Friday, November 16, 2012

Tweet what you like in Britain ... as long as you don't have many followers

I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies

It might be the one of the few occasions in life when it's better to be unpopular than have lots of friends.  Twitter users who make 'grossly offensive' comments online could escape prosecution if they have barely any followers on the social media site, the Director of Public Prosecutions has suggested.

But those who are followed by thousands could face the full force of the law if they publish offensive remarks as more people will see them, Keir Starmer said in a conference speech earlier this week.

His remarks follow a row about free speech after a teenager in Kent was arrested earlier this week for allegedly posting a photo of a burning poppy on Facebook, reported the Daily Telegraph.

The arrest of Linford House, 19, prompted civil liberty groups to campaign for free speech, claiming police were threatening the man's rights to express himself - even if what he posted was insensitive.

Mr Starmer's comments come before he publishes guidelines to cope with the new issues arising from expression on social networks, after meeting with police, publishers and internet companies.

Daniel Thomas, a footballer from Port Talbot, Wales, was arrested in the summer after a homophobic message was posted from his Twitter account about Team GB Olympic diver Tom Daley.

But the 28-year-old was never prosecuted, in part because he only had only around a hundred followers - and while the content was offensive it was not seen as a criminal offence, the DPP said.



Bird of Paradise said...


Anonymous said... it's not really what you say, it's how many people actually read it?

Is this some British form of "With great power comes great responsibility?"

Anonymous said...

I don't think Bird lives in "Paradise" either. It seems to be the US(SOVIET)UNION, where things are much the same as Europe!

Anonymous said...

As i've been saying for a long time, these so-called "social media" outlets, (facebook, tweets, etc.) are becoming a dangerous, and very sharp, double edged sword to the mindless fools who use them. Their electronic "gadgets", (what i call "digital anesthesia") have now become their drug of choice. They are the new crack.

Apparently, people are so desperate for attention that they are willing to give away their privacy, and in many cases, a whole lot more. It simply shows how incredibily weak people are, a fact that govt.'s and industries have known (and profited from) for a very long time. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

I disagree Anon 4:19
Social media is not substantially different from traditional media, public notice boards or even public discourse. What it has done, however, is show how weak our political leaders are on protecting fundamental rights to speech and communication.
Cases like these don't expose the medium - they expose the stupidity of laws that attempt to silence unpopular opinions.

Go Away Bird said...

Beware the UN and CFR monsters want the same soviet unions in the USA

Anonymous said...

Данный пост — одно из немногих исключений, когда читаешь с удовольствием и что-то для себя выносишь. Спасибо Вам. Добавлю в избранное[url=].[/url] :)

Anonymous said...

Here is a clear picture of the real Britain:

New Free House for Islamic Hate Preacher Abu Qatada:

At what point does a formerly great country rebel after its spirit has been broken by liberalism? To judge from the case of radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, the answer is never.

A little background on Qatada:

Videos of his preaching were found in a Hamburg, Germany, apartment used by some of those involved in the 9/11 attacks, including ringleader Mohammad Atta. British and other intelligence agencies asserted he had close ties to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Counter-terrorism sources also maintained he was a big influence on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian who would emerge as al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq. Both had been convicted of involvement in a terror plot in Jordan in 2000, and according to one al Qaeda operative, it was Abu Qatada who had introduced al-Zarqawi to the al Qaeda leadership. Would-be shoe-bomber Richard Reid was also an admirer.

Britain offered Abu Qatada and his bevy of children asylum. Later the handful of sane people left in the British government tried to get him deported, but they allowed their attempts to be quashed by the malignant and tyrannical European Court of Human Rights. However, Qatada’s requests for new free housing have been obligingly granted.

His comfortable taxpayer-financed digs aren’t the only expense the liberals harboring Qatada inflict on the British:

The surveillance operations to keep him under constant observation has been costing £5million a year and [are] set to continue indefinitely. The money pays for a team of 60 Scotland Yard officers, some MI5 officers and a private security firm.

Qatada moved to his current £400,000 address near Wembley, north west London, in February.

He returned there this week after his second period of time in prison. Housing benefit is understood to cover his current rent of £1,900 a month.

That is, the government pays a guy who is not even a British citizen to plot terror attacks and incite his fellow welfare colonists against the local population.

A neighbor observes,

‘It is outrageous that he and his family are living here at public expense when the rest of us have to go out and work for a living.’

Anon 4:19 said...

Anon 5:46, can you get hundreds-of-thousands of followers on your public notice boards? Are they visible to millions?

And it's not up to the elected lying crooks to protect our rights. It's up to We The People. And if the can't/won't protect their rights, they shouldn't have any.

Unknown said...

I went to have afternoon at the Gordon Ramsay at the London Hotel in West Hollywood with a bunch of other foodies, including LA&OC Foodie - we've been looking forward to it all week flats in london