[url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/04/15/tweeter-harassed-and-prosecuted-for-swearing/Tweeter facing 6 months in chokey for swearing[/url

Looks like Bexley council and the local rozzers have little better to do. I can't help but feel that there must be something a little more serious for them to be spending their time on

[url=http://www.bexley-is-bonkers.co.uk/blogs/2012/april.shtmlBexley is bonkers website[/url

I agree all this seems excessive.

Nevertheless, people do seem to think that they are somehow protected from prosecution if they post comments on Facebook / Twitter. These places basically amount to a public forum, and it is no surprise that the old bill come knocking when people post stuff that would have landed them in hot poop had they said it down the local boozer or on the high street.

I fail to see how he'd be in bother for referring to his local councillor as a c*nt in the pub.

As always, when you read beyond the headline there is a little more to the story.

If you wish to engage anyone in conversation, whatever their point of view, then there are ways and means and generally speaking that doesn't involve the use of the sort of language that the blogger used, its not really a freedom of expression issue, more an issue of intelligence and a lack of it.

The Public Order Act can be moulded and bended to suit all circumstances if a particularly bloody minded copper is in the area. I have known of people getting prosecuted for what amounts to little more than swearing in public.

So we should be prosecuting people for lack of intelligence? Whatever your opinion of the language used, there's no reason whatsoever that this should become a criminal matter. They guy expressed an opinion.

If he had said 'I think he is a c*nt instead of he is, he might have got away with it, unless thoughts are now policed.

Just as Gary Stephens did to me in an infamous Friday night match between Leeds & Halifax at Headingley. I knew I was on a loser as soon as I saw that the scrum halves were Stephens and Ray Ashton, I should've gone down with an ankle injury in the first minute.

Again, read the report, if he'd just blogged that opinion once then there would probably no such reaction.

He can express his opinion as frequently as he likes, can't he?

When someone expresses a particularly offensive opinion, repeatedly, and with the intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress, they fall foul of the criminal law.

The fact that the person in question chose to use Twitter as his vehicle, and was charged with some sort of offensive communication, seems by the by.

No, not really - see above.

Harassment, alarm or distress? Come off it. Had he called him a paedophile or something I could see that point. He had called the councillor 'stupid' or 'a rubbish councillor' on twitter, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He's been prosecuted merely because some people get overly upset by use of the word 'c*nt'.

Reference Harassment, alarm or distress - yes, this is a very low threshold, but that is they way the law stands.

The actual offence they have got him on is:

127Improper 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.

Also, I love the way the article linked to says that the Prosecution are 'seeking 180 days for that Tweet'. The Prosecution do not 'seek' any sentence. They are usually required to have sentencing guidelines ready to assist the Judge, but this is relatively new.

Interesting that Liam Stacey, of previous good character, got 56 days for calling someone a 'w0g', or words to that effect, on Twitter. His original Tweet was read by no more than about 20 people. What are your views on this?

I'd be interested to know what "public electronic communications network" extends to. If I, you, or anyone posts and offensive message on twitter, which can be read by anyone, that appears to be included in this. But what about if I, you, or anyone posts the exact same message on facebook with the settings set to private, so only 'Friends' can view it? Surely that is a private network then isn't it?
Or what about a text message from one friend to another?

Good point well made. I have no idea if posts on Facebook, only viewable to friends, are classed as being posted on a public communications network. It will make for an interesting test-case.

If you use text message to harass someone I believe text would be classed as use of the public communications network.

Yeah probably, I'm perfectly happy for someone who is harrassing someone else through these methods to be prosecuted, im just a little nervous/unsure of whether the police/state should be prosecuting people for swearing etc. Maybe if it is genuinely public then it might be ok to prosecute (although I'm sure some kind of warning could be administered first rather than a prosecution) but on private networks like private facebook accounts, private messaging systems, or text messaging then I wouldn't be happy at all.

Even the Public Order Act allows you to swear inside your own house. I think there needs to be some clarity on what you can and can't do on what networks/systems.

He said a lot more than that - you can see his feed [url=http://storyful.com/stories/23947here.[/url And it was read by a helluva lot of people - granted, thanks to retweets. I was on Twitter that night and watched the fervour spread. There was another lad saying similar stuff but I don't think anyone made a complaint about him.

I think it's common sense. If it's something a police officer might arrest you for if said in their presence, don't say it.

My views are that he's a racist shlthead, but that he shouldn't be serving time for calling someone a name, however unpleasant that name is.

Yes, I agree. I think his sentence is totally excessive for a man of previous good character involved in a one-off offence. Should have got a police caution, at most.

Reading the feed, I'd dispute he was ever of 'good character'... what a horrible little scrote.

Fake. Olly Cromwell indeed.

Is this the time to point out that - pace Sunny Hundal, Carter Magna, the twittersphere and assorted bloggerati - he's not been charged, tried, convicted or sentenced for swearing or for calling someone a rude name? beneaththewig.com/miscommunication Quote Finally, turning to the cries of assaults upon freedom of expression, it has to be remembered freedom of expression is a qualified right. The higher courts have already considered the balancing of freedom of expression with section 127, and came to this conclusion: ‘Section 127(1)(a) does of course interfere with a person’s right to freedom of expression. But it is a restriction clearly prescribed by statute. It is directed to a legitimate objective, preventing the use of a public electronic communications network for attacking the reputations and rights of others. It goes no further than is necessary in a democratic society to achieve that end.’ Lord Bingham, DPP v Collins. In summary, swearing on Twitter is not a crime. Frankly, only a c*nt would think so. But being menacing, or being grossly offensive? That is. '"

Is this the time to point out that - pace Sunny Hundal, Carter Magna, the twittersphere and assorted bloggerati - he's not been charged, tried, convicted or sentenced for swearing or for calling someone a rude name? beneaththewig.com/miscommunication Quote Finally, turning to the cries of assaults upon freedom of expression, it has to be remembered freedom of expression is a qualified right. The higher courts have already considered the balancing of freedom of expression with section 127, and came to this conclusion: ‘Section 127(1)(a) does of course interfere with a person’s right to freedom of expression. But it is a restriction clearly prescribed by statute. It is directed to a legitimate objective, preventing the use of a public electronic communications network for attacking the reputations and rights of others. It goes no further than is necessary in a democratic society to achieve that end.’ Lord Bingham, DPP v Collins. In summary, swearing on Twitter is not a crime. Frankly, only a c*nt would think so. But being menacing, or being grossly offensive? That is. '"