Tweak comms laws or Facebook 'n' Twitter folk will be treated like CRIMINALS UK communications laws should be reformed to account for the social media age, a civil liberties group has said. Big Brother Watch (BBW) said (27-page/705KB PDF) existing laws under the Communications Act, and guidelines for public prosecutors on how they should be applied to social media communications, are unsuitable. …
"...there will be further individuals who are arrested, charged and prosecuted unnecessarily under these laws..."
"Oh goody", said Theresa May, the Police and the Security Services, "more laws we can abuse to give ourselves even greater control over the masses!"
When an ex-partner is indecent or grossly offensive in a public medium - the police do need a handle to protect the more vulnerable.
Paul Chambers is a red herring 'cos all that demonstrates is a serial failure of common sense by the complainant, police, cps and magistrate - all of whom should have tossed it out. And its really hard to draft a law to bring 'em to their senses. It is one case to balance against the monstrous stuff that mostly women have to put up with from angry men. Its one case that brought in guidelines to hopefully stop a repeat of the law's misuse whilst protecting its intended use.
You can't count on common sense, the law has to be well enough defined to only hit the target.
The police and powerful people will use a law like this.
- people they don't like.
- we know you are bad but we have no proof so we will use this.
- our arrest stats are a bit low this month.
There's some twitchy cunts who find everything offensive.
There are some traffic wardens who find the phrase "fuck off" to be alarming, harassing and whatever the other word is, and I'm an official criminal to prove it (a wholly unrepentant one too - the officer concerned can thoroughly, entirely and comprehensively fuck right off).
The problem with woolly phrasing like that law is everyone can come a cropper. A Christian fundamentalist -say- would find every syllable I would utter on the subject of religion offensive. I find doorstep conversion attempts offensive (and I find know-nothing bollocks like Cameron's no-encryption, no-safe-places speech fucking obscene).
Where do you draw a line when it's thoroughly subjective, and a significant number of offended people are just being offended because they think they should be.
WHY is the solution to people who receive these thinly veiled "insults" or whom take "offence" at the slightest drop of a hat, a law protecting them from a perceived "threat".
Most of the twats doing the "bullying" are pathetic keyboard warriors. Remove their internet access or give them a dumb phone. Or, shock, perhaps the parents could step in and, you know, discipline their errant offspring.
When I was at school, I was bullied. By bullied I meant physically assaulted. regularly, That went on for 3 years until I socked the bastard whilst in a fire drill queue. Not called names, that's something I have put up with most of my life. Didn't bother me then, doesn't bother me now!
Most of the twats receiving the comments are weak, sensitive types who wouldn't last 5 minutes outside their little bubbles.
Hers a proposition, if you don't like what somebody has typed, aimed directly you or not, then DONT FUCKING READ IT, or DELETE the offender from your "friends?!?" list, or CHANGE YOUR PHONE NUMBER, or, TURN YOUR FUCKING COMPUTER OFF.
Getting sick of the nannyment sticking its nose in **every** aspect of our lives and legislating against it...
** this commentard accepts that there are exceptions but inventing laws up to stop some one being insulted is a retrograde step.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
