NEW Debate (!) - Online "Hate" Crimes

[ExeterCityLad]

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

There is no clear difference, in fact there is no difference at all.

You think someone should be prosecuted because they should have assumed if they built something on private property and later burnt it on private property whilst recording it and posting it to a private group chat that there was a reasonable chance people connected to Grenfell would have seen it? You honestly don't believe this even if you keep suggesting you do. Nobody is daft enough to think this is the case. You're in that situation where you know you're wrong and you keep shovelling the dirt below you to make the big hole you're already in deeper.

I'm afraid they are not legally obliged to think anything or expect anything. Seriously Terry, why is it so hard for you to put your hands up, admit this was a wild goose-chase and a waste of public funds that was 'investigated' because a few people were outraged and took to Twitter.

 

[Terryhall]

There is no clear difference, in fact there is no difference at all.

You think someone should be prosecuted because they should have assumed if they built something on private property and later burnt it on private property whilst recording it and posting it to a private group chat that there was a reasonable chance people connected to Grenfell would have seen it? You honestly don't believe this even if you keep suggesting you do. Nobody is daft enough to think this is the case. You're in that situation where you know you're wrong and you keep shovelling the dirt below you to make the big hole you're already in deeper.

I'm afraid they are not legally obliged to think anything or expect anything. Seriously Terry, why is it so hard for you to put your hands up, admit this was a wild goose-chase and a waste of public funds that was 'investigated' because a few people were outraged and took to Twitter.

No, this is what I think

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'll note I say "arrested" not "prosecuted".

 

[ExeterCityLad]

You'll note I say "arrested" not "prosecuted".

Head. Wall. Banging.

.................

 

[Bittners a Legend]

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.

I'm by no means an expert (wouldn't pretend to be) and I'm not sure how tested whatsapp is in court but I think the principle would be likely to remain the same as with Facebook and Twitter posts whereby the initial "public" sharing was committed by whomever initially created content and shared in the whatsapp group. Although a different social media it follows the same path of post being created (possibly privately) and then screengrabbed and shared more widely.

Interesting re my previous public interest comment that the CPS guidelines here talk about whether the motivation behind the communication was discriminatory. Presumably the police will have to decide whether they truly do believe this was in some way motivated by race.

What ExeterCityLad doesn't seem to understand/accept is that there are numerous cases of people being prosecuted for Facebook/Twitter posts which ended up being shared more widely. Lots of those may not have expected their posts to go viral but serve as evidence for why somebody choosing to share more widely (even privately) might be expected to understand the reasonable possibility of it going viral.

 

[Terryhall]

What ExeterCityLad doesn't seem to understand/accept is that there are numerous cases of people being prosecuted for Facebook/Twitter posts which ended up being shared more widely. Lots of those may not have expected their posts to go viral but serve as evidence for why somebody choosing to share more widely (even privately) might be expected to understand the reasonable possibility of it going viral.

(clap)(clap)

 

[ExeterCityLad]

(clap)(clap)

Can you find me, (Once you stop clapping) an example of a facebook/twitter post that someone has been prosecuted for in burning something on private property, which they built on private property? Will happily concede it's illegal as soon as you do.

 

[Terryhall]

Can you find me, (Once you stop clapping) an example of a facebook/twitter post that someone has been prosecuted for in burning something on private property, which they built on private property? Will happily concede it's illegal as soon as you do.

Its not about where it was built or filmed. It's about where it was viewed when shared. Please read post #5

 

[ExeterCityLad]

Its not about where it was built or filmed. It's about where it was viewed when shared. Please read post #5

Post 5 is irrelevant. Please stop asking me to re-re-re-read it.
Section 4A Public Order Act – Intentional Harassment, Alarm or Distress - THERE IS NO INTENT.

DO I NEED TO POST EVERYTHING IN BIG CLEAR LETTERS FOR YOU? THEY POSTED IT TO A PRIVATE GROUP.

 

[Terryhall]

Post 5 is irrelevant. Please stop asking me to re-re-re-read it.

OK. Please read this post.

(i) the individuals that recorded and published the video were at home and had no reason to believe anyone would see the video outside of their own home (clearly not the case for a public video with modern technology)

 

[Terryhall]

Section 4A Public Order Act – Intentional Harassment, Alarm or Distress

OK. And what about section 5?