. The Report highlights harms caused to the victims of online abuse which include:
- psychological effects, such as depression and anxiety
- emotional harms, such as feelings of shame, loneliness and distress
- physiological harms, including
suicide and self-harm in the most extreme cases
- exclusion from public online space and corresponding feelings of isolation
- economic harms
- wider societal harms
It concludes that abuse by groups of offenders online, and the use of visual images to perpetrate abuse are two of the ways in which online abuse can be aggravated. Next steps
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) will now analyse the Report and decide on the next steps including what further work the Law Commission can do to produce recommendations for how the criminal law can be
improved to tackle online abuse. Comment: Law Commission must safeguard freedom of expression See
statement from indexoncensorship.org
Index on Censorship urges the Law Commission to safeguard freedom of expression as it moves towards the second phase of its review of abusive and offensive online communications. The Law Commission
published a report on the first phase of its review of criminal law in this area on 1 November
2018. While Index welcomes the report's recognition that current UK law lacks clarity and certainty, the review is addressing questions that impact directly on freedom of expression and the Law Commission should now proceed with
great caution. Safeguarding the fundamental right to freedom of expression should be a guiding principle for the the Law Commission's next steps. Successive court rulings have confirmed that freedom of expression includes having
and expressing views that offend, shock or disturb. As Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley said in a 1999 ruling: "Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
Foreign Secretary
Jeremy Hunt also reaffirmed the UK's commitment to the protection and promotion of
freedom of expression this week , asserting the importance of a free media in particular as a cornerstone of democracy. The next phase of the review should outline how the UK can show global leadership by setting an example
for how to improve outdated legislation in a way that ensures freedom of expression, including speech that is contentious, unwelcome and provocative. Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg said:
"Index will be studying the Law Commission's first phase report on its review of abusive and offensive online communications carefully. Future proposals could have a very negative impact on freedom of expression online and in
other areas. Index urges the Law Commission to proceed with care." |
|
Rank and file police in the UK are frustrated about being assign to sort out internet insults rather than burglary
|
|
|
|
24th September 2018
|
|
| See article from
newkerala.com
|
The new head of the Police Federation John Apter, who represents 120,000 rank and file officers across England and Wales, has said his members were incredibly frustrated because they have been assigned to sorting out social media spats rather than
tackling more serious crimes like burglary. The new head explained that while resourcing remained the main issue facing policing, there was also a lack of common sense when it came to priorities. Last week it emerged that Yorkshire Police
had asked people to report insults on social media, even if they were not considered to be a hate crime. Other forces have been criticised recently for using computer programmes rather than experienced officers to decide whether a burglary is worth
investigating. Such initiatives have led to criticism of the police and the observation that the service is out of touch with the public. But Apter said nobody was more frustrated than police officers when they were prevented from attending
burglaries and other serious crimes. Burglary is one of the most intrusive, horrible crimes that a householder can go through. It makes you feel incredibly vulnerable, but people can sometimes wait days for a police response, Apter said.
|
|
Count Dankula's application to appeal against his conviction for an internet joke is refused
|
|
|
| 9th
August 2018
|
|
| See article from independent.co.uk
See The Britisher's impassioned response to the decision from YouTube See
Count Dankula's M8 Yur Dug's a Nazi video from YouTube |
A man who suffered a miscarriage of justice after being convicted for a joke has been refused permission to appeal against a conviction for supposedly causing gross offence. Mark Meechan, who blogs under the name Count Dankula, was fined £800
in April after being found guilty under the Communications Act over a video joke in which he trained his girlfriend's dog to perform Nazi salutes. A letter from the court claimed the appeal was not arguable and in each of its elements is
wholly misconceived. It also dismissed arguments made by Meechan's lawyers over the judge's handling of witness evidence at Airdrie Sheriff Court in March and the meaning of grossly offensive. The letter said: The
appeal against conviction is without merit. Likewise the appeal against sentence is not arguable -- this was a deeply unpleasant offence in which disgraceful and utterly offensive material was very widely distributed by the appellant, it said. This was
to the considerable distress of the community in question and -- just as disturbingly -- to the apparent approval of a large number of persons who appear to share the appellant's racist views. Indeed it must be observed that in
the circumstance the appellant was fortunate that the learned sheriff was not considering custody as an option.
|
|
Judge decides that free speech is no defence for an offensive message and so holocaust denial is now a criminal offence
|
|
|
| 27th May 2018
|
|
| See article from independent.co.uk
|
A woman has been convicted for performing offensive songs that included lyrics denying the Holocaust. Alison Chabloz sang her compositions at a meeting of the far-right London Forum group. A judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court found Chabloz
had violated laws criminalising offence and intended to insult Jewish people. District judge John Zani delayed her sentencing until 14 June but told the court: On the face of it this does pass the custody threshold. Chabloz, a Swiss-British
dual national, had uploaded tunes to YouTube including one defining the Nazi death camp Auschwitz as a theme park just for fools and the gas chambers a proven hoax. The songs remain available on YouTube. The songs were partly set to traditional
Jewish folk music, with lyrics like: Did the Holocaust ever happen? Was it just a bunch of lies? Seems that some intend to pull the wool over our eyes. Adrian Davies, defending, previously told the judge his ruling would be a landmark one, setting
a precedent on the exercise of free speech. But Judge Zani said Chabloz failed by some considerable margin to persuade the court that her right to freedom of speech should provide her with immunity from prosecution. He said:
I am entirely satisfied that she will have intended to insult those to whom the material relates. Having carefully considered all evidence received and submissions made, I am entirely satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Chabloz was convicted of two counts of causing an offensive, indecent or menacing message to be sent over a public communications network after performing two songs at a London Forum
event in 2016. As there wa nothing indecent or menacing in the songs, Chabloz was convicted for an offensive message. See The Britisher for an eloquent and
passionate defence of free speech. |
|
Merseyside police warn people about bad taste posts about Alfie Evans
|
|
|
| 27th
April 2018
|
|
| see Merseyside Police Facebook Page |
Mersey side police have threatend We've issued the following statement following reports of social media posts being made in relation to Alder Hey Hospital and the ongoing situation with Alfie Evans: Chief
Inspector Chris Gibson said: Merseyside Police has been made aware of a number of social media posts which have been made with reference to Alder Hey Hospital and the ongoing situation involving Alfie Evans. I would like to make
people aware that these posts are being monitored and remind social media users that any offences including malicious communications and threatening behaviour will be investigated and where necessary will be acted upon. |
|
Free speech hero Count Dankula fined 800 pounds for Nazi pug Youtube gag
|
|
|
| 24th April 2018
|
|
| 23rd April 2018 2018. See article from dailyrecord.co.uk |
Youtuber Count Dankula who filmed his girlfriend's pet dog doing a Nazi salute has been fined £800. Mark Meechan was sentenced at Airdrie Sheriff Court after he was found guilty last month of a 'hate crime'. He recorded his girlfriend's
pug, Buddha, responding to statements such as gas the Jews and Sieg Heil by raising its paw during the footage called M8 Yur Dug's a Nazi . The original Youtube video had been viewed more than three million times on YouTube. Surely
free speech has dropped to a new low in Britain but the widespread disquiet at the verdict may have helped keep Count Dankula out of prison.
Free speech campaigners orgainised a protest in London to coincide with the announcement of the sentencing. See video from YouTube
Update: Sheriff's comments 24th April 2018. See article from
dailymail.co.uk Sheriff O'Carroll had told the court he did not believe Meechan had made the video only to annoy his girlfriend and ruled it was anti-Semitic. Fining Meechan, he said: You deliberately chose
the Holocaust as the theme of the video. I also found it proved that the video contained anti-Semitic, and racist material, in that it explicitly and exclusively referred to Jews, the Holocaust and the role of the Nazis in the
death of six million Jews in a grossly offensive manner. You knew or must have known that. The social work report on you is important. It is very favourable to you and, leaving aside the circumstances of this offence, shows you to
have led a generally pro-social life thus far. It also shows that you have learned a certain amount from your experiences and that you are of low risk of reoffending. In these circumstances, I rule out a
custodial sentence and therefore any alternative to a custodial sentence. You have a certain amount of income and other resources according to the reports. I now fine you the sum of 2£800.
Offsite Comment: Count
Dankula and the death of free speech 24th April 2018. See article from blogs.spectator.co.uk by Brendan O'Neill
On freedom of speech, Britain has become the laughing stock of the Western world. People actually laugh at us. I recently gave a talk in Brazil on political correctness and I told the audience about the arrest and conviction of a Scottish man for
publishing a video of his girlfriend's pug doing a Nazi salute for a joke and they laughed. Loudly. Some of them refused to believed it was true. Read the full
article from blogs.spectator.co.uk
|
|
Count Dankula wittily points out that, despite what the court sheriff thinks, context matters
|
|
|
| 24th April 2018
|
|
| See video from YouTube |
Free speech hero Count Dankula got one over on a news reporter from Sky who wanted to do his boot to stick the establishment boot in. Count Dankula was well up for the challenge and wiped Mr snotty's nose into the ground. See
video from YouTube |
|
Woman convicted for commonly used racial insults from a rap song, that are then ramped up to 'hate' crimes by the personal perception of the investigating police officer
|
|
|
| 23rd April 2018
|
|
| Thanks to Nick 21st April 2018. See article from talkradio.co.uk
See lyrics from genius.com See video from YouTube
|
A woman from Liverpool has been found guilty of sending a supposedly grossly offensive message after posting rap lyrics on Instagram. The post referenced lyrics from Snap Dogg's I'm Trippin' to pay tribute to a 13-year-old boy who had died in a
road crash in 2017. It is not clear exactly which words were deemed to 'hate crimes' but the words 'bitch' and 'nigga' seem to be the only relevant candidates. Merseyside Police were anonymously sent a screenshot of the woman's Instagram update
(on a public profile), which was received by hate crime unit PC Dominique Walker. PC Walker told the court the term the woman had used was grossly offensive to her as a black woman and to the general community. The Liverpool Echo reported that the
woman's defence had argued the usage of the word had changed over time and it had been used by superstar rapper Jay-Z in front of thousands of people at the Glastonbury Festival. The woman was given an eight-week community order, placed on an
eight-week curfew and fined £585. Prosecutors said her sentence was increased from a fine to a community order as it was a 'hate crime'.
Offsite Comment: Now it's a crime to quote rap lyrics? Censorship in Britain is out of control. See article from spiked-online.com By
Andrew Doyle So we are facing the bizarre situation in which a teenager has been given an eight-week community order and curfew because one police officer perceives a black musician's work to be inherently racist.
Offsite Video: Liverpool hate speech verdict See video from YouTube By The Britisher, An eloquent examination of yet another
British free speech failure. Update: The Death of free speech See article from
blogs.spectator.co.uk by Brendan O'Neill
Brendan O'Neill notes that these are the lyrics she quoted: Off a whole gram of molly, and my bitch think I'm trippin. Now I'm clutchin' on my forty, all I can think about is drillin''. I hate fuck shit, slap a
bitch nigga, kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga.'
O'Neill comments: We now live under a bizarre tyranny of self-esteem, where hurt feelings can lead to court cases, and where the easily offended
can marshal the state to crush those who dared to offend them. An unholy marriage between our wimpish offence-taking culture and a state desperate to be seen as caring and purposeful has nurtured an insidious new censorship that targets everything from
comedy and rap to criticism of Islam or strongly stated political views.
|
|
|
|
|
| 12th
April 2018
|
|
|
David Baddiel on the disgraceful prosecution of Count Dankula See article from the-tls.co.uk |
|
|
|
|
|
5th April 2018
|
|
|
Shame on those comedians who are siding with the courts against Count Dankula. By Andrew Doyle See article
from spiked-online.com |
|
Scottish court convicts YouTuber Count Dankula over Nazi dog joke
|
|
|
| 25th March 2018
|
|
| 22nd March 2018. See article from bbc.com See
article from standard.co.uk See
Youtube video: M8 Yur Dogs A Nazi from YouTube |
A man who filmed a pet dog giving Nazi salutes before putting the footage on YouTube has been convicted of committing a hate crime. Mark Meechan recorded his girlfriend's pug, Buddha, responding to statements such as gas the Jews and Sieg Heil by
raising its paw. It is interesting to note that the British press carefully avoided informing readers of Meechan's now well known Youtube name, Count Dankula. The original clip had been viewed more than three million times on YouTube. It is
still online on Youtube albeit in restricted mode where it is not included in searches and comments are not accepted. Meechan went on trial at Airdrie Sheriff Court where he denied any wrong doing. He insisted he made the video, which was posted
in April 2016, to annoy his girlfriend Suzanne Kelly, 29. But Sheriff Derek O'Carroll found him guilty of a charge under the Communications Act that he posted a video on social media and YouTube which O'Carroll claimed to be grossly offensive
because it was anti-semitic and racist in nature and was aggravated by religious prejudice. Meechan will be sentenced on 23rd April but has hinted in social media that court officials are looking into some sort of home arrest option. Comedian Ricky Gervais took to Twitter to comment on the case after the verdict. He tweeted:
A man has been convicted in a UK court of making a joke that was deemed 'grossly offensive'. If you don't believe in a person's right to say things that you might find 'grossly offensive', then you don't believe in
Freedom of Speech.
Yorkshire MP Philip Davies has demanded a debate on freedom of speech. Speaking in the House of Commons, hesaid: We guard our freedom of speech in this House very dearly
indeed...but we don't often allow our constituents the same freedoms. Can we have a debate about freedom of speech in this country - something this country has long held dear and is in danger of throwing away needlessly?
Andrea
Leadsom, leader of the Commons, responded that there are limits to free speech: I absolutely commend (Mr Davies) for raising this very important issue. We do of course fully support free speech ...HOWEVER...
there are limits to it and he will be aware there are laws around what you are allowed to say and I don't know the circumstances of his specific point, but he may well wish to seek an adjournment debate to take this up directly with ministers.
Comment: Freedom of expression includes the right to offend
See article from indexoncensorship.org Index on Censorship condemns the decision by a
Scottish court to convict a comedian of a hate crime for teaching his girlfriend's dog a Nazi salute. Mark Meechan, known as Count Dankula, was found guilty on Tuesday of being grossly offensive, under the UK's Communications Act
of 2003. Meechan could be sentenced with up to six months in prison and be required to pay a fine. Index disagrees fundamentally with the ruling by the Scottish Sheriff Appeals Court. According to the Daily Record, Judge Derek
O'Carroll ruled: The description of the video as humorous is no magic wand. This court has taken the freedom of expression into consideration. But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility. Defending everyone's right to free
speech must include defending the rights of those who say things we find shocking or offensive Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg said: Numerous rulings by British and European courts have affirmed that freedom of
expression includes the right to offend. Defending everyone's right to free speech must include defending the rights of those who say things we find shocking or offensive. Otherwise the freedom is meaningless. One of the most
noted judgements is from a 1976 European Court of Human Rights case, Handyside v. United Kingdom, which found: Freedom of expression206is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a
matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.
Video Comment: Count Dankula has been found guilty See video from YouTube by The Britisher A powerful video response to another step in the
decline of British free speech. Offsite Comment : Hate-speech laws help only the powerful 23rd March 2018. See
article from spiked-online.com by Alexander Adams
Talking to the press after the judgement, Meechan said today, context and intent were completely disregarded. He explained during the trial that he was not a Nazi and that he had posted the video to annoy his girlfriend. Sheriff Derek O'Carroll declared
the video anti-Semitic and racist in nature. He added that the accused knew that the material was offensive and knew why it was offensive. The original investigation was launched following zero complaints from the public. Offensiveness apparently depends
on the sensitivity of police officers and judges. ...Read the full article from spiked-online.com
Offsite: Giving offence is both inevitable and often necessary in a plural society 25th March 2018. See
article from theguardian.com by Kenan Malik
Even the Guardian can find a space for disquiet about the injustice in the Scottish Count Dankula case. |
|
Humberside police launch a one sided prosecution of an innocent man who joked about gypsies, just so that they can virtue signal about how seriously they take hate crime
|
|
|
| 29th January 2018
|
|
| See article from dailymail.co.uk
|
Joshua North, who was prosecuted by Humberside police with the help of counter-terror experts, has been cleared by a jury over his satirical Facebook post where he called for national batter gypos day. A costs order in North's favour will be made.
North had responded on Facebook after national news reported that travellers had caused trouble in Cleethorpes. North said he made the statement to mock other people's 'hateful comments'. North said the case had led to almost two years of hell for
him and his family and noted that there was no investigation into my side of the story. After he was cleared of inciting racial hatred Joshua North, from Cleethorpes, blasted the decision to prosecute him as
political correctness gone mad. He said: I told the police, if you check all my other Facebook posts, it indicates that I'm very friendly to immigrants, other races and religions.
The decision
to prosecute was criticised by North's lawyer who said the case had been brought with 'the full force of the resources of the counter-terrorism unit'. He said: I am disappointed that the prosecution, who had the full
force of the resources of the counter-terrorism unit behind them, did not at any point consider what kind of a person Joshua actually is. Had they spent any time thinking about him, looking at his other posts or even considering
the possibility of another interpretation other than that they fixed upon, it would have occurred to them that Joshua is the last person to incite racial hatred. Instead, they fixed on an interpretation and they refused to
consider any other possibility even after he had advanced his position in interview. What we have is a young, kind, decent, liberal, broad-minded man who works hard and who has been put through hell.
After the
case concluded, Humberside Police defended its decision to charge North, stating it takes hate crime allegations seriously.
|
|
London Mayor sets up police unit to censor online insults and hate crime
|
|
|
| 29th April 2017
|
|
| See article from bbc.co.uk |
A police unit to censor online insult and hate crime has been launched by London's mayor, Sadiq Khan. The Online Hate Crime Hub is made up of five Met police officers who will try to identify, prevent and investigate online abuse. Sadiq Khan said
officers would work with community 'experts' to develop the police's understanding of online hate . The unit will cost £1.7m over two years. It is being funded by the Met and the Mayor's Office for Policing And Crime (MOPAC), with £452,000
also being contributed by the Home Office Police Innovation Fund.I Any online insult and hate crimes on the likes of Twitter and Facebook will be looked into by the unit. City Hall said discussions were also under way with social media
companies to develop appropriate online sanctions for perpetrators of online hate .
Offsite Comment: All hail Sadiq Khan's new Ministry of Truth 29th April 2017 See article from spiked-online.com
by Guy Burchall This is a deeply sinister and censorious move. But what's most worrying is that for something to be labelled a hate crime , it only has to be labelled as such by the alleged victim. ...Read the
full article from spiked-online.com |
|
The Crown Persecution Service outlines changes to widen the scope of prosecutions for insults on the internet
|
|
|
| 11th October
2016
|
|
| See article from theregister.co.uk See
Guidelines for prosecuting social media communications from cps.gov.uk See
public consultations on CPS policy from cps.gov.uk |
Social media users who encourage flame wars or retweet the doxing (revealing identifying information with malicious intent) of others are set to be punished more severely by British prosecutors. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)'s latest Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media
target doxing, online mobs, fake social media profiles and other social media misbehaviour. Also included in the latest version of the guidance is a specific encouragement to prosecutors to charge those who egg on others to break social media
speech laws. Those who encourage others to commit a communications offence may be charged with encouraging an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007, warns the guidance. In a Kafka-esque twist, the guidance also includes this chilling
line, discussing how prosecutors can prove the criminal offence of sending a grossly offensive message, under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: The offence is committed by sending the message. There is
no requirement that any person sees the message or be offended by it.
Another nasty touch is that the CPS will allow victims to decide whether crimes are deemed to be 'hate crimes' and therefore attract more severe penalties. The
CPS policy consultation defines race/religion hate crimes as follows: Crimes involving hostility on the basis of race or religion The reporting and prosecution of hate crime are shaped by
two definitions; one is subjective and is based on the perception of the victim and the other is objective and relies on supporting evidence. Both the subjective and objective definitions refer to hostility, not hatred. There is
no statutory definition of hostility and the everyday or dictionary definition is applied, encompassing a broad spectrum of behaviour. We have an agreed definition with the police for identifying and flagging cases involving
hostility on the basis of race or religion. The joint definition is: Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or
religion or perceived race or religion.
The equivalent paragraph an disability hate crime adds explaining how the CPS has waved its hands and extended the scope: This definition is
wider than the statutory definition, to ensure we capture all relevant cases:
The guidance also encourages prosecutors to treat social media crimes committed against persons serving the public more seriously than nasty words
directed against their fellow members of the public. Similarly, coordinated attacks by different people should also attract greater prosecutorial attention. Prosecution in all cases is said to be less likely if swift and effective action
has been taken by the suspect and/or others, for example service providers, to remove the communication . |
|
Former minister of censorship and political correctness calls for more prosecutions for internet insults
|
|
|
| 14th April
2016
|
|
| See article from
theguardian.com |
Maria Miller, the Conservative former culture secretary and equalities minister has claimed that Britain needs better internet laws to stop online abuse that may be creating a nightmare for society in future. Now the chair of the Commons women and
equalities committee, she said the government needed to wake up to some of the problems the internet was creating, from vile abuse on social media to easy sharing of violent explicit images among young people. In 2014, ministers quadrupled the
maximum six-month prison term for internet insults to two years. The time limit for prosecutions has also been extended to three years. Miller now says that the laws around insult and harm on the internet could be updated further and internet
companies could do more to act against threatening and abusive material online. She claimed: We need better laws and we need better enforcement. Government needs to stop allowing internet providers from hiding behind
arguments about the protection of free speech. The problem is rooted in the fact that many internet companies won't acknowledge that they can challenge, and should stop, criminal behaviour, saying they are just like the postal
service and can't help that people use their services for criminal activity, that it's not their problem. It is their problem and we need to sit up, take notice and realise that we are creating a nightmare future. People are
unleashing their inner venom in a way I just do not think is healthy for society. We have got to have an honest debate about this. Too many people in government are saying it is all about freedom of speech and it is not.
|
|
Police chief calls for a simplification of law concerning online insults so that it is clearer when a crime is being committed
|
|
|
| 6th March 2016
|
|
| See article from theguardian.com
|
The chief constable of Essex has called for new legislation to tackle an unimagined scale of online abuse that he clains is threatening to overwhelm the police service. Stephen Kavanagh argues it is necessary to consolidate and simplify offences
committed online to improve the chance of justice for tens of thousands of victims: There are crimes now taking place -- the malicious use of intimate photographs for example -- which we never would have imagined as an
offence when I was a PC in the 80s. It's not just the nature of it, it is the sheer volume. The levels of abuse that now take place within the internet are on a level we never really expected. If we did try to deal with all of it
we would clearly be swamped. No police chief would claim the way we deliver police services has sufficiently adapted to the new threat and harms that the internet brings
A group of cross-party MPs will
introduce a private member's bill into parliament on Wednesday to update the law on cyber-enabled crime. The draft legislation, being introduced by Liz Saville Roberts, a Plaid Cymru MP, calls for a review and consolidation into one act of all the
legislation currently being used against digital crime. It also calls for new powers to outlaw the use of spyware or webcams on digital devices without permission. There are currently more than 30 pieces of legislation currently being used against
online crimes. These include the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Malicious Communications Act 1988, Communications Act 2003, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, Crime and Disorder
Act 1998, Computer Misuse Act 1990, and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. [What a nightmare it would be if the police got involved a wider remit of online insult. Injustice would surely prevail with the police always taking sides with the
complainant. People would be quick to use false or trivial claims to settle scores with the ability to get people into serious trouble for minor insults or political incorrectness etc]. |
|
1209 people were convicted last year for internet insults
|
|
|
| 27th November
2015
|
|
| From telegraph.co.uk |
Last year, 1,209 people were found guilty of offences of internet insult under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. It is a crime under the Communications Act to send by means of a public electronic communications network a message or
other material that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character . Statistics released by the Ministry of 'Justice' (MoJ) show that 1,501 defendants were prosecuted under the law last year - including 70 juveniles -
while another 685 were cautioned. Of those convicted, 155 were jailed - compared to just seven a decade before. The average custodial sentence was 2.2 months. The MoJ figures also revealed a rise in the number of convictions under the Malicious
Communications Act, which states that it is an offence to send a threatening, offensive or indecent letter, electronic communication or article with the intent to cause distress or anxiety. |
|
Asking parents not teach their kids the truth that the police will take them off to jail, say for internet insults
|
|
|
| 25th May
2015
|
|
| See
article from
dailymail.co.uk |
So in a week where the police ARE threatening to jail innocent kids for sexting, they are asking parents not to teach their kids that the police will take them away if they are naughty. Many an exasperated parent has told their misbehaving child to be
good or the police will put them in prison. But now one police force has issued a poster urging adults not to use this common threat. The poster from Durham Constabulary reads: Parents. Please don't tell your children
that we will take them off to jail if they are bad. We want them to run to us if they are scared, not be scared of us. Thank You.
However the kids would be better advised to keep clear of the police lest they get locked up for
sexting, bad taste jokes, or even just insulting posts on Twitter or Facebook. For example jailing them for internet insults 25th May 2015. See
article from
dailymail.co.uk
The number of prosecutions of internet trolls has soared eightfold in the last 10 years, according to new figures. More than 1,200 people were found guilty of offences under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 last year compared with
143 in 2004. The law states it is illegal to send by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other material that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character . Statistics
released by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) show that 1,501 defendants were prosecuted under the law last year - including 70 juveniles - while another 685 were cautioned. Of those convicted, 155 were jailed - compared with just seven a decade
before- and the average custodial sentence was 2.2 months. |
|
Disgraceful police persecute young man over bad taste joke on Twitter
|
|
|
| 26th December 2014
|
|
| See article from
chortle.co.uk |
A young man has been arrested after allegedly tweeting a bad taste joke about the Glasgow bin lorry crash. The man reportedly handed himself in to police after a number of whinges were made about the joke. He is alleged to have written:
So a bin lorry has crashed into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash its ever picked up in one day that.
Northumbria Police made the ludicrous claim that the joke was 'a malicious
communication', and the persecution has not stopped at the arrest. The police investigation is continuing and the victim has been bailed pending further inquiries. |
|
Government proposed to increase the penalty for internet insult to 2 years in jail
|
|
|
| 22nd October 2014
|
|
| 19th October 2014. See article from
bbc.co.uk See
article from
bigbrotherwatch.org.uk |
Internet insults could lead to two years in jail under new laws, 'Justice' Secretary Chris Grayling has said. He proposes that magistrates should be able to pass serious cases on to crown courts under the new measures. He told the Mail on Sunday
quadrupling the current maximum six-month term showed his determination to take a stand against a baying cyber-mob These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life. No-one would permit such
venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media. That is why we are determined to quadruple the current six-month sentence. As the terrible case of Chloe Madeley showed last week, people are being abused online
in the most crude and degrading fashion. This is a law to combat cruelty - and marks our determination to take a stand against a baying cyber-mob. We must send out a clear message: if you troll you risk being behind bars for two
years.
Those who subject others to sexually offensive, verbally abusive or threatening material online are currently prosecuted in magistrates' courts under the Malicious Communications Act, with a maximum prison sentence of six
months. More serious cases could go to crown court under the proposals, where the maximum sentence would be extended. The law change is to be made as an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill going through Parliament. Emma Carr,
director of Big Brother Watch, responded to the proposed new penalties:
The Justice Secretary should be focusing his efforts on incidents where real harm may be caused, not casting the net wider for anything that could be deemed offensive. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police
have completely failed to properly use the existing harassment law, which itself would address the actions of anyone who poses a serious threat. The victims of serious abuse online, or indeed offline, do not need headline grabbing
policies. They need definitive action to ensure that the police know what the law is when a compliant is made. It is that action which will keep them safe, not attempts to legally blur the line between illegal behaviour and being generally offensive.
Offsite Comment: Trolling 'is' a free-speech issue, and always has been 22nd October 2014. See
article from spiked-online.com
by Tom Slater
The UK justice secretary's announcement on Sunday that the jail sentence for abusive online trolling is set to be quadrupled, from a maximum of six months to two years, should send a chill down the spine of all freedom-loving individuals. The fact that a
panic over the phlegm-spitting, misspelled missives of a few keyboard warriors has laid the path for heavy-handed state intervention into our communications sets a dangerous precedent for the future of free expression online. ...Read the full
article . Note that the increase in sentences for internet insult is not actually a new
addition to the bill, the repressive measure has been included from the beginning. |
|
Lords committee to inquire as to whether vague internet insult laws are clear enough
|
|
|
| 27th June 2014
|
|
| See article
from parliament.uk |
A House of Lords Communications Committee, chaired by Lord Best, will conduct a short inquiry into the legal and regulatory framework around social media and communications offences, such as one-to-one targeted harassment and trolling . It is a
problem that is in the news on a regular basis, and yet many people do not seem to realise that communications sent via social media are capable of amounting to criminal offences under a range of statutes. These include the Offences Against the Person
Act 1861, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and the Communications Act 2003. The Committee will be holding two evidence sessions, which will look at whether the legislation on the issue of social media
and communications offences is appropriate and fit for purpose or would benefit from clarification; whether the line between free speech and protection of victims is clear; and more generally, whether the steps which have already been taken to deal with
these problems are sufficient, or whether further action is necessary. On a wider note, the Committee sees this piece of work as an integral part of pursuing its interest in the way changes in media and technology are likely to affect consumers'
and citizens' behaviour and the way in which the legal and policy debate needs to respond. Questions Questions likely to be raised in this inquiry include:
- Whether the law currently covering offences related to social media and communications offences is capable of adapting to the way in which people behave, given the speed of changes in technology.
- If there are areas of overlap or gaps in the
range of legislation covering social media and communications offences, which means that categorising the offence is not always clear.
- Whether the sentences handed out for social media and communications offences are known, consistent and
appropriate and, more generally, whether other approaches, such as restorative justice and education, might be more effective.
- How, in responding to these issues, reform to the current package of legislation can strike an effective balance
between victim protection and freedom of expression.
|
|
Jake Newsome was jailed last week for posting insulting comments online. His is the latest in a string of cases that have led to prison terms, raising concern that free speech is under threat from over-zealous prosecutors
|
|
|
| 15th June 2014
|
|
| See article from
theguardian.com |
On 30 April, two days after teacher Ann Maguire was stabbed to death by a pupil in Leeds , Jake Newsome, a 21-year-old man who had himself attended a secondary school on the other side of the city, posted on his Facebook page: Personally im glad that
teacher got stabbed up, feel sorry for the kid@ he shoulda pissed on her too . Thats not very nice reads the first of 37 comments on his post. Others soon chipped in, addressing him by his nickname: Greeny come on!
You're better than that wrote one. Greeny seriously that's harsh wrote another. Greeny, not sure you should be saying this stuff on facebook man -- people get in trouble for this kind of stuff . A few days later,
after his post had been shared more than 2,000 times, West Yorkshire police arrested and charged Newsome under the 2003 Communications Act with having sent by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is
grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing nature . Last week Newsome was jailed for six weeks, after pleading guilty, with the judge quoting his post back to him and saying: I can think of little that could be more upsetting or
offensive. ...Read the full article
|
|
Government supports amendment to increase the penalties for internet insults
|
|
|
|
27th March 2014
|
|
| 26th March 2014. See article from
theregister.co.u |
The government is supporting calls for harsher penalties for internet insults. Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has backed Conservative MP Angie Bray's demands for changes to the law. According to the Evening Standard , Grayling agreed that the
legislation needed to be tightened to protect victims from malicious comments being directed at them via social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. Offences under the Malicious Communications Act currently only carry prison sentences that are
no longer than six months, because such cases are heard at magistrates' courts. The proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which will be discussed in Parliament on Thursday, could change that, presumably by allowing Crown Court scale
punishments. Comment: If we want to live in a society without offence we will live in a society without free speech 27th March 2013. See
article from
indexoncensorship.org Kirsty Hughes, CEO of Index on Censorship, said: Index is deeply concerned at the government's apparent intention to deepen the criminal penalties for grossly offensive communications
sent through the internet or social media. Just last year, the then Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer put out a very sensible set of guidelines to limit the number of arrests for social media posts that may be offensive to some but did not
constitute a criminal offence. Now we are going backwards. Offence is a subjective concept and if we want to live in a society without offence we will live in a society without free speech.
Offsite Comment: Free
speech will suffer if politicians get tough on offensive tweets 27th March 2013. See article from
theguardian.com by Robert Sharp Thanks to online abuse, MPs may be about to remove our right to be offensive. But giving offence is a vital part
of democracy
...Read the full article |
|
|
|
|
| 25th December 2013
|
|
|
The former director Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service, has been active in drawing up guidelines for sensitive areas of criminal law. [But these still allowed the persecutions to continue] See
article from indexoncensorship.org |
|
|
|
|
|
22nd December 2013
|
|
|
The fact that just two loners are being done for the trolling of Caroline Criado-Perez explodes the myth of endemic misogyny online. By Rosa Minogue See
article from spiked-online.com |
|
To fight against PC extremists and to restore our freedom of speech
|
|
|
| 10th December 2013
|
|
| See article from
frontpagemag.com |
A man was subjected to eight hours of questioning by police and had his computer seized for three weeks just for making a few tasteless Nelson Mandela jokes on the internet. Neil Phillips says he was also finger-printed and DNA-swabbed after officers
received complaints about what he insists were harmless gags, eg: My PC takes so long to shut down I've decided to call it Nelson Mandela.
He explained: You can
question the taste, but they're not hateful. I told the police they got plenty of likes . What happened to freedom of speech?
The disgraceful Liberal Democrat Councillor Tim Jones was so 'outraged' by the one-liners, aired at a
time when Mandela was critically ill, that he made an official complaint. He claimed: They are vile and deeply offensive, anti-Muslim, anti-disabled.
Staffordshire Police declined to go into detail
about the nature of their over the top actions against Phillips. But a spokesman confirmed the arrest and said: When he answered bail on September 30, he was informed that there would be no further action based on CPS
decision of there being insufficient evidence to support a prosecution.
|
|
120 hours of community service for inane Facebook comments about April Jones murder
|
|
|
| 8th
December 2013
|
|
| See article from
mirror.co.uk |
An internet user who used Facebook posts to mock the search for murdered schoolgirl April Jones has been branded absolutely appalling by a judge. Gordon Mullen was condemned by Scots Sheriff Iona McDonald for his remarks on Facebook two days
after the five-year-old went missing near her home in Machynlleth in October 2012. He made a series of posts in a three-way conversation: His first post said: Hopefully the search for the missing girl doesn't go on like the Madeleine
McCann saga and she just turns up dead. Mullen then made a comment regarding Jimmy Savile, adding LMAO (laughing my arse off). He also made a remark involving April Jones and Austrian sex criminal Josef Fritzel. Mullen
admitted breaching the Communications Act after his earlier arrest for failing to appear in court. Mullen was given 120 hours unpaid work. |
|
But the tweeters aren't worried, it's the Flying Squad!
|
|
|
|
5th December 2013
|
|
| 4th December 2013. See article from
edinburghnews.scotsman.com |
A spate of supposedly 'offensive' Twitter remarks on the Glasgow helicopter tragedy has sparked a public 'outcry' as it emerged a teenager was arrested for posting sectarian and racist comments about the disaster. Police Scotland confirmed that
a 16-year-old had been detained for posting 'sickening' jibes in the wake of the Clutha pub catastrophe. The teenager was arrested on Sunday and held in custody in connection with remarks made on a social networking site following Friday's tragedy,
police said. Update: Katie Hopkins under fire for throwaway joke 5th December 2013. See
article from huffingtonpost.co.uk
. Thanks to Phantom
Katie hopkins has built a career on brash utterances and saying what everyone else is thinking . But now, more than 44,000 easily offended people have signed a petition calling for former Apprentice contestant to be banned from any future TV
appearances. The former reality TV star turned professional contrarian and HuffPost blogger issued an apology after cracking a joke on Twitter about life expectancy in Scotland following the fatal helicopter crash on the banks of the Clyde in
Glasgow. She had joked on Twitter: Life expectancy in Scotland is 59.5. Goodness me. That lot will do anything to avoid working until retirement.
She later apologised:
My tweet on Scotland was directly related to this article: https://t.co/yijMFVbJp7
. I aologise to those I offended. It was poor timing. |
|
But the tweeters aren't worried, it's the Flying Squad!
|
|
|
|
4th December 2013
|
|
| See article from
edinburghnews.scotsman.com |
A spate of supposedly 'offensive' Twitter remarks on the Glasgow helicopter tragedy has sparked a public 'outcry' as it emerged a teenager was arrested for posting sectarian and racist comments about the disaster. Police Scotland confirmed that
a 16-year-old had been detained for posting 'sickening' jibes in the wake of the Clutha pub catastrophe. The teenager was arrested on Sunday and held in custody in connection with remarks made on a social networking site following Friday's tragedy,
police said. |
|
Clamouring to criminalise internet insults
|
|
|
| 31st July 2013
|
|
| See article from
bbc.co.uk
|
More than 1,700 cases involving supposedly abusive messages sent online or via text message reached Britain's courts in 2012, the BBC has learned following a Freedom of Information request. This is a 10% increase on the figures for 2011, according
to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Nearly 600 charges were brought between January and May 2013.. The revelations come as police say they are investigating abusive tweets sent to MP Stella Creasy. This has resulted in pressure 'to do
something' about abusive messages sent via Twitter. Del Harvey, Twitter's senior director of trust and safety, blogged that the micro-messaging platform would extend the report tweet function, already available on its iPhone app, to Android
phones and desktops. Andy Trotter, chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers' communications advisory group told BBC Radio 4's The World At One: They need to take responsibility as do the other
platforms to deal with this at source and make sure these things do not carry on. They need to make it easier for victims to report these matters and, from a police perspective, they need to know that they can report these things to us.
A Change.org petition calling for Twitter to add a report abuse button to its service has attracted more than 71,000 supporters. The question for Twitter is how, having made it easier for people to report abusive tweets, it will cope
with the expected flood of reports.
|
|
The CPS has finalised its guidelines intending to reduce the amount of people persecuted for internet insults and jokes
|
|
|
|
21st June 2013
|
|
| See article from
cps.gov.uk
|
The new guidelines for prosecuting social media postings were offered in draft form some months ago, but now they have been finalised. The CPS explain the general principles:
Prosecutors may only start a prosecution if a case satisfies the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This test has two stages: the first is the requirement of evidential sufficiency and the second involves
consideration of the public interest. As far as the evidential stage is concerned, a prosecutor must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. This means that an objective,
impartial and reasonable jury (or bench of magistrates or judge sitting alone), properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict. It is an objective test based upon the prosecutor's assessment of the evidence
(including any information that he or she has about the defence). A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be. It has never been
the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place once the evidential stage is satisfied. In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the
public interest. Every case must be considered on its own individual facts and merits. No prospective immunity from criminal prosecution can ever be given and nothing in these guidelines should be read as suggesting
otherwise. In the majority of cases, prosecutors should only decide whether to prosecute after the investigation has been completed. However, there will be cases occasionally where it is clear, prior to the collection and
consideration of all the likely evidence, that the public interest does not require a prosecution. In these cases, prosecutors may decide that the case should not proceed further. Cases involving the sending of communications
via social media are likely to benefit from early consultation between police and prosecutors, and the police are encouraged to contact the CPS at an early stage of the investigation.
Comment: The end of Britain's social media prosecutions? See article from
indexoncensorship.org by Padraig Reidy
Keir Starmer's new guidelines aim to minimise controversial criminal cases against Twitter and Facebook users. But will they work, asks Padraig Reidy ... Will these guidelines result in fewer prosecutions?
It's impossible to say. There are still issues; the test of whether something constitutes a grossly offensive communication is still discretionary, with the CPS quoting Lord Bingham: There can be no yardstick of gross
offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross
offence to those to whom it relates.
...Read the full article Comment: The proof is in the beheading
See article from spiked-online.com by Patrick Hayes
Post on Facebook and be damned The police are banging up people for drunkenly posting comments on Facebook. Could you be next? ...Read the full
article
|
|
Woman convicted for tweet related to the Lee Rigby murder
|
|
|
|
8th June 2013
|
|
| See
article from
dailymail.co.uk
|
A student who tweeted that people wearing Help for Heroes t-shirts deserved to be beheaded after soldier Lee Rigby was killed was arrested after complaining to police about getting threatening replies, a court heard. Deyka Ayan Hassan
contacted officers after receiving hundreds of vitriolic responses to the message on May 22, including threats to rape her and kill her by burning down her home, Hendon Magistrates' Court heard. But she was herself later arrested at home after
admitting to police she had tweeted as a joke about the design of the item of clothing: To be honest, if you wear a Help for Heroes t-shirt you deserve to be beheaded
Hassan was ordered to do
250 hours of unpaid work by magistrates, having admitted a charge of sending a malicious electronic message at an earlier hearing. Chairman of the bench Nigel Orton told her she could have been jailed for what she did but that magistrates accepted
she hadn't known it was a soldier who had been killed when she posted it.
|
|
|
|
|
| 5th March 2013
|
|
|
The Director of Public Prosecutions talks to Index about Twitter, Facebook and diminishing free speech See article from
indexoncensorship.org |
|
Keir Starmer admits that the current police enthusiasm for prosecuting internet insults having a chilling effect on free speech
|
|
|
| 5th February
2013
|
|
| See article from
telegraph.co.uk
|
Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said too many investigations into comments on networks such as Twitter would have a chilling effect on free speech: I think that if there are too many
investigations and too many cases coming to court then that can have a chilling effect on free speech. This is about trying to get the balance right, making sure time and resources are spent on cases that really do need to go to
court, and not spent on cases which people might think really would be better dealt with by a swift apology and removal of the offending tweet.
There is a lot of stuff out there that is highly offensive
that is put out on a spontaneous basis that is quite often taken down pretty quickly and the view is that those sort of remarks don't necessarily need to be prosecuted. This is not a get-out-of-jail card but it is highly relevant.
Stuff does go up on a Friday and Saturday night and come down the next morning. If that is the case a lot of people will say: 'That shouldn't have happened, the person has accepted it, but really you don't need a criminal prosecution.' It is a relevant
factor.
Starmer stressed that people who wrote libellous tweets, or messages that broke court orders or were threatening, would still face prosecution.
|
|
|
|
|
| 19th
January 2013
|
|
| The arrest of an EDL leader for ranting against Islam on Facebook should worry anyone interested in freedom. See
article from spiked-online.com |
|
Details about new DPP guidelines on prosecuting social media communications
|
|
|
|
20th December 2012
|
|
| See article
from blog.cps.gov.uk See Guidelines on prosecuting
cases involving communications sent via social media from cps.gov.uk
|
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has published interim guidelines setting out the approach prosecutors should take in cases involving communications sent via social media. The guidelines are designed to give clear advice
to prosecutors and ensure a consistency of approach across the CPS to these types of cases. Starmer said: These interim guidelines are intended to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the need to uphold the
criminal law. They make a clear distinction between communications which amount to credible threats of violence, a targeted campaign of harassment against an individual or which breach court orders on the one hand, and other communications sent by
social media, e.g. those that are grossly offensive, on the other. The first group will be prosecuted robustly whereas the second group will only be prosecuted if they cross a high threshold; a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest
if the communication is swiftly removed, blocked, not intended for a wide audience or not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression. The interim
guidelines thus protect the individual from threats or targeted harassment while protecting the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those
subjected to it. We want the interim guidelines to be as fully informed as possible, which is why we held a series of roundtable discussions and meetings with Twitter, Facebook, Liberty and other stakeholders, police and regulators, victim groups,
academics, journalists and bloggers, lawyers and sports organisations ahead of drafting them. I would now encourage everyone with an interest in this matter to give us their views by responding to the public consultation.
Initial assessment As part of their initial assessment, prosecutors are now required to distinguish between:
- Communications which may constitute credible threats of violence
- Communications which may constitute harassment or stalking
- Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order
- Communications which do not fall into any of the above categories and fall to be considered separately i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.
Those offences falling within the first three categories should, in general, be prosecuted robustly under the relevant legislation, for example the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), where the test set out in the Code for
Crown Prosecutors is satisfied. Cases which fall within the final category will be subject to a high threshold and in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest. The high threshold
Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 engage Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, therefore prosecutors are reminded that they must be interpreted
consistently with the free speech principles in Article 10. Prosecutors are also reminded that what is prohibited under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003
is the sending of a communication that is grossly offensive. They should only proceed with cases involving such an offence where they are satisfied that the communication in question is more than:
- Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
- Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
- The expression of unpopular or unfashionable
opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.
The public interest In line with the free speech principles in Article 10, no prosecution should be brought unless it can be shown on its own facts and merits to be both necessary and proportionate.
A prosecution is unlikely to be both necessary and proportionate where:
- a) The suspect has swiftly taken action to remove the communication or expressed genuine remorse;
- b) Swift and effective action has been taken by others, for example service
providers, to remove the communication in question or otherwise block access to it;
- c) The communication was not intended for a wide audience, nor was that the obvious consequence of sending the
communication; particularly where the intended audience did not include the victim or target of the communication in question; or
- d) The content of the communication did not obviously go beyond what could
conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in an open and diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.
The age and maturity of suspect should be given significant weight, particularly if they are under the age of 18. Children may not appreciate the potential harm and seriousness of their communications and as such prosecutions of
children are rarely likely to be in the public interest.
|
|
DPP updates guidelines to prevent internet users from being prosecuted for trivial insults
|
|
|
| 19th
December 2012
|
|
| See article from bbc.co.uk
|
New guidelines could see fewer people being charged in England and Wales for offensive messages on social networks. The Director of Public Persecutions said people should only face a trial if their comments on Twitter, Facebook or elsewhere go
beyond being offensive. He claimed the guidance combats threats and internet trolls without having a chilling effect on free speech. The guidance comes after a string of cases of prosecutions for jokes, and trivial insults, including the
prosecution of a man who tweeted a joke threatening to blow up an airport. Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had now dealt with more than 50 cases relating to potentially criminal comments posted
online. He said the interim guidelines, which come into force immediately, clarified which kinds of cases should be prosecuted and which would only go ahead after a rigorous assessment whether it was in the public interest to prosecute. The
guidance says that if someone posts a message online that clearly amounts to a credible threat of violence, specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone, then the person behind the message
should face prosecution. People who receive malicious messages and pass them on, such as by retweeting, could also fall foul of the law. However, online posts that are merely grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false would face a
much tougher test before the individual could be charged under laws designed to prevent malicious communications. Starmer said that many suspects in this last category would be unlikely to be prosecuted because it would not be in the public interest to
take them to court. This could include posts made by drunk people who, on sobering up, take swift action to delete the communication. Starmer said: These interim guidelines are intended to strike the right balance
between freedom of expression and the need to uphold the criminal law. The interim guidelines thus protect the individual from threats or targeted harassment while protecting the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion
about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it.
Although the interim guidance is now in force, its final form is subject to a consultation that runs until 13
March 2013.
|
|
|
|
|
| 15th November
2012
|
|
| The Director of Public Persecutions *still* doesn't understand how the internet works. Meanwhile, he's planning to censor it See
article from blogs.telegraph.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
13th November 2012
|
|
| A panel discussion in London yesterday did not offer much hope that prosecutors and politicians will defend free speech online. See
article from indexoncensorship.org |
|
Kent police accused of malicious use of the Malicious Communications Act
|
|
|
|
12th November 2012
|
|
| See article from
uk.news.yahoo.com
|
A man has fallen victim to Kent Police who detained him for posting an image of a burning poppy on Facebook. He was detained on Sunday night on suspicion of making malicious telecommunications. The force tried to justify their attack on free
speech in a statement: A man (was) interviewed by police this morning following reports that a picture of a burning poppy had been posted on a social media website. Officers were contacted at
around 4pm yesterday and alerted to the picture, which was reportedly accompanied by an offensive comment.
The offensive comment was the trivial comment: How about that you squadey cunts
The man was later released pending further inquiries. His detention was met with disbelief on Twitter, where people mounted a fierce discussion over civil liberties. David Allen Green, a journalist and lawyer for the New Statesman,
tweeting as Jack of Kent, wrote: What was the point of winning either World War if, in 2012, someone can be casually arrested by Kent Police for burning a poppy?
Australian musician and comedian Tim
Minchin also expressed his incredulity, tweeting: You've a right to burn a (fake!) poppy. Whether I agree with the action is utterly irrelevant. Kent Police are out of line.
|
|
|
|
|
| 9th November 2012
|
|
| Los Angeles Times reports on the loss of free speech in Britain See
article from latimes.com |
|
Police get involved in 4000 petty squabbles on Facebook
|
|
|
| 28th
October 2012
|
|
| See
article from
dailymail.co.uk
|
Police have gotten involved in 4,000 petty squabbles on Facebook and Twitter. Statistics from 22 out of the 43 police forces in England and Wales show arrests for insulting messages are averaging three a day. The police say they are wasting
valuable time and resources tackling internet users directing abuse at each other. In most cases, police simply tell victims to delete their tormentors from their networks, but the Crown Prosecution Service says a few dozen incidents have
led to court, with the figure growing rapidly in recent months. An policeman from North Wales said: You will always have one or two serious incidents of harassment and bullying on Facebook and the like but for
the most part it's petty stuff. It takes up a lot of time and the normal result is advice from us to all parties to grow up.
Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said:
We have concerns that we don't have the resources to police everything that's said on the internet. We can't have people getting upset in a one-off situation and involving the police. I do think this could be the thin end of the
wedge. If we show too much willingness and get involved in every squabble, we're setting ourselves up to keep doing this because it will be expected. Statistics from 22 out of the 43 police forces in England and Wales show there were
at least 4,098 arrests under the relevant laws between the start of 2009 and the middle of 2012, averaging three a day. More than 2,000 people were either charged or given an out-of-court fine or caution.
|
|
A woman is convicted of 'grossly offensive' messages in response to the anti-soldier rant
|
|
|
|
13th October 2012
|
|
| It sounds like something out of Monty Python. Put together a string of expletives and a couple of religious words and you get an insult so offensive that it can kill anyone that
reads it See
article from examiner.co.uk
|
A Judge has sentenced a woman for supposedly vile messages in response to Azhar Ahmed's anti-soldier rant on Facebook. Judge Mallon told Wilby that she had considered the fact that Ahmed had set this whole train running and he had received
a community-based punishment. She said that her case should act as a caution to others airing their views online. Judge Mallon sentenced Wilby to a 12 month community order, including 15 days of activity and 100 hours of unpaid work she will also
have to pay £ 85 court costs. Wilby, who had no previous convictions, also lost her job as a result of the proceedings against her. Simon Lindley, mitigating, said:
She didn't set up the site, it was something she saw and she was upset. She's got drawn into it. She's seen all these other people making comments and has unfortunately done the same. She didn't step back and think of what she was doing -- she's deeply remorseful.
Of course the newspaper would not print or even give an indication of what was actually said but in the absence of facts then one must assume that it was just a few mindless expletives and a couple of religious terms.
|
|
|
|
|
| 11th October 2012
|
|
| More evidence of Britain's terrifying new censorship. Have we got such a debased and demoralised view of freedom that we're now willing to lock up people for posting angry comments on social media See
article from independent.co.uk |
|
And don't give a shit about the devastation that they are causing to people's lives
|
|
|
| 10th October 2012
|
|
| See article from
guardian.co.uk See CPS points for
discussion for social media roundtables from blog.cps.gov.uk
|
The director of public prosecutions is exploring whether Facebook and Twitter should take more responsibility for censoring their networks for supposed abuse and harassment in an attempt to reduce the number of cases of people being persecuted for jokes
or insults. Keir Starmer is this week consulting with lawyers, journalists and police in a series of seminars on the subject. He seems keen to ask if social media companies can censor their sites because police are concerned about the volume of
offensive posts and tweets they may be called to investigate. Those attending the panels said Starmer frequently returned to the subject, and he is preparing to draw up guidelines against an almost daily backdrop of arrests, prosecutions and
controversy. But there is no immediate consensus on what greater self-regulation for social media would look like. The growing number of arrests often invoke the repressive section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act, which makes it an offence to
send or post grossly offensive material online. Meanwhile, police are worried about the time spent examining cases and that it will only be practicable to investigate a handful of cases where emotions are running high. Andy Trotter, who
speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers on media issues, said: Many offensive comments are made every day on social media and guidance will assist the police to focus on the most serious matters. Police would like Facebook and
Twitter to act faster in deleting offensive comments to avoid arrests being necessary and to see if it is possible to explore ways of blocking particular individuals from using their networks.
|
|
Man shamefully jailed for 12 weeks for bad taste jokes
|
|
|
| 10th
October 2012
|
|
| 9th October 2012. See article from
guardian.co.uk |
A teenager who posted bad taste jokes about April Jones on his Facebook page has been jailed for 12 weeks. Matthew Woods made comments about April and Madeleine McCann. Woods was arrested for his own safety after about 50 people descended on his
home. He pleaded guilty at Chorley magistrates court to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is 'grossly offensive'. The chairman of the bench, Bill Hudson, said Woods's comments were
so abhorrent he deserved the longest sentence the court could hand down. Hudson added: The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court
could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive. The court was told Woods's Facebook page was available to a large number of people but there's no mention of how many people actually
saw it. Martina Jay, persecuting, said: He saw a joke on Sickipedia [an online database devoted to sick jokes] and changed it slightly. Among Woods's comments were: Who in their right mind would abduct a ginger kid? In another
he said: I woke up this morning in the back of a transit van with two beautiful little girls, I found April in a hopeless place. He also wrote: Could have just started the greatest Facebook argument EVER. April fools, who wants Maddie? I love
April Jones. Also posted were comments of a more sexually explicit nature. The CPS has confirmed that it reviewed the case and was content with the prosecution going ahead. Offsite Comment: No one should be put in
prison for making a joke that other people don’t like. 9th October 2012. See article from blog.indexoncensorship.org by Padraig Reidy Offsite Comment: Twelve weeks in prison for sick
jokes on Facebook? Really? 10th October 2012. See article from
ukhumanrightsblog.com Offsite Comment: Don't make me laugh 10th October 2012. See
article from openrightsgroup.org Offsite Editorial: In the end the solution will have to be rewriting or even repealing this law.
10th October 2012. See article from
guardian.co.uk Update: An insulting reduction of sentence on appeal 15th November 2012. See
article from
lancashiretelegraph.co.uk A man jailed for posting insults on his Facebook page about missing schoolgirl April Jones has had his twelve weeks sentence cut to eight
weeks. Matthew Woods successfully appealed against his sentence at Preston Crown Court having claimed the twelve week term was excessive and that magistrates should have given him credit for his guilty plea. Update:
Another victim gets a suspended prison sentence 19th November 2012. See article from
guardian.co.uk A sales adviser who made a series of bad taste comments about five-year-old April Jones on Facebook has been given a suspended prison sentence. Magistrates in Worcester chose not to jail Sam Busby despite being told that another Facebook user was sentenced to three months in prison for an
almost identical offence last month. Busby admitted he was responsible for the comments and told officers he thought they could only be seen by his friends on Facebook. Passing a six-week jail term suspended for 18 months,
magistrates said they had taken into account Busby's early guilty plea and remorse. The chairman of the bench, Gill Porter, told the teenager: You will realise by the time we have taken to discuss this matter
how seriously we view it. You have caused an immense amount of distress, not only to the recipient of this but potentially to April Jones's family and friends. It happened at a very sensitive time for everybody concerned. You were
warned by your friends when they first saw your so-called joke, but you took no notice and you continued to make further even more offensive comments.
Busby was also ordered to pay an £ 80 victim
surcharge and keep to a 7pm-7am curfew for eight weeks. Update: Insulting Sentence 8th October 2013. See
article from walesonline.co.uk
A man who sent insulting messages on Facebook mocking the search for murdered five-year-old April Jones claimed his freedom of expression was breached, a court heard. Liam Young posted supposedly shocking and offensive remarks online two
days after April Jones went missing last year. He avoided a jail sentence but angered a sheriff after claiming social network messaging should be unrestricted in a democratic society . Young was given 120 hours unpaid work after admitting
disorderly conduct by sending indecent and offensive comments. Sheriff Murphy highlighted Young's remarks to social workers, saying: It concerns me that someone believes they can say what they like on Facebook because they live in a democratic
society.
|
|
More police actions against 'grossly offensive' internet messages
|
|
|
| 8th
October 2012
|
|
| See article from
bbc.co.uk
|
A man from Lancashire has been charged with making an offensive post on Facebook about missing five-year-old April Jones. Matthew Wood is accused of sending a public electronic communication which is grossly offensive. He is in custody and
will appear before Chorley Magistrates' Court on Monday. Wood, who was arrested on Saturday, has been charged under section 127 of the Communications Act.
|
|
Getting heavy over another football insult on Twitter
|
|
|
|
29th September 2012
|
|
| Thanks to Nick See article
from soccernet.espn.go.com
|
A football fan who sent a Twitter insult about Premier League referee and cancer survivor Mark Halsey following last weekend's Liverpool v Manchester United game has been cautioned by police. Liverpool supporter John Wareing tweeted: I hope
Mark Halsey gets cancer again and dies , after the official sent off Reds midfielder Jonjo Shevley and handed United a late penalty that gave Sir Alex Ferguson's side a 2-1 win. Commenting on the incident, easily offended DS Tony Lunt of
Greater Manchester Police spouted: Clearly the victim and his family were very distressed by the extremely offensive comments posted on Twitter. We take all reports of abuse on social networking sites very seriously as
these remarks can and do have a devastating impact on people's lives. As a result of our investigation, we have cautioned a man who has admitted responsibility for some of the messages. This individual was very apologetic and
realises that in a moment of stupidity he posted deeply derogatory remarks about the victim and completely regrets his actions. Our inquiries are ongoing to identify anyone else who posted these offensive messages.
|
|
CPS set to reconsider the definitions of insults before they end up prosecuting everyone in the country
|
|
|
| 21st September 2012
|
|
| Thanks to Nick From blog.cps.gov.uk
|
Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecution has made a statement after deciding to pursue a case involving insulting tweets. Starmer said: On 30 July 2012 Daniel Thomas, a semi-professional footballer, posted a homophobic
message on the social networking site, Twitter. This related to the Olympic divers Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield. This became available to his followers. Someone else distributed it more widely and it made its way into some media outlets. Mr Thomas was
arrested and interviewed. The matter was then referred to CPS Wales to consider whether Mr Thomas should be charged with a criminal offence. The Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a communication using a public
electronic communications network if that communication is grossly offensive. It is now established that posting comments via Twitter constitutes sending a message by means of a public electronic communications network. It is also clear that the offence
is committed once the message is sent, irrespective of whether it is received by any intended recipient or anyone else. The question in this case is therefore whether the message posted by Mr Thomas is so grossly offensive as to be criminal and, if so,
whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. There is no doubt that the message posted by Mr Thomas was offensive and would be regarded as such by reasonable members of society. But the question for the CPS is not
whether it was offensive, but whether it was so grossly offensive that criminal charges should be brought. The distinction is an important one and not easily made. Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights
observed in the case of Handyside v UK (1976), the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions ...that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. The context and
circumstances in this case include the following facts and matters:
(a) However misguided, Mr Thomas intended the message to be humorous. (b) However naive, Mr Thomas did not intend the message to go beyond his followers, who were mainly friends and family. -
(c) Mr Thomas took reasonably swift action to remove the message. (d) Mr Thomas has expressed remorse and was, for a period, suspended by his football club. (e) Neither Mr
Daley nor Mr Waterfield were the intended recipients of the message and neither knew of its existence until it was brought to their attention following reports in the media.
This was, in essence, a one-off offensive Twitter message, intended for family and friends, which made its way into the public domain. It was not intended to reach Mr Daley or Mr Waterfield, it was not part of a campaign, it was not
intended to incite others and Mr Thomas removed it reasonably swiftly and has expressed remorse. Against that background, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales, Jim Brisbane, has concluded that on a full analysis of the context and circumstances in which
this single message was sent, it was not so grossly offensive that criminal charges need to be brought. Before reaching a final decision in this case, Mr Daley and Mr Waterfield were consulted by the CPS and both indicated that
they did not think this case needed a prosecution. This case is one of a growing number involving the use of social media that the CPS has had to consider. There are likely to be many more. The recent increase in the use of social
media has been profound. It is estimated that on Twitter alone there are 340 million messages sent daily. And the context in which this interactive social media dialogue takes place is quite different to the context in which other communications take
place. Access to social media is ubiquitous and instantaneous. Banter, jokes and offensive comment are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions. Against that background, the CPS has
the task of balancing the fundamental right of free speech and the need to prosecute serious wrongdoing on a case by case basis. That often involves very difficult judgment calls and, in the largely unchartered territory of social media, the CPS is
proceeding on a case by case basis. In some cases it is clear that a criminal prosecution is the appropriate response to conduct which is complained about, for example where there is a sustained campaign of harassment of an individual, where court orders
are flouted or where grossly offensive or threatening remarks are made and maintained. But in many other cases a criminal prosecution will not be the appropriate response. If the fundamental right to free speech is to be respected, the threshold for
criminal prosecution has to be a high one and a prosecution has to be required in the public interest. To ensure that CPS decision-making in these difficult cases is clear and consistent, I intend to issue guidelines on social
media cases for prosecutors. These will assist them in deciding whether criminal charges should be brought in the cases that arise for their consideration. In the first instance, the CPS will draft interim guidelines. There will then be a wide public
consultation before final guidelines are published. As part of that process, I intend to hold a series of roundtable meetings with campaigners, media lawyers, academics, social media experts and law enforcement bodies to ensure that the guidelines are as
fully informed as possible. But this is not just a matter for prosecutors. Social media is a new and emerging phenomenon raising difficult issues of principle, which have to be confronted not only by prosecutors but also by others
including the police, the courts and service providers. The fact that offensive remarks may not warrant a full criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean that no action should be taken. In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the
boundaries of free speech in an age of social media.
|
|
But it's us that need new laws to preserve free speech
|
|
|
|
5th August 2012
|
|
| See article from telegraph.co.uk
|
Twitter should take action as quickly as possible to deal with supposed abuse on its website, according to a senior police officer. Stuart Hyde, chief constable of Cumbria police who speaks on e-crime for the Association of Chief Police
Officers, said it was right for police to intervene in cases of bullying on twitter. Asked if new laws were needed, Hyde told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: No, I think we have got quite a lot of legislation,
dating back to the Malicious Communications Acts of 1998 and 2003. There is a lot there that helps us and gives us the power to do stuff. This is a new technology, a new way of communicating, it has grown exponentially. There
hasn't been separate legislation, so we are using legislation that wasn't particularly created for this, but it works reasonably well most of the time. We are learning from it, there are things that have sometimes gone wrong and I
think sometimes it is important that we make sure we provide the service people need. If people come to us and say 'I am really upset, I've been offended, my life has been made a misery and I want somebody to do something about
it', then yes the police should, whenever possible, try to help. I don't want police officers dragged off the streets to deal with frivolous complaints. Where these complaints are pretty serious, then it is quite right that we
should intervene, and we do that. It is important to look at the whole context. It is not just about one tweet, it is a whole range of tweets. Look at what the individual has done -- is this a concerted
attempt to have a go at one individual in a way that passes the threshold for offences against the law? If it is, then clearly we should intervene and do something to stop it.
But Hyde said that police have so far not received large
numbers of complaints about abusive Twitter messages.
|
|
Can't the ombudsman just say no for once
|
|
|
|
3rd August 2012
|
|
| See article from
bbc.co.uk
|
A complaint has been made to a PC watchdog about a councillor accused of suggesting on Twitter that a woman turn to prostitution to earn money. According to the Western Mail, Carmarthenshire councillor John Jenkins responded to a female Twitter
user who said she needed to earn money quickly by writing: Prostitution? On a serious note, good money in being in an escort.
Jenkins, who represents Elli in Llanelli as an independent, said:
Someone has obviously gone to a lot of effort to trawl through an archive of my private communications to find something that they can take out of context to make me look bad. Continue reading the main story Start Quote
In no way can private banter between friends, none of which were offended by the obvious tongue-in-cheek banter, be considered offensive.
He said he had been the subject of a vexatious, politically-motivated
complaint and looked forward to explaining it to the ombudsman if the watchdog thinks there is a case to answer. A spokeswoman for the Public Services Ombudsman confirmed a complaint had been made. She said it would be considered before a
decision is taken whether to launch a formal investigation.
|
|
A 17 year old arrested for a nasty tweet to athlete Tom Daley
|
|
|
| 1st
August 2012
|
|
| 31st July 2012. See article from telegraph.co.uk
|
A 17-year-old has been arrested after insulting tweets were sent to Olympic diver Tom Daley accusing him of letting his late father down. Dorset Police have confirmed the teenager was arrested on suspicion of 'malicious' communications at a guest
house in Weymouth following a series of abusive messages. Daley and his partner Pete Waterfield missed out on a medal \ when they finished fourth in the men's synchronised 10m platform diving event at the Olympics. Shortly afterwards, Daley
retweeted a message from user Rileyy69 which said: You let your dad down i hope you know that. Daley responded by tweeting: After giving it my all...you get idiot's sending me this... Rileyy69 apologised: @TomDaley1994 I'm
sorry mate i just wanted you to win cause its the olympics I'm just annoyed we didn't win I'm sorry tom accept my apology. The apologetic messages were interspersed with a stream of expletives and further abuse to other users.
Update: Nastier comments than originally reported 1st August 2012. See article
from thedigitalreport.net . Thanks to David The arrest of the guy tweeting insults to Tom Daley seems to be more about specific, if hardly credible, threats of
violence that he made to Daley and at least one other individual. So it's not just the usual thought police thing this time, though with the cops and CPS having cried wolf enough times with previous stupid Twitter cases...
Offsite Comment: The best response to cruel, offensive or disgusting tweets, is simply to ignore them 1st August 2012. See
article from guardian.co.uk by John Kampfner
|
|
Are police realising that its a crap job arresting little people for trivial insults?
|
|
|
| 1st August 2012
|
|
| See
article from
dailymail.co.uk
|
Police admitted last night that they are being dragged into too many Twitter disputes as a row raged over the decision to arrest a youth who abused Olympic diving star Tom Daley. The police over reacted and swooped on the home of Reece Messer, 17,
at 2.45am yesterday as if he was some sort of highly dangerous master criminal. Last night, as Dorset police handed the troubled teenager a formal harassment warning, police leaders claimed forces are being dragged into too many petty social media
rows. Officers were asked to look at content 14,000 times on Facebook alone last year and Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, said forces do not have the resources to monitor the internet.
He said: There is legislation which concerns causing harassment, alarm or distress. But can we police the internet when someone upsets someone else? I don't think we have the resources to do
that. We can't have a free-for-all online but we cannot involve the police every time something unpleasant is said.
|
| |