Arrests for 'offensive' Twitter and Facebook messages up by a third

Two-and-a-half thousand Londoners have been arrested over the past five years for allegedly sending “offensive” messages via social media, statistics have revealed. The full number of arrests made by the Metropolitan Police for alleged breaches of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 increased by 37 per cent over the …

[2460 Something]

Power Mad

Unfortunately this is the same of most laws, once they are in place for a given intent they are twisted and, unsurprisingly, it gets abused. The whole debacle over the right to take pictures/film on public property, The misuse of anti-terror laws against peaceful protesters. Anything and everything will be twisted around so they can justify whatever they wish.

I do wonder how 'understaffed' our police service would be if they simplified their over-the-top paperwork and stopped twisting laws to justify arrests that should never have occurred.

That isn't to say I have a problem with the police per say, I think there are many up-standing officers who do sterling work, unfortunately we only get to hear about the stupid ones.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Power Mad

but of course saying "I'm going to come round your house and rape your mom and kill your kids", be it via social media, text or post, should be stamped on hard.

It's also a question of context.

"I'm going to kill you", could be a genuine death threat, or someone who's just had a round the world trip and a huge party given to them for their 60th, despite asking for no fuss.

[lglethal]

Re: Power Mad

Exactly. It's really hard to know if this is good or bad, based just on numbers. The amount of pretty vile trolling that goes on online, with death threats and threats of rape etc, is horrific, and if some of those scum are being done by this then imo its for the best.

However, it's hard to know if its being used correctly or not. Frankly, the numbers on this are pretty meaningless..

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Power Mad

The amount of pretty vile trolling that goes on online, with death threats and threats of rape etc, is horrific,

Sure.

and if some of those scum are being done by this then imo its for the best.

Aaaaaaand there go your civil rights.

Folks in England said the same thing about people promulgating papist doctrine, not so very long ago.

But, hey, as long as it's speech you deplore, then all Right Thinking People are safe, yes? So that's OK then.

I'm glad we have Reg commentators to set the bounds of morality and legality for us.

[2460 Something]

Re: Power Mad

Absolutely, it is nigh impossible to get anything useful from these numbers (other than they are massively increasing) without the proper context behind them. Unfortunately when you look at the context behind other arrests we do find out about they regularly paint the police in a negative, over-reacting, over-reaching, law-twisting light. There should be levels of accountability within the police service to reduce unnecessary arrests, but most of the time they appear to close ranks and ignore any criticism.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Power Mad

Try introducing a law saying you can't say this in public, with a national network of microphones on every lamppost to monitor you an enforce it .

But stick in the back of some technical law about network spectrum and frequency allocation and it's OK

[lglethal]

Re: Power Mad

Not really the same thing. The police arent trawling the internet looking for things that have been said. These are things for which people have been reported to police by members of the public.

So more like threatening to kill someone when there are witnesses around. Those witnesses might go to the police and report it, then you will get investigated for making threatening behaviour. Unlike the "in person" case though, its much easier for the police to check the records online that show "yes, actually you did threaten to come over to that persons house, rape them, their mother and their dog, and then burn their house to the ground with them inside it.". Maybe the closest non-internet example I can think of is making threats in a letter. Although I guess it's easier to claim you didnt write a letter, then it is to claim you didnt write a post or tweet (at least for most of the non-IT working public! ;) ).

In a way the "online" case is less open to abuse then your "in person" case because its not one person's word against someone elses. Although cases like the guy who got charged for making a bomb threat to Robin Hood Airport shows that people (the person who reported the tweet), the police (who arrested the guy) and the CPS (who prosecuted the poor sod) can all be f%&king muppets...

[Just Enough]

Re: Power Mad

"These are things for which people have been reported to police by members of the public."

Well there's your problem. It's far too easy to be a touchy offendee on the internet Just like it's too easy to be an vile troll. If the people reporting stuff to the police had to actually go to a police station, and report the matter face-to-face, I think you'd find only the most serious and real cases would get reported. But because you can just forward a link to some twitter account, it's too easy for people to generate a fuss over nothing. Just because they can.

[Adam 52]

Re: Power Mad

It's even more crazy than that. I'll give you a genuine case from the past month. Girl (24) gets abusive message on Twitter and shows it to mum. Mum reports to Police. Police ask girl if she is offended, girl says "no, just ignore it". But the crime is in the system and so has to be investigated even though no one wants it to be.

If it wasn't, of course, the 1 in a million that ends in an assault would be in the headlines as "Police ignore warnings" (a bit like the front page in the I today).

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Power Mad

>The police arent trawling the internet looking for things that have been said

The case of the Robin Hood airport it was tweeted - the internet equivalent of shouting in the park.

The airport claim to have found it by doing a search, ie they were monitoring Twitter for references to "Robin Hood"

The case where a musician texted clash lyrics to a friend and the police showed up, the police weren't able to adequately explain how they had "discovered" a private txt between two people who weren't the subject of any sort of investigation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Power Mad

'The case where a musician texted clash lyrics to a friend and the police showed up, the police weren't able to adequately explain how they had "discovered" a private txt between two people who weren't the subject of any sort of investigation.'

All text messages pass through a 'Short Message Service Centre (SMSC) they're not point-to-point (phone to phone), as such, they're not as 'private' as people would think/expect.

The system operates on a 'store and forward basis', I'd bet that there's been a significant amount of 'keyword' searching going on in the 'store' part of the transaction for quite some time now, and these Clash lyrics hit the keyword jackpot..

in a conversation with someone who used to work at EE about phones, he let slip that they 'regularly looked at SMS messages as they passed through the system', and he wasn't especially 'privileged' so, in short, SMS/text messages != private.

[Joe Bryant]

Re: Power Mad

The explanation was pretty simple - the guy texted the wrong number, and the person who received the message passed it onto police. Nothing sinister about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jun/03/terrorism.world

[scrubber]

Re: Power Mad

@Lost all faith...

Have we reached the point yet where, absent personal details such as address, such threats are meaningless and can be treated as fiction by reasonable people?

What are the actual instances of people following through on such threats? When does it become as frightening as people putting a curse on you? Anyone got any stats? Am I being too cavalier about the threat posed by fat guys in their underpants sitting in their mom's basement?

[OliP]

"a false message to cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety”

so every communication from my MP then?

[Dan 55]

Not just yours, lock 'em all up over the bollocks they've been saying every day during the EU referendum campaign.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Well, I think....

....this is fabulous news! An increase for arrests of those making offensive posts? Great!

Now, how many of us need to report #EDL and #UKIP before they all get arrested?

[chivo243]

Re: Well, I think....

Well that's just #*^%@%&)^%# I should #$*&%&%% and if I ever see you !!@#$$%$&%$

[ukgnome]

Re: Well, I think....

Presumably - Well that's just TOO CUTE I should PHONE YOU and if I ever see you THEN WE KISS

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Well, I think....

Judging by the downvotes, I think some commentards missed the subtle inferences of my post and didn't spot the troll icon.

My post was intended as a comment on the nature of the reporting, enforcement and application of the law in these cases. After all, I am offended by the rhetoric of the EDL and UKIP, who could both, to some degree, be accused of hate speech. I am even more offended by extremist feminist blogs, tweets etc. which, in some cases, actually espouse physical violence, even mass murder, against men and boys. Yet, it remains the case that action is not taken against such organisations or socially accepted extremism - why not?

It's another example of the law being applied selectively and that is, I believe, not justice.

Drop the law, or apply it equally and watch it fail through its own stupidity.

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet actually worked pretty well as a libertarian paradise, all the time the technical barriers kept out the riff-raff.

Now it's full of chavs and they brought their real-world problems with them. This is the fate of all utopia I'm afraid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing new

4 months prison for singing a song.

[John Lilburne]

Re: Nothing new

Was he Scottish?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Nothing new

'4 months prison for singing a song'

Aye, just singing a harmless wee sectarian song,

I take it you've never been on a bus or a train where some idiot starts singing 'The Sash' or 'Billy Boys' or 'Athenry' or 'Ibrox Disaster' with the sole intention of causing trouble and it kicks off?

I take it you've never been punched for being a 'fenian cunt' (and I'm not a Catholic) just because some shithead decided to 'sing a song' and you happened to be in the vicinity?

From the article you link to

'..Simply for singing this lewd tune which for decades has formed part of the stadium-based, mostly harmless wind-ups between Rangers and Celtic fans, '

Oh sure, such songs are just lewd and a 'mostly harmless wind-up', I missed the fact that getting punched in the face as I sat on a public bus minding my own business was both 'mostly harmless' and merely part of a 'wind-up', oh, wait, maybe it's only a 'mostly harmless wind-up' when sectarian songs are sung in a stadium...

These songs have 'baggage', they're not just harmless 'banter' or 'folk songs' as some apologists would have it.

For the record, I'm an atheist, my mother was a Catholic from a 'mixed' family (Catholic & Protestant) and my father was an atheist from a Protestant family, so I have relatives and bigots on both sides. The Bigotry isn't just 'about football', that's just a surface manifestation of something which runs a lot deeper. It saddens me to say that I have Bigots for relatives who are quite happy to call my 2 year old great nephew 'a wee Orange bastard' and his mother, my niece, 'a Fenian whore' and truly mean it, such is life in some parts of 21st century Scotland.

[Anonymous Coward]

THX1138

"OMM: Let us be thankful we have commerce. Buy more. Buy more now. Buy. And be happy."

Isn't that the real point of "social media"? don't go messing up the sharing/consuming environment with all your hater talk.

[Dadmin]

Re: THX1138

I think of the social medias as more of a huge club that anyone can join, and that in itself is the problem. Opinions are like people, they are mostly assholes. :)

[jzl]

Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

Freedom of speech without the freedom to offend is worthless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

But if it's not banned then I may get triggered in my safe-space.

[Nick Kew]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

Freedom of speech without the freedom to offend is worthless.

Not worthless. Just nonexistent: it simply isn't free speech.

Je suis some-poor-bugger-probably-not-called-Charlie. 'Cos Charlie Hebdo published things far more offensive than I (or I expect many of those arrested) ever would, but got all the sanctimonious hypocrites lining up to support it.

My personal view? I'm with Voltaire: I support the right to say despicable things. I may also despise those who gratuitously abuse that right, but that doesn't mean sending the heavies after them.

[Commswonk]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

Freedom of speech without the freedom to offend is worthless.

Perhaps so... but offending someone is one thing, actively abusing or threatening them are entirely different.

I might, for example, describe someone online as being a prize twat, and they might well be offended. It would, I think, be quite different to say "I know where your wife works..." or "I follow your kids when they leave school..." with an implicit (or even explicit) threat tagged on.

Being offensive "just because you can" is pretty dishonest anyway; doing it anonymously is at best cowardly and, IMHO, rather dishonourable.

[Adam 52]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

So,by that argument, an offensive T-shirt about Hillsborough would be fine because it's not threatening...

[Commswonk]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

So,by that argument, an offensive T-shirt about Hillsborough would be fine because it's not threatening...

As I'm sure you are aware that is not what my argument stated. I did not say that being offensive was OK while being abusive or threatening are not; I was merely drawing a distinction between the two. FWIW I would agree that an "offensive T-shirt about Hillsborough" would in all probability not be fine, but as someone else commented The problem is, where do you draw the line? And even more importantly, who draws the line?

The principle of "Freedom of Speech" is important and precious, and I would argue that for those reasons pushing at its boundaries should really only be undertaken with care and caution.

The police have come into some criticism for pursuing those who "push at the boundaries" but ultimately it is not the police who establish guilt or innocence in any given case; that responsibility rests with the Courts. If I or anyone else takes serious exception to something said about me (or "them") then I (or "they") am (are) perfectly entitled to report the matter for further action.

If someone seriously oversteps the mark (however that mark is to be defined) they have no right whatsoever to expect that their comments will be free from further consequences upon them.

[jzl]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

"The principle of "Freedom of Speech" is important and precious, and I would argue that for those reasons pushing at its boundaries should really only be undertaken with care and caution."

Freedom means not having to be careful. If you have to be careful, it's not freedom.

[Commswonk]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

Freedom means not having to be careful. If you have to be careful, it's not freedom.

An interesting thought, but not universally applicable. I have a driving licence, and provided that my car is taxed, insured and has a valid current MOT certificate I am free to take it on the road.

However, because I have to observe the Highway Code and countless bits of "law" (RTA, RTRA, CUR, and so on) I am not free to drive on the road. Might explain the conduct of some drivers & cyclists, though.

Freedoms are almost invariably accompanied by responsibilities, and Freedom of Speech is no different.

Perhaps you believe that having to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions is an infringement of your freedom.

Not only do I not agree with you, I believe you to be wrong.

[jzl]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

The problem is, where do you draw the line? And even more importantly, who draws the line?

[Dave 15]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

So what is active abuse... for me it is actually more a physical thing or even a face to face confrontation that can't be side stepped or ignored... 'social media'... to be honest if you are addicted you should just go and get a real life.

Apart from when I am working (or idling away a bit of time while the compiler does its job) then I don't go near the **** computer and I stick to an old fashioned phone that makes phone calls and nowt else

[Jeremy Puddleduck]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

Freedom of speech is not the same as a freedom to threaten. Threatening to rape someone with a pair of scissors, after previously announcing the address of the person being threatened, is not covered by freedom of speech and is not just about offence. You'd be arrested for that threat on the street so why not online?

[jzl]

Re: Freedom of speech is dead in the UK

"Freedom of speech is not the same as a freedom to threaten"

Agreed. No argument here, as long as threatening and offending don't ever get confused.

Hate speech, for example. To pick a topical example, take the statement "all Muslims are evil". It's wrong, it's horrible, and I want no part of it, but as soon as we start taking away the right of people to say it, we're entering incredibly dangerous territory.

For one thing, how are we supposed to counter these kinds of ideas if even conversation about them feels dangerous?

Secondly, it's a precedent. Who says what is "hate" speech and what is valid criticism? What happens when they decide to include more and more things? What if their definition of hate speech is politically chosen, or something which could reasonably be disagreed with?

In a nutshell, freedom of speech is an idea that exists to protect us all from each other. We take it away at our peril.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just add a check box?

I do not wish to offend.

That way if someone see's something they find offensive they could confirm if the person posting it wished to offend and therefore not be offended.

Here's an interesting thought, when the IPB comes into law (which I hope it doesn't) does that mean any post you ever posted is fair game for interpretation by the authorities? That's a scary prospect. Will the police search phrases just to arrest people?

What if I post about helping my uncle jack off a horse and forget the comma?

[caffeine addict]

Is there a list of these "offensive" messages anywhere?

[Dadmin]

Exactlyness!

Context, give us the context so we can all see what a saddo these people are, or aren't, then let their online peers dole out the punishment, if required. There should be a clear link from perp's picture and it's doings online, all seachable (redacted for the necessary bits) so the world can see what a turd looks like. Then auto-link to every new instance of social medias that they connect to. I think if we got to see these message it would be more transparent than us having to go search on the scraper sites for the deleted messages. All we need is: 1) sites these creeps use and their login IDs there, 2) the offending posts cleaned up for public consumption, 3) an unflattering pic of said creep, 4) a method to store and forward their past offenses to future social media sites. Not easy, but that's my solution in a nutshell. A clearing house for trolls, if you will. Shine the light into their hidy-holes, and watch the rats scramble!

Let's face it, most folks are pretty decent online, but a few assholes like to make trouble and ruin it for all others because of the sweet anonymity that the Internet affords them, and they have nothing else in life to busy them creatively. Just like the stupid assholes who deface and destroy public places, they should be taken out back of the ranger's shed and beaten until they crap themselves, because they deserve it. Nothing wrong with that.

[Crisp]

Please don't tell the Metropolitan Police about 4chan.

We just don't have enough lawyers and jail space.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 4chan.

You're so out of the loop there buddy.

4chan was neutered when moot got cuckolded by a social justice warrior. Then moot sold the whole thing, and now it has delusions of becoming the chan version of reddit.

The 4chan diaspora dispersed to various different sites, but it's certain that they'll never be as high a concentration of lulz ever again. End of an era.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Please don't tell the Metropolitan Police about 4chan.

Please don't tell the Metropolitan Police about 4chan...

Oh, come on, have you never wondered who was really behind those 'reporting in' threads on /b/ where the less than clueful were invited to put up their postcodes?

[Crisp]

Re: Please don't tell the Metropolitan Police about 4chan.

I knew it! The Register is full of oldfags.

[ukgnome]

I always thought it was 'take a fence' and wondered why all these folk were nicking from B&Q!

*yeah it's the one with the "I fucked yer mum and your dad loved it" greeting card in the pocket!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see examples of some of this speech

In many cases in America, it's not legal to threaten someone with bodily harm, but these arrests for material that seems to be just time-wasting is pretty draconian.

[patrick_bateman]

Act 127 does not apply to women apparently

(1)

A person is guilty of an offence if he—

2)

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

[Bucky 2]

Re: Act 127 does not apply to women apparently

And I can prove it!

We know that corporations are legally people. We also know that it is appropriate to use "it" to refer to a corporation.

Therefore, any legal document would use "it" whenever it doesn't mean to be gender specific.

And consequently, the "he" in the act can only be interpreted to mean men.

QED.

[Nasruddin]

Re: Act 127 does not apply to women apparently

It does. (UK) Interpretation Act 1978 provides that

"In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—

(a)words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;

(b)words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;

(c)words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular".

And I assume there will be equivalents elsewhere.

[jzl]

Re: Act 127 does not apply to women apparently

Sadly for your theory, English Common Law works on precedent, not linguistics.

[inmypjs]

Just a side effect...

of the dishonest politically correct games politicians and those in authority play.

When you can criticise your political opponents for being less offended than you are on someone else's behalf about something no sane person thinks is offensive anyway then is it a small step to demanding that people who actually are offensive be locked up.

When you see someone playing the game remember you are looking at a dishonest slimy scumbag, that or at someone too stupid to understand what they are doing.

Dishonest scumbag or idiot - yep that covers 95% of politicians.

[Not That Andrew]

It's not helped by the fact that about the only way to get Twitter to take notice of threatening behaviour is to make a police report

[johnwerneken]

OUTRAGEOUS. Let's Conquor the UK and enforce Freedom of Speach!

How absurd.

I can see restricting: speech assisting the enemy in time of war; speech causing financial damagers to others, or stuff like hollering 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. But just stuff that insults angers and pisses people off? Fuck them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Robin Hood Airport

is in Doncaster!

Not Nottingham.

[Olius]

Lies, damn lies and statistics

"The statistics will fuel the debate over the limits of freedom of expression over social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter."

They will, but they should not. "Statistics", by definition, are consolidated values based on the raw data. Only by looking at the actual raw data can we know if each individual case had merit.

Even having the statistic of how many of these arrests resulted in successful prosecutions would tell us something of value. This headline figure tells us nothing.

It saddens me that we live in an age where this kind of thing is not considered carefully and out come the pitchforks. "500 arrests?? DAY TOOK AR FREEDOM OF SPEEECH!"

Whatever happened to critical thinking? It doesn't seem very fashionable these days.

(N.B. If it turns out that most of these 500 were thrown out or not prosecuted, I would be right there manning the pitchforks. I am only lamenting the lack of actual information given here, and the wild conclusions being jumped to...)

[Dave 15]

Re: Lies, damn lies and statistics

I disagree with you

The headline figure DOES tell us something. It DOES tell us the police are sticking their nose into things and causing a reduction in our ability to freely express ourselves. It also suggests to me they have more free time on their hands than enough and so could be hacked back to save us tax.

The next statistics that you allude to...

how many of these arrests led to court tells us whether the police are just operating scare tactics (like the in EU in campaign... yup someone had to divert the stream :) )

How many of the arrests lead to punitive action from the courts would then give an indication of whether these jumped up twerps have the backing of the state for the interference.

Yes... the headline DOES tell us something. But as with most reporting it is only skin deep and even more alarming information is lurking behind the headline,.

[Olius]

Re: Lies, damn lies and statistics

Indeed - I agree.

But equally, the rate could be going up because society (well, that segment of society which inhabits the Internet) is becoming more "laddish" and it is becoming more "socially acceptable" to threaten or menace people online.

My point above is that without more numbers, we cannot know the truth - and anyone can use the headline given to back up their argument, whichever side of the debate they are on.

When the headline is used to back up a claim which isn't actually proved by it, it only tells us something about ourselves and our predispositions.

[TheJokker]

Why do Europeans put up with fascist liberal politicians?

[Dave 15]

Bored plod and freedom of speech

Amazing (not really but there we go) that PC Plod has nothing better to do with his time than trawl social media seeing if he can be offended... I guess he has to do something while waiting with his speed gun.

If I was honest I would far rather someone was rude and offensive in such a banal and pointless way (I mean does anyone with a brain take social media seriously... I did say with a brain) than have PC Gestapo snooping and preventing me saying what the fuck I like

[Olius]

Re: Bored plod and freedom of speech

I love the conclusions you jump to based on no knowledge of any of the individual cases and no knowledge of the law in question (Hint: Usually, where crimes have a victim, the victim must press charges. Hence this would not be "the PC Gestapo" or "PC Plod trawling the net")

[Dave 15]

Re: Bored plod and freedom of speech

yeah yeah, whatever... even if as you claim someone went to the police and moaned then the police still have to get off their backsides and do something... and frankly for most situations they don't... so I guess I will stick to my conclusion

(Hint...

Car written off in hit and run ... no police action

Assaulted while working in the pub... no police action

Daughter 14 abused by 25 year old... no police action

Major road accident leading to serious injury caused by the other driver... no police action

Son assaulted .... police did eventually attend, but only when I pointed out that now the ambulance had arrived I was going for a walk... but you know what, I should have taken the walk as the police did nothing beyond drink my tea

)

In fact the only time I have known the police do anything was when they slapped a speeding ticket on me at the edge of a village (while I was slowing down anyway)

[Intractable Potsherd]

Re: Bored plod and freedom of speech @Olius

" ... where crimes have a victim, the victim must press charges"

Not in the UK. Once a crime is reported, what happens after that point is entirely out of the hands of the person who reported it . Even if the person reporting it later decides that they do not want to proceed, the police and CPS can carry on anyway. Only in situations where the person reporting the crime is the main witness, and therefore refuse to give evidence, do they have any ability to stop the proceedings.

[Olius]

Re: Bored plod and freedom of speech @Olius

Thanks for the info Intractable, I stand corrected :-)

So the police have to have the crime reported to them - I wonder how that squares with Dave15's idea that the police are randomly trawling the net, looking for people to arrest?