| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:28 pm Post subject: Celebrities Support Twitter Joker. |
 |
|
| Quote: | | A man found guilty of sending a 'menacing' tweet about a South Yorkshire airport has returned to court with the backing of top comedians to try to overturn his conviction. |
http://news.sky.com/story/953308/comics-in-court-to-support-twitter-joke-man
______________________
Depends how people take a joke and how it's written? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Schizoidman
Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 1140
Location: Rural West Sussex
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the conviction should stand. The Communications Act refers to a 'menacing act'. Threatening to 'blow the airport sky high' is fairly menacing I'd have thought.
These 'celebs' should mind their own business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He said it in jest and didn't literally mean it. How do you justify a joke compared to going too commit the crime? I've heard people saying " I'm going to kill you " - they don't mean it. So we all should be careful what we say in case we are taken to court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FleetingEileenM
Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Posts: 5769
Location: Hampshire
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Schizoidman, I agree with you. There COULD have been serious intent behind his so-called joke and in these terrorist-sensitive times it was a stupid thing to do.
As for those "celebs" ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: | | He said it in jest and didn't literally mean it. How do you justify a joke compared to going too commit the crime? I've heard people saying " I'm going to kill you " - they don't mean it. So we all should be careful what we say in case we are taken to court. |
Yeah Mark but people do kill other people when they don't mean it - that's manslaughter, so shall we make that OK too?
Like, 'I was driving round the estate at 60 mph just for a laugh, I didn't see the old lady crossing the road.'
I'm sure you'd agree to prosecute him.
Now, this fellow posted on twitter about blowing up an airport, you think that was fun. What if he phoned the airport to say the same thing. Ah that's different is it?
_________________
-
John W |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Robinson
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3598
Location: Chorley, Lancashire
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John W wrote: | | What if he phoned the airport to say the same thing. Ah that's different is it? |
Of course it's different. What a ridiculous thing to say, John.
This prosecution is ridiculous, a waste of time and money and the unfair persecution of someone who made a flip remark on the internet. We've all done that and in this case it was very clearly a joke (albeit one in bad taste). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ColinB
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And to think that such cases could potentially become more numerous once Big Brother has the power to scan the contents of all our electronic communications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ruddlescat
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 18010
Location: Near Chester
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ColinB wrote: | | And to think that such cases could potentially become more numerous once Big Brother has the power to scan the contents of all our electronic communications. |
That is exactly why these snooping proposals have to be stopped and I for one am strongly opposed to them
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian Robinson wrote: | | John W wrote: | | What if he phoned the airport to say the same thing. Ah that's different is it? |
Of course it's different. What a ridiculous thing to say, John.
This prosecution is ridiculous, a waste of time and money and the unfair persecution of someone who made a flip remark on the internet. We've all done that and in this case it was very clearly a joke (albeit one in bad taste). |
But if he had phoned the airport that would have been a joke too, yes?
Yes, because he has no bomb-making equipment, but the phone-call would lead to prosecution, so why not the twitter comment?
OK we can make bad jokes or 'flippant' comments in conversation, but to PUBLISH a bad joke with menacing content, surely there is a responsibilty there, knowing how offensive it is or how it might alert real concern.
To say 'I am going to blow up the airport' is different from saying 'I'd like to blow up the airport but I don't have the means to do so' and lawyers may argue successfully that difference.
_________________
-
John W |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Twitter is random speaking like you would be with a group of mates in a pub or at work. Just it's a moment of madness when you are on your own. It depends how people judge the context. Although it was a stupid act saying what he did - as someone may have thought he was a Terrorist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Robinson
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3598
Location: Chorley, Lancashire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John W wrote: | | Ian Robinson wrote: | | John W wrote: | | What if he phoned the airport to say the same thing. Ah that's different is it? |
Of course it's different. What a ridiculous thing to say, John.
This prosecution is ridiculous, a waste of time and money and the unfair persecution of someone who made a flip remark on the internet. We've all done that and in this case it was very clearly a joke (albeit one in bad taste). |
But if he had phoned the airport that would have been a joke too, yes?
Yes, because he has no bomb-making equipment, but the phone-call would lead to prosecution, so why not the twitter comment?
OK we can make bad jokes or 'flippant' comments in conversation, but to PUBLISH a bad joke with menacing content, surely there is a responsibilty there, knowing how offensive it is or how it might alert real concern.
To say 'I am going to blow up the airport' is different from saying 'I'd like to blow up the airport but I don't have the means to do so' and lawyers may argue successfully that difference. |
But he didn't make a phone call. He made a comment to his followers - who presumably knew his sense of humour. It wasn't a message for the authorities to take seriously, or he'd have contacted them direct.
This displays a simple misunderstanding of how Twitter works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian Robinson wrote: | But he didn't make a phone call. He made a comment to his followers - who presumably knew his sense of humour. It wasn't a message for the authorities to take seriously, or he'd have contacted them direct.
This displays a simple misunderstanding of how Twitter works. |
No. Of course the message wasn't sent 'to the authorities', a terrorist would not do that, he wants his attack to succeed. Someone posting on twitter can have his attack planned and tweet at the last moment. That method was demonstrated during last year's riots.
Last year's riots demonstrated that menacing tweets cannot be ignored, and they have been used to prosecute rioters.
_________________
-
John W |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ColinB
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: | | Twitter is random speaking like you would be with a group of mates in a pub or at work. |
I disagree. What is disseminated via Twitter is hardly limited to the equivalent of "a few mates in a pub at work". It's out there in the public domain and available for all to see if they're subscribing to your feed.
Anyway, it's no real surprise that the government wants the right of access to every aspect of our electronic (and non-electronic) communication. That way we really will be under the control of Big Brother.
Not far off now. Make the most of what few freedoms you still have folks. Those who say "It doesn't bother me because I have nothing to hide" are being unbelievably naive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
