[Archived] Be careful what you say on the internet

[Glenn]

Hot on the heels of the twitter bomb joke trial ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11736785 ) we see an MP arrested today for ill conceived but obviously not to be taken seriously comments on twitter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11736154

To be honest, this scares the crap out of me.

[neekoy]

Holy crap, that is just bullshit. Whoops do I get arrested for supporting such free speech actions?

[Paul]

Hot on the heels of the twitter bomb joke trial ( http://www.bbc.co.uk...kshire-11736785 ) we see an MP arrested today for ill conceived but obviously not to be taken seriously comments on twitter

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ingham-11736154

To be honest, this scares the crap out of me.

I can see why and it looks like a big problem. I'm certain if one took time to trawl back through the board one would find many examples of equally, if not more, offensive language. Gareth Compton though is clearly a fool if he thinks his remarks had any potential to be construed as amusing. Hopefully his arrest will prove a lesson to many. I find it difficult to understand why people are not aware of the potential damage they do themselves in these days of mass media. Another example, in a completely different field, is Alex Epstein, (career unemployed Head of Communications Ha!) who showed himself to every potential employer in the land on national TV this week. I rarely watch The Apprentice but would anyone employ this guy? Car crash TV and millions revel in other people exposing themselves to then watch them crash and burn. Astonishing.

[MarkBRFC71]

So this guy gets arrested for a flippant remark on twitter, yet several protesters get away scot free when burning a poppy on Armistice day at 11am, carrying signs calling for the death of British servicemen and attacking the police?

Something is sadly, sadly wrong with this country.

[Mattyblue]

I love how Unison have got involved:

'Roger McKenzie, Unison's West Midlands regional secretary, said he had been inundated with complaints from city council workers outraged at Mr Compton's comments and he called on Mr Compton to resign from the council.

He said: "Birmingham is a multicultural city and the council's workforce reflect this.

"It is clear that Councillor Compton is out-of-touch with both his city and the council staff.

"It is wholly unacceptable for a public official to make such racist comments. Councillor Compton must resign his seat immediately" '

Eh? What did he say that was racist? crass and gnerally out of order, yes. Just shows how the multicultural lobby have still got this country by the throat. The bloke should apologise for it, but this reaction once again proves the nation has lost its way.

[Kelbo]

So this guy gets arrested for a flippant remark on twitter, yet several protesters get away scot free when burning a poppy on Armistice day at 11am, carrying signs calling for the death of British servicemen and attacking the police?

Something is sadly, sadly wrong with this country.

Agree 100%

[Glenn]

I believe legally the difference between Compton and the poppy burners (a tough subject for me, a strong believer in right to protest with a life ling connection to the Royal British Legion, it leaves me rather conflicted) is that deformation (aka slander or libel) has to be against an identifiable individual or corporation. So, (as far as I can tell ..... this should not be treated as legal advice) you can libel the pope, but not Christianity as a whole.

This country is desperately in need of reform of the libel laws, the situation we find ourselves in is comical, thankfully there is campaign backed by some quite heavy hitters pushing to change this, I encourage you to give them your support.

http://www.libelreform.org/

[SouthAussieRover]

For heavens sake Glenn....it's defamation rather than deformation.

Feel free to carry on with your lecture

[Glenn]

I needs a spell checker that knows when I use the incorrect word spelt correctly

[jim mk2]

The libel reform campaign is worth supporting. There are many public figures (and footballers) hiding behind the present laws and many juicy stories many of which are in the public interest waiting to be told but cannot be published for fear of litigation.

[roversmum]

Agreed, Jim, if they have committed the 'crime' they should take the consequences.

Things should be interesting a few years hence, particularly for youngsters when those who insist on publishing pictures of their drunken activities etc on social networking sites such as facebook mature. There will be plenty of material for future embarrassment.

[92er]

Agreed, Jim, if they have committed the 'crime' they should take the consequences.

Things should be interesting a few years hence, particularly for youngsters when those who insist on publishing pictures of their drunken activities etc on social networking sites such as facebook mature. There will be plenty of material for future embarrassment.

I have come across the idea that youngsters might already be suffering from the impact of their facebook entries-some employers apparently want to check out the applicants' facebook pages.

Unless it's an urban myth.

[Glenn]

I have come across the idea that youngsters might already be suffering from the impact of their facebook entries-some employers apparently want to check out the applicants' facebook pages.

Unless it's an urban myth.

It's no urban myth, back when I was recruiting for technical jobs, I'd always check an applicants "online presence" before offering them an interview. That said, no trace at all was often more damming than a few drunken party pics and and a worrying fixation with Hannah Montana.

[thenodrog]

The libel reform campaign is worth supporting. There are many public figures (and footballers) hiding behind the present laws and many juicy stories many of which are in the public interest waiting to be told but cannot be published for fear of litigation.

"Juict stories"!!! Regular Sun and NoTW reader are you?

Now I'd obviously rather use a board name and I know you do too but I also know that in the past you have been desperate to keep your real identity secret on here and in fact have taken steps with admin to prevent it's use. So how does that fit with your opinion that public figures (and footballers) should be fair game and soft targets?

[thenodrog]

Agreed, Jim, if they have committed the 'crime' they should take the consequences.

Things should be interesting a few years hence, particularly for youngsters when those who insist on publishing pictures of their drunken activities etc on social networking sites such as facebook mature. There will be plenty of material for future embarrassment.

Crime? Most of the 'crimes' relating to public figures and footballers are not crimes as such but various forms of social or more likely sexual activity. Sex out of marriage or out of even outside a relationship is not a crime and perish the thought that it ever will be. If it were then that little lad who is the new leader of the opposition had better get up the church path asap.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A7&version=KJV

John 8:7

[thenodrog]

Hot on the heels of the twitter bomb joke trial ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11736785 ) we see an MP arrested today for ill conceived but obviously not to be taken seriously comments on twitter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11736154

To be honest, this scares the crap out of me.

Not so thin end of the wedge Glenn. His comments were stupid and even worse not funny, but if everybody runs scared there will be no end to all this crap. When someone pushes you then must push back.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire109645.html

[Glenn]

Not so thin end of the wedge Glenn. His comments were stupid and even worse not funny, but if everybody runs scared there will be no end to all this crap. When someone pushes you then must push back.

http://www.brainyquo...aire109645.html

I agree, seeming the armchair activists gave their slow of solidarity with some ultra-tame civil disobedience today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11742182

Not exactly up there with self-immolation as a form of protest, but it's the thought that counts.

[philipl]

The libel reform campaign is worth supporting. There are many public figures (and footballers) hiding behind the present laws and many juicy stories many of which are in the public interest waiting to be told but cannot be published for fear of litigation.

Completely agree.

Arresting this bloke is stupid. Since when was making yourself an ignoramus and a cretin a criminal offence.

[BuckyRover]

So this guy gets arrested for a flippant remark on twitter, yet several protesters get away scot free when burning a poppy on Armistice day at 11am, carrying signs calling for the death of British servicemen and attacking the police?

Something is sadly, sadly wrong with this country.

The Poppy burners were also arrested weren't they?

[Eddie]

The first case is ridiculous, the second one is a bit trickier. As a councillor he should have known better and it was reason enough for him to lose his job.

[AggyBlue]

The Poppy burners were also arrested weren't they?

Have they been shot yet?

[thecomebackid]

I believe legally the difference between Compton and the poppy burners (a tough subject for me, a strong believer in right to protest with a life ling connection to the Royal British Legion, it leaves me rather conflicted) is that deformation (aka slander or libel) has to be against an identifiable individual or corporation. So, (as far as I can tell ..... this should not be treated as legal advice) you can libel the pope, but not Christianity as a whole.

This country is desperately in need of reform of the libel laws, the situation we find ourselves in is comical, thankfully there is campaign backed by some quite heavy hitters pushing to change this, I encourage you to give them your support.

http://www.libelreform.org/

Glenn, you raise an interesting issue, but just to clear up any lingering confusion, neither link has anything to do with English libel law. They refer to criminal actions under Section 127 of the Communications Act, not libel. They are two totally different jurisdictional creatures.

While Compton, the Tory twitterer, remains on bail, in my opinion: (1) he is unlikely to be charged; and (2) even less likely to be convicted. Any prosecutor would have to consider the degree of doubt on the available evidence, ie whether it could be proven that Compton actually intended the message to be menacing to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown or that he was aware that it may be taken to be so. Without the element of intention, no charges should be brought. Further, given the adverse effect YA-B seems to have on the average person, whether it's in the public interest to prosecute him is extremely debatable.

Both cases, however, raise a profound issue regarding the relationship between such criminal offences and internet usage - made all the more compelling if, as it seems, the police are taking such an inclusive approach to the term "menace" and the other components of Section 127. The bottom line is; anyone convicted of a Section 127 offence could be facing a sentence of up to six months. There are far more severe sentences for "stirring up religious hatred" under the previous government's Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

This multiplicity of 'hate-speech' legislation is a god send for self-serving individuals like YA-B, who seem to thrive on their professional victim status. All she has to do is shout "sh!t" and they jump on the shovel. The fact he was arrested by the ever obliging West Midlands Police Force, which has gone from 'bagging', aka torturing, Irish people suspected of, well, being Irish and speaking in an Irish accent in the 1980s, to more recently threatening to arrest Christian ministers for distributing Gospel scripture and trying to prosecute Channel 4's 'Dispatches' programme makers for "stirring up racial hatred" by secretly filming the incitement of Islamic preachers in a Birmingham mosque, says it all.

PS, back to English libel law. Given the reverse burden of proof, I agree that it is ripe for revision. Unfortunately there are three reasons why Parliament will not allow this to happen, at least not in a fair way: (1) the prospect of greater scrutiny and accountability would not be welcomed by MPs and, more importantly, their wealthy sponsors; (2) generally, turkeys are reluctant to vote for Christmas (see previous point); and (3) since we're not talking about protecting the rights of elusive furry vermin here, the issue is unlikely to ignite the backbenches.

[Flopsy]

#imsparticus

The Twitter joke trial is more about the stupidity of the CPS & Judicery (SP) than the law

[jim mk2]

This multiplicity of 'hate-speech' legislation is a god send for self-serving individuals like YA-B, who seem to thrive on their professional victim status. All she has to do is shout "sh!t" and they jump on the shovel. The fact he was arrested by the ever obliging West Midlands Police Force, which has gone from 'bagging', aka torturing, Irish people suspected of, well, being Irish and speaking in an Irish accent in the 1980s, to more recently threatening to arrest Christian ministers for distributing Gospel scripture and trying to prosecute Channel 4's 'Dispatches' programme makers for "stirring up racial hatred" by secretly filming the incitement of Islamic preachers in a Birmingham mosque, says it all

Shouldn't there be "allegedly" in there somewhere ?

PS, back to English libel law. Given the reverse burden of proof, I agree that it is ripe for revision. Unfortunately there are three reasons why Parliament will not allow this to happen, at least not in a fair way: (1) the prospect of greater scrutiny and accountability would not be welcomed by MPs and, more importantly, their wealthy sponsors; (2) generally, turkeys are reluctant to vote for Christmas (see previous point); and (3) since we're not talking about protecting the rights of elusive furry vermin here, the issue is unlikely to ignite the backbenches.

Self-serving MPs - where have we heard that before ? The MPs expenses scandal evidence was hawked around several national newspaper and turned down by worried proprietors over libel fears before the Torygraph had the bravery (or the best libel lawyers) to publish. English libel law reform is needed urgently so the press can continue to burrow without fear into the murky skulduggery (sp?) in Whitehall.

[colin]

Charlie Brooker's rather good comment on the Twitter bomber's caseHere