NEW Debate (!) - Online "Hate" Crimes

[Antony Moxey]

I still await your apology.

He did. It's even in the post of his you quoted when asking for an apology.

 

[Bittners a Legend]

This is perhaps an example of where the law is struggling to keep up with modern technology.

It would not be difficult for the prosecution to argue that there are enough previous examples of the creation of such videos going viral to demonstrate that it would be reasonable to assume the possibility of the same thing happening here as soon as it was distributed more widely, even if privately.

That said, although it sounds grossly offensive and these people should be publicly shamed, I think it is fair to question whether this is a worthwhile use of police resources. I'm not saying I don't think it is, I genuinely just don't know.

 

[Terryhall]

The issue is, for some bizarre reason - Terry thinks this breaks the law because the person who posted it to a private whatsapp group had reasonable belief this was going to go viral and reach the people connected to Grenfell. It's madness. It's a joke. I think he knows he's talking codswallop now and doing his best to avoid admitting he's wrong.

No - because they should have been aware that it was likely to happen. That is the legal threshold for section 5, just because you keep posting something different does not mean that it is true.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

This is perhaps an example of where the law is struggling to keep up with modern technology.

It would not be difficult for the prosecution to argue that there are enough previous examples of the creation of such videos going viral to demonstrate that it would be reasonable to assume the possibility of the same thing happening here as soon as it was distributed more widely, even if privately.

That said, although it sounds grossly offensive and these people should be publicly shamed, I think it is fair to question whether this is a worthwhile use of police resources. I'm not saying I don't think it is, I genuinely just don't know.

I clicked view post and I already regret it. The prosecution don't need to prove it was reasonable, they need to prove the person thought there was a reasonable chance.

Some of you are so naive about how our judicial system works

No - because they should have been aware that it was likely to happen. That is the legal threshold for section 5, just because you keep posting something different does not mean that it is true.

Your argument for prosecution is someone should have been aware it would've went viral when posting it to a private group chat? For goodness sake lol. Just admit you're wrong Terry and you'll look less daft. It's ok to be wrong.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

Double post

 

[Terryhall]

Your argument for prosecution is someone should have been aware it would've went viral when posting it to a private group chat? For goodness sake lol. Just admit you're wrong Terry and you'll look less daft. It's ok to be wrong.

No. My argument for someone being arrested on suspicion of commiting a public order offence, with subsequent police investigation, is that someone should have been aware that it was likely to be seen by members of the public outside of their homes (e.g. online on mobile phones, whether it goes viral or otherwise) and that they may find the content to be grossly offensive.

The statutory defences to the public order offence remain either (a) that the individual had no reasonable cause to think it was likely to be seen outside (e.g. online on mobile phones, hard to argue given that is the exact medium via which it was shared) or (b) that the conduct was reasonable.

This is all already covered way back in post #5.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

No. My argument for someone being arrested on suspicion of commiting a public order offence, with subsequent police investigation, is that someone should have been aware that it was likely to be seen by members of the public outside of their homes (e.g. online on mobile phones, whether it goes viral or otherwise) and that they may find the content to be grossly offensive.

The statutory defences to the public order offence remain either (a) that the individual had no reasonable cause to think it was likely to be seen outside (e.g. online on mobile phones, hard to argue given that is the exact medium via which it was shared) or (b) that the conduct was reasonable.

This is all already covered way back in post #5.

You said no and then confirmed what I said.

 

[elginCity]

......It would not be difficult for the prosecution to argue that there are enough previous examples of the creation of such videos going viral to demonstrate that it would be reasonable to assume the possibility of the same thing happening here as soon as it was distributed more widely, even if privately......

But...if you look at the strict letter of this particular law; "displaying abusive visible representation within hearing or sight of a person likely to be distressed..blah". Arguably, whoever posted it to mainstream social media is culpable, rather than the toerag who originally filmed and uploaded to whatsapp. Agree with your point about technology and the law, it must be an absolute minefield.

 

[Terryhall]

You said no and then confirmed what I said.

You do see the clear difference between what I said and what you said, right?

 

[Bittners a Legend]

I clicked view post and I already regret it. The prosecution don't need to prove it was reasonable, they need to prove the person thought there was a reasonable chance.

I'm genuinely not sure of the point of this post. Obviously the context of my use of reasonable was to refer to the person(s) who created and posted the content. Although I suspect there aren't many legal examples involving whatsapp it would not be difficult to point to the many previous examples on Twitter, Facebook etc where posts which started "private" ended up going viral. As I've said I'm unsure that this is a good use of public resources and I'm sceptical as to whether taking further action would be viewed as in the public interest but there is a legal basis as demonstrated all the way back in post #5.

As I also said previously, the law is struggling to keep up with the advancement of technology which creates blurred lines of sorts.