PDA

View Full Version : Tom Daley Arrest - How Scary Is This?


Chris 84
Jul 31st, 2012, 02:25 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19059127

as i've already made reference to on this forum, yesterday's abuse of athletes by the general public via twitter were rather disgusting. anti-japanese racism was rife among uk twitter users, and some of britain's own athletes came in for criticism, including diver, tom daley. however, the young man who "abused" daley has now been arrested. for anyone who doesn't know, the moron tweeted that daley had let down his recently deceased father with his performance in the olympics. obviously, a disgusting thing to say, but is it something that people should be arrested for? whilst i have no sympathy for this moron, the question must be asked; what am i allowed to say and do online? are you not allowed to criticise anyone? are you not allowed to make any personal attacks? if you are not legally allowed to tell someone that he has let his father down, we have moved beyond racist insults, we have moved beyond threatening language and we have reached a stage where anything which might cause any offence could now be deemed illegal. with the instantaneous nature of twitter, plenty of people have tweeted things which they later regret, plenty of people have tweeted their immediate feelings towards somebody or something, and often these feelings are negative. plenty of people on this forum have been guilty of making "malicious communications". just check out GM and you'll see malice in almost every thread. it isnt just morons who criticise people and things, and not everything is meant to be taken seriously. i am seriously worried about where we are headed as regards freedom of speech in relation to the internet, the single best place for the average person to put across their opinions.

pov
Jul 31st, 2012, 02:32 PM
A 17-year-old boy was arrested at a guest house in the Weymouth area on suspicion of malicious communications.


Malicious Communications Act 19881988 CHAPTER 27


1 Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.(1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.



:eek:

pov
Jul 31st, 2012, 02:32 PM
Big Brother is alive, well and having a great time in the UK.

Chris 84
Jul 31st, 2012, 02:40 PM
Big Brother is alive, well and having a great time in the UK.

don't think this applies in scotland. we have a different legal system, and anything i have found so far suggests that the act is for england and wales. i assume this is because of the scottish common law of "breach of the peace" which is essentially a catch-all law regarding threats, intimidating people, causing any kind of disturbance, etc. this in itself is so wide-ranging as to be worrying, but because it doesn't explicitly state the things which the malicious communications act does, and because judges have a general duty to freedom of speech, i'd imagine it isn't something which is successfully used all that much in scotland regarding non-threatening internet messages, etc.

Tennis Fool
Jul 31st, 2012, 03:22 PM
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=465038 :)

AliceMariaRenka
Jul 31st, 2012, 09:36 PM
This is one of the reasons I don't use Twitter or Facebook. We're becoming even more moronic. It's a complicated issue and I can't work out how I feel about it yet, though over reaction is my gut feeling.

Some quick thoughts: surely the police have more to do? If you're worried what people might say about you don't read things? And I've read and heard a lot worse, often in the mainstream media!

AliceMariaRenka
Jul 31st, 2012, 09:38 PM
:eek:

There's nothing wrong with the Act. I agree with it. But does this case actually fall under it? I've seen a lot worse!

Sammo
Jul 31st, 2012, 09:38 PM
1984 :hysteric:

Chris 84
Jul 31st, 2012, 09:43 PM
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=465038 :)

yes, yes, but this thread is about something specific within that context, so i think i'm justified in making a new thread about this one general issue.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 31st, 2012, 11:25 PM
Joey Barton (love him or hate him) said he has had various threats made against him and nobody ever got arrested. I'm sure many famous people on twitter have to put up with this yet arrests aren't made. (And shouldn't be made either imho).

This is clearly a breach of freedom of speech, this guy did not harm him in any physical way and it wasn't prolonged to even be considered harassment.

pov
Aug 1st, 2012, 04:00 AM
don't think this applies in scotland. we have a different legal system, and anything i have found so far suggests that the act is for england and wales.
Thanks. My apologies.

pov
Aug 1st, 2012, 04:08 AM
There's nothing wrong with the Act. I agree with it.
That you agree with it doesn't make it any less draconian or Orwellian (kudos to Sammo). Lots of people agree with repressive measures that are promoted as being for their protection.

Alizé Molik
Aug 1st, 2012, 07:08 AM
Joey Barton (love him or hate him) said he has had various threats made against him and nobody ever got arrested. I'm sure many famous people on twitter have to put up with this yet arrests aren't made. (And shouldn't be made either imho).

This is clearly a breach of freedom of speech, this guy did not harm him in any physical way and it wasn't prolonged to even be considered harassment.

On the face of it his arrest might be an overreaction but all the facts are necessary to make a determination one way or the other.

Talula
Aug 1st, 2012, 08:44 AM
There is a need for legislation about internet and social network use. There is some serious bullying going on - the sort I luckily never came across when at school given it was before all these social networks! Some children have killed themselves over electronic bullying. And there was a terrible case of someone (who was also arrested and charged) for facebooking awful things about a yong girl who had died. We are living in weird times when people text/twitter/facebook each other really disgusting things.

However, this arrest does appear to be an over reaction and some celebrities just need to do what Liz Taylor said about things said about her in the newspapers (the old fashioned way of saying outrageous things about people!): don't read them! Liz knew how to just take things on the chin.

Daley (along with many other celebrities) courts the media. You have to be able to take some bad press too. But as I say, there does need to be protection from some of the more extreme crazies who post really disgusting and damaging things.

Talula
Aug 1st, 2012, 08:48 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19059127

as i've already made reference to on this forum, yesterday's abuse of athletes by the general public via twitter were rather disgusting. anti-japanese racism was rife among uk twitter users, and some of britain's own athletes came in for criticism, including diver, tom daley. however, the young man who "abused" daley has now been arrested. for anyone who doesn't know, the moron tweeted that daley had let down his recently deceased father with his performance in the olympics. obviously, a disgusting thing to say, but is it something that people should be arrested for? whilst i have no sympathy for this moron, the question must be asked; what am i allowed to say and do online? are you not allowed to criticise anyone? are you not allowed to make any personal attacks? if you are not legally allowed to tell someone that he has let his father down, we have moved beyond racist insults, we have moved beyond threatening language and we have reached a stage where anything which might cause any offence could now be deemed illegal. with the instantaneous nature of twitter, plenty of people have tweeted things which they later regret, plenty of people have tweeted their immediate feelings towards somebody or something, and often these feelings are negative. plenty of people on this forum have been guilty of making "malicious communications". just check out GM and you'll see malice in almost every thread. it isnt just morons who criticise people and things, and not everything is meant to be taken seriously. i am seriously worried about where we are headed as regards freedom of speech in relation to the internet, the single best place for the average person to put across their opinions.

One of the things I personally cant stand about internet/facebook/twitter, is the anonymous posting of malicious material. At least with newspapers/magazines you know who wrote the bilge. If posts/tweets/facebooks etc were immediately identifiable then it may deter the instant posting of malacious material as it would make people stop and think first.

Like you I believe there really does need to be greater clarification. I'm sure we've all posted stuff on here - imagine if the police came knocking because we said something off the cuff about a player! I'll probably have nightmares over it!

Vulturepova
Aug 1st, 2012, 01:41 PM
I feel so sorry for all these overpaid, mega-famous celebrities and athletes :awww:

Me and my starving, homeless family may be at death's door but I can't imagine what it feels like to be mildly insulted via a social networking site.

Talula
Aug 2nd, 2012, 07:56 AM
I feel so sorry for all these overpaid, mega-famous celebrities and athletes :awww:

Me and my starving, homeless family may be at death's door but I can't imagine what it feels like to be mildly insulted via a social networking site.

Agree.

Charlotte Church (who you may not have heard of - she's a singer who hasn't done much for a long time) won in the courts over £600,000.00 from News International for phone spying. £600,000.00 for listening into her drivel, when soldiers and others come back from wars maimed and damaged and get no where near that - some are left homeless. And people in Britain living on the streets. Yet a has been celebrity gets all that. Terrible.

Mary Cherry.
Aug 2nd, 2012, 03:12 PM
Not that I condone what the random guy did, but to me it seems fucking ridiculous that you can get arrested just for being nasty.

~Cherry*Blossom~
Aug 2nd, 2012, 08:16 PM
Not that I condone what the random guy did, but to me it seems fucking ridiculous that you can get arrested just for being nasty.

Agreed. It was a horrible thing to say but is it really worth being arrested over? He wasn't threatening to kill/hurt him. God I've heard worse when I was in school.

Valanga
Aug 2nd, 2012, 08:35 PM
He might be an idiot, but arresting him for saying something stupid was just over the top. And he did apologise later on, just let him go, Jesus.

stromatolite
Aug 3rd, 2012, 09:25 AM
While I wouldn't necessarily be in favour of this particular twitterer being severely punished for his actions (unless he has a history of similar harassments), maybe this arrest and the publicity it has gained is a useful wake-up call for people using twitter and similar social media.

Nobody bats an eyelid if somebody is arrested for screaming racist or other seriously offensive personal abuse at live sporting events, so I'm not sure there is much call for indignation in this case. Atm people are maybe too inclined to think they can tweet whatever they like, but when you tweet something it's out there for the whole world to see. Actions have consequences, even on the internet.

Monica_Rules
Aug 3rd, 2012, 11:25 PM
My understanding is this guy has done this to loads of people so it wasn't just for this.

cowsonice
Aug 3rd, 2012, 11:38 PM
I think this is more or less because Tom Daley is right now the darling of Great Britain and the Olympics.

Had this been towards a lesser known athlete or an athlete in a lesser known country, it would've been ignored.