Our Norfolk based troll had better watch his step…
The usual anxiety about freedom of speech and social media runs like this: someone naive to the permanence and potential cruelty of a tweet orFacebook update posts an offensive message intended for a narrow audience of their friends or acquaintances. That message, maybe racist or misogynist or otherwise abusive, is shared more widely than its author imagined, and takes on a weight that was never intended. An overzealous police officer sees it and decides that they are obliged to do something, and the ill-advised action of a moment becomes inescapable. Even if no one has really been hurt, a life is left in ruins, and all of us become a little less free.
The old free speech issue raises its head again. Plod is more than happy to persecute prosecute people for what they say as it means they can avoid all that hassle involved in catching real criminals. And all it takes is for someone to complain that their delicate feelings have been hurt – or, worse – those of their god or prophet. Equally, when people troll websites – blogs as well as Twatter and Farcebook – then likewise they can find themselves facing the wrath of the agents of the state. And it’s no good pleading freedom of speech. That died a long time ago – around the time we had hate-speech laws foisted upon us, whereby someone only has to claim that you were racist for you to be one.
CPS considers it appropriate to prosecute people for sending messages that “may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false”
That’s pretty much all of DD’s output covered, right there…
And, anyway, freedom of speech has never applied on private property and blogs, Farcebook, Twatter, et al, are private property and you may say what you like within the bounds allowed by the owner of the site – so if they decide that they don’t like what you say, well, suck it up, frankly. Better than a knock on the door and a hand on your collar.
As for DD, well his sustained campaign of harassment fits right in this definition and, yeah, if a blogger felt sufficiently pissed off with his activities, it could well result in charges being brought. It’s not as if we don’t know who he is and we don’t have the evidence from his IP, now, is it? But, while it would amuse me to see a certain Norfolk Troll in chains, on balance, I am unhappy at any further erosion of our liberties. Better Dickie Doubleday goes free and we deal with him ourselves, than the heavy hand of the state be involved.
CPS considers it appropriate to prosecute people for sending messages that “may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false”
So if I send a false message, i.e., “my sister’s car has gray upholstery,” when in fact it is tan, under the letter of this law I can be prosecuted? Got it.
The CPS Guidelines state “This test has two stages: the first is the requirement of evidential sufficiency and the second involves consideration of the public interest.” I don’t think it would be in the public interest to prosecute every colour blind person.
CPS considers it appropriate to prosecute people for sending messages that “may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false”?
False?
Well that’s every political party, MP & Ministry buggered then, isn’t it?
So I can be prosecuted for saying that our Dickie is a nice bloke?
Guess you’ll have to stick with semi-literate, ignorant, bullying, twattish, narcissistic cunt…
It’s always better to tell the truth. My Mammy taught me that.
Times have changed mate. Telling the truth can lead to someone getting upset and that can be prosecuted as well.
Better still that he gets the notoriety he so deserves, as a one line mention at the bottom of the legal supplement of Norfolk Pig Breeders quarterly.
Additional: See this article in The Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/10/cps_latest_social_media_prosecution_guidelines/