Woman arrested on suspicion of absuive message to young cancer victim

A 5 year old lad who has terminal cancer got sent an abusive message from a 24 year old woman, no words really how disgraceful that is that someone could be low enough to send a nasty message.
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/crime/woman-24-arrested-on-suspicion-of-posting-abusive-facebook-message-about-bradley-lowery-1-8300329?ref=BNTMedia&utm_medium=facebook

While not defending her, that's not what the article says. Just says the post was about him, not to him.

Still, putting the arse into class (say with a southern accent).

But arrested for an alleged mean Facebook post about someone? This arrest under the 'Malicious Communications Act' seems a little too extreme.

I mean, she's an insensitive cow if she did indeed post this, but that shouldn't be an arrestable offense in itself. Did she make credible threats? Incite violence...? Come on now.

Without knowing the details it's hard to say.

I don't think posting on Facebook should be an arrestable offense.Offensive is entirely subjective.Whats offensive to one person isn't offensive to another.

First of all "offensive" is not enough. The communication must be "grossly offensive"

Here is the offence

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

Whether the communication is "grossly offensive" is a matter of fact to be decided by magistrates or a jury and the woman has the right in this case to elect for jury trial. Normally anyone contending that a communication is not "grossly offensive" would choose jury trial.

The law is full of expressions that are left to juries to decide whether they are satisfied: "dishonestly", "unreasonably"

I have zero faith that a jury will be able to overcome their emotions of repulsion towards the stupid woman and see it objectively. Much better if we just dont arrest people for being shithouses

First of all "offensive" is not enough. The communication must be "grossly offensive"

Here is the offence

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

Whether the communication is "grossly offensive" is a matter of fact to be decided by magistrates or a jury and the woman has the right in this case to elect for jury trial. Normally anyone contending that a communication is not "grossly offensive" would choose jury trial.

The law is full of expressions that are left to juries to decide whether they are satisfied: "dishonestly", "unreasonably"

Grossly offensive is still subjective.If we start arresting people for stuff they say on the internet that's a slippy slope towards totalitarianism.I would prefer not to become like Russia or China thanks.

If you write poison pen letters you are prosecuted. It is the same if you are abusive in the street. The internet is not a consequences free world.

Context is important and prosecutors should have regard to the fact that the context in which interactive social media dialogue takes place is quite different to the context in which other communications take place. Access is ubiquitous and instantaneous. Banter, jokes and offensive comments are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions.

Every day many millions of communications are sent via social media and the application of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 to such comments creates the potential that a very large number of cases could be prosecuted before the courts.

In these circumstances there is the potential for a chilling effect on free speech and prosecutors should exercise considerable caution before bringing charges under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

However, the internet is not a free space where the law does not apply. The fact that offensive comments are commonplace does not justify them. You would not say that because pickpocketing on Oxford Street was commonplace, it was less of a crime than pickpocketing elsewhere.