Choose a discussion

Another Twitter Arrest

1

"You let your dad down i hope you know that."

Tweeted to Tom Daley yesterday. Lad arrested for it. Bit of a joke to arrest someone for that. Silly statement to make as well but seriously???

0 |
1

Absolutely disgraceful that someone could be arrested for that. What sort of world are we headed for?

0 |

Was thinking the same myself this morning when I heard that. Fair enough the comment was completely below the belt but it's not as if he threatened Daley or anything. Arrested for a passing (but bad taste) comment? What about freedom of speech?

0 |

na fuck it, people should be held to account for their actions

just cos its twitter or whatever doesnt give u free reign to say whatever the fuck u want.

0 |

So nobody has ever told you that you let someone down Mattb?

0 |

i honestly dont know why famous people bother with twitter. they get serious amounts of abuse on it

0 |

OK, so this may not be as black and white as I first thought. It looks like the Daley tweet brought attention to him then they saw other tweets from him like this:

lockerz.com/s/229826962

0 |

i'm just being contrary tbh

arresting the guy is a bit OTT, but that sort of behaviour and comment is not acceptable

0 |

Ah, well that's definitely different.

0 |

...and he should be held to account for it.

0 |

We should have total freedom of speech i reckon. The law should have no place interfering with language. And that includes racist language.

0 |

rigsytoday @ 11:13 a.m.
they said a hell of a lot more than what's been quoted here - that guys thread was full of abuse and actual death threats, i doubt he's just being arrested for that one remark to tom daley, tho thats what will have brought the account to people's attention

Yip, someone sent me the link above. Apparently he was making death threats and everything to people, the media just haven't given the complete story.

0 |

and homophobic/ sexist or whatever language

0 |

ive slagged my mates mums loadsa times on fb.....lock me up

0 |

Yeah rigsy that might be true. You could report them to the people operating the website and they could be banned. Making physical threats/ death threats or whatever is obviously different as well. But people just using words should not be a matter for the police. everyone in the country would have been arrested for "offending" someone whatever the fuck that even means.

0 |

Complete and utter freedom of speech, gherkin?

So anonymity orders in family courts, etc, are to be thrown to the wayside?
National security breaches grand?
Grand to publish personal information (addresses, photos of children, etc) on the internet with no repercussions?
Death threats grand? Discrimination against ethnic minorities (or others) in the workplace?

It's a shame the law has to get involved, but it does. People are dicks.

0 |

I'm not taking about in those circumstances. I have said threats are a different ball game. There should obviously be data protection and sensitive information shouldn't necessarily be made public. Patient confidentiality is another example. Calling someone a name or saying something that someone might choose to deem offensive can't be a matter for the courts. People need to stop being so fucking soft. Imagine the amount of police time that would be wasted should they be investigating and documenting every time someone calls another person a name or says they bucked their ma or uses a derogatory racist slur.

It's different in the workplace as well btw but in the street you should be able to say what you want.

0 |

SS comments on my facebook status about this:

"James Willis It's only the internet
11 minutes ago"

LOL.

0 |

Agree with gherkin - people should be free to display their idiocy whenever they want. Otherwise the law will basically have to decide where to draw the line on "sense of humour", like that guy who got arrested for saying he was going to "blow the place sky high" about an airport.

0 |

if everyone was arrested that said something offensive half the world would be locked up

look at the thousands of people who troll facebook mocking people who have lost children or have cancer or whatever. This guy was arrested because it's in the public eye, if he said it to bob from larne who works in tesco nothign would have been done

0 |

....but that's the issue, gherkin. You start with "ah, total freedom of speech" then go "but not in this case, or this case, or this case, and CLEARLY not this case."

I think it's difficult to put up big dividing lines. And clearly they're not investigating people that said they bucked their ma. Make a death threat in public, you'd expect to face some sort of repercussions. Be racist online and it should be exactly the same as being racist in the street. It's not on, and just because you're behind a keyboard and Twitter's this *brand new thing* it doesn't mean that simple decency and the law shouldn't apply (except, maybe, in certain egregious circumstances).

Not having a go, btw. Just had it to the back teeth of ones talking about freedom of speech as an absolute.

0 |

All these sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc) have their own channels for dealing with abuse, starting with people able to block the people involved straight up to getting them investigated and possibly banned from the service. The law does not need to brought into it. I'm sure nearly everyone in life has had to deal with some form of verbal abuse or another, the law should have no part in it.

0 |

I don't think it encourages it at all. To say something is legal doesn't necessarily encourage it. As I said facebook etc can ban people from using their site if they see fit. A continued campaign of abuse is already legislated for with harassment laws. Calling someone a name/ saying they let their dead dad down/ using a racist term is different.

0 |

i would like a rogue enforcer to go round and slap all these wankers who slaber on forums/facebook/twitter etc that hide behiond false names

shine board was full of them, dickheads hiding behind fake names acting the big man. sadly some people spend their lives trolling spreading hate hiding in their bedroom, fucking nonces

0 |

OK well i wasn't aware that you were going to expand fereedom of speech into making court details public, data protection. What I mean is you should have the right to express your opinion no matter how racist or offensive it might be and similarly you should be able to criticise or insult someone using whatever language you see fit. That doesn't extend to a campaign of harasment.

Is banning language not the most ridiculous thing ever?

0 |

i think if the law is involved it should be for everyone abused, not just footballers and olympians. Special treatment for those in the public eye

0 |

Although I am not endorsing people using the word nigger, I don't think there should be a law against it. The victim could raise the issue with the bar staff if they saw fit and they could take action the thought was appropriate in the specific circumstances. Making a word illegal is ridiculous.

0 |

"do you think the law should/could be involved if someone calls someone a n*gger or whatever, say.... in a bar, for example? maybe you believe they should have thicker skin and rise above it which is fair enough (though i disagree)"

No, the law shouldn't be involved here. What happens if a comedian says it?

0 |

Also, "maybe you believe they should have thicker skin and rise above it which is fair enough (though i disagree)" that is NOT my point. No-one should have to deal with it, but legislating against people saying it changes nothing.

rigsy, the stance you're taking here bears a lot of resemblance to those who want to combat alcoholism by reducing trading hours and increasing taxes on alcohol - does that work?

0 |

a comedian says it to generate laughs, if someone says it based on ahet and to offend it's different

not really the content but more the intent

0 |

Muzkatoday @ 11:50 a.m.
i think if the law is involved it should be for everyone abused, not just footballers and olympians. Special treatment for those in the public eye

I agree that this should not be just highlighted when a celeb or someone gets abused. If we are going to take action against this sort of thing, there needs to be consistency with how it is dealt with. Twitter have algorithms that can ensure certain tweets, trends, etc are not seen in certain countries. This could be adapted to alert moderators of sorts to have a look at the tweets and ascertain if action is needed.

We could take this place as an example. When something gets ridiculous, the person gets banned and/or the stuff is deleted. Fair enough. Would you Gherkin be happy if people didn't face consequences for some of the stuff on here? All the Jewish stuff for example, or on the old forum, some of the terrible things I and others came out with?

0 |

Watch -

0 |

Has a skate through this lads profile last night and he seems to be rolling out the ' i'm going to chop your head off ' threats to a load of people. Cops were right to lift him. He looks like a loon.

0 |

" Had a skate "

0 |

i think if someone is feeling a victim of anything and they report it and it is seen as abuse then it should be dealt with and the person punished

obviously it depends on what is intended by what is said and i'm not saying words should be banned but how they are used should be restricted

0 |

I agree with what Gherkin is saying. While I think it's obvious you shouldn't be able to make threats to kill without repercussions, or malicious slander (for example ruining somones life by with an online campaign of hate).....if you think someone is a cunt, you should be able to tell them that without the law getting involved.

0 |

"not really the content but more the intent"

Well exactly, here's where it gets absurd though, how the hell do you judge intent?

0 |

for example there was program on before about people on facebook posting on peoples pages who had lost children and babies and posting pics saying here is your dead kid and putting offensive images on them. obviously the intent is to hurt and offend

i think it's obvious when someone is joking and someone is intending to hurt or offend, at least in most cases

0 |

if we move from the net and into the real world and say a school for example. If a kid is bullying another for being black of abusing him because his mum is dead the school will take the right action so do the people who own facebook ortwitter not have the same responsibility to monitor their site?

there's free speech then there's verbal abuse and the two should be kept seperate

0 |

This is the problem though rigsy, when the law gets involved in such things. Where do you draw the line? It is very hard to prove context, intent or how someone was emotionally effected by a comment.

I might be missing something here but I cannot think of one instance in my life when I have been offended by anything anyone has ever said to me. I have been annoyed at people or thought less of them but I don't think I have ever been offended.

0 |

Sorry if my posts area bit out of sync with the debate, I am trying to work and post at the same time.

0 |

if you say something racist or hurtful like that, the website owner (twitter in this case) should get the 4chan guys to find the persons address. Then all the names and addresses could be posted on a site full of know trolls/keyboard warriors. Then get the trolls together and have them mock the A-Team, lock the A-Team in a garage beside the Trolls with a rusty fork, bag of ky gell and thors hammer. Sit back and enjoy

0 |

But you can't form an opinion just based on your own experience you need to consider others may be offended. For example we have a number of suicides here every year due to bullying and what people say. This has increased through the use of the internet

0 |

Muhcrea has the solution. I'll vote for that

0 |

I've heard there is some sick minded idiot on twitter thats dishing out really nasty stuff about someone who recently died of cancer. Apparently twitter can only investigate complaints from the person who is directly affected. In this case the person has died so the family are the only people who this would apply to. The problem is that nobody wants to tell the family about it

0 |

rigsy today @ 12:12 p.m.
at the risk of repeating myself for the third time

so what are you saying here

0 |

No matter how distasteful someone's opinion is I would defend their right to express it.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

0 |

I'm not saying the law agrees with me, surely that is the whole point?

I'm saying i think people should be able to say whatever they want, not that they can.

I think the legislation is contradictory in itself.

0 |

I'm amazed that you think the law should prevent people from expressing themselves.

0 |

"i'm amazed you honestly think people should be able to say what they want :-/"

I'm really struggling with the fact that you find that amazing.

0 |

Watched a show a while back where the lawyer Paul Tweed from here was explaining how the courts currently handled the conflict between freedom of speech and defamation laws, it was quite interesting

0 |