[HDBrowne]

Ok just watched the Reily video... he loves the F word...

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by A.J10)
They were arrested for that, but not prosecuted.

The same will most likely happen in this case, or he'll get a tiny sentence (for a tiny crime).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...igh-Court.html

The guy was prosecuted, repeatedly and at huge expense, but the conviction was overturned in the high court.

[Integral]

(Original post by DanielMartin)
Answer: Great? Cool story, any other pointless dribble you have?, you just keep vomiting questions which by all means like Zizek said about Sarah Palin... there should be a law to stop people like this appearing in public and speaking -Oh woe, if only that applies to narcissistic gutter dogs such as yourself.

Try harder, dear.

[HDBrowne]

I don't understand what he's saying in the video....

[dgeorge]

(Original post by DanielMartin)
No obviously I refuse to debate with a gutter dog as that is still utter rubbish as you clearly still believe what your idle government tells you.

Rights or reputation? Neither of these were affected, he didn't die, he wasn't emotionally hurt as he probably didn't even know.

Protection of public? I'm sorry but this is negated when people on TSR hate him anyway.

Also, when necessary... This was not necessary as he had no intent of doing it ... if he had said "I have tom daley in my iron sights, about to pull the trigger." Then by all means, when the subject is directly in harm as a result not this subjective crap - Oh I dislike you, I'm going to kill you blah blah OH BY THE WAY SEND ME YOUR POSTAL CODE SO I CAN COME AND STRAP EXPLOSIVES TO YOUR HOUSE.

Yeah... that's hilarious.

Since you seem to be jumping from topic to topic, let me simply point out that the purpose of the post which you quoted was to simply point out that "freedom of speech" does NOT mean that one has the freedom to say whatever they like without fear of repercussion, and that freedom of speech does indeed come with responsibilities.

In other words, I have conclusively proved, with evidence from the Human Rights Convention, that you are wrong. Meanwhile, you have failed to give any evidence substantiating your claim, and have for some odd reason began to call me names??


Hmmm curious

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by dgeorge)
Just because YOU don't feel that someone shouldn't be punished for breaking the law doesn't mean they shouldn't. Just because someone did not cause GREAT material harm through breaking the law does NOT mean they shouldn't be prosecuted.

The criminal process doesn't work according to "context" but through the law. If he broke the law then the police are well within their right to prosecute him, whether or not an "actual risk" of him doing harm to someone else existed

If he broke the law then I don't see why someone would complain about the police arresting him. SIMPLES

1) This is a thread where we are discussing the actions taken by the police in this case. I am free to express my particular opinion both on that action and on the law that enabled it. In fact I would consider this rather important. I'm hardly going to respond with that other people think so while I have no issue with your point and agree that my personal opinion does not and should not dictate the law I'm not entirely sure why that is relevant as the same is true of you and you have equally been presenting your own opinions on the law and its enforcement in this thread. Feel free to explain though.
2) Actually the criminal process does often involve context as the law has to be interpreted. I'm not arguing they are not within their rights, or that they have acted illegally or in a way that they do not have sufficient permission to do so I'm not sure why you have put this in your response to me either.
3) Because not everybody believes that the law is perfect and that the resultant actions should be free from scrutiny. You may not be able to see why someone may question it and that it is fine but this says nothing about anyone else's right to do the very thing you can't see. We are discussing the situation and a part of that is discussion the foundations of it: one such being the fact that this law exists. Questioning whether or not it should is a fairly obvious progression and frankly, in my opinion, is infinitely more interesting and important. You rightly point out that my opinion does not dictate the legality of something so I will rightly point out that your opinion does not trump anybody else's by virtue of it being yours. Honestly I doubt whether or not you actually believe in your third statement here?

I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing to be honest mate. It is clear you support the arrest and the law but your argument seems to be about the legitimacy of it (which is not something I have questioned) rather than the principle of it (which is something I have).

[A.J10]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...igh-Court.html

The guy was prosecuted, repeatedly and at huge expense, but the conviction was overturned in the high court.

I apologise, that is what I meant. They were found innocent and the whole thing deemed a farce.

[A.J10]

So danielmartin has sent me a few PMs, and I'm gonna copypasta some of my responses onto here, edited slightly for clarification.


I have to disagree with you there, freedom of speech is the freedom to share ideas and opinions. Threats are not a part of this. Threats are not ideas or concepts, threats are statements of intent. An idea is "I think this should happen", which is a world away from "I will do this thing".

If he'd said "he was rubbish and deserves to die", that's one thing. To actively threaten someone is another.

I don't think they should have done arrested him, but that's an entirely different matter. More to do with resources and generally being a waste of everyone involved's time.

[Sean9001]

(Original post by paddy__power)
I'm aware that it doesn't. I'm not arguing that it isn't an actual law that is being enforced I'm saying I didn't think it should be enforced simply because someone was a prick. I also don't think threatening to kill someone in itself warrants police time. You have to apply some context. However, if he was persistently making death threats to multiple people then obviously the situation is different than what was presented. You have to make a judgment about whether or not an actual risk exists IMO and not be horribly rigid as that invariably leads - as with many things - to the law not doing what it was supposed to do.

If I were to tell you now that I planned to kill you do you think I should be arrested for that? Do you really think that is a useful way for our police to spend their time? It isn't about whether it is "okay" or not. I consider many things not okay but I would be horrified if somebody was arrested for them. I couldn't care less if somebody makes a non-credible threat against my life and would argue strongly against their detention because it doesn't serve a useful purpose.

This issue really requires a much longer response but honestly I can't be bothered to write one.

If you made a non-credible threat against my life -as the kid did against Tom Daley - it would not be taken seriously. But if you sought me out on another social network, made a non-credible threat against my life, invoke the name of my dead father against me and tell me how you are lavishing in my perceived upset - as the kid did against Tom Daley - whether there is actual risk of anything doesn't matter because the harm (the harassment) has been done. You would be seeking to upset me to an extent that you're abusing your right of free speech to infringe on someone else's right to live in reasonable peace. For that reason, I agree with the arrest of the poster for all the posts together, but not the death threat (unless Tom actually feared violence) or the father comment in isolation.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by paddy__power)
1) This is a thread where we are discussing the actions taken by the police in this case. I am free to express my particular opinion both on that action and on the law that enabled it. In fact I would consider this rather important. I'm hardly going to respond with that other people think so while I have no issue with your point and agree that my personal opinion does not and should not dictate the law I'm not entirely sure why that is relevant as the same is true of you and you have equally been presenting your own opinions on the law and its enforcement in this thread. Feel free to explain though.
2) Actually the criminal process does often involve context as the law has to be interpreted. I'm not arguing they are not within their rights, or that they have acted illegally or in a way that they do not have sufficient permission to do so I'm not sure why you have put this in your response to me either.
3) Because not everybody believes that the law is perfect and that the resultant actions should be free from scrutiny. You may not be able to see why someone may question it and that it is fine but this says nothing about anyone else's right to do the very thing you can't see. We are discussing the situation and a part of that is discussion the foundations of it: one such being the fact that this law exists. Questioning whether or not it should is a fairly obvious progression and frankly, in my opinion, is infinitely more interesting and important. You rightly point out that my opinion does not dictate the legality of something so I will rightly point out that your opinion does not trump anybody else's by virtue of it being yours. Honestly I doubt whether or not you actually believe in your third statement here?

I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing to be honest mate. It is clear you support the arrest and the law but your argument seems to be about the legitimacy of it (which is not something I have questioned) rather than the principle of it (which is something I have).

Well. Good response. Even though I may not agree with you, I tip my hat to people who at least try and keep a certain level of decorum. I will also do my best to rise to the occasion.

To answer your questions:

1. My initial issue was that the OP in some way felt that it was a "violation of freedom of speech" and that somehow free speech had "died" in the UK. I made an earlier point, supported by the Convention on Human rights, that freedom of speech in fact had related responsibilities, and that it was allowable, to some degree, to allow for penalities and punishments when people had abused such rights.

2. The criminal process does, indeed, involve context. However, to a much greater extent it relies on PRECEDENT. I think we can both agree that there is precedent in the assault laws where this case can easily be construed as a crime under such laws.

3. I agree that laws should not be free from scrutiny. However, I disagree with your point that because no "material harm" was done, nor that there was an intention to do such harm, that the person in question should not face the law. It is necessary for laws to control not only physically damaging behaviour, but also emotional and psychological damage as well. The offending tweets were made with "malice aforethought" with the deliberate and distinct intention to cause said emotional and psychological damage. In this case, I think laws which will go SOME WAY to reduce acts such as these are totally valid

[Integral]

Reece Riley has been issued with a 'harassment warning'

[Ray of Light]

This stuff has always been an arrestable offence, nothing new.

What I found annoying was how much everyone was getting riled up by him. It was a Twitter troll. Block him and move on.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by paddy__power)
1) This is a thread where we are discussing the actions taken by the police in this case. I am free to express my particular opinion both on that action and on the law that enabled it. In fact I would consider this rather important. I'm hardly going to respond with that other people think so while I have no issue with your point and agree that my personal opinion does not and should not dictate the law I'm not entirely sure why that is relevant as the same is true of you and you have equally been presenting your own opinions on the law and its enforcement in this thread. Feel free to explain though.
2) Actually the criminal process does often involve context as the law has to be interpreted. I'm not arguing they are not within their rights, or that they have acted illegally or in a way that they do not have sufficient permission to do so I'm not sure why you have put this in your response to me either.
3) Because not everybody believes that the law is perfect and that the resultant actions should be free from scrutiny. You may not be able to see why someone may question it and that it is fine but this says nothing about anyone else's right to do the very thing you can't see. We are discussing the situation and a part of that is discussion the foundations of it: one such being the fact that this law exists. Questioning whether or not it should is a fairly obvious progression and frankly, in my opinion, is infinitely more interesting and important. You rightly point out that my opinion does not dictate the legality of something so I will rightly point out that your opinion does not trump anybody else's by virtue of it being yours. Honestly I doubt whether or not you actually believe in your third statement here?

I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing to be honest mate. It is clear you support the arrest and the law but your argument seems to be about the legitimacy of it (which is not something I have questioned) rather than the principle of it (which is something I have).

Regarding my third statement, it was simply referring to the fact that an offence had been committed, as opposed to, as the OP title says, simply "being a dick"

One can, in actuality, be a dick without breaking the law.

Now we are on the same page, awaiting your response

[EffieFlowers]

If you sent a person death threats such as that through a letter in the post are you telling me that there should be no form of worthwhile punishment?

It is a death threat, no matter what medium was used and should be taken seriously. If you are willing to make death threats, even if, to you, they are empty threats you should be willing to deal with the repercussions.

[HDBrowne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0GxRzjAI8k

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Free spech is legal, harrassment isn't. Then again I do feel discretion should be used i.e. not arresting every person that is suspected of annoying someone over the internet.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by dgeorge)
Well. Good response. Even though I may not agree with you, I tip my hat to people who at least try and keep a certain level of decorum. I will also do my best to rise to the occasion.

To answer your questions:

1. My initial issue was that the OP in some way felt that it was a "violation of freedom of speech" and that somehow free speech had "died" in the UK. I made an earlier point, supported by the Convention on Human rights, that freedom of speech in fact had related responsibilities, and that it was allowable, to some degree, to allow for penalities and punishments when people had abused such rights.

2. The criminal process does, indeed, involve context. However, to a much greater extent it relies on PRECEDENT. I think we can both agree that there is precedent in the assault laws where this case can easily be construed as a crime under such laws.

3. I agree that laws should not be free from scrutiny. However, I disagree with your point that because no "material harm" was done, nor that there was an intention to do such harm, that the person in question should not face the law. It is necessary for laws to control not only physically damaging behaviour, but also emotional and psychological damage as well. The offending tweets were made with "malice aforethought" with the deliberate and distinct intention to cause said emotional and psychological damage. In this case, I think laws which will go SOME WAY to reduce acts such as these are totally valid

Indeed. There is no point in calling each other names. I have better things to do with my time and I rather hope that you do too!

1) I see. This rather depends on what people mean when they talk about that freedom. You are of course not wrong in your reply if we assume the freedom as officially defined. Some people, however, are talking more conceptually when they speak about the freedom because of course the notion of it would exist independent of the Convention. Personally I fall into the latter camp here although I can't talk for the other person. I would tend to agree with you that freedom of speech does come with a responsibility not to use it in such a way that erodes the rights of others. People should be free to act as they please if they are not harming anyone so it comes down to whether or not we feel that harm was being done. I'm willing to accept that it is possible that it was and at that point my second argument kicks in. We do not have an infinite amount of police with infinite resources so we have to decide as a society what we want to prioritise. Given the many social issues we experience my judgment is that this type of arrest is a poor use of resources. I understand the arguments that would lead people to a different conclusion I just don't really agree with them.

2) It does and I do agree with you completely. As I said though - this isn't really what my argument is about in essence. Many things at many times have been considered crimes but I don't tend to personally consider the existence of something as necessary justification for its implementation or continued existence.

3) I'm not sure that I ever actually said material harm, I believe I said "real" harm or something to that effect and material was your interpretation. I recognise that emotional and psychological harm are important and did not wish to omit those when talking about important factors so apoogise if I gave that impression. I do think the guy intended to make Tom feel bad and I don't think there was any justification for that at all. I don't think there was any risk of real harm (which I would probably define as lasting harm) in this case and thus consider the arrest to be a waste of time based on my knowledge of the situation. Of course I am in no position to know the actual consequences of his actions and whether or not the targets are likely to care in a few days if they cared in the first place but this is my general opinion.

If it was one of the targets who referred this to the police then I would possibly feel differently and I'm not sure if that was the case or not (do you?).

I think at the end of the day common sense should prevail. The government doesn't need to protect people from everything nor should we want them to (IMO).

[chignesh10]

(Original post by Integral)
Free speech within viable reason. I don't think it stretches to making death threats.

Why you leave year 12 thread

[Dandyflower]

In response to the title, no it's not. It's a politically motivated prosecution. That kind of comment outside of the Olympics would have resulted in nothing. The Olympics is a political thing. The media coverage of it in this country is explicitly biased and there's a political effort to restore some unity and patriotism to the nation after the riots last year. Tom Daley has become a figurehead for British Olympic success. This is a political and vexatious prosecution. The fact is the CPS has certain procedures it has to follow. It cannot prosecute frivolously and it has to be reasonable, and temper the seriousness of the offence with the age of the wrongdoer, and the consequences a successful conviction will have on his life. It is quite obvious that a prosecution would be extremely difficult to procure for this chap, and he's only a teenager I believe, only 17 years old. The CPS was obliged to take his age into consideration, and did not do so. A conviction at that age is very serious; the end result makes getting employment almost impossible, living on unemployment benefit and potentially turning to crime.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Indeed. There is no point in calling each other names. I have better things to do with my time and I rather hope that you do too!

1) I see. This rather depends on what people mean when they talk about that freedom. You are of course not wrong in your reply if we assume the freedom as officially defined. Some people, however, are talking more conceptually when they speak about the freedom because of course the notion of it would exist independent of the Convention. Personally I fall into the latter camp here although I can't talk for the other person. I would tend to agree with you that freedom of speech does come with a responsibility not to use it in such a way that erodes the rights of others. People should be free to act as they please if they are not harming anyone so it comes down to whether or not we feel that harm was being done. I'm willing to accept that it is possible that it was and at that point my second argument kicks in. We do not have an infinite amount of police with infinite resources so we have to decide as a society what we want to prioritise. Given the many social issues we experience my judgment is that this type of arrest is a poor use of resources. I understand the arguments that would lead people to a different conclusion I just don't really agree with them.

2) It does and I do agree with you completely. As I said though - this isn't really what my argument is about in essence. Many things at many times have been considered crimes but I don't tend to personally consider the existence of something as necessary justification for its implementation or continued existence.

3) I'm not sure that I ever actually said material harm, I believe I said "real" harm or something to that effect and material was your interpretation. I recognise that emotional and psychological harm are important and did not wish to omit those when talking about important factors so apoogise if I gave that impression. I do think the guy intended to make Tom feel bad and I don't think there was any justification for that at all. I don't think there was any risk of real harm (which I would probably define as lasting harm) in this case and thus consider the arrest to be a waste of time based on my knowledge of the situation. Of course I am in no position to know the actual consequences of his actions and whether or not the targets are likely to care in a few days if they cared in the first place but this is my general opinion.

If it was one of the targets who referred this to the police then I would possibly feel differently and I'm not sure if that was the case or not (do you?).

I think at the end of the day common sense should prevail. The government doesn't need to protect people from everything nor should we want them to (IMO).

While I understand your point about the wasting of precious time, money and other valuable resources, and I also DO understand your point of this situation not necessarily warranting police intervention, I think it's up to the police to determine whether or not to make such a call, as they have the best handle on what resources are available to them. If they decide to prosecute, if there IS e genuine case there (which I think there is, even though its minor and should amount to nothing more than a small fine and probation) then I think the police SHOULD follow up on it.

Likewise, I also believe in such a public case, that said person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, in an effort to stamp out bullying and harrassment. More people need to understand that such behaviour is NOT ok, and by hauling this little douchebag into court, I think maybe a few people will get that message.

Believe me, a lot of people are *******s because they reason that they're not REALLY doing anything bad, but there are people who DO get hurt in the process. If there is a legal way to limit this kind of anti-social behaviour, I'm all for it personally