While researching what would incite a CPS prosecution of someone’s Twitter feed, I found this: Communications act 2005=

127,

Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

This is what is being used to prosecute “trolls”.

Certainly makes me think twice about saying anything that could ever be “offensive”.

How do these prosecutions begin?
Does a copper show up and say “Did you tweet something contrary about Help For Heroes”(eg) here’s your summons.

I have to deal with this quite a bit at work.

The truth is that it’s untested and uncharted water. A massive percentage of police work now is about threats and comments on 2facebook and whathaveyou.

Does a copper show up and say “Did you tweet something contrary about Help For Heroes”(eg) here’s your summons.

In essence, yes.

Is there a successful legal precedent where someone has argued that offense is subjective?

I know nothing of “law”, please excuse my poor use of random words.

It’s always fun when this happens- “We don’t know how to police some new thing, therefore we will make everything illegal. But we promise not to abuse it”.

No idea tbh

What have you done? 😀

I tend to be involved when disputes escalate into threats and sometimes violence. It happens loads and rightly IMO people should be accountable for what they say and do. Having seen how this operates at the sharp end I can say for definite that the police don’t really know how to do this stuff and in a lot of cases don’t really want to get involved. However people do and say things that have a huge effect on others.

Or, has anyone played “entrapment” with themselves to goad GCHQ/CPS with a litany of “offensive” tweets…. As an experiment?

Haven’t done anything myself, but I have deleted tweets after thinking… Someone won’t like that.

Which is wrong and makes me very, very angry.

Is there a successful legal precedent where someone has argued that offense is subjective?

I’d hope that they would test “offensive” in the same way that they do for obscenity laws (e.g. the jury have to agree it is offensive/obscene).

does that mean that awful newspaper that published that letter from the bloke criticising the dead cyclist is in breach of this if it publishes on the internet, but not in breach of it if iit only publishes a hard copy of it.

I’d hope that they would test “offensive” in the same way that they do for obscenity laws (e.g. the jury have to agree it is offensive/obscene).

Well, that doesn’t work. “How do you know it was offensive?” “Because someone was offended.”

Really, the whole thing needs to be kicked out, and only directly threats should involve the police. Otherwise it’s telling on someone because they said something you don’t like.

gwaelod: good point.

I had that Cradle Of Filth “Jesus is a ****” tshirt in my youth.

My position is that I feel I could be prosecuted for stating that as a personal belief of fact.

Communications sent via social media are capable of amounting to criminal offences and prosecutors should make an initial assessment of the content of the communication and the conduct in question so as to distinguish between:

Communications which may constitute credible threats of violence to the person or damage to property.

Communications which specifically target an individual or individuals and which may constitute harassment or stalking within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order. This can include offences under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, breaches of a restraining order or breaches of bail. Cases where there has been an offence alleged to have been committed under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 should be referred to the Attorney General and via the Principal Legal Advisor’s team where necessary.

Communications which do not fall into any of the categories above and fall to be considered separately (see below): i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.

As a general approach, cases falling within paragraphs 12 (1), (2) or (3) should be prosecuted robustly where they satisfy the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. On the other hand, cases which fall within paragraph 12(4) will be subject to a high threshold and in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest.

Having identified which of the categories set out in paragraph 12 the communication and the course of conduct in question falls into, prosecutors should follow the approach set out under the relevant heading below.

From CPS Guidelines – further detail in the link.

In other words, it’s not there for prosecuting everyone who tweets there opinion of Piers Morgan, to pick a celebrity entirely at random.

Thankyou greatape for info.

In this day and age, as an “angry young man” what is one supposed to do with this fury ’cause I don’t see any motivational, constructive revolt anywhere.

I’m often in the frame of mind to criticize, abuse and denigrate prominent political figures but have no other forum than social media and feel restricted by the state.

As yossarian says, it’s new, and in the absence of rulings and case law, none of us can say for sure what does and doesn’t fall foul of it. Maybe you’ll make legal history?!

Possibly a more easily readable format than tga’s link (or maybe not)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/consultations/social_media_consultation.pdf

…strangely enough I was also researching this earlier today.

Not really that mindblowing we have section 5 of the public order act and the protection from harrasment act to stop people being arses face to face and the comunications act 2003 to stop them doing it via other media. It aint that new either the offence has been arround since 1988 when it was section 1 of the malicious comunications act.

In other words, it’s not there for prosecuting everyone who tweets there opinion of Piers Morgan, to pick a celebrity entirely at random.

Phew, thank God for that! 😉

On a bit of a hyperbole crankboy and am very much fumbling for a solid position on the matter.

You’ve touched upon another point though,when is it illegal to be intimidating, belligerent and “offensive”. Where’s the line?

New or not I believe it’s wrong.

on your scale the line is between beligerent and ofensive (i guess .) you can be rude but not scary threatening or distressing . The real vague one is harrasment doing something on two or more occasions you knew or should have known was likely to cause harrasment.

what is harrasment ? something where “a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.”

so be nice to people or else.

100% crankboy.

I suppose I’m fearful that being angry , hostile and specific with my arguments will have negative consequences.

This isn’t a precursor to some socialist propaganda, it is just very clear that the dissenting fury of people like me will not be tolerated in the slightest. Bad.

Harassment/ persistence? Natch