Reply to: 'I am Spartacus'

[Incognito]

Phew. Lucky my use of "Cretin", "Village Idiot" and "Moron" is strictly factual.

Trust me, you've got a lot more than just those three CUK titles.

[EternalOptimist]

Phew. Lucky my use of "Cretin", "Village Idiot" and "Moron" is strictly factual.

maybe so.
but the use of 'guru' in your handle should be worth a six month stretch

[sasguru]

Communications Act 2003 (c. 21) - Statute Law Database

(1) Sends a message (or causes a message to be sent) that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;

(2) Sends a message (or causes a message to be sent) that he knows is false that is for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety

.

Phew. Lucky my use of "Cretin", "Village Idiot" and "Moron" is strictly factual.

[Incognito]

That's it, I am shutting down my sasguru sockie for good...

I think half the posters would be done for rights on here.

[AtW]

(2) Sends a message (or causes a message to be sent) that he knows is false that is for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety

That's it, I am shutting down my sasguru sockie for good...

[norrahe]

You think it's funny to threaten to blow up an airport? No doubt you know this person personally and can vouch he's not actually a fruitloop?

Because people don't actually do stuff like this do they.

The law is meant to be objective, in otherwords, it doesn't matter if you're billy golden balls who wouldn't harm a fly, it's still an offence.



The Actus reus is the physical act in publishing the message on twitter, the Mens rea would be the intent that went behind his decision to post the message. An example; someone picked up your phone and typed that twitter message onto it as a joke, but never sent it and placed it down. You then pick up the phone and inadvertently send the message. There is no Mens rea, you did not intend to publish the message. This chimp quite clearly did.


And quite how anyone can think they can make public statements like that and get away with it astounds me. Seriously.

It is very much the difference between what we say in private and what we will admit to in public.

Unfortunately with the popularity of tw@tter and facebook people forget that they are in the public domain and speak what's on their mind, forgetting that there is an audience out there.

The mind boggles at what carp people will publish in the public domain.

[norrahe]

I am Osama Bin Laden!

and so's my wife

[Incognito]

Surely the Mens Rea would have been the (non-existent) intent to cause a flap at the airport, or cause reasonable fear that his threat was genuine.

Not neccessarily, there's two parts to the offence:

Communications Act 2003 (c. 21) - Statute Law Database

(1) Sends a message (or causes a message to be sent) that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;

(2) Sends a message (or causes a message to be sent) that he knows is false that is for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety

If he's been charged with the offence under section 127 (1) Sends a message (or causes a message to be sent) that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; . then the court would apply what's known as the 'reasonable man' test. So it doesn't have to deduce what he intended the outcome to be, it simply has to determine that in the eyes of your average joe, was his message grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. The Mens rea element would be was it his intention to publish the message.

If he was charged with an offence under section two, then the court would have to deduce what his purpose was in sending the message, i.e. for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety which to be honest with you, could quite easily be argued by the prosecution as well. He's hardly published that to raise a laugh as NickFitz suggested.

[OwlHoot]

the Mens rea would be the intent that went behind his decision to post the message. ..

Surely the Mens Rea would have been the (non-existent) intent to cause a flap at the airport, or cause reasonable fear that his threat was genuine.

[Incognito]

That verdict is a serious threat to civil liberties in this country.

You think it's funny to threaten to blow up an airport? No doubt you know this person personally and can vouch he's not actually a fruitloop?

Because people don't actually do stuff like this do they.

The law is meant to be objective, in otherwords, it doesn't matter if you're billy golden balls who wouldn't harm a fly, it's still an offence.

Whatever happened to the ancient Common Law principle actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea ?

The Actus reus is the physical act in publishing the message on twitter, the Mens rea would be the intent that went behind his decision to post the message. An example; someone picked up your phone and typed that twitter message onto it as a joke, but never sent it and placed it down. You then pick up the phone and inadvertently send the message. There is no Mens rea, you did not intend to publish the message. This chimp quite clearly did.


And quite how anyone can think they can make public statements like that and get away with it astounds me. Seriously.

[OwlHoot]

That verdict is a serious threat to civil liberties in this country. Post anything that can possibly be construed as a threat anywhere on the Internet and, even though it's obviously a joke, somebody can decide to make a complaint and you're done under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

That would never have happened under New Labour. Oh wait, 2003. DOH!

The worst thing is that the CPS submitted, and the courts have accepted, that no intention to be menacing is required

Whatever happened to the ancient Common Law principle actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea ?

Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough

:::

- Sir John Betjeman (later Poet Laureate) 1937

See you in court

That isn't a threat though, it's an accurate account.

[MarillionFan]

I am Osama Bin Laden!

"and what was your address again?"

General Deborah Meeden US Army

[TimberWolf]

I am Osama Bin Laden!

[DimPrawn]

contrary to 127(1)(A) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003":

Let's see, which Big Brother, remove civil liberties control freakeries were in power then?

Remember, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

[NickFitz]

That verdict is a serious threat to civil liberties in this country. Post anything that can possibly be construed as a threat anywhere on the Internet and, even though it's obviously a joke, somebody can decide to make a complaint and you're done under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The worst thing is that the CPS submitted, and the courts have accepted, that no intention to be menacing is required - they'll decide that. In this case neither the airport authorities nor the Police thought that the tweet represented "a credible threat", but the CPS prosecuted anyway, and won, and have now won again on appeal.

Paul Chambers wasn't even trolling to a wide public. He posted a joke that would be seen by a small number of friends who followed him on twitter. (Those of you who don't use it should understand that one sees what one chooses to see on twitter, not every random rambling tweet.)

If you enjoy irony, sarcasm, or trolling, you should be very afraid: anything you post online that could be construed by some unknown third party as being in some way a threat is likely to be judged illegal. There's more info at the blog of Mr Chambers' lawyer, David Allen Green.

Allow me to risk being the first denizen of CUK to face prosecution for posting a message that is "...grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, contrary to 127(1)(A) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003":

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!

Come, bombs and blow to smithereens
Those air-conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
Tinned minds, tinned breath.

Mess up the mess they call a town-
A house for ninety-seven down
And once a week a half a crown
For twenty years.

And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women's tears:

And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
And make him yell.

But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It's not their fault that they are mad,
They've tasted Hell.

It's not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It's not their fault they often go
To Maidenhead

And talk of sport and makes of cars
In various bogus-Tudor bars
And daren't look up and see the stars
But belch instead.

In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.

Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.

- Sir John Betjeman (later Poet Laureate) 1937

See you in court