Slashdot Mirror


Teenager Arrested In England For Criticizing Olympic Athlete On Twitter

An anonymous reader writes "A teenager from Dorset, England was arrested for sending a Twitter message to Olympic athlete Tom Daley saying: 'You let your dad down i hope you know that.' Police arrested the 17-year-old boy as part of an investigation into 'malicious tweets' after Daley and his teammate missed out on a medal. Daley's father died from cancer last year. While it is rarely used and the police have not indicated whether they are pressing charges, the Communications Act 2003 s.127 covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. Sean Duffy was convicted and sentenced earlier this year for similar comments. I look forward to tens of thousands of arrests across England over the next few days as all public remarks which may cause offense, regardless of their target, are investigated by the law." According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning, but the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made.

639 comments

  1. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "relates to a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character."

    Isn't it nice to have such ambiguous laws that they could use against anyone whenever they please?

    1. Re:Wow... by mordjah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Crimethink anyone? How dare you say something mean in public! Arrest him!

      --
      "A mind reader? That sounds like sci fi." "Honey, we live on a space ship"
    2. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find most British sitcoms grossly offensive & indecent with their faux-wit, why isn't anyone being arrested for those?

    3. Re:Wow... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative
      Most laws are like that. They rely on a "reasonable person" test. would a reasonable person consider the tweet:

      come on then you cunt i'll stick a knife down your fuckin throat now comeback and stop hiding from me

      or

      do you want me to come to your fucking house now with a rope and strangle you with it

      to be grossly offensive? These were sent to other twitterers and it's probably these that prompted the arrest.

      source: (LiberalConspiracy)

    4. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those are adequately covered under other laws regarding intimidation and assault [look it up]. "You let your dad down" is not a threat.

    5. Re:Wow... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Those are threats of violence made in public. Such things are already going to get someone arrested. No need for a new law.

    6. Re:Wow... by hattig · · Score: 2

      And those are a fraction of the comments he made.

      It probably only took one or two people to report him to the police for them to have to investigate it, find threatening messages posted on a public board, and go an arrest him.

      I also doubt it was the comment to the diver himself that triggered the arrest. It was the tweeter's massive meltdown when he got called out.

    7. Re:Wow... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Funny

      If anything the new law means a lower punishment for threats made on the internet, because everyone knows internet tough guys never follow through.

      If they did, I'd beat them up.

    8. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're probably just too stupid to understand them.

    9. Re:Wow... by jyjjy · · Score: 1

      Also, doesn't the indecent or obscene part effectively and unambiguously outlaw basically any form of cybersex?

    10. Re:Wow... by SteelCat · · Score: 2

      Isn't it US comedy films that are filled with fauxwits?

    11. Re:Wow... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Also, doesn't the indecent or obscene part effectively and unambiguously outlaw basically any form of cybersex?

      You need to look at the second paragraph of the act:

      A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

      So two lovers having cybersex wouldn't be guilty since they aren't trying to annoy each other.

    12. Re:Wow... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I have friends that would send those tweets to people in jest... I couldn't imagine being arrested because of it.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    13. Re:Wow... by Zemran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assault has always been illegal and no stupidity laws were needed by politicians that are more interested in looking like they are doing something that actually taking the time to think about what needs to be done and doing something useful. Assault does require contact, a threat to do something causes harm if the person threatened believes the threat to be real. That is the kicker though, these stupid laws do not require any harm so they are clearly stupid. If I say to you that I am going to kill you when I catch up with you and you know I am joking, under the old laws there was no crime but under the current system it is a crime. If I say that I am going to kick your teeth in and mean it, there is no change. All that is new is that now innocent people can be sent to prison with ease.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    14. Re:Wow... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      So pretty much all the people on XBox Live would be called up on arrest charges for annoying people... in that some are actually trying to annoy others.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    15. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus the athlete in question probably would never have been aware of the comment if they hadn't made a criminal case out of it.

    16. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you don't imagine. Not just being arrested, but how other people feel about such things.

      I think we'd be a lot better off if other's feelings were given a little more imagination. Of course what a lot of people don't realize causes upset is somebody whose feelings are being disregarded.

    17. Re:Wow... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's the problem. It's one of those laws which make outlaws of tens of thousands of people, even though it's usually only going to be used to protect high profile individuals. How often does someone get arrested the following morning for suspicion of a Communications Act offence? BT+regulator have spent decades doing next-to-nothing to help people who receive nasty 'phone calls.

      The Chambers ruling has certainly raised the bar for what counts as "menacing". Not so much for indecency + obscenity.

    18. Re:Wow... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      So you are going to criminalize thought crimes? Is it better to hold back all your anger until you snap and take out everyone in your office or is it better to get it off your chest and let people tell you it's wrong? If you criminalize hate speech people will hold on to it until they can no longer take it.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    19. Re:Wow... by gregmac · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm offended by your suggestion that I or someone I know might ever say something mean in public and should be arrested. I demand you be arrested!

      --
      Speak before you think
    20. Re:Wow... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      Taken in context, I'd say no.

      http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/rileyy69-aka-reece-of-weymouth-and.html

      That kid has issues, sure, so what. Look at how the so called normal people treated him? Fucking despicable. Who's the bully here? Who is doing *actual* harm to whom? Compare the size of the audience, and how the athlete instantly called the guy an "idiot", while identifying himself as one.

      Bah.

    21. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since when is threatening to kill someone, aiming that threat directly at them, a "thought crime"?

    22. Re:Wow... by azalin · · Score: 1, Funny

      So.. if this thread starts to annoy me, can I get you guys arrested?

    23. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Holy strawman batman! Nobody said anything about "criminalizing thought crimes". People have every right to blurt out all the hateful things they want, but if they give people reason to believe it's actionable (like this tough guy saying he'd drown Tom Daley in the pool), well then, free speech can be a rope you hang yourself with. Being free to say what you want in no way means you should be free of the consequences of your words. If they are hateful, people will respect you less. If they contain threats of murder, people will call the police to come by your house. I see nothing wrong with that.

    24. Re:Wow... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      This is how we roll on Airstrip One.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    25. Re:Wow... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe the summary was updated after you read it, but that's not what he was arrested for. (I guess that was just the usual flamebait to get the conversation going...)

    26. Re:Wow... by cod3r_ · · Score: 0

      criminalizing rude remarks on the internets.. think of what the forums will be like.. empty =(

    27. Re:Wow... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember back when being rude was not a crime. But if they make being an asshole a criminal, then we will all end up in jail, because we all have our special moments sooner or later.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    28. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm somewhat offended by this discussion. I don't like the profanity used in the parent post. I hope 91degrees is arrested by his/her host nation, and held indefinitely, without trial, and tortured.

    29. Re:Wow... by pellik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You've got to shift your viewpoint a little if you want to understand what's going on around you. The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish. Naturally people generally don't want the government to have the power to suppress political speech and the like, but at some point you have to decide things like if it's reasonable to have some right to privacy (like in your own home), and how far these other rights extend when in conflict with each other. This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.

    30. Re:Wow... by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Crimethink anyone? How dare you say something mean in public! Arrest him!

      It's not quite Crimethink, but it's pretty close.

      It's hard to believe they outlawed anything as subjective as 'grossly offensive' messages.

    31. Re:Wow... by jyjjy · · Score: 2

      No, it says needlessly annoyed and you needed it.

    32. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a cruel thing to say, but that law is bullshit, and I would never tolerate it anyplace. Besides, the spam filter probably eliminated it.

    33. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "relates to a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character."

      Isn't it nice to have such ambiguous laws that they could use against anyone whenever they please?

      Isn't it nice that there are laws that can be used to prevent trolling, Anonymous Coward?

    34. Re:Wow... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Do you think that most people would agree that my profanity is grossly offensive?

    35. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's asshole, and there was this guy. As if competing in front of the world isn't enough, and losing your dad recently, you get tools like this guy taunting an innocent person. I am actually pleased as punch that this anonymous pr1ck got arrested.

    36. Re:Wow... by azalin · · Score: 1

      Damn. There goes another plan for world domination

    37. Re:Wow... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the kid is a real jerk for saying what he said. Now I'm criticizing him in a public space, as I'm sure many other people are in less kinder words. Should I be arrested, because my criticism might hinder him to pursue posting things on the internet?

      We can have a lot of freedom in life, but the freedom to not be offended is not an option. The fact that what you or I say might hurt someone's feelings is not a sufficient reason to prevent us from saying it.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    38. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIP free speech

    39. Re:Wow... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      If he stood outside the hotel with a megaphone saying that would you have any problem with him being arrested?

    40. Re:Wow... by Squiddie · · Score: 2

      If you choose to not use your freedom of speech or something or other because some child said mean things about you, then you simply don't deserve to be there. Free speech is supposed to be untouchable because of that.

    41. Re:Wow... by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      Proving what someone believes is pretty difficult.

    42. Re:Wow... by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In England you can be arrested for "going equipped". For example if you have a crowbar, pliers and other tools in your car they will claim that you are going equipped to commit burglary, you don't actually need to do the crime.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    43. Re:Wow... by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this law is bad. In the U.S., at least, there are pretty well-defined (and very small) legal categories that this sort of language could match up with and, thus, restrain it's application more than one might expect. So, it's possible that this law isn't the carte blanche it seems to be, but even if not it is never a good thing to (in the best case scenario) make citizens feel more oppressed than they actually are or (in the worst case scenario) encourage overzealous prosecutions that the courts will later have to reverse (hopefully...). (In reality a law like this invites a little of both.)

      It does seem, though, like it makes a huge difference in this case which tweet Daley was arrested for making. Was it the merely critical one or was it the threatening one? This makes the difference between a silly sounding law, rendered mostly harmless by responsible prosecution, or a tyrannical law both in word and effect.

    44. Re:Wow... by readin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      like in your own home

      The kid isn't being accused of breaking and entering. If he were it would be the athlete facing jail time (assuming the athlete took reasonable steps to defend himself).

      You've got to shift your viewpoint a little if you want to understand what's going on around you. The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish.

      It is holy from the standpoint that no one should be forced to espouse a view they find repugnant. It is practical because once we start regulating speech the regulators will make it so we criticize them (it might hurt their feelings or upset the social order if the regulators were criticized).

      This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.

      If the athlete saw the tweet, it is because the athlete chose to participate in an extremely public forum. It's not like he was just walking around shopping. He was using a medium design to allow as many people as possible to communicate. If you're going to do that you have to expect some flames no matter who you are. As for the larger question of freedom to walk around in public: someone instantly recognizable, or someone hounded by paparazzi might have case to make for restricting to what extent they should be protected in public from speech. That is indeed a difficult topic - but the answer there is not to put a blanket ban on all speech but to figure out a way to tailor the rules for only the difficult cases. The fact that Johnny Depp can't walk around without attracting a mob should not be the basis for regulating interactions between a lesser known athlete and a teenager. In cases where an individual is really annoying, there are other ways for the public to handle it. For example, as a small business owner I could refuse to hire him. What? That's illegal discrimination? Well, at least I could refuse to sell him anything at my store! Wha..? That's illegal too! Well, I suppose I could tell everyone what a jerk he is because... oh yeah, we just made that illegal. Um well I suppose I could - oh H#ll, just arrest him. Why bother with social pressure when it's so much easier to send him to jail?

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    45. Re:Wow... by gnasher719 · · Score: 0

      So you are going to criminalize thought crimes? Is it better to hold back all your anger until you snap and take out everyone in your office or is it better to get it off your chest and let people tell you it's wrong? If you criminalize hate speech people will hold on to it until they can no longer take it.

      In that case, maybe someone like that should be preemptively shot, since they are not fit for human civilisation?

    46. Re:Wow... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I have friends that would send those tweets to people in jest... I couldn't imagine being arrested because of it.

      Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

      A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY YOU CHAUVINIST PIG!!!

      One man's joke is another (wo)man's insult. But I do agree, insults should not be against the law. Sometimes I'm jealous of the Brits, then crap like this comes up...

    47. Re:Wow... by readin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you don't imagine. Not just being arrested, but how other people feel about such things.

      I think we'd be a lot better off if other's feelings were given a little more imagination. Of course what a lot of people don't realize causes upset is somebody whose feelings are being disregarded.

      You're saying I don't care about other people?? That really hurts. I do care. I can't believe you would say such a thing about me. You don't even know me!

      What's that number I can call? ;-)

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    48. Re:Wow... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In England you can be arrested for "going equipped". For example if you have a crowbar, pliers and other tools in your car they will claim that you are going equipped to commit burglary, you don't actually need to do the crime.

      Interesting.

      Upon reflection, I have a crowbar, pliers, and other tools in my car right now.

      Upon further reflection, I have tools of one sort or another in there pretty much all the time.

      Note to self: don't go to the UK....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    49. Re:Wow... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > If he stood outside the hotel with a megaphone saying that would you have any problem with him being arrested?

      We already have precedents making things like that very dubious.

      Of course, that's over here on the other side of the pond.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    50. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they arrest every politician that's posted on the interwebs right? Because anything they ever say is a grossly offensive lie.

    51. Re:Wow... by toriver · · Score: 1

      The US has much the same: If you have "drug paraphernalia" that is illegal even though you need not do any drugs: You have the capability to.

    52. Re:Wow... by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      No, because you criticized him, not harassed him as he did with Daley.

    53. Re:Wow... by c4tp · · Score: 2

      Exactly. This kid is an ass for saying such a thing, but it clearly doesn't necessitate government action.

    54. Re:Wow... by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      If I say to you that I am going to kill you when I catch up with you and you know I am joking, under the old laws there was no crime but under the current system it is a crime. If I say that I am going to kick your teeth in and mean it, there is no change. All that is new is that now innocent people can be sent to prison with ease.

      Not necessarily "innocent," as the person is still issuing a threat of physical violence.

    55. Re:Wow... by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's being misreported by the press. He was reported for the Daley posts, which were distasteful but not illegal. He was arrested because of racially motivated incitement to violence in an unrelated, but recent post. Basically saying Muslims should be attacked, which is most definitely illegal.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    56. Re:Wow... by Creepy · · Score: 2

      though he didn't directly harass him - it was re-tweeted by a swim team member.

      And if you think this couldn't happen in America, well it can - as long as the person posted under a pseudonym or anonymously and can be tracked down (since laws exist for cyberbullying that can land you in jail for 5 years, and you can tack on 2 more for being annoying in a provision carried over from the communications decency act ).

    57. Re:Wow... by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      The key thing the parent missed out was that to be guilty of "going equipped" the police need reasonable suspicion of what you're going to do with the objects. If you "go equipped" with a baseball^Wcricket bat in the back of your car, you can quickly prove your innocence by saying "I was on my way back from playing cricket this morning". If you have a crowbar in the back of your car, you can simply say "I need to open a bunch of crates at work today", etc.

      The context is very important.

    58. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I challenge you to get find someone getting arrested for saying something as innocuous as your dad would be ashamed of you to someone that is non-famous. There imply should not be one rule or celebrities and another for the rest of us.

    59. Re:Wow... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I'm offended by your suggestion that you know someone. I demand you be arrested!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    60. Re:Wow... by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Isn't it US comedy films that are filled with fauxwits?

      No, you're thinking of our cable news channels.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    61. Re:Wow... by mrops · · Score: 0

      Sure, unless your very goal is to hurt that someone, there should be some persecution for that. Its one thing giving your opinion and risking hurting someone, its another to make a comment to actually hurt someone.

      Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.

    62. Re:Wow... by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Isn't it nice that bankers can get away with fucking over millions of people, yet one kid says something off color and he gets arrested. Seriously? Being that we are going to set a precedent of punishing people, that being arrested for saying something off color gets you arrested, shouldn't fucking over millions of people result in us executing the bankers in some unique primitive torturous manner?

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    63. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming that they're hyperbole and not real threats is a defence against threatening violence, but not against being grossly offensive,

    64. Re:Wow... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Bingo. At least someone understands the problem here.

      (The police will of course also know this when they're finding a reason to arrest him.)

    65. Re:Wow... by second_coming · · Score: 1

      This relates to something which happened in a country which has no freedom of speech act. Therefore freedom of speech is irrelevant.

    66. Re:Wow... by second_coming · · Score: 0

      Isn't it US comedy films that are filled with fuckwits?

      fixed it for you

    67. Re:Wow... by sjames · · Score: 1

      At one time we had the fist to the nose as a corrective measure for things people might do that weren't quite crimes but also weren't acceptable. Alas, we have criminalized that important social correction without putting anything else in it's place.

      Of course, that correction worked better when you had to say things in person or not at all.

    68. Re:Wow... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The key thing the parent missed out was that to be guilty of "going equipped" the police need reasonable suspicion of what you're going to do with the objects. If you "go equipped" with a baseball^Wcricket bat in the back of your car, you can quickly prove your innocence by saying "I was on my way back from playing cricket this morning". If you have a crowbar in the back of your car, you can simply say "I need to open a bunch of crates at work today", etc.

      So, I have to prove my innocence if I carry tools in my car?

      Note to self: don't go to the UK.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    69. Re:Wow... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was back when punching someone in the nose for being rude was also not seen as a crime.

      Perhaps we'd be better off going back to that.

    70. Re:Wow... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I remember those days. Being rude didn't need to be a crime because it could result in a punch to the gut and the police would point and laugh.

    71. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has similar laws. Should we keep going down the list of countries that have laws that restrict you carrying something.

    72. Re:Wow... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Note to self: don't go to the UK....

      Don't drive to the UK, in any case...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    73. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.

      It's not ethically okay, but it should always be legally okay.

    74. Re:Wow... by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      FTFA - 'Daley retweeted a message that said: "You let your dad down i hope you know that." ... Abusive remarks on Twitter by a user had triggered protests from others before Daley responded: "After giving it my all... you get idiots sending me this..." and retweeted the message.'

      He retweeted the (harrassing) messages that were sent to him. So no, he did directly harass him, and through twitter as well.

    75. Re:Wow... by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish

      The idea that there's only one true, right opinion on this subject is rubbish. Perhaps free speech is not valuable to you, but other minds think differently.

    76. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're stupid because you believe in god. I'll take the padded handcuffs, please.

    77. Re:Wow... by s.petry · · Score: 3

      What a horrible argument from fallacy this is. A single message is not "abuse", and your point is completely invalid.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    78. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that blog post, and it was the biggest bunch of bollocks I've read today. The kid cycled several times between insulting, apologizing, then getting angry because Tom wouldn't immediately forgive him, and going on an insult rampage again. To place the blame on Tom Daley for showing the public what a little fuckhead this kid was is just the ultimate in victim blaming. Tom retweeted the message, meaning he was just conveying to others what this little shithole said. What's wrong with that? Why are people allowed to insult others without any pushback, as long as the person their insulting is famous? If you want a real unfilter chronology of this dipshits tweet history (including thousands of shitty tweets and violent threats to others before this encounter) here it is. He thought he could fling shit at this athlete like he had so many other people, and pathetically tried to backtrack when he realized that there were thousands of people online who took a decidedly dim view of his word vomit.

    79. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What new law? Pay attention. He was arrested under suspicion of violating the Communications Act 2003, and the passage in question was in the Telecommunications Act 1984 as well.

    80. Re:Wow... by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone

      And the "victim" chose to be in that public place.

      The Internet is unlimited. There are an unlimited number of places to go; an unlimited number of places can be created.

      The "victim" of this harassment chose to be on Twitter. Twitter can chose to expel one or the other. The "victim" can choose to leave Twitter if they don't take measures to make Twitter safe and enjoyable enough for him. In this way, the absolute freedom of all parties can coexist, without anyone needing to be arrested.

    81. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, fair point. But explain the notion of a lack a freedom of speech regarding yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

      You have to draw the line somewhere.

    82. Re:Wow... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      This relates to something which happened in a country which has no freedom of speech act.

      What relates to a country like this?

      Freedom of speech is a protected right in the UK, covered in the Human Rights act. However, we also believe that people have the right not to be harassed, and not to be threatened.

    83. Re:Wow... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The police have to prove guilt.

      They have to prove that you were, in all likelihood, planning to use the tools for a criminal purpose.

    84. Re:Wow... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      But only if they can prove they were used for illegal purposes. Having a clean unused syringe is not a crime. Having a syringe with heroin residue all over it is. Having a new unused pipe is not illegal. Having a pipe with marijuana resin all over it is. Having a clean razor blade or mirror or straw is not illegal. Selling a "kit" containing a mirror, razor blade, and straw together is illegal because it is obvious what the intended use is.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    85. Re:Wow... by houghi · · Score: 1

      So.. if this thread starts to annoy me, can I get you guys arrested?

      If you have a job at the MAFIAA, sure you can. It doesn't even matter in what country we are.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    86. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Threats do not constitute assault. Assault has to be backed by action that causes the victim to feel immediate harm.
      Saying "I'm going to kill you" might be criminal, but it is the brandishing of the knife, or the taking a weapon off of safe in a threatening manner, or the hoisting of the brick into a throwing position accompanying the threat that constitutes assault.

    87. Re:Wow... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      There's a bit more to it than that. I *pretty much always* have a multi-tool about my person, which has pliers, a couple of different sizes of screwdrivers and a very sharp knife, as well as the usual things for removing fishhooks and taking stones out of horses's hooves. My van always has things like crowbars, angle grinders, bolt cutters, hammers, saws and all sorts of stuff like that.

      It is perfectly legal to have all of these things, in the UK.

      However, if I was poking around some stranger's back garden in the dead of night with a crowbar and a set of bolt cutters, then the "going equipped" law might well apply. For similar reasons I tend not to take a multi-tool with a sharp knife if I'm going out clubbing, because there's really no reasonable purpose for having it there.

    88. Re:Wow... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      No, you don't have to "prove your innocence". It's a bit of a non-issue, really.

      In the US, the polce all have guns and are allowed to shoot you. Note to self: don't go to the US.

    89. Re:Wow... by PRMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a Christian and an American, it seems obvious to me that in order to have a free society, both Christians and Atheists must be free to criticize each others viewpoints in the public square of ideas. Otherwise, how does anyone have freedom of religion (or the freedom not to have a religion)?

      I certainly wouldn't want to be arrested for quoting the Bible: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." And if I want that freedom, I must allow Atheists the same freedom.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    90. Re:Wow... by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.

      I am sorry I can't agree. Being a public figure exposes you to a certain amount of comment. What you are really suggesting is that a right to be sheltered from the opinions of others exists. It can't. What if the Athletes mother had said this to him, should she be jailed? Personal I would be much more hurt to hear something like that come from my mom, who I love and respect, and would trust to judge the opinion of my Father much more than coming from some f**k head on Twitter!

      What you are really suggesting is we should legislate speaking to one another. Its not practical. People need to learn the uniformed personal options of others about their worth don't matter. The correct response is for the Athlete to either do nothing, or to tweet back and say, "you don't my dad; and your a real jerk who will probably never get laid, have sucky life."

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    91. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      And the "victim" chose to be in that public place.

      Presumably you use the same argument for rape. The victim chose to go out at night, clearly it was her own fault she was raped.

    92. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, here.

    93. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What you are really suggesting is that a right to be sheltered from the opinions of others exists.

      This wasn't opinion, it was abuse. There might be borderline cases between these two, but the tweets in this case aren't borderline.

      What you are really suggesting is we should legislate speaking to one another. Its not practical.

      It's perfectly practical. It's nothing new. Libel, slander, racial hatred, death threats, misuse of the postal service, etc. etc.

      The correct response is for the Athlete to either do nothing, or to tweet back and say, "you don't my dad; and your a real jerk who will probably never get laid, have sucky life."

      Which will do precisely nothing to stop an abuser. And yet people have committed suicide (and murder) as a result of cyberbullying. Do you have a suggestion that could really work to stop that happening, other than the law?

    94. Re:Wow... by isorox · · Score: 1

      Crimethink anyone? How dare you say something mean in public! Arrest him!

      Given the tweets back at the original poster, I imagine Britain's jails are full tonight

    95. Re:Wow... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.

      What about someone saying that you will burn in hell for eternity because you are an atheist?

    96. Re:Wow... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I'm offended. I demand you be arrested!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    97. Re:Wow... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Tom retweeted the message, meaning he was just conveying to others what this little shithole said. What's wrong with that? Why are people allowed to insult others without any pushback, as long as the person their insulting is famous?

      Why are people allowed to take (the clue is in the word... for more in-depth information, read Marc Aurel or something like that haha) offense?

      I'm not famous, and any and all insults you could throw my way I couldn't give a fuck about. Being the loudmouth I am, I certainly received my share, on slashdot and otherwise. Lies or (credible!) threats may be different, depending on severity etc, but other than that, there is standing up to a bully, and there is being a bully in turn, towards a poor little fucker with issues, as if it would undo either loss.

      And don't even get me started on herds. Yes, the athlete was a kid, too, probably so were his fans. But the authorities by definition kind of aren't.

    98. Re:Wow... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone

      That is ridiculous. He insulted someone, which should not be illegal.

      ha-rass
      [huh-ras, har-uhs]
      verb (used with object)

      1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
      2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

      One tweet does not a harassment case make.

    99. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No one's talking about a new law. He's been questioned relating to offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. That's a law of 24 years standing. 7 years older than the troll in question.

    100. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      There's nothing innocent about the teen in question. Stupid, yes, vile, yes. Innocent, no.

    101. Re:Wow... by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      "You let your dad down" is not a threat.

      No, but:
      * It is a deliberate attempt to cause offence by bringing up a subject that the recipient is likely to be pretty sensitive about
      * Threat of drowning is, and that was contained in another of the tweets, so he wasn't arrested just because of the "dad" tweet

      In this case I'm not unhappy that the tweeter's freedom of speech has been trumped by the recipients freedom to not have to put up with that sort of shit from the petulant little prick, and I fail to see the logic of extending this to "when will they come after me?!?!?!?!?!?" (as some people are doing) unless of course you are also in the habit of sending offensive and threatening messages to people you don't even know.

      What we have here is yet another instance of http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ - he thought he was safe pretending to be big and clever with his tweets until it became clear that people were going to fight back and that he was as risk of losing his anonymity so peple who know him in real life can see him for what he really is. The threat to Sky News says as much about his world view (i.e. the world should let him do what he wants with no consequences) that much else.

    102. Re:Wow... by lexsird · · Score: 1

      So, let me get this straight, you don't address being accused of being a coward and sycophant, you just advocate I should get out more and see how life as a cowardly sycophant should be like? Are you thinking if I see your plight that I might succumb to being a cowardly sycophant as well?

      Don't arch your back and hiss at me, you catty piece of work. Yours is the country arresting a rude teenager for being a rude teenager. When you start arresting fucking banksters for the LIBOR scandals, perhaps you might have some street cred, but until then, you all look like a bunch of fascist cunts. Perhaps you will arrest some old women for being grouchy about the weather while you are at it?

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    103. Re:Wow... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      People were certainly more polite. If they wanted to keep their teeth, that is.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    104. Re:Wow... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      He had a Twitter account. That's not private. If he didn't want contact from yahoos then he should, eliminate the twitter account or restrict access.

      Parents say alot worse at kids baseball games!

    105. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any rule(that is an objective standard we hold others to) cannot be self contradictory or arbitrary. It must be consistent and universal.

      When being told about rights and freedoms, the first thing to do to validate it is to see how that rule applies to itself. To create a rule that says 'do not offend anyone' or 'it is immoral/wrong to offend people' or any similar wording violates the criteria above. It is self-contradictory. Very generally speaking, offense is the feeling one gets when exposed to something they place negative value on. Value is subjective, meaning it is not an objective quality that describes something that exists in the world outside of individual perception. It can be anything for anyone. This means the rule proposed can be offensive to people. Its application as an enforced rule, its proposal to people as a true claim about reality, the statement itself even.

      So saying to someone that 'it is wrong to offend people' is self-contradictory, and therefore has no connection to reality. It does not describe anything true because it doesn't parse. It would be like saying 'words cannot be spoken'.

    106. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      So, let me get this straight, you don't address being accused of being a coward and sycophant

      I don't have a duty to address every stupid comment you make. I just addressed the causation of your ignorance of the world.

    107. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the "fire" in a crowd is used as an example often. However, is it really the speech part or is the "illegal" bit inciting a riot or endangering the public? You also get in trouble for pulling a fire alarm without saying "fire".

    108. Re:Wow... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I'm offended by all of your demands for arrest, and demand that we arrest anybody who demands somebody's arrest just because they're offended! ... Err ... It's a fair cop.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    109. Re:Wow... by Deorus · · Score: 1

      Naturally people generally don't want the government to have the power to suppress political speech and the like, but at some point you have to decide things like if it's reasonable to have some right to privacy (like in your own home), and how far these other rights extend when in conflict with each other.

      Freedom of speech and privacy do not overlap. Anyone entering your property by their self determination is explicitly waiving their freedom of speech in exchange for access to confidential information about you. There is absolutely no overlap here, your loss of freedom is a result of your actions, nothing else.

      This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.

      I would like to see your definition of "intimidation" and "harassment", because this is not a case of either, and even if it was, as long as it was only spoken, there would be no harm. People who take offense should be purposefully offended until they learn because these people are essentially telling the rest of the world that due to being totally incapable of controlling their emotions we should do that for them.

      I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logical justification for such a retarded law. Only in a country without a constitution would this kind of idiocy be possible.

    110. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The fact that bankers should be facing more and harsher repercussions of their actions, doesn't have any bearing on whether or not thins kid should face the repercussions of his actions.

    111. Re:Wow... by Prophilius · · Score: 1

      You just insulted every rational, free thinking individual. HANDCUFFS!!!!

    112. Re:Wow... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm arrested! I demand you be offended.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    113. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You live in a thought-police controlled craphole of a country and the best you can come up with "you don't have a passport". Grats, your masters have made stupid and gutless.

    114. Re:Wow... by Deorus · · Score: 1

      Except this law is restricting what you can say based on ambiguous terms rather than actually protecting people from harassment or threats, which have much less ambiguous definitions and cover more than speech. Since the choice of whether to be offended or not is entirely yours, you are perfectly capable of defending yourself without requiring intervention from the state.

    115. Re:Wow... by fa2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.

      What the hell? Of course it's OK! In fact, you are stupid because you don't think it is.

    116. Re:Wow... by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Again you dodge the accusation that you are a sycophantic cowardly twat with ad hominem bullshit. You have nothing, you have some vague notion about Americans, like a presumptuous twat, you run with it. Either you are intellectually too lazy to address the accusation or incapable. I am voting the later.

      By all means, keep reinforcing my accusation. Perhaps in your simple mind that will suffice, you have dispatched this cretin, and that is all fine and dandy in your fucked in the head world, where teenagers are arrested for something they rudely TWEET about some jock who didn't win his precious event. You have done your duty to defend those actions, hence you will not be in any danger of them coming for you any time today. You are a stand up kind of bloke! Everyone should buy you a drink at the pub tonight!

      3 Cheers for BasilBrush, he may be a cowardly sycophantic cunt, but he stood up on the Internet to that Yank whom he wrongfully thought hasn't been outside his own country, and make a cheeky defense around that whole false "shot in the dark" premise. You made us proud, lad! Step back lads, let the ladies have a go at this real man.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    117. Re:Wow... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The victim can choose to ignore comments on the internet, a rape victim cannot ignore an act of rape being committed against themselves.
      The two are not in the least bit comparable.

      People should have a thicker skin, its only words and words cannot hurt you, didn't they teach you that in school?

      "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    118. Re:Wow... by DM9290 · · Score: 0

      Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.

      That is exactly the kind of stupid thing some dumb idiot like you would say.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    119. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My opinion is that your opinion is worthless. Please keep quoting from the bible so we don't accidentally mistake you for someone that can actually think.

    120. Re:Wow... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      While I share the opinion that the kid was a jackass, he and everyone else need to be allowed to speak their mind freely. The only exceptions should be when that speech is slanderous, or could be shown to reasonably cause harm (yelling fire in a theater, or incitement to riot, for example).

      If you're an adult who is able to be intimidated by a tweet (other than an actual threat of violence), then you need to get help.

      There are plenty of examples of hate speech, that at least in the U.S. would still be acceptable legally. The case of that church group protesting at the funerals of veterans comes to mind. While their actions turn my stomach, I believe they have the right to speak their mind (though I disagree with the court's finding, and think there should be some buffer between them and the funeral).

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    121. Re:Wow... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's utterly ridiculous, i drive a classic car which as with most classic cars is not exceptionally reliable, so i always carry a set of tools around in the back.
      In fact, this car actually comes with a toolkit which is fitted into its own dedicated compartment of the car!

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    122. Re:Wow... by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      And the "victim" chose to be in that public place.

      Presumably you use the same argument for rape. The victim chose to go out at night, clearly it was her own fault she was raped.

      There is a difference between rape and free speech. Rape is wrong, and free speech it not.

      Nobody should rape you ever, no matter whether it is night or day or where you are.

      On the other hand, since there is nothing immoral about saying what you think, if you go some place where people have the ability to say what they think, you better brace yourself because its coming your way!

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    123. Re:Wow... by bryan1945 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm offended and I've arrested myself!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    124. Re:Wow... by Builder · · Score: 1

      It's actually NOT perfectly legal to have a locking blade on a multitool. To the best of my knowledge, there are only two multitools that are legal for day to day carry in the UK. One is a victorinox with a non locking blade and the other is the Leatherman knifeless fuse.

      Carrying a blade that locks open, regardless of length is illegal unless you can prove that you had a good reason to have it with you. It is an absolute or strict liability offence, and the police do not need to prove intent or guilt in any way - you are automatically guilty unless you can show a good reason for having the item with you at the time you are arrested.

      Having a multitool on the way to work where it will be used is acceptable and defensible. Having one with a locking blade at the pub on your way home from work is NOT acceptable or defensible under UK law. Ministers have admitted that they never intended for this to be the case when the knife laws were drafted, but at least two people have been convicted of knife crime for having a multitool on their person and not being able to show a reasonable excuse for having it at that time - again, habitual carry is not an accepted excuse.

    125. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Again you dodge the accusation that you are a sycophantic cowardly twat with ad hominem bullshit.

      You can't even remember who it was you threw your juvenile insult at. Hint: not me.

      Ad hominem? Well we can certainly add hypocrite to the list of your faults.

    126. Re:Wow... by hackula · · Score: 1

      Now try that in black face in a nice neighborhood. It would pretty much be a Rodney King 2.0. The US is no better than the UK if you don't look the part of an upright citizen.

    127. Re:Wow... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Grossly offensive is distinct from offensive. It's not just something that will offend. It's something that's calculated to be as offensive as possible. Something that will obviously offend just about anyone. There's plenty of case law to establish whether something should be considered offensive or grossly offensive.

      It's really not that ambiguous.

      Incidentally - US federal law has some provisions covering grossly offensive language in broadcasts.

    128. Re:Wow... by hackula · · Score: 1

      I doubt that even selling the kit would be illegal. Smoke shops openly sell paraphernalia with the most thinly veiled excuses ever concocted. The "Coke Kit" isn't for cocaine; it's a patented armpit shaving system.

    129. Re:Wow... by hackula · · Score: 1

      Wow, who the hell are you friends with? Michael Meyers!?

    130. Re:Wow... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      I know of a head shop that was busted near me in the late 1980s for selling "coke kits" that contained a razor, spoon, and mirror. They could sell all of the items separately, but not bundled together. It was, and I am guessing still is, definitely illegal in my state. No head shops sell anything of the sort anymore around here after that incident. The local cops made a big deal out of it and it was all over the local news.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    131. Re:Wow... by hackula · · Score: 1

      You are free to drive on the street... provided you avoid plowing through pedestrians. You are allowed to say whatever you want... provided you do not give everyone around you PTSD every time you vomit out disgusting threats that make them think you are going to murder them. C'mon this is clearly Being-A-Human 101.

    132. Re:Wow... by hackula · · Score: 1

      Finally! I will not have to mute the 10 year olds in BF3 anymore!

    133. Re:Wow... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      You do realize that people say things they don't actually intend on doing, right? I suppose I'd be arrested for threatening harm to someone by telling them to "break a leg" in modern day England.

      It's done in humor. For instance, you're not going to actually anally rape someone with a spiked jackhammer... it's something over the top that nobody would actually expect someone to do.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    134. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that's exactly what free speech is, the freedom from legal "responsibility" (i.e. punishment) for your speech.

      It's almost cliche to support "freedom of speech... with responsibility)". You know who has freedom of speech with responsibility? China. You can say whatever you want in China, just be prepared to deal with the consequences of your words (the Chinese government imprisoning you for decades to keep you from causing social instability).

      In a free society, the "consequence" for unpopular speech, is more more speech (in the form of disagreement, ridicule, etc), not imprisonment.

    135. Re:Wow... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      again, habitual carry is not an accepted excuse.

      From personal experience, I can confirm that it is.

    136. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We shouldn't go "back" to legalizing being rude because "things were better before". We should legalize being rude because the disadvantages of living in a society lacking free speech far outweigh the advantages of living in a society where the majority are less likely to be offended.

      In the case of physical assault, I think "freedom of punching people in the nose" at the expense of "freedom of others to punch you in the nose" is a bad trade. I think almost everybody would rather live in a society where no one is allowed to punch people in the nose.

      The only people I see who support restricted speech (of the minority) are usually unaware of the consequences, count on never being in the minority, or both.

    137. Re:Wow... by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy. People will say deeply offensive things to you in life; adults simply shrug and move on with life, they don't throiw temper tantrums, or ask Mommy to make it stop.

      Stalking is different, but we're not talking about stalking here, but one-off remarks.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    138. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may indeed be illegal to say "Muslims should be attacked" in various countries, but in a free society it shouldn't be.

      The "punishment" for speech advocating violence against people of a certain religion, race, height, etc should be more speech critical of the original statement and the person who said it.

      People who are incited to commit violence because of "speech" should be held solely responsible for the air own actions. The line between violent speech and violent action should be kept distinct.

    139. Re:Wow... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between "saying" and "doing".

      I can say I'm going to give you a million dollars and I can actually give you a million dollars.
      I can say I'm going to run you over on the sidewalk and I can actually run you over on the sidewalk.

      One of these things (doing/saying) is wrong. In England, apparently both are wrong.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    140. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      People should have a thicker skin, its only words and words cannot hurt you, didn't they teach you that in school?
      "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"

      The world is more complicated than the trite mantras they taught you at school.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier

    141. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Rape is wrong, and free speech it not.

      It's not so black and white. Free speech can be wrong. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is the classic example. Racist abuse for another example is certainly wrong.

      if you go some place where people have the ability to say what they think, you better brace yourself because its coming your way!

      Not if you are in a country that has wise laws to protect people. Less free speech and more protection from abuse could have saved this girl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier

    142. Re:Wow... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      If you're the shopkeeper selling (or offering for sale) the paraphernalia, you're bang to rights under 21USC863. No matter how unused it it, if you're burning incense sticks in your shop and there are tie dyes and Janis Joplin posters on the wall, you're goin' dahn. ("Matters considered in determination of what constitutes drug paraphernalia: [...] (4) the manner in which the item is displayed for sale; ".)

      You can own one, though, you're right there.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    143. Re:Wow... by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points...this is exactly right.

    144. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish people would stop calling incitement against Muslims racially motivated. Race doesn't necessarily come into it; possibly conflict of ideas or culture.

    145. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a free society, we can say (unless it doesn't turn into constant harassment): Dear Tom Daley,
      - your mother is a cockgobbling crackwhore [-> OK]
      - you're the slime in the gutter of humanity [-> OK]
      - I will kill you [-> not OK, involve the police]

      Since we had the last line in this case, I think there is no need to make any fuss about it, simply let the police give him a good stern talking-to (and check if he might have meant it) and be done with it.

    146. Re:Wow... by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      "nce we start regulating speech the regulators will make it so we criticize them (it might hurt their feelings or upset the social order if the regulators were criticized)."

      Exactly. If they arrest someone for mentioning a sportsman's dead father, what would you say a politician could do to you if you call him/her a liar (which almost all of them are) or say your opinion at a political demonstration and hurt the poor fellow's feelings? And these are just one example of the many possible cases where such laws could be misused. If there is someone out there who really thinks such laws and regulations were put in place to serve their best interest can't see further than their own ignorance.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    147. Re:Wow... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      This series was pretty much the most offensive. It's like a Family Guy joke that keeps going even when it isn't funny.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    148. Re:Wow... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      As a Christian and an American, it seems obvious to me that in order to have a free society, both Christians and Atheists must be free to criticize each others viewpoints in the public square of ideas. Otherwise, how does anyone have freedom of religion (or the freedom not to have a religion)?

      I certainly wouldn't want to be arrested for quoting the Bible: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." And if I want that freedom, I must allow Atheists the same freedom.

      I find Christians to be offensive, you should be arrest and fed to lions.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    149. Re:Wow... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.

      What about someone saying that you will burn in hell for eternity because you are an atheist?

      I'd rather burn in Hell for eternity then spend 1 day with any Christians, mainly if they were to be right, omg, I could not do with the smuggness then.

      I am dead serious. If Christianity was real, I'd rather burn in hell then worship your lame ass god.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    150. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I *have* traveled the world and I can attest that it is true... you're both being douchebags.

    151. Re:Wow... by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      That message is just one a in whole collection of direct messages to Daley from different people, some of which threatened violence...

    152. Re:Wow... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I think most people would like to live in a society where most disputes can be handled withouit getting police, judges, and expensive lawyers involved, especially considering the number of people who really CAN'T afford to get lawyers involved. It only takes a few minutes on google to conclude that the courts and cops have proven utterly incapable at the balancing act between free expression and the desire for decency and some measure of politeness.

      As for 'freedom of punching people in the nose', that has always been reserved for sore provocations. It's not as if I am advocating it for every little slight.

      I heartily agree that the law shouldn't get involved in rudeness, but that goes hand in hand with having a viable non-judicial social feedback mechanism. Otherwise we become defenseless against every rude shit spewing jackass out there (and there are quite a few).

      If you have a better feedback mechanism in mind, do let me know, but none at all isn't workable and spewing shit in kind seems likely to only make matters worse by making uncivilized speech reflexive (and likely killing public debate in the process, though now that I think about it, we already see that happening). Meanwhile, we seem to be in agreement that arrests and courts are not a good answer.

    153. Re:Wow... by fnj · · Score: 1

      To the hypothetical atheist: make up your damn mind. If you are a true atheist, that would be tantamount to saying the tooth fairy is going to slit your throat. How can you be either offended or alarmed by someone relating a fairy tale? If he said you were stupid because you didn't believe in God, that would be offensive and spiteful speech. Whether worthy of censure or punishment, is another matter for consideration. If he said you should be tortured and killed because you didn't believe in God, that would definitely be over the line.

      It works both ways.

      Perspective. It's a necessary part of living in society.

    154. Re:Wow... by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      But if they make being an asshole a criminal, then we will all end up in jail, because we all have our special moments sooner or later.

      Usually when we have our special moments, we aren't going out of our way, unprompted, to make somebody else's life miserable. Just sayin'.

    155. Re:Wow... by jc79 · · Score: 1

      No, TFS doesn't tell you the full story as usual. He issued a series of messages, not all directed at Tom Daley that were threatening and abusive, and included death threats : "i dont give a shit bruv i'm gonna drown him and i'm gonna shoot you he failed why you suporting him you cunt " "shut your dirty little mouth you cunt i'm going to kill you when your back trust me " and so on. I would say these were grossly offensive, and also indecent and menacing, though not obscene.

      Little boys spraying in public need a slap on the wrist, which is all he's getting.

    156. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.

      God, you sure are an idiot.

    157. Re:Wow... by pakar · · Score: 1

      Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.

      Well, both are ok... First one is a statement... Second one is an opinion...

      And BTW, if it would be illegal to say "you are stupid because you believe in god" then basically every religious person in the world should be put in jail since they are all claiming that the other religions are invalid and stupid and that their own is the only correct one...

    158. Re:Wow... by jc79 · · Score: 1

      In the US, the public have guns and are allowed to shoot you (in "self-defense", apparently).

    159. Re:Wow... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Depending on where you are in the UK, the public have guns too - in fact, the gun laws in the UK are looser than many US states.

      This is not necessarily a particularly good thing, but at least most people who live in cities are just plain not allowed to own them.

    160. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a christian" - as if that makes you any better than the lot.

    161. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you can be arrested in the U.S. for being equipped with similar instruments. I believe accordions bring a 3-5 year sentence, while bass saxophone has a mandatory 10-year minimum.

    162. Re:Wow... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      As a Christian and an American, it seems obvious to me that in order to have a free society, both Christians and Atheists must be free to criticize each others viewpoints in the public square of ideas. Otherwise, how does anyone have freedom of religion (or the freedom not to have a religion)?

      I certainly wouldn't want to be arrested for quoting the Bible: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." And if I want that freedom, I must allow Atheists the same freedom.

      I find Christians to be offensive, you should be arrest and fed to lions.

      I'm offended by your bad grammar. You missed out the 'ed' on the end of 'arrest'. I demand you be arresting ... oh dammit

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    163. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant ethically. In which case he'd be right, and you'd be betraying that ethic, by trying to hurt his feelings.

    164. Re:Wow... by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Ha ha! Oh I'm fucking burned! Good one.
      But hey, you pull the aggro, you tank it, right?

      Quit fucking with me, I'm trying to give this guy some shit for looking like a complete apologist for busting a teen for being rude. Seriously? Isn't that like handing out tickets at the Indy 500 for speeding to those guys making all left turns. And this is from England, the snottiest country in world, they have a smart ass remark about everything and everyone. All about Twitter, no less. Could there be a more worthless waste of human time on this planet than Twitter? Even the name grates on my last nerve, you will not find me dead fucking around with anything Twitter. So frankly, I don't give one fuck what anyone says on it. Perhaps if Jesus was on it, and you superglued my eyes open and strapped my head down, would I take a look at it.

      Aside from that, one has to admire the huge balls that they have for writing such an arbitrary law, that they can obviously toss into play on whomever they wish. It's fucking gutsy, I would like to think if they played that kind of bullshit here, we would all run down the road screaming with any kind of weapon we could get our hands on, looking for whomever was damn fool enough to sign said bullshit law into place. But I'm an optimist. Our reality is if they pushed some shit like that through, we would eat it with a spoon. Some would go batshit, but FEMA has places for them, and we will always have Gitmo.

      Perhaps I'm just pissed that rights are eroding everywhere. One day it's a punk ass rude kid saying something that should be left to his family to meet out some punishment for, the next it's reporters trying to inform us all of something really important to us, but the powers that be want it silenced. After that, it's anyone who steps out of line, and then we end up is some dystopian clusterfuck. It takes foolhardy vigilance to combat the complacency that leads to a slow lead poison death. We have to bark at each other and raise the dander level so that we don't fall asleep at the wheel.

      Frankly, I think we are all fucked, but I'm leaving claw marks on everything as they drag me out.

      BTW, I'm sorry I mistaken you for the other guy. But fuck you for being presumptuous not only about myself, but my kinsman who I'm sure don't have a passport, nor have some of them been more than 50 lightyears from home in their lives.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    165. Re:Wow... by Sephwrath · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's because the tweets were offensive... offensive is fine, he was probably visited by the cops because of the multiple death threats... I don't see how the absence of death threats is going to curtail the public debate personally... in fact I'd wager it would improve it.

    166. Re:Wow... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      To me, there is still enough difference where this is a fallacy. To compare someone sending 10 tweets, or even 100, that say "you suck" to a malicious conspiratorial effort as with Meagan, including an adult telling a teenager that they should kill themselves is still a fallacy in my opinion.

      I get that the authorities should have been notified to make sure the teen was not plotting more, but arrest them and file criminal charges? It would take more than a few texts to convince me it's "abuse".

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    167. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble with that is that if fistfights are an acceptable way to resolve social differences of opinion, then basically that's a charter for the physically strong to do and say whatever the hell they like, and the weak, elderly or disabled have no counter.

    168. Re:Wow... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't expect someone to go into a crowded movie theatre with an assault rifle and indesciminately open fire, either, but there you go.
        That sounds pretty over the top to me, so I guess I should ignore it if someone says they'll do that, because, after all, it's just an over the top threat that nobody would ever follow through on...

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    169. Re:Wow... by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's NOT acceptable for mere difference of opinion, only for sore provocation.

      Meanwhile, other social structure helped the weak, including such ideas that picking on smaller and weaker people was seen as a sore provocation to everyone around. Meanwhile, young men would be expected to use their bare fists only while it would be acceptable for an elderly man to use his cane.

      It was certainly not perfect, and nobody imagined it was but it was something. Now the options are down to everyone pisses on everyone or we start hauling people off to jail for being rude.

      I'm open to a better idea if you have one.

    170. Re:Wow... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      You're the one to talk? "statistically, you don't even have a passport" = that's the dumbest thing I read all day.

      And comparing this story with the suicide of Megan Meier isn't just fucking stupid, it's also rather fucked up. You're using her for shock value, even though it's apples and oranges, just because you can't argue for shit. Fucking shame on you.

    171. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both statements are mean.
      Neither should lead to an arrest.
      Both would probably lead to an arrest in the UK.

      Sticks and stone may break their bones but names will lead to jail time.

    172. Re:Wow... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Not if you are in a country that has wise laws to protect people

      How so? How do you control what comes out of the mouths or keyboards of people?

      Less free speech and more protection from abuse could have saved this girl

      And save her from what? From doing something stupid to make a point? I know that sounds fucking callous, and I don't mean to say it was "her fault", but a thicker skin, some perspective, more healthy fun time with real friends, might have ALSO helped her, and wouldn't require whatever instrumentation you're dreaming of that would be able to restrict speech so that nobody can be ever hurt again.

      Besides, you just drag her up -- just like you brought up rape -- to trump up the actual fucking topic. You're comparing a lone girl being abused by two guys, who claimed they were more, and made some stuff public, to one loner barking at a fucking celebrity, with fans and whatnot. Not because it makes any sense, but as a triumphant last resort. Don't you fucking talk about decency.

    173. Re:Wow... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      So what if you leave all the tools in your car.

      I carry a set of pliers on my belt (leatherman).

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    174. Re:Wow... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I always have a Leatherman Wave with me at all times.

      Except if I'm going out "clubbing" then it stays at home, but I have certainly had it with me at the pub after work on more than one occasion.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    175. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he said you should be tortured

      What is hell if not torture? To be fair, heaven would be tortuous as well, as anyone there would know all their family and friends who didn't make it to heaven would burn for all eternity, so hell is physical torture while heaven is psychological.

    176. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish.

      I live in a country where the overwhelming majority of people living there either are descended from people who fought and died due to this very notion, or are descended from people who so cherished this notion that they picked up stakes and moved here.

      So, uh, yeah, nice tolerance and understanding you have for other cultures, you royalist crown licker..

    177. Re:Wow... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Un-luck of the draw. If we arrested everyone that said they'd come back to work "postal" the jails would be even more full. If they had gotten his letter, they could have investigated it to see if it was true, but I don't see a need to arrest everyone making rude comments.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    178. Re:Wow... by AssholeMcGee+ · · Score: 1

      ""or someone hounded by paparazzi might have case to make for restricting to what extent they should be protected in public"" Saying makes me think why the police do not use this laws against the press/media. But they have no problem jumping up and arresting some private citizen for something I would not consider to be threatening. Good points with your comments about involving ones self, with social internet where not every comment is going to be life threatening, but you will receive harsh criticism, it is to be expected. The press/media post/prints things in public, ones wonders if or when they start seeing reporters or even the heads of there offices being arrested.. Just a thought!!!!!

    179. Re:Wow... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      in fact, the gun laws in the UK are looser than many US states.

      I call horseshit. I live in the state that the NRA would probably rank about 46th or 47th out of 50 for gun regulation. It's not at all unusual to have people from the UK comment on how lax our gun laws are.

      I'm curious what states in the US you think are more lax than the UK. Or is it the case that one particular law in the UK is not so stringent as some similar law in many US states.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    180. Re:Wow... by egats42 · · Score: 1

      An atheist doesn't believe in hell, so why should that bother him?

    181. Re:Wow... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Probably most states are more lax, but as I understand it there are quite a few states where private citizens are pretty much not allowed to own guns at all.

      By contrast, here in the UK it's easier to get a shotgun licence than a motorcycle licence, and by a strange quirk of Scottish law I'm actually breaking the law by *not* having one.

    182. Re:Wow... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Looks like I'm going to commit a rape today. I carry all the required "equipment" with me.

    183. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that's exactly what free speech is, the freedom from legal "responsibility" (i.e. punishment) for your speech.

      This "freedom from legal responsibility" is the most hilarious idea ever. Tell that to libel and perjury laws. The fact is we are constrained from saying just whatever we want in many ways. In certain contexts we have to be truthful lest we obstruct the course of justice (perjury), in certain contexts we have to be more polite unless we have a strong belief of being correct (libel), and apparently making death threats at someone gets the police to come by give and interview you at the station.

      In a free society, the "consequence" for unpopular speech, is more more speech (in the form of disagreement, ridicule, etc), not imprisonment.

      Holy NEW Strawman Batman, the kid isn't being imprisoned, he's being interviewed. Maybe they'll refer him for some free therapy thanks to their socialized medical system?

    184. Re:Wow... by ancienthart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy.

      Yeah. No.

      As a high school teacher I can honestly say that this approach doesn't work with about 10% of teenagers (and some sociopathic adults) in a public forum. Especially if for some reason you can't leave that forum (I.e. it's your job.).

      If a person is determined to get attention, and you ignore them, they will just keep looking for more and more offensive things to say, until they can get a response. Best to remind them of expectations of behaviour early, and the likely consequences of breaking those expectations. Then enforce.

      Once you get past a certain point of offensiveness, and you don't respond, you're basically giving them permission to continue being offensive. Moreso if there's a certain implied anoymousness involved (Like on the Internet). Seen 4Chan recently? :D

    185. Re:Wow... by ancienthart · · Score: 1

      Damn my spelling! Anonymousness! You can never have enough n's.

    186. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does have a bearing.

      When the law (in general) is so astoundingly unevenly applied then there is no justice and the general populace develops a justified contempt for the law.

      What those banksters (and ours as well) did definitely resulted in early death and great suffering of other kinds for many people. Since they are not prosecuted, why should we feel that any laws, even laws against assault, battery and murder, are valid?

    187. Re:Wow... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      By not having the motorcycle license? Yeah, that would be weird.

      You can get a shotgun sans license in all fifty states. This includes single shots, O/U, SxS, pump, and semi-auto. You cannot in the District of Columbia. I have no idea about Puerto Rico and other territories.

      In all fifty states, you can get so called 'assault weapons'. You can only buy fully automatic under certain circumstances (an extra tax among other things). Someone said full auto is banned in Washington state. I don't know for sure. I know it's possible in MD.

      CA has caliber restrictions on rifles. I know that .50 cal is not allowed.

      Wikipedia's page on US gun laws seems reasonable. I'm sure there are some mistakes, but I didn't see any on a quick look.

      The craziest laws are a combination of MD, NY, NJ, CA, and IL. HI, CT, and a few other states are a strong second place.

      One trick is that there are 50 states plus the district (ignoring territories and possessions) each with unique laws, as well as the Federal government. One state (Montana) maintains that guns manufactured there for the express purpose of sale to residents and use in the state of Montana are exempt from federal firearms laws. Don't know if it has been subjected to the courts.

      So, again, there may be a law here or there that is more strict in the US, don't count on it. Saying that parts of the UK 'have looser laws than many US states' is probably inaccurate. Unless you have been here (and gotten off of the coasts and out of the tourist spots) it's really hard to imagine how commonplace firearms are in the US. Just like most Americans are ignorant of the vast variety of foods of different cultures are available in New York City, let alone London, most Europeans and Asians are wholly ignorant of the prevalence of guns in the US. I think the Canadians almost get it. But it really is different over here.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    188. Re:Wow... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You've got to shift your viewpoint a little if you want to understand what's going on around you. The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish. Naturally people generally don't want the government to have the power to suppress political speech and the like, but at some point you have to decide things like if it's reasonable to have some right to privacy (like in your own home), and how far these other rights extend when in conflict with each other. This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.

      I understand you're pointing out the "Fire in a crowded theater" exception to free speech but what the kid wrote wasn't too bad. Yep he was an idiot but at best the he should have had a stern talking to by the cops and his parents.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    189. Re:Wow... by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      If you can demonstrate that you use them regularly, and you're not just carrying them around... "because", you're in the clear. Though your leatherman may trigger knife laws banning carrying locking blades over 7cm depending on the model.

    190. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Damn. There goes another plan for world domination"

      There's always tomorrow night.

    191. Re:Wow... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy.

      To say is easier than to do because each person has different level of tolerance. The law may be too harsh, but what level of tolerance is acceptable? In this case, a person had a very sad event happened a year before, and then lost his dream again this year. Then someone dug up his pain from the past and shoved it into his face again. Some may be able to over look the offensive comment, but many may not.

    192. Re:Wow... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      That probably refers to the death threat he posted. Not sure about where you are, but I believe the US has laws about that too. Or is that only if you threaten the President?

      Of course, this doesn't sit well with the slashdot janitor's blind hatred of the UK. I guess they hate us because we're free.

    193. Re:Wow... by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      The difference is that to Christians the bible is true (to varying degrees, metaphorical vs literal) not a fairy tale. Even Christian adults don't believe the tooth fairy exists.

    194. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy. People will say deeply offensive things to you in life; adults simply shrug and move on with life, they don't throiw temper tantrums, or ask Mommy to make it stop.

      Stalking is different, but we're not talking about stalking here, but one-off remarks.

      Where I come from, if someone says something deeply offensive to you, you don't shrug and ignore it, you twat them.

      Just saying.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    195. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This kid is an ass for saying such a thing, but it clearly doesn't necessitate government action.

      He just needs a little spanking from Tom Daley and his friends. Simples.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    196. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish

      The idea that there's only one true, right opinion on this subject is rubbish. Perhaps free speech is not valuable to you, but other minds think differently.

      Something can be valuable without being an inviolable ideal. I'm all in favour of free speech as long as people take the consequences of their words. We invented the law to avoid the instinctive reaction to someone spouting filth in your face, which is to hit them very hard. Instead we let the law punish them.

      You might think it's no big deal to taunt someone with the fact that their parent is dead. Personally, if someone did that to me, I'd be tempted to find out where they lived and saw their knackers off with a blunt hacksaw, but hey ho there are obviously a lot more forgiving people on slashdot than I realised.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    197. Re:Wow... by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      Well, at least I could refuse to sell him anything at my store! Wha..? That's illegal too!

      Don't know how it works where you are, but in England it is completely legal to refuse to sell someone something.

    198. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      People should have a thicker skin, its only words and words cannot hurt you, didn't they teach you that in school?

      "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"

      I remember hearing that, and it was bollocks then just like it's bollocks now.

      Every fight I've ever seen or been involved in has started with words.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    199. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      And save her from what? From doing something stupid to make a point? I know that sounds fucking callous

      Yes it does. Basically you're championing the right of internet trolls to say what they want, over the victims who are genuinely hurt by this. And saying people should have a thicker skin is no answer. People have the resilience to abuse that they have. Some have more, some have less. The conscious mind is like the
      tip of an ice-berg, with the sub-concious mind responsible for far more of how we react. And the concious mind is not in control of how the sub-concious mind reacts. At best it can influence it a little.

      Again, it's not the victims fault they are damaged by abusers behaviour.

    200. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Saying what you think can most certainly be immoral.

      If I go up to the parents of a child who has just been killed in a train accident and start telling train jokes, making choo choo noises and laughing, and so on, deliberately to hurt them, that is immoral or ethically unacceptable by any reasonable standard.

      The questin is whether it should be illegal (as it is here in the UK where a twatty troll recently was convicted for online harrasment of parents whose kids had just committed suicide, IIRC).

      Now, just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal, but it is lying to yourself to pretend that all free speech is always morally good or neutral.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    201. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The correct response is for the Athlete to either do nothing, or to tweet back and say, "you don't my dad; and your a real jerk who will probably never get laid, have sucky life."

      Setting aside the fact that I didn't realise Tom Daley was illiterate, IMHO the correct response is to ask the troll to meet up for some diving practice in a drained pool.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    202. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Just taking the second example given, it is perfectly possible to harass an enemy once.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    203. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      He had a Twitter account. That's not private. If he didn't want contact from yahoos then he should, eliminate the twitter account or restrict access.!

      A crime is a crime whether it's committed in public or in private.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    204. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logical justification for such a retarded law. Only in a country without a constitution would this kind of idiocy be possible.

      And only in a country with such a constitution like the US would it be impossible to impose sensible gun control laws or prevent cunts like the Westboro retards being slung in jail.

      Just saying.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    205. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of examples of hate speech, that at least in the U.S. would still be acceptable legally.

      Yes, we know. You Americans seem to think that having the freedom to do something is the most important thing in the world. Well, it's not if you're the victim. Ask the families of the civilians killed in Iraq about their fucking freedom.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    206. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In England you can be arrested for "going equipped". For example if you have a crowbar, pliers and other tools in your car they will claim that you are going equipped to commit burglary, you don't actually need to do the crime.

      Yes, obviously it's as ridiculously simple as that. Any random person they find with any hand tool is immediately charged with going equipped to commit burglary. Your criminal past, the location and circumstances and surrounding activities observed by the police, your lack of a plausible explanation for carrying the tools, all these are irrelevant.

      It must be fucking carnage outside B & Q on a Sunday afternoon where you live.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    207. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      at least two people have been convicted of knife crime for having a multitool on their person and not being able to show a reasonable excuse for having it at that time

      In other words, they had it with them in public, probably after going to the pub and getting into some sort of trouble (or else how would the police have found it on them)? It is exactly the same as if they were carrying any other c. 3 inch sharp bladed weapon.

      People can't have it both ways, complain about teenagers carrying knives, then think there should be an exemption for multiu-tools because it's generally older/middle class people who have them. I have a bladed Leatherman, as well as several other knivves for various purposes (gardening pruning knife, various kitchen knives...) but I wouldn't take any of them out shopping in the supermarket or going to buy a kebab.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    208. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's utterly ridiculous, i drive a classic car which as with most classic cars is not exceptionally reliable, so i always carry a set of tools around in the back. In fact, this car actually comes with a toolkit which is fitted into its own dedicated compartment of the car!

      *sigh*

      Yes, that's what's known as having a perfectly valid reason to be carrying those tools.

      If you work as a chef, you can take a case full of razor sharp knives on the bus with you. Most sixteen year olds, however, aren't chefs, so they need some other reason to explain carrying a 12 inch carving knife. ("for getting stabby with" isn't seen as a valid reason by most people) or else they'll be in trouble.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    209. Re:Wow... by hackula · · Score: 1

      Your logical prowess is astounding. There is a difference between "saying" and "doing". Either one can be wrong. Threatening to murder someone is wrong. There is legal precedent going back to the dawn of time on this one. A threat is not as bad as an action - duh - that does not mean it holds no moral content at all.

    210. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I have friends that would send those tweets to people in jest... I couldn't imagine being arrested because of it.

      Translation: I am a thoughtless, insensitive, sociopathic little shitweasel with no ability to see beyond my own instant gratification.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    211. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So you are going to criminalize thought crimes? Is it better to hold back all your anger until you snap and take out everyone in your office or is it better to get it off your chest and let people tell you it's wrong? If you criminalize hate speech people will hold on to it until they can no longer take it.

      If someone is so full of rage that they are capable of taking out everyone in their office because their brains work funny, it would indeed be a good thing if we had some Minority Report style pre-cog system to weed them out and get them some help.

      Quite what this and the standard slashdot "1984 was supposed to be a warning not a procedure manual" retard world view has to do with anything I'm not quite sure. This obnoxious little tick didn't commit "thought crime" he committed "actually writing it out on twitter like a cunt" crime.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    212. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That was back when punching someone in the nose for being rude was also not seen as a crime.

      Perhaps we'd be better off going back to that.

      Certain levels of rudeness will still get you a punch in the nose. If this teentard twitterer had been standing next to Tom Daley and brought his dead dad into the conversation, I imagine he'd have received proof of this.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    213. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You do realize that people say things they don't actually intend on doing, right? I suppose I'd be arrested for threatening harm to someone by telling them to "break a leg" in modern day England.

      As always, it would depend on context.

      If you said "break a leg" to a friend shortly before they went on stage, that;'s one thing. If you said "break a leg" as you dropped rocks on a policemen that's another.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    214. Re:Wow... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      If you say so... ;)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    215. Re:Wow... by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Something can be valuable without being an inviolable ideal. I'm all in favour of free speech as long as people take the consequences of their words. We invented the law to avoid the instinctive reaction to someone spouting filth in your face, which is to hit them very hard. Instead we let the law punish them.

      I can't think like that at all. The law should punish people who hit people. The consequences of saying filth should be that nobody wants to listen to you, nobody wants to talk to you, nobody wants to be around you. If they hit you, then they should bear the consequences of their wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Transferring the hitting to some agency (the government) and possibly changing its form (imprisonment or fine instead of hitting) doesn't change it from being a wrong.

      You might think it's no big deal to taunt someone with the fact that their parent is dead

      I certainly think it is a big deal, but it is a social deal; it is not a crime.

      Personally, if someone did that to me, I'd be tempted to find out where they lived and saw their knackers off with a blunt hacksaw

      I would hope you would agree with me that such an out of proportion response would be uncivilized. A proportional response would be to say something mean about them, wouldn't it? Do we shoot people for stepping on the grass? Flog or cut off hands for shoplifting? Cane people for graffiti? We all have baser, uncivilized instincts, but hopefully in our calmer moments we can reason about what is right and wrong.

    216. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If I say to you that I am going to kill you when I catch up with you and you know I am joking, under the old laws there was no crime but under the current system it is a crime.

      Bullshit. They just overturned the conviction of the Robin Hood airport "bomb" tweeter because it was perfectly obvious he was joking.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    217. Re:Wow... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the kid in this article wasn't standing over the swimmer in a pool when he posted his twit either.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    218. Re:Wow... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Also, doesn't the indecent or obscene part effectively and unambiguously outlaw basically any form of cybersex?

      You need to look at the second paragraph of the act:

      A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

      So two lovers having cybersex wouldn't be guilty since they aren't trying to annoy each other.

      I put on my robe and wizard hat...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    219. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ambiguous laws"? You might want to find a dictionary. Then find a legal dictionary.

      Test cases are already setting precedent for this. Currently it's immature so a few poor buggers will go through the court system, some will walk free - others will be punished. And the law will mature.

      I'm guessing you're American and have been schooled to believe you have something called free speech. This is government brain washing. You have films and books censored. You might not like the results if you walk into a cinema and shout "Fire". Or use the word "nigger".

      In the UK it's a bit more honest. What you can and can't say is regulated and tested openly in court. All laws are ambiguous which is why we rely on precedence.

    220. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about saying I'm going to stone you to death for working on the Sabbath? Direct threat. It's my right (apparently) to hold religious beliefs however stupid, archaic and/or bigoted they are.

      I wouldn't want to be arrested for saying that. So I'm not going to say it...

    221. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was back when punching someone in the nose for being rude was also not seen as a crime.

      Perhaps we'd be better off going back to that.

      Are you implying that we wouldn't be better off going back to that?

      We'd at least be more polite, on average.

    222. Re:Wow... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot, where every meme is pounded in the ass until it is dead.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    223. Re:Wow... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You're the one to talk? "statistically, you don't even have a passport" = that's the dumbest thing I read all day.

      Population of USA = 314 million.
      Number with passports = 110 million.

      And comparing this story with the suicide of Megan Meier isn't just fucking stupid, it's also rather fucked up. You're using her for shock value, even though it's apples and oranges, just because you can't argue for shit. Fucking shame on you.

      Come back to me when you're mature enough to know that saying fuck isn't actually making an argument.

    224. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the little twat has a history of racially abusing people and making threats on line

    225. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I be offended and get arrested too?

    226. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dickhead.

    227. Re:Wow... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the stereotyping. Your comment is so far off base, it's barely worth responding to.

      Being a "victim" of speech is something you learn to deal with when you're in elementary school. I'm sure you're familiar with the old "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Yes, we know words, can actually hurt, but if you're that thin skinned, it's your problem. We all deal with jackasses, ans you learn to ignore them. Just like I will do with your response, and future posts.

      Thanks for playing.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    228. Re:Wow... by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      So two lovers having cybersex wouldn't be guilty since they aren't trying to annoy each other.

      However, following a recent ruling, they could be guilty of obscene publication if their if their discussion involved anything sufficiently non-vanilla.

    229. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you get past a certain point of offensiveness, and you don't respond, you're basically giving them permission to continue being offensive. M
      The sad truth is, once you get past a certain point of offensiveness, the next step for those 10%, is you've apparently given them permission to escalate to physical violence. Often, the last speech you are considering responding to IS a threat of physical violence. Absolute 'respect' for freedom of speech, in this context, means not arresting people where there is a clear and present danger of physical violence, just because it might violate the idea of prior restraint. And that's only possible if the right to free speech trumps all the other amendment rights. Does it? What about the rights of people to vote or seek office, to be secure in their homes, to peacibly assemble?

    230. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im offended that i was arrested and demand it be made illegal

    231. Re:Wow... by kbx911 · · Score: 0

      something as scary as a kid being arrested for posting views on...a website, and you guys go on making jokes in the first visible thread (deliberately?) i can go Conspiracy Keanu on you'll and say the people (you-know-who) who want such a police state (where anyone who criticizes them has the sword of prison hanging on their head) can easily create a corporation that just employs witty comment posters to subvert any meaningful discussion online on such grave developments, that they themselves cause. Thus they do a crime and they employ all the jesters in the court to ensure any discussion on their crime is held in jest. Ha ha. Ha.

    232. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've arrested you both and put you in my personal jail. I then locked us in and swallowed the key. Damn it!

    233. Re:Wow... by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Try "anonymity".

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    234. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not Christian, Muslim or Jewish but each of these faiths say I am going to suffer an eternity of pain and misery because I don't follow their beliefs. Who cares? I don't believe their versions of the afterlife so don't care if they say I will suffer in hell. Does it really matter? Atheists believe 'believers' are stupid or ignorant because they believe something different than them. Who is the biggest fool? The one with a belief of something that will happen to those who don't believe and act accordingly or those who resent others saying they will suffer something they don't believe in? I would say it's the latter.

    235. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahah!! Best comment! :)

    236. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone tried to charge me with something like 'going equipped' I'd make them prove intent. It's not unlawful to carry each of the things you mention above and they would have to prove I intended to commit a crime. And yes, I do live in England.

    237. Re:Wow... by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that this can happen in America, home of the free. Wait a minute...

    238. Re:Wow... by Mufasa_ooh_sayitagai · · Score: 1

      If this athlete is intimidated by a tweet then I'm not sure how he's going to cope with the intimidation by the other competitors. Co-competitors are intimidating. Coaches are intimidating. Referees are intimidating. Where's this sort of ruling when racial slurs are thrown about during futbol matches? Yeah, the kid was mean but so's your mom. Maybe we can get all British trolls arrested. That would be fun.

    239. Re:Wow... by Mufasa_ooh_sayitagai · · Score: 1

      The point isn't to get them to stop. The point is for you not to care.

      There is a bell curve's worth of idiocy in the world and mostly you have to ignore it. Pick and choose those battles that are worth it. As the saying goes, don't sweat the small stuff. And remember, it's all small stuff.

      ...then again, this is slashdot where no grammatical error will not go unnoticed, all responses are trolls, and all opinions that are not exactly aligned to yours are surely the result of brainwashing and drinking amphetamine laden milk. And these things must be corrected immediately and with extreme prejudice.

    240. Re:Wow... by sjames · · Score: 1

      True, it can still happen since it is part of human nature. I would just prefer that where it was clearly a sore provocation (as that would be) the police would just make sure it didn't escalate beyond that and call it good without an arrest.

    241. Re:Wow... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm saying flat out that unless someone has a great alternative suggestion, we absolutely should go back to that.

    242. Re:Wow... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      you let down your father who died of cancer last year ???
      is this for real ???
      destroys peoples lives??? if the guy is a celeb type athlete i'd hope he can withstand a little more than just a tweet even if it says someone's gonna drown him in the pool, i wonder what hot flaming female celebrities get to endure at times even tho hardly any of them seem to be found cut up in pieces or drowned in pools ... xept when they o.d. maybe, where will this madness end? ... not a surprise from a country that extradites an attic kid for pointing out the security of the whole NS of A stinks ofcourse, more reasons not to use twitter then, good reason not to take a holiday in brittain ?

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    243. Re:Wow... by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Used to be that if some kid got too offensive, the other kids would eventually smack him upside the head and the jerk would learn better. NOW, the kids who tried to teach the jerk some manners (albeit in the rather direct way of kids) would be the ones in trouble. The natural social enforcement mechanism has been removed in favor of only allowing "Mommy make him stop!"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    244. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that what you or I say might hurt someone's feelings is not a sufficient reason to prevent us from saying it.

      Um, in England it's apparently sufficient! More reason for me to ever .. EVER go there for any reason. And we think the US is bad (and it truly is), but crap like that is a step away from crap that too place in Europe starting around 1938 (I could use an earlier date in the particular reference but '38 may stir more realization of my intended message). What's really scary is all this extradition that's going on between the US and UK. Will I be extradited to the UK and imprisoned just for saying this stuff (I'm in the US)? Time will tell. I better post anonymously but I have a strong feeling there's no such thing. My IP is still stamped with this message and forever stored in some DB somewhere for LE to access whenever they want. Kind of makes me want to build a time machine and go back to 1800 in the far west where no government or law existed just so I could live in peace, and extreme hardship as well. Would the trade off be worth it? I can't decide.

    245. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. There's no law stating that, in fact its the complete opposite. Most policemen will let you go if they believe you but they could just as easily put you in the back of their car if they don't or simply want their bonus.

      When I was 17, I used to fix computers for friends and family. I remember traveling down a canal toward a friends house, and due to there being a dirty great hill at the top, running to get to the top. As I reached the top, a traffic cop is giving a man a ticket and sees me, black hoodie and beanie hat, screwdriver sticking from my pocket.

      He could quite easily have had me in cuffs there and then, but my explanation he believed from the fact that I was pretty well spoken for a guy in that area. He still told me that if it was anyone else, they could have scored an easy point.

    246. Re:Wow... by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      The swimmer has a twitter account. If Tom Daley does not wish to here open comments from the public, then he should not have a public messaging account. Daley opted to have open input so he is responsible for the consequences if he cannot handle various viewpoints from the public. From the quote, the text hardly seems like harrassment at all and is more in line with being offensive. There is little anyone can say without the possibility of someone being offended by it. It is rediculous to charge this child and I think this has more to do with trying to control public comment then a real legal matter. They are just trying to set a presidence here to put a little fright into the public in order to have them think twice before saying what they really feel. Especially if the message conflicts with the Brittish governments desire to only put a possitive spin on the events they paid so much to host. This is censorship. The real solution is for Daley to cancel his twitter account.

      Everyone has the option to remain private and control their surrounds by remaining out of pulic spaces. Daley gave up much of that when he decided to become an Olympian. Nobody forces anyone to go to the Olympics and become a public spectacle (unless you live in 70's USSR). Im sure that all athletes are going to get a range of opinions expressed from the public. If they cannont handle offensive comments, then they must cancel their public Internet accounts. Otherwise, they deserve to recieve the vast array of messages they have requested from the public.

    247. Re:Wow... by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      No, because you criticized him, not harassed him as he did with Daley.

      Can you please explain how u feel this is harassement? Saying offensive things is not the same as harassment, so please tell me exactly how you equate the possible offensive tweet with harassment.

      IMO. Being offensive is subjective but harassement is not. Am i wrong?

    248. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whattt, 'No Freedom Of Speech' over there?

    249. Re:Wow... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "People will say deeply offensive things to you in life..."

      True, but this is Twitter. If someone said that to him directly, he could respond with a punch in the face. People say things on Twitter (and elsewhere on the internet) they normally wouldn't only because they think there are no repercussions. I am willing to wager that the person that made that Twitter post wouldn't have said as much to the athlete directly because they know a punch to the face might be a realistic repercussion.

      The internet allows for connecting more easily, but it does NOT bring people closer together ('ceptin maybe backpage.com....har, har). If anything, I think the internet estranges us from what is really important and skews our perception of self/other in subtle ways.

    250. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like those kids in Maryland that got arrested because their lacrosse repair kit contained a lighter and a 2" knife? And they were on a school bus on their way to a game!

    251. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .

      If they did, I'd beat them up.

      And I'm sure your dad would be very let down.... "Doh!", um officer? Do I get a phone call?

    252. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always pack my favourite crowbar for sentimental value.

    253. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In England you can be arrested for "going equipped". For example if you have a crowbar, pliers and other tools in your car they will claim that you are going equipped to commit burglary, you don't actually need to do the crime.

      True to some extent, but they still have to prove intent in a court of law and as long as you have a legitimate reason for carrying said tools you cannot be prosecuted.
      Tools in a car maybe needed to fix the car, needed for work, or because you are doing a bit of DIY for a mate.
      you would need a previous conviction for say burglary before being convicted of carrying a crowbar, and if you have previous convictions for violence you can be arrested for carrying an offensive weapon, but you are still innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

    254. Re:Wow... by ancienthart · · Score: 1

      ...then again, this is slashdot where no grammatical error will not go unnoticed, all responses are trolls, and all opinions that are not exactly aligned to yours are surely the result of brainwashing and drinking amphetamine laden milk. And these things must be corrected immediately and with extreme prejudice.

      Hah! Made my day.

    255. Re:Wow... by Meski · · Score: 1

      That would be an opinion. You just need to treat it as such. Or laugh at them, if you want to retaliate a bit. (I often find myself wanting to)

    256. Re:Wow... by cavebison · · Score: 1

      This sort of measure is a waste of time. Lots of people are going to do it just to get the attention of being arrested with no consequences anyway.

      The sooner we let all the internet trolls expose themselves and realise nobody is listening, the sooner they'll give up and people will stop caring anyway. Comes part and parcel with the internet. Unfortunately all the media attention is basically piping this normal virtual silliness into the real world. What's the point of that?

      Leave it where it deserves to be - little briefly blinking letters on a screen with a half-life of 2 minutes, if people will just leave it alone.

    257. Re:Wow... by Builder · · Score: 1

      In the first case, the tool was found in the glove box of a vehicle and a conviction was still reached. I'm not 100% sure about the conditions surrounding the second arrest.

    258. Re:Wow... by Builder · · Score: 1

      And from case law that has been appealed all the way to the house of lords, I can confirm that it isn't. Just because a random plod let you off does not mean that your experience defines the law.

    259. Re:Wow... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're new here.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    260. Re:Wow... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      True. And I don't think they should all be arrested. That would easily lead to a slippery slope, telescreen kind of society.

      However, threats like this should certainly be investigated. If the investigation leads to more serious information, then perhaps an arrest is warranted.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  2. Wait, what?? by PenquinCoder · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can be arrested for an improper message but according to that law, not for a violent message? Shouldn't the latter fall into the former?

    1. Re:Wait, what?? by Dan+Dankleton · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you parsed that sentence incorrectly.
      "the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made" - i.e. an arrest can be made even if no threat of violence has been made. If a threat of violence has been made then an arrest can also be made.

    2. Re:Wait, what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid to reply to you to explain it. Probably this message alone could already be considered inapropriate, so I'm not really sure if I should send it.

    3. Re:Wait, what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't the latter fall into the former?

      Yes, and it does. You misread the summary. Try again.

      ...the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made.

    4. Re:Wait, what?? by Spritzer · · Score: 1

      Can't free speech not exercise you Britain in.
      Oh crap! "Improper" grammar/structure. I'm doomed

    5. Re:Wait, what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're still a bit off the mark: "the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made, " it's just common practice to issue threats of violence against a suspect before making an arrest.

    6. Re:Wait, what?? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      This (which was conveniently left out of the summary) sounds pretty violent to me: "i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick"

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  3. Think of the Children(tm) by vezepo · · Score: 2

    It's for the good of the children, lest the terrorists win!

  4. He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    He was arrested as he made a threat to kill the athlete, this doesn't mean any charges will be brought against him. I find it more likely that the Police will give him a severe talking to telling him to stop being a troll or face charges being brought in the future.

    1. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Urza9814 · · Score: 0

      And your source for that claim is...? Not that the summary posted here is any better. In the article linked it never says what specifically the arrested teen tweeted. It only has a listing of remarks that SOME USERS tweeted.

    2. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for pointing this out, the title of this post is extremely misleading..

    3. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by adam.bower · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes he did make a threat to kill as I read the tweet and told the athlete to report it to the police.

    4. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by adam.bower · · Score: 5, Informative

      The source was me reading the tweets and telling the athlete that malicious communications can be reported to the police, the first tweet about the guys dad wouldn't have met the criteria to be malicious in all likelihood, the one threatening to kill would.

    5. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      "Threats of violence actually are NOT enough to lead to arrest..." No, the summary actually said threats of violence aren't required before an arrest can be made. It said nothing about whether threats of violence can lead to an arrest. And if YOU had read the article, as you recommend, you'd have seen that the boy threatened to drown the athlete.

    6. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      There was a debate in the original submission comments about this. Perhaps the other tweet allegations should have been mentioned, but I strongly concur with the submitter's position.

      Per Chambers para. [30], the guy who jokingly "threatened" to blow up an airport:

      if the person or persons who receive or read it, or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character.

      Therefore the sort of "ridiculous banter" which might be uttered by a serial troll (as this guy is - he has made several threats in the past to lots of people) does not seem on the face of it to be unlawful. The police would be acting overzealously, or possibly illegally, to arrest him on this basis.

      But the question of what is indecent/obscene is far more vague, and would be a valid reason for the police to make an arrest.

    7. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder what the difference is? Let's make something up.

      "I'm having such a bad day I'm gonna kill you all / bomb airport / drown you all!" - obv. joke in bad taste / banter
      "@HazelBergeron i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick" - is that jokey banter now?

    8. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by hamburger+lady · · Score: 4, Insightful

      exactly.

      According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning, but the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made.

      gee, ya think that maybe the death threat itself is what got the cops involved? just possibly?

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    9. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      just because the law is broad enough that a threat doesn't need to be made does not mean that any and all arrests under the law are made over non-threatening messages.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    10. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 2

      "@HazelBergeron i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick" - is that jokey banter now?

      I know there is a message like this one to Daley which has been quoted in various places, but I'm not sure it was ever posted from his account. FWIW someone (Mathemagician?) helpfully provided to me this link to retrieve all his tweets.

      It seems he has made a few stupid i'm-gonna-kill-you style Twitter posts to various people over a period of time, though I'm not sure that one was directed specifically at Daley. In the context of his behaviour, it seems evident that they are ridiculous banter.

      Even ignoring context, the above sounds like the typical message of a stupid teenage troll everywhere - almost always ridiculous banter.

      Focus on the wording of the provision and on the case law: even if the boy might (I don't think so) be menacing, he clearly demonstrates indecency and obscenity, and those would be the sound grounds for arrest. And that is the problem.

    11. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by akboss · · Score: 1

      He was arrested as he made a threat to kill the athlete, this doesn't mean any charges will be brought against him. I find it more likely that the Police will give him a severe talking to telling him to stop being a troll or face charges being brought in the future.

      Maybe /. needs this law too

      --
      "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
    12. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      His threats were probably not (legally) menacing because they were "ridiculous banter". But they almost certainly were indecent/obscene, and this contributes towards grounds for arrest.

      It may be that the police only took account of the former. But there is no evidence of it, and it would be absurd to risk making an unlawful arrest by specifying that which has high profile and recent case law to raise the bar on what is relevant. So the indecency/obscenity element has strengthened grounds for arrest, which will simply be "under section 127". Surely you see why that's a problem?

    13. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by hattig · · Score: 1

      FYI, said tweet was aimed directly at Daley. It was subsequently deleted. That's why that link doesn't show it. This does: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/30/tom-daley-twitter-troll-dead-dad-olympics-london-2012_n_1720838.html

      Once a threat against a person is made, the police can be called to investigate it more. This is what has happened, they've arrested the guy to question him.

      He hasn't so far been charged, nor has the case matured in any way and been passed to the CPS to decide whether to prosecute.

      At the time the tweets were made, the police don't know if it's a bad-mouthing 17 year old boy, or someone nearing a personal "John Holmes" moment.

    14. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      threatening to drown someone may seem like ridiculous banter, but the police may take it seriously at least to start.

      i think it's likely that the police really took account of the more threatening message(s) rather than the ones that merely criticized.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    15. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was arrested as he made a threat to kill the athlete, this doesn't mean any charges will be brought against him. I find it more likely that the Police will give him a severe talking to telling him to stop being a troll or face charges being brought in the future.

      I dunno... they're getting pretty strict about wrong-thinking in Oceania.

    16. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Evidence for your argument, please. See my other posts to this thread for why I think it's unlikely.

    17. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      It's possible that they took account of them, but it seems that there are stronger grounds for arrest on the basis of indecency/obscenity rather than being menacing.

      I am looking now at his entire posting history rather than specifically the ones at Daley. The threats seem to be un-menacing "ridiculous banter", but the indecency/obscenity is evident.

    18. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post could be labelled "How to spot a psychopath" Nice job! How does it feel to live without empathy?

    19. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO IT ISN'T REASONABLE, you COMPLETE TOOL!

      Seriously, I know you think you're all hardcore and stuff, but if you can't do empathy, don't offer a mental midget's opinion please.

    20. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by TarpaKungs · · Score: 1

      And here's another one:

      http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/rileyy69-aka-reece-of-weymouth-and.html

      Some pretty nasty alleged comments in there.

      --
      Why can't women be like Hedy Lamarr - beautiful, talented and inventors of frequency-hopping spread-spectrum techn
    21. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Indeed, when someone says, "I'm doing this for my [dead] dad" then fails to do it, it's only reasonable to point out that they let down their [dead] dad.

      That's no more offensive than the insinuation that some corpse gives a flying fuck about someone's ability to jump into a pool.

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your first language. The phrase "I swear this on my mother's grave" doesn't hold weight because your mother is going to lose her grave, or come crawling out of it and punish you, if you don't follow through on what you swore, but rather an indication of the importance of your mother, and her grave, to you. Likewise, "I'm doing this for my dad" doesn't imply he thinks his dad will be cheering (although he might think that) but that he's trying to live up to the perceived desires of his father. I'm not sure why anyone would find that offensive without trying really hard. On the other hand, I can see how saying you let your recently deceased father down would be adding insult to injury, and would therefore be offensive.

      OTOH, if English is indeed your first language, you're doubtless a troll (and a 4-digit one, nice!), and a dick.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    22. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by hattig · · Score: 1

      Evidence for what argument? That the guy posted a death threat online, targeted at an Olympic competitor personally? I gave that.

      Our police here in the UK have not yet developed pre-crime detection technology, so when they are shown a death threat against an Olympic competitor, it is inevitable that they are going to have to investigate it to ascertain the actual level of danger posed by the person making the threat. And if they want to question the guy once they've found him, they're going to arrest him!

      The real question is where the case goes from here, now they know it's just a trash talking idiot. Will he get released with a police warning or caution, or will he end up going through the rigmarole of court, like the Twitter Joke Trial?

    23. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Evidence = for "This is what has happened".

      I argue in other posts that this is not a likely scenario, even though it might be the one that seems least bad.

    24. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      At least overreacting to a threat of physical violence has some hint of sanity to it. It may be a little overzealous but it's not a blatant attack on everyone's liberties.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    25. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As noticed by the anon responders to my post, I lack empathy. I know this. I also haven't bothered using twitter to send messages to Daly because frankly, I don't give a shit. Well done on doing as well as he did, but don't go pretending I should actually feel bad because his dad died, he made a commitment he couldn't keep and someone called him out on it.

      You know, there's a difference between feeling bad because his dad died and intentionally making him feel bad that he couldn't 'keep a commitment'.

      'I've got to try and win the medal first, but definitely I'd dedicate it to him.

      He doesn't exactly demand you to say nice things about dead people. Nor does he promise to get the medal.

    26. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says he was threatened, but it's not said that it was the arrested person who made the threat.

    27. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by hattig · · Score: 1
    28. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      To be honest though, a random guy threatening an Olympic diver, is a bit like a random guy threatening to beat up a heavyweight cage fighter - not going to happen.

    29. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      i think threatening to drown someone is much more a lock in terms of 'menacing', compared to saying 'you let your father down' being 'obscene' or 'indecent'.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    30. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Fair point. Especially considering he was threatening to drown the guy. Of course, this is just a threat made by an internet tough guy, so the odds are pretty firmly against him even carrying out the threat.

      Still, I guess the point is that such threats can be intimidating, and really, brats like this should at least have a stern talking to so they learn to be a little more considerate when posting online.

    31. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      the one threatening to kill

      And the question still remains if the guy who was arrested made any threats to kill. If he did, then I'm glad he got arrested. If it was somebody else, then they got the wrong person.

    32. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Good God, man, the summary specifically says threats of violence are NOT enough to arrest. Could it be any plainer that it says the OPPOSITE of what you claim? (Whether the summary is accurate is an entirely separate question)

    33. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Grygus · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's forget empathy. The problem with pointing it out, logically, is that it is a complete waste of time and energy. The athlete is already aware of his medal status. If he feels that he let his father down, then he already knows that, as well. Pointing either of those things out serves no logical purpose at all; the only likely effect is to make the athlete feel worse, which does not change the outcome and is unlikely to improve future performance.

      In short: if you truly do not (or cannot) care what other people are feeling, then perhaps there is nothing wrong with doing it, but no reason that you would. If you would send such a message, then you do care; that's why you're doing it.

      Applying your standards to others' actions, and vice-versa, simply does not work; surely you learned this long ago.

    34. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      exactly.

      According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning, but the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made.

      gee, ya think that maybe the death threat itself is what got the cops involved? just possibly?

      Yeah, but that's just the evil left wing Guardian. I bet the Daily Fail has a more US-friendly spin on this Orwellian nightmare of political correctness gone mad.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    35. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yes he did make a threat to kill as I read the tweet and told the athlete to report it to the police.

      *Gasp* you mean you interfered with his inalienable right to free speech? The horror! They'll be executing people for wearing Union Jack underpants next.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    36. Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does it feel to live without empathy?

      Like this.

  5. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact that the teenager threatened Daley with drowning is only referenced in a convenient side note. Because that would cause less fear and hysteria than the submitter actually intended to stir up.

    1. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do feel duped by the submitted summary, because what's quoted in the summary isn't that big a deal, but the other tweets are probably over the line (repeated threats of physical violence/death threats). At the least, I could legitimately see police investigating whether the threats were plausible.

      Do your job, editors.

  6. Not just criticism by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 2

    When I heard about this story for the first time on the radio this morning, my reaction was essentially "WTF- they're policing untasteful comments on twitter now?".

    Having read about it a little more, my reaction mellowed significantly. Actual threats (albeit unrealistic) are just about within what I would consider to be the remit of the police. Of course it would depend on what exactly is done by them about it. Simply arresting and cautioning him would strike me as being proportionate. Any kind of sentence beyond perhaps a small (less than £50) fine would probably not be.

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    1. Re:Not just criticism by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Simply arresting and cautioning him would strike me as being proportionate. Any kind of sentence beyond perhaps a small (less than £50) fine would probably not be.

      Exactly, the police's action should be mainly educational: showing him this kind of behaviour is very untasteful, offensive and unwanted. Or maybe they could refer him to a psychiatrist for asperger syndrome.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    2. Re:Not just criticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      small (less than £50) fine

      That's like $75; that's well less than a speeding fine in the US! It'd have to be closer to £300.

  7. Classless by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

    I know Slashdot will cover the free speech part of this "case" which is very valid, but I'd like to point out how absolutely classless this teenager is. Hopefully, he will see the error of his ways.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Classless by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Actually, it appears there were other more threatening tweets sent out related to the tweet in the summary. It is unclear whether the teenager sent them or others did... regardless, I can now see why the police got involved.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Classless by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      While that may well be true, being an asshole isn't (or at least SHOULDN'T be) illegal.

      That said, thought the summary doesn't seem to mention it, I've heard other statements that the tweets included a threat on the athlete's life. If that's the case, its understandable. If he's just being a jerk though, then just ignore him.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Classless by adam.bower · · Score: 2

      I can 100% assure you that the kid sent the threatening tweets, he also got a bit upset that he was getting abuse on twitter and that apparently he didn't think that was fair.

    4. Re:Classless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, hopefully he'll see the error of his ways and agree with your opinion. What is or is not classless is entirely your opinion.

    5. Re:Classless by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0

      What? Yes, the initial tweet was bullshit. But you know what? An athlete earns money by people caring about them, positively or negatively. And then this clown, with a HUGE audience. calls the 17 year old jerk an "idiot"?

      After giving it my all...you get idiot's sending me this...

      Even after giving your all to a completely irrelevant bullshit activity like being a professional athlete, still not EVERYBODY loves you for it?

      Also, it's "idiots", not "idiot's". How classy, to be dumb as bread.

      http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/rileyy69-aka-reece-of-weymouth-and.html

      Read through what actually went down.

      Yes, the teenager was "classless", and the reaction of that athlete, his fans and twitter is EXTREMELY classless.

      Because you noticed one, but not the other, I hope a bird poops on your head, hah! But not in the eye, and I hope your clothes don't get dirty etc. :P

    6. Re:Classless by seanzig · · Score: 1

      Actually, first, I have to disagree with the simple description of the kid as "classless." Telling someone that their dead father is disappointed in them and then sending an (albeit empty) death threat is much worse than classless. Secondly, I thought Daley's response, while grammatically incorrect, was relatively tame. If a fan simply expresses disappointment in him, fine, that's part of being a professional athlete. Responding to this stupid kid, however, is well within reason. Perhaps the most enlightened person would simply ignore it all, but how many of us always take the highest road when encountering idiot's? [couldn't resist! ;-)] Not everyone is the perfectly disciplined Slashdot reader who never feeds the troll.

      I can't speak to the other fans responses and twitter. I didn't look that far into it. Maybe they were extremely classless; it wouldn't surprise me.

    7. Re:Classless by N+Monkey · · Score: 2

      What? Yes, the initial tweet was bullshit. But you know what? An athlete earns money by people caring about them, positively or negatively. And then this clown, with a HUGE audience. calls the 17 year old jerk an "idiot"?

      FYI, because I strongly doubt you follow UK sport, the "athlete" in question is also a teenager and, to my knowledge, has never worked in a circus. Frankly, IMHO, the poster of the initial tweet is an insensitive idiot.

    8. Re:Classless by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Responding to this stupid kid, however, is well within reason

      What are you talking about? Surely not about the events at hand. He didn't respond to the kid, he responded to his fans (= huge audience) ABOUT the kid, calling him an idiot.

      Telling someone that their dead father is disappointed in them and then sending an (albeit empty) death threat is much worse than classless.

      Did you even read the link? He said the first thing, then he told people to leave him alone, even apologized, and only THEN did he flip out. The way you put it, it sounds like he sent those two things in rapid succession, and that's just a heavily distorted fragment of the whole thing.

      And yes, not everybody has the attention span or the heart to be someone worth talking with about this stuff. You didn't make the cut, have a nice day.

    9. Re:Classless by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0

      Actually, being a professional athlete he currently IS working in a circus. The most lame kind there is, but still a circus.

    10. Re:Classless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assurance means a lot less than 100% to us however - please provide the evidence that is lacking in all your posts.

      You should also mention that the kid apologised as well - not that this makes everything OK now, but since you mentioned all his other tweets, and attributed the threats to him without any proof, the least you could do is list all the related tweets.

    11. Re:Classless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "An athlete earns money by people caring about them, positively or negatively" - What complete and utter crap. They aren't contestants in Big Brother, you muppet, they're athletes. Can you at least check up on some SIMPLE facts before blaring away like a total idiot?

    12. Re:Classless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assurance means a lot less than 100% to us however - please provide the evidence that is lacking in all your posts.

      You should also mention that the kid apologised as well - not that this makes everything OK now, but since you mentioned all his other tweets, and attributed the threats to him without any proof, the least you could do is list all the related tweets.

      Internet tough guy gets called out and backs down. News at 11.

    13. Re:Classless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That link is bullshit, and presents a distorted view of what went down. How about you take a gander at the kid's tweet history before you valiantly defend this paragon of free speech and unobstructed debate? Here is his twitter history. This sack of shit is just a typical bully who picked on someone out of their weight class, that's all. While mob justice is always worrying, blame the mob not the initial victim (Tom Daley). The athlete did nothing wrong, unless you mean to say that we should have the freedom to insult people, but not the freedom to react to such insults?

    14. Re:Classless by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      being an asshole isn't (or at least SHOULDN'T be) illegal.

      What, like being an asshole by making threats of violence?

      Or being an asshole by stalking someone?

      Sorry, but there is a definite limit to how assholish you can be before you start actually infringing on other people's rights. In a civil society, this is the point where the law steps in.

      Being an asshole beyond a certain point SHOULD certainly be illegal. I don't want to spend my entire day punching assholes in the face; I pay taxes to let law enforcement take care of that (not that they do a particularly good job, but that's another rant. The principle stands).

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    15. Re:Classless by mvdwege · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and posting inflammatory horsepuckey on Slashdot makes you a troll. One of the most lame kinds there is, but there you are.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    16. Re:Classless by slashrio · · Score: 1

      being an asshole isn't (or at least SHOULDN'T be) illegal.

      He's not convicted yet, but could use some lessons in social behaviour.
      Maybe here the educational effect of police involvement could be helpful and lead to a correction in his behaviour?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    17. Re:Classless by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Trolling is playing games, and saying stuff you don't actually mean. Recent complete dilution of that word, and using it to mean "bad", nonwithstanding. Kthxbye.

    18. Re:Classless by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0

      I think you're projecting, brainiac.

      What do you think, how much advertisement money would flow if nobody was watching? And what is the difference between someone who does it for money in public, and someone who does the exact same thing for physical and/or mental fitness?

      They aren't contestants in Big Brother, you muppet, they're athletes

      No, they're professional athletes. They get payed to destroy their joints and whatnot to direct the attention of mindless drones, such as your lovely self, towards those little colourful stickers that are plastered all over them, their equipment, and the location they're in. A small fraction of the money that is utterly drained from the receptacles of the stream of neverending struggles (you) goes to good causes though, so it's all good.

    19. Re:Classless by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      The teets of a nobdy, who likely has no followers, constitutes bullying? 140 character messages that can be removed from your feeble sight by clicking "block this person"? Are you fucking serious?

      Have you EVER been mobbed/bullied? It's *very* hard for one person to do it, unless they're able to physically intimidate the other, which is hardly the case here. However, it becomes very easy when several people are involved, each making their own little hits, then hiding in the brushwork/group. Do that to someone who is obviously having issues already, and you basically don't get to complain when it just gets worse. When that person "asked for it", that's perfect, then you get the situation we have now, where the little assclowns can have their pie (being a fucking mob) and eat it (feeling morally superior), too.

      Also, though I know that doesn't fit into everybodies' attention span -- I'm not defending the person with psychological problems saying what he said, I'm attacking the athlete and his fans, basically. Well, indirectly, I doubt they fucking read slashdot haha.

      And no, you cannot analyze a person by just reading a list of their transgressions. That's for family, friends, and social workers. People who *actually* put in the effort so they get to run their fucking yap, as opposed to all these coat-tail riders.

    20. Re:Classless by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      "The teets of a nobdy"

      Errr. I meant "the tits of nobby", obviously. Gah.

    21. Re:Classless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The tweets of a nobody, who likely has no followers, constitutes bullying? 140 character messages that can be removed from your feeble sight by clicking "block this person"? Are you fucking serious?"

      Oh so now the onus is on Tom Daley to block him and not utter a peep of protest or outrage? And if he reacted in any way then suddenly he's in the wrong? Are YOU fucking serious? He (Rileyy_69 or Reece or whatever the shitweasel's name is) tweeted insults and threats directly AT Tom Daley. I don't understand why you give Reece so much benefit of the doubt and understanding, yet give none for Tom. My only conclusion is that you have some deep seated subjective grudge against jocks or professional athletes. Keep in mind that Riley_69/Reece could have easily deleted his account, or just not read and responded to all the backlash, y'know, like what you proposed Tom Daley do.
      You say you aren't defending Reece? Well I'm not defending the mob. I'm defending the athlete who exercised his freedom of speech by retweeting the lovely pearl of wisdom that fuckhead wrote him. In no way did Tom Daley incite or encourage the twitter mob, except maybe in your head, and the heads of people who sympathize with Reece.

    22. Re:Classless by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      I didn't say Daley incited them, did I? He was whining about that tweet, making "idiots" out of it (or maybe he just didn't feel like retweeting negative comments by people who weren't as plainly "evil", going for the low hanging fruit), and then either didn't notice, didn't care, or approved of the mob reaction. It's not like he said "hey people, cut it out", or accepted the apology, etc. How is he not a prick, too?

      I don't understand why you give Reece so much benefit of the doubt and understanding, yet give none for Tom.

      Yeah, that much is obvious.

      Keep in mind that Riley_69/Reece could have easily deleted his account, or just not read and responded to all the backlash, y'know, like what you proposed Tom Daley do.

      One is an athlete with fans, the other is "a 17 year old who looks like he is 12" (and obviously has issues). One is now drowning in messages of support, the other got arrested. To me it's like kicking "back" at a little dog that is barking loudly at you. So I hope the poor sod will get help, not just punishment.

      Not bothering with your strawmen because frankly, lol. Try something less predictable at least.

    23. Re:Classless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1. It certainly needs to be said that this guy is a complete dick and, if he cannot appreciated how disgraceful his act was, I feel disgust and pity.

      However, naturally Slashdot will cover the "arrested" part of this story because it is the most severe part. Making an extremely distasteful comment is one thing but supporting the arrest of a person for making such a comment is much, MUCH more sinister. If he had made a serious and credible threat against the athlete I'd understand some police action leading to a small fine and an unpleasant addition to the youth's criminal record but, with no threat, supporters of this arrest ("that'll teach him a lesson" people) should feel great shame at how naturally they oppose freedom. As far as my own conscience is concerned, I'd have an easier time as the youth than the person that decided to have him arrested, how scum like that sleep at night I'll never know.

    24. Re:Classless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like he said "hey people, cut it out", or accepted the apology, etc. How is he not a prick, too?

      Because fucking NOBODY is obligated to accept someone else's apology.

      One is an athlete with fans, the other is "a 17 year old who looks like he is 12" (and obviously has issues).

      One is an 18-year old with a dead father and a country expecting a medal out of him. The other is a 17-year old waste of space living in a boarding house and making a habit of threatening to dig up people's dead sisters to fuck them.

      One is now drowning in messages of support, the other got arrested.

      One deserved support, the other does not. One needs to be seen to and interviewed by the police (maybe they'll refer him to the therapy he needs), one does not.

      To me it's like kicking "back" at a little dog that is barking loudly at you.

      Sometimes little dogs are left to bark, and sometimes someone will teach them an immediate lesson on how far down the pecking order they are in real life. Poetic justice is alive and well in the world, I don't know what you're complaining about.

      So I hope the poor sod will get help, not just punishment.

      I hope so too, for his sake as well as society's.

      It sounds like, to me, that you're committing one of the geek social fallacies. Just because the manner in which this kid is being attacked is wrong, doesn't mean he is in the right, or totally blameless. Likewise, just because the athlete in question retweeted that abusive tweet doesn't mean he is responsible for the mob's actions.

    25. Re:Classless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unlikely that this 17 year old in a boarding house had anything resembling parents either. And, the Internet being as it is, if he'd have pointed it out (even before this debacle) at least one troll would give him a LOL YOUR PARENTS ARE DEAD YOU LOOSER.

      As for "waste of space", the universe has enough space for everyone, and considers everyone equally (in)significant. This swimmer will also be forgotten in a few months.

      Riley was being a dick, and the athlete appears to have quite the Machiavellian PR streak to call Riley out for it then ignore his apologies. Of course, many upstanding athletes might have trouble getting into today's Olympics in the first place.

    26. Re:Classless by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Well, it appears that you are a fairly typical troll: a teen with no knowledge, but lots of talk anyway.

      Here's a hint, boy: the definition of trolling from the Usenet days is a lot more comprehensive, and not a lot like your definition. Talk about dilution.

      You're posting inflammatory messages obviously to rile people into reacting. That's trolling, nothing diluted about it.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  8. In days of yore, this was solved differently by StuartHankins · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In days past, this was solved differently. The kid would've had his ass kicked. People had more respect for each other back then. Nowadays, every coward troll can peep out whenever they're bored or feeling malicious. Is this the future we want?

    1. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A future where people can troll each other? Yes. I very much prefer trolling and being trolled to being beaten.
      And we already have laws against the other things like false accusations and threats.

    2. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      People had more respect for each other back then.

      citation needed, fuckface

    3. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      According to the prophesies told in a book called "1984", Governments subscribing to this religion are doing their best to make its apocalyptic predictions come true.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    4. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 2

      In days past, this was solved differently. The kid would've had his ass kicked. People had more respect for each other back then. Nowadays, every coward troll can peep out whenever they're bored or feeling malicious. Is this the future we want?

      You could also not be part of the twitter/facebook/whatever social site movement. Then you don't see or receive said comments. The real deal is if you interact with the public, you can get _all_ of the public. It's the cost of an open forum.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    5. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES! This is the future I want. The future where I am dragged out of my home and arrested for speaking my mind. Oops, was this post malicious too?

    6. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Hentes · · Score: 2

      No, we should duel each other to death upon every insult like in the good ol' civilised days.

    7. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by ameen.ross · · Score: 1

      Malicious? Oh no, far worse; you were speaking your mind!

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    8. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Either way you're going to end up with the authority of the state to moderate it.

      Let's say somebody says something dickish, and you kick his ass a little. Maybe the state's lack of prosecution of you will send a message. Let's say you kick it a lot, and leave them crippled for life. Can the state afford to not prosecute you?

      And yes, the old saying that "stick and bones may break your bones, but only the most self-deluded think that words don't have power, if they weren't effective at getting things done, we'd hardly use them.

    9. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In days past, this was solved differently. The kid would've had his ass kicked.

      Nah. In the days past, the kid would be one of the bullies doing the ass kicking, and gets away with it.

      People had more respect for each other back then.

      Sure, if by respect you mean fear - fear of the bully and the violence he brings. Yea, that respect kept people from speaking up.

      Since many people weren't speaking up, other people ignorantly thought the kids were behaving nicely, and look at "the good old days" through rose tinted goggles.

      Nowadays, every coward troll can peep out whenever they're bored or feeling malicious. Is this the future we want?

      No, nowadays, people's words/actions are out in the open to be watched and scrutinized, so bullies like the kid here have a tougher time hiding his tracks, and are caught and shamed publicly. Of course, smarter bullies still hide their tracks, but I say the Internet is doing a much better job at catching the stupid ones than before.

      Whether it is appropriate for government/police getting involved is really a completely different issue.

      Though for your information, while we don't have as much real life ass kickings nowadays, we can do something like this

    10. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by bjdevil66 · · Score: 2

      Yes, that 17 year old is a total loser and should be punished - but not by the government. Instead, it should be by Twitter and his parents (though it seems that they've already failed, so I wouldn't count on them doing much.)

      Maybe some public humiliation (like that brought on by this story) would work?

    11. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

      In the past you had twitter? I think the issue here is two-fold. Yes, people used to have more respect for one another. At the same time, there were those who thought these types of disrespectful things but they didn't have the guts / ability to actually confront the abused party. Digital communication has lowered that barrier, so pathetic little haters can spew this type of garbage and feel good about themselves without any fear of consequence. I don't know that having laws against mean tweets is the right way to do things, but there should be an ass kicking deployed in this specific situation.

    12. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I think he is getting his ass kicked. Virtually. I'm pretty sure the twittersphere is speaking of him badly, and the hash tag #ThingsBetterThanRiley69 will certainly damage him psychologically. Which is, in a way, a harsher punishment than this impolite brat deserves.

    13. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by kiriath · · Score: 2

      It is not the future we want, it is the future we deserve.

    14. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Defining what "acceptable behavior" means in a society is important. Letting any brat who can talk say whatever they want with no consequences is a mistake; not only would the important conversations be overwhelmed by the dullards and trolls of the majority, but the act of trolling in this manner further dumbs down our society as a whole.

      See the movie "Idiocracy" for more examples of our future.

    15. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of public humiliation. The only problem is that most people are so stupid they'd intentionally do something just for their 15 minutes of "fame". The movie "Idiocracy" (as I mentioned in another post) is coming true, and has been for awhile.

    16. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful. Sad but true.

    17. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      not only would the important conversations be overwhelmed by the dullards and trolls of the majority

      It's not even possible to define what is "important." I don't have any problem with letting people who can't ignore others be overwhelmed.

    18. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by azalin · · Score: 1

      That would spice up the Olympics.

    19. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Maybe every device connected to the Internet should have a punching device attached. Anyone on the Internet would then be able to administer, at most, 1 punch per day of anyone's computer.

    20. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 1

      People had so much respect for each other, they would respond to words with physical violence?

      --
      We are all God's parents.
    21. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I'd go so far as to claim people used to have more respect for one another (we can argue until we're blue in the face over that one). After all, this is a teenager with all the teenagerness that comes with. Simply put, I believe this kid is just another badass behind a keyboard who as you said wouldn't have the guts to repeat these comments in person.

      Y'know, if these events didn't happen on the internets I don't think it would be handled much different. Say somebody shouted these same threats out at a high school football game (ignoring the fact that it would have been settled right there). In all likelihood, the police would have been sent to his home to have a talk and demonstrate that sort of behavior is not OK. If it happens again - that is when you make the arrests.

      Of course, if I were Daley, I would use my winnings to travel around beating up everybody that offended me on twitter. He is an athlete after all, and the teenagers that spout this crap online are either gonna be lanky nerds or overweight nerds and easy to beat on.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    22. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, people beat the fuck out of each other with respect back then. Idiot.

    23. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      A future where people have the Frrdom of Speech, yes.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    24. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no we want a future where you get arrested for speech.

    25. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer future of beating instead of trolling. You know, stick and stones can break your bones, but words can make crazy people with guns shoot up things.

      For a person with a sound social net, words just slide off. But for someone that does not have others to fall back on, words can be more dangerous than any violence.

      Think about it.

      Basically, if you are unwilling to say something to someone else in front of them and in presence of your entire family, then shut your trap. Just because it is "on the Internet" does not make a difference.

    26. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Especially right after the medal ceremony for the biathlon.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    27. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment offends my irrational sensibilities. Please send me your address so I can go beat you up... Of course I'm not going to do that, because that's not how things are done today. Perhaps, just maybe, that's a good thing?

    28. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here it is, retard:

      People had more respect for each other back then.[1]

      PROTIP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (Yeah, the people at Wikipedia don't get the irony of the fact that that makes their whole site a big joke either.)

    29. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Like the /. mod system: punch up, punch down

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    30. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      H.L. Mencken proposed an alternate justice system where a jury of (real) peers would decide if the retalitory actions an individual took were fair or not. The individual could be punished for going too far, could be found to have acted appropriately, or be found to have acted honorably.

      In our current system, the State has exclusive authority over retaliation and if an individual retaliates himself, the State will retaliate against him.

      It's not working and brings along with it all kinds of wars, corruption, and financial disasters.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    31. Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently by Raenex · · Score: 1

      In days past, this was solved differently. The kid would've had his ass kicked. People had more respect for each other back then.

      Yup, like that boy Emmett Till. I guess he got what was coming to him?

  9. Threats of violence are not menacing? by radio4fan · · Score: 1

    ...but the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made.

    Nothing requires arrests to be made, but surely threats of violence are by their nature 'menacing'?

    1. Re:Threats of violence are not menacing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I will beat you with this... herring."
      Did that sound menacing?

    2. Re:Threats of violence are not menacing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My initial reaction to hearing this story - based on the "dead dad" tweet that's been the focus of a lot of media attention - was that police involvement was completely over the top. Although saying tactless, tasteless things is deplorable; it just isn't a matter for the police.

      However, it's emerged that actual death threats have been made against a specific person, which definitely warrants police investigation. I don't think a harsh punishment is in order in this case (idle threats don't warrant jail time), but this little twerp having a little chat with the police and a rap across the knuckles is well warranted.

      Certainly, the law as written seems too widely framed, and open to abuse, but this is a poor example if you want to make that case.

    3. Re:Threats of violence are not menacing? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, recent case law has established that threats of violence are sometimes clearly not menacing.

      Consider: I'm going to force my cock so deep into your throat that I burst your appendix.

    4. Re:Threats of violence are not menacing? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      Surely that's only not menacing if I've had an appendectomy?
      I'd imagine that whether or not this message is interpreted as "menacing" is dependent on the recipient?

    5. Re:Threats of violence are not menacing? by azalin · · Score: 1

      Well, that was rather graphic.

    6. Re:Threats of violence are not menacing? by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

      "I will beat you with this... herring."
      Did that sound menacing?

      Depends.. Pacific or Araucanian herring?

    7. Re:Threats of violence are not menacing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider: I'm going to force my cock so deep into your throat that I burst your appendix.

      Hardly menacing.
      With that little thing you would barely reach my uvula. ;)

  10. Might be more to this one... by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even the well-known and strongly libertarian political blogger Paul Staines/Guido Fawkes is being a bit cagey about this one. Making death threats via a written, public means of communication is about as far from smart as you can get.

    Actually, just noticed that more details of the exchange, including screen-caps of the deleted posts, are available at this blog (along with a bit of commentary, so you can make your own mind up.

  11. There could be more to this... by Dan+Dankleton · · Score: 2

    The messages sent to Tom Daley were an example of massive douchebaggery, but some of the other tweets on this guys feed look like they could be bullying and fall foul of all sorts of laws.

  12. Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At what point did publicly being an ass**** become a crime in the UK? And how can they possibly afford enough courts, judges, and prison cells to prosecute that many people?

    1. Re:Since when? by Desler · · Score: 3, Informative

      When you threaten to kill people?

      @_ollyriley come on then you cunt i’ll stick a knife down your fuckin throat now comeback and stop hiding from me

      @theroycropper do you want me to come to your fucking house now with a rope and strangle you with it

    2. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except

      A) those weren't made to the swimmer, but to people who were harassing /him/ for saying the bit about the swimmer's dad

      and B) he didn't get picked up for that

    3. Re:Since when? by seanzig · · Score: 1

      Because a threat is a threat. Even if 99% of them are empty (i.e., "very likely not going to do anything"), it only takes 1 psycho to follow through. Moreover, prosecuting a few of these losers will cut down the stream of death threats via twitter significantly. How many people joke about bombs in an airport anymore? At that point, public resources would go toward catching those issuing death threats knowing that there could be legal consequences, which would indicate to me someone more serious.

    4. Re:Since when? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Even if 99% of them are empty

      I feel that makes my point even stronger. If 99% of them won't do anything, don't go after them just because 1% of them might.

      How many people joke about bombs in an airport anymore?

      What an accomplishment that is! No one is allowed to make jokes anymore out of fear of being punished by a robotic government.

      Sorry, but I have no interest in TSA-like mentalities.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    5. Re:Since when? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's arrest everyone who has ever uttered a threat even if they did not mean it.

      Bin Laden tried to tell Seal Team Six "hey, I was only joking!", but they shot him anyway. The bastards!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Since when? by seanzig · · Score: 1

      I feel that makes my point even stronger. If 99% of them won't do anything, don't go after them just because 1% of them might.

      No way - that is entirely backwards. Yes, the chance of murder is always worth investigating. It's not like these 99% are innocent - they are making death threats, period.

      What an accomplishment that is! No one is allowed to make jokes anymore out of fear of being punished by a robotic government.

      Sorry, but I have no interest in TSA-like mentalities.

      That's a bit exaggerated. Humor has not entirely disappeared from the face of the planet because of the TSA. I'm sorry you have to miss out on all those hilarious airport bomb jokes that just can't wait until you've left the airport, but forgive me if I'm not entirely sympathetic. And my point was not that it was a major accomplishment; it was that we don't have to waste tremendous resources anymore chasing idiots who aren't serious about their death threats.

    7. Re:Since when? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Yes, the chance of murder is always worth investigating.

      Okay. Let's investigate... nearly everyone, then. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, sometimes jokingly, sometimes angrily, "I'm going to kill you!" Let's just waste a bunch of tax dollars on frivolous nonsense just because some people can't handle the fact that they can't prevent all murders. Perfect solutions don't really exist, but I can accept casualties in exchange for freedom and in exchange for not wasting public resources on nonsense like this. That's my opinion, anyway.

      they are making death threats

      And I've already explained: I don't believe that alone should be illegal.

      I'm sorry you have to miss out on all those hilarious airport bomb jokes that just can't wait until you've left the airport

      For no reason. You think that this makes you safe? It doesn't. Not anymore so than being molested at an airport does.

      it was that we don't have to waste tremendous resources anymore chasing idiots who aren't serious about their death threats.

      Then don't waste them. My point exactly.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:Since when? by slashrio · · Score: 1

      How many people joke about bombs in an airport anymore?

      Oh God! How I miss those airport bomb-jokes. I'd almost start one myself...

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    9. Re:Since when? by slashrio · · Score: 1

      but they shot him anyway

      No they didn't.

      Your reply: "Yes, they did."
      My reply: "Prove it!"

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    10. Re:Since when? by seanzig · · Score: 1

      Okay. Let's investigate... nearly everyone, then. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, sometimes jokingly, sometimes angrily, "I'm going to kill you!"

      Same here, but in context. If a friend of mine tells me that after some stupid prank, then I can be pretty sure it isn't a real threat. If some random guy I've never met tweets me the same thing, I have no idea. I can pose an alternate situation for you: an abusive husband tells his wife the same thing. Should he get away with it when he says it was just a joke? Not if there's evidence of abuse. It's all about context. And to me, random death threats from unknown sources is easily interpreted in a threatening context.

      Perfect solutions don't really exist, but I can accept casualties in exchange for freedom and in exchange for not wasting public resources on nonsense like this. That's my opinion, anyway.

      No, perfect solutions don't exist. But you're proposing that death threats be covered as a freedom with which we should be willing to accept casualties. I don't think that is a solution. Keep in mind that the law in question does require that obvious humor be excluded. I'll take casualties, even my own, for true freedom of speech, but this simply doesn't qualify.

      For no reason. You think that this makes you safe? It doesn't. Not anymore so than being molested at an airport does.

      Don't get me wrong - I have my gripes with TSA. But pursuing and even searching anyone making death threats in an airport (or in a random tweet, as in the post) is common sense. If I have to choose between someone getting inconvenienced because they think random death threats are funny or missing the one lunatic who wants to shoot up a theater (or a swim meet), I'll take the inconvenience in this case. And just because it doesn't eliminate every threat, it can still help make us safer. There are plenty of cases (including in recent news) where a nut job was calling out his own intentions in advance and everyone just ignored it.

      Then don't waste them. My point exactly.

      I do get your point, but I have an entirely different solution. Prosecute the idiots who are wasting resources by sending death threats to people they've never even met.

      Perhaps we simply have to agree to disagree. I'm a pretty open-minded guy, but I'm not budging on this one.

    11. Re:Since when? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      then I can be pretty sure it isn't a real threat.

      No. You can't be sure of anything, which is the point. There might be a 0.000000001% chance that he's serious, and that's worth investigating.

      If some random guy I've never met tweets me the same thing, I have no idea.

      Don't worry. Your chances of getting murdered are pretty slim!

      I can pose an alternate situation for you: an abusive husband tells his wife the same thing.

      Good thing that that didn't happen.

      It's all about context.

      Which we don't have here.

      But pursuing and even searching anyone making death threats in an airport (or in a random tweet, as in the post) is common sense.

      If you're even slightly okay with punishing everyone because you feel it makes you more secure in some way, then I'll never agree with you.

      And just because it doesn't eliminate every threat, it can still help make us safer.

      But does it?

      Prosecute the idiots who are wasting resources by sending death threats to people they've never even met.

      They're not wasting resources; the people going after them are.

      Perhaps we simply have to agree to disagree.

      Perhaps.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    12. Re:Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are these comments replies to?

  13. UK is becoming more and more a nanny state by wwwrench · · Score: 0

    At the same time as the arrest in this case, there is a trial going on against a guy for receiving a photo of consentual fisting: http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/porn-trial-this-time-its-extreme.html And we also had the trial against Paul Chambers for tweeting a bomb joke (he was found not guilty thankfully). The crown prosecution service are a joke.

    --

    Deconstruct the State
  14. Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's worth pointing out that the idiot in question actually apologised to Tom Daley before he was descended upon by a good portion of Daley's 800,000 followers. It's at this point that @Rileyy_69 began lashing out with offensive tweets and is most likely what he's been arrested for.

    Daley himself sparked the whole thing off by retweeting the initial message (which wasn't actually offensive) complete with the sender's username. IMO Daley showed poor judgement there.

    There's a reason "Don't Feed the Trolls" is a meme.

    1. Re:Sigh... by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 2

      Daley himself sparked the whole thing off by retweeting the initial message (which wasn't actually offensive)

      And there was me thinking that telling someone they let their Dad down when their Dad died less than a year before was out of line.

      I guess I'm just too sensitive.

    2. Re:Sigh... by igb · · Score: 4, Informative

      "It's at this point that @Rileyy_69 began lashing out with offensive tweets"

      Actually, it isn't. A glance at his history (now, unfortunately, protected) showed that threatening rape, assault on pregnant women, knifing, strangling and the rest was his long-term form. As it happens, Twitter, which is fast becoming a sewer, is full of people talking like that, and it's only because he was foolish enough to get involved in a public figure that it came to attention. But that doesn't make it any less unpleasant. Clearly, he's like that all the time.

    3. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so Person A being an asshole to Person B is fine, but Person B showing a large group of people what an asshole Person A is suddenly means Person B "sparked the whole thing off"? FUCK YOU.

      Sometimes trolls need to go unfed. And sometimes, especially if you are a national figure well beloved (albeit just for the Olympics) by the public, you can stuff a troll so full it's stomach explodes. And that's not a bad thing.

    4. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kid only apologized after the re-Tweet. And it was clearly a coward's gambit, and not a genuine apology.

    5. Re:Sigh... by alexo · · Score: 1

      As it happens, Twitter, which is fast becoming a sewer, is full of people talking like that

      Is anyone under the impression that Sturgeon's revelation somehow does not apply to Twitter?

  15. Trolling on Twitter == Arrest. by hattig · · Score: 2

    This is clearly some 17 year old kid shit talking on Twitter. Just a troll. Getting the police involved is ridiculous, unless he was to continue to do it (i.e., harrassment).

    Then again, judging from the other tweets this kid has done, he has some serious problems. Some form of Twitter-Tourettes at least.

    Hopefully the police will drop it, but the experience will cause the idiot to grow up. Haha, unlikely.

    In other news, Jan Moir of the nasty UK "news"paper the Daily Mail can write things about athletes being bitches without any police getting involved. This is real personal abuse. http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/07/jan-moir-olympics-marianne-vos-some-bitch-from-holland-lizzie-armitstead/

    1. Re:Trolling on Twitter == Arrest. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Given that the guy tweeted a death threat ("I'm going to find you and I'm going to drown you in the pool"), I see the police intervention as needed. Even if the threat wasn't meant seriously, I think every death threat *should* be taken seriously. Saying you're going to kill someone in a public forum is just idiotic whether or not you actually meant it. And even though he deleted the tweet, the threat was still made.

      Let the police investigate and, if this guy was just being an idiot, give him a good scare. Maybe he won't harass people online anymore.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Trolling on Twitter == Arrest. by hattig · · Score: 1

      Having read more about it, I agree, the police have to get involved when threats are made that this guy did. Yes, in this case it's a shit talking 17 year old. Next time it could be someone who will actually follow through with the threat. Gotta check 'em all.

    3. Re:Trolling on Twitter == Arrest. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Gotta check 'em all.

      I would disagree. That seems like a colossal waste of money.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:Trolling on Twitter == Arrest. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Threatening someone's life is serious business. Without looking into it, you can't tell the difference between some guy ranting on Twitter and some guy ranting on Twitter who actually means to carry out his threat. So each reported death threat needs to be looked into. This might not mean each one is prosecuted, but if someone says "I'm going to kill you" on Twitter and it is reported to the police, they would be negligent *NOT* to check it out.

      Is is a waste of money? Perhaps, since most aren't meant to be real threats. However, try telling a grieving family that you didn't look into a reported death threat because you didn't want to waste money.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Trolling on Twitter == Arrest. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Threatening someone's life is serious business.

      Really? To me, it depends entirely on whether or not it's likely they'll carry it out. You can probably tell just from his messages that it isn't likely.

      they would be negligent *NOT* to check it out.

      Well, I honestly hope that more of these people look into ways to make themselves more anonymous so that it'll be far more difficult to do anything. Then again, no one seems willing to accept a few casualties caused by unlikely events (you can see this mentality with some TSA/Patriot Act supporters), so perhaps they wouldn't simply give up.

      However, try telling a grieving family that you didn't look into a reported death threat because you didn't want to waste money.

      I don't see what that has to do with whether or not it's a waste of money. As if a grieving family determines truth...

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  16. He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, he did not make any threats. You clearly didn't actually read the article. Threats of violence actually are NOT enough to lead to arrest, but asshole-ish tweets are. Read the article before posting such crap.

    I can't believe I'm linking to The Huffington Post as a better source but for lack of any other site that is explaining it better, here's a timeline of the tweets.

    Here's the tweet in question:

    @TomDaley1994 i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick

    It is listed in the Guardian article but doesn't say it's from the arrested suspect.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by Essequemodeia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fucking hell. I don't know whether I'm proud or ashamed that in America it's not illegal to be an asshole.

    2. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by kiriath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe they arrested him because of his usage of the word "your" instead of "You're".

    3. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Threatening to kill someone will also get you cuffed in the US, particularly doing it in public with thousands of witnesses. Even over the top jokes about blowing stuff up will get you detained if reported.

    4. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, if assholery was illegal in the US, all we'd have to do is put walls up around New York, Chicago, and about 5 other cities. Fortunately, they tend to be self-segregating into those regions, and only trouble the rest of us through television and the internet.

    5. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by azalin · · Score: 2

      Well in that case, set an example and protect the queens english!

    6. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by oobayly · · Score: 1

      It's apparently not illegal, but it doesn't stop you from over reacting and preventing people from entering the country, especially when all they're doing is using some UK slang and quoting from Family Guy. Border security even looked through their luggage for shovels.

      Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US

    7. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by jyjjy · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more; http://i.imgur.com/Z3xdh.jpg

    8. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking hell.

      I don't know whether I'm proud or ashamed that in America it's not illegal to be an asshole.

      Yeah, here in America you wouldn't be arrested for being a jerk to other citizens! You'd have to do something wrong in the eyes of our almighty and righteous corporate overlords, hallowed be their trademarked names and the copyrighted icons of their benevolence and profits, all rights reserved, before THAT would happen!

    9. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter what people are for the most part. But when threat is stated, it becomes a whole other matter all together. He just advanced to the next level. One that either you or I ought to never go.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      So, the Nazis did take over UK. I knew it all along!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by Flaming+Babies · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Public assholes only exist in 7 or so cities in the USA.

      --
      The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
    12. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by satanclause · · Score: 1

      Well in that case, set an example and protect the queens english!

      Well in that case, set an example and protect the Queen's English!

      FTFY

    13. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Now, who's the 'asshole' there? :)

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    14. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If that were illegal, half of slashdot would be in prison. You wouldn't think aliterates would be on slashdot (obviously there are no illiterates here, but it seems few have ever finished reading a book more advanced than Cat in the Hat).

    15. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by slashrio · · Score: 1

      It looks more like a street quarrel with a lot of shouting to each other.
      The police runs here into the same problem as many people already have faced by communicating over the internet: lack of context and therefore ambiguous meaning: "Did he really mean to kill?" That's the question that ought to be asked first, and I think the answer clearly is "No".
      And the offense which can be taken by him referring to Tom's father can not be proven intentional. It's quite a normal expression: 'you disappointed your parents'.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    16. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by slashrio · · Score: 1

      This being modded as 'insightful' demonstrates that the moderation system of slashdot is clearly broken :)

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    17. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then the grammar nazi have taken full control. Say goodbye to the internet England.

    18. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Fucking hell. I don't know whether I'm proud or ashamed that in America it's not illegal to be an asshole.

      . It's a bit like George W Bush finally proving that, indeed, anyone can become President.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If that were illegal, half of slashdot would be in prison. You wouldn't think aliterates would be on slashdot (obviously there are no illiterates here, but it seems few have ever finished reading a book more advanced than Cat in the Hat).

      They've all managed to "read" Nineteen Eighty Four though, where by "read" of course I mean "watch on TV".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he did not make any threats. You clearly didn't actually read the article. Threats of violence actually are NOT enough to lead to arrest, but asshole-ish tweets are. Read the article before posting such crap.

      I can't believe I'm linking to The Huffington Post as a better source but for lack of any other site that is explaining it better, here's a timeline of the tweets.

      Here's the tweet in question:

      @TomDaley1994 i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick

      It is listed in the Guardian article but doesn't say it's from the arrested suspect.

      The arrest is clearly on the grounds of grammatical error: after "twat", the tweet in question used "your", where he should have used "you're". The Metropolitan Police is rather rigid these days, and sensitive to grammatical abuse.

      J. Wagner

    21. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in that case, set an example and protect the queens english!

      Queen's*

    22. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They've all managed to "read" Nineteen Eighty Four though, where by "read" of course I mean "watch on TV".

      Alas, that's too true. The TV reference was insightful, I'd be willing to bet that my generation, the first one to grow up with television, was the first with more aliterates than illiterates or literates.

    23. Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by azalin · · Score: 1

      You are right. I saw this about 2 seconds after hitting submit, but couldn't think of a witty "oh the irony" self reply.
      Note to self: "Preview" != "Please click twice to submit"

  17. Jeremy Clarkson by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    If this is true, why haven't they arrested Jeremy Clarkson for his comments about Mitt Romney?

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Jeremy Clarkson by Spad · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because, if the Twitter joke trial has taught us anything, it's that there is an important difference between comments made in jest and actual, serious threats against someone's well-being.

      Saying "My ideas for the opening ceremony were rejected. I suggested we should crash a burning Jag into Mitt Romney." is clearly not an actual threat to carry out such an action.

      Saying "Come on then you cunt, I'll stick a knife down your fukkin throat now comeback and stop hiding from me" can be more reasonably seen as an actual threat, context permitting.

      The police have overreacted by arresting him, but the accuracy of the reporting of the incident by the media has been astonishingly poor.

    2. Re:Jeremy Clarkson by Desler · · Score: 1

      Because only someone butthurt and humorless would think that Jeremy was making a real threat? That's a far cry from the person talked about in this article that threatened to strangle and stab people.

    3. Re:Jeremy Clarkson by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      If this is true, why haven't they arrested Jeremy Clarkson for his comments about Mitt Romney?

      Wait, people take Clarkson seriously?

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    4. Re:Jeremy Clarkson by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 0

      I have trouble believing anyone could seriously believe even this guy was anything more than what is known as an "internet tough guy."

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    5. Re:Jeremy Clarkson by Thelasko · · Score: 1
      Whoa! The summary says the person in question posted:

      'You let your dad down i hope you know that.'

      Which isn't nice, but by no means a threat.

      My fault for not RTFA, but making a threat is a criminal offense in any country, including the United States.

      Once again, another poorly written, and inflammatory summary.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    6. Re:Jeremy Clarkson by Desler · · Score: 1

      Sure, but he also made other tweets that threatened people with coming to their house to strangle and stab them.

    7. Re:Jeremy Clarkson by toriver · · Score: 1

      I think the later ranting posts about murdering people were what he was arrested for. Not too thick-skinned that man.

    8. Re:Jeremy Clarkson by Inda · · Score: 1

      Did we even know the exact reason he was arrested?

      He sounds like a mouthy one. If he was giving lip to the coppers, they would have had him for that alone. 'e was disturbing the peace, your honor.

      Hopefully the keyboard warrior will have his prints taken, sit in the cells for a few hours and realise his fight with the world is not worth it.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    9. Re:Jeremy Clarkson by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

      How would the comment from Jeremy Clarkson sound if it were made by a Muslim or a Communist? How would the law enforcement agencies react then?

      Isn't this just racial profiling of a different kind?

      --
      Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
  18. Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone noticed that US, UK and Aus are becoming police states?
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

    Google need to update their map.

    Guantanamo and the WMD debacle were the thin edge of the wedge.

  19. PRIORITIES! by benjfowler · · Score: 0, Troll

    Typical Britain.

    With the streets being as lawless as they are -- and Friday nights resembling a war zone -- with nary a policeman in sight, you would think the police have better things to do.

    The fat, retarded idiots in charge have seen fit to cut police funding by 20% and privatising everything in sight to their fat, retarded corporate cronies at G4S and Serco. Yet they find time to crack down on "fashionable" crimes, like saying rude things on Twitter.

    The mind boggles.

    1. Re:PRIORITIES! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Funny how you got modded a troll. Maybe who ever did it got tired of their community garden yelling at them for entering after dark, and informing them that the police had been dispatched. I really wish I'd kept the article, and video on it. Oh well, it was on the telegraph I believe sometime last year.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:PRIORITIES! by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

      benjfowler is British, so he is not an outsider tarnishing Britannia. Just because he points to the British law enforcement's failings rudely does not make him a troll.

      --
      Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
  20. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    *stupidest

  21. He's a jerk by Sideblinded · · Score: 1

    He may be a jerk, but he's not a criminal. Ridiculous.

  22. why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you guys were all over that indian guy who said something about the gay guy. Why should this classless moron be treated any differently? Oh I get it..

  23. Mary Poppins + DHS nurses by Gothmolly · · Score: 0

    Any wonder it's the "Nanny State" ?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  24. Tweets were directed at Daley by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    I think the biggest problem was that the tweets were directed at Daley, rather than just being written on the teenager's feed.

    Daley was clearly upset about it which is why he re-tweeted the comment which was then re-tweeted by his followers (including several celebrities).

    Frankly I was very disgusted when I read what the teenager had written. Losing your father when you're only 18 sucks enough without some twat goading you over it.

  25. Quick thank you to editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My original submission ambiguously implied that Duffy's /convictions/ were made under Scots law - for he was recently sentenced in Scotland to community service.

    But his 2011 convictions were, of course, in England. Good spot!

  26. Lesson... by MojoRilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a lesson in all this. Don't use social media. Anything you say there will last forever, and will be used against you.

    And the flip side is that social media doesn't produce anything worth reading anyway. It is generally poorly written junk. If you want to contribute in a meaningful way, work on Wikipedia or write for Examiner.com. Look at me post junk on slashdot...ugh.

    1. Re:Lesson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lesson in all this. Don't use social media. Anything you say there will last forever, and will be used against you.

      Or maybe, you know, don't write such awful vitriol.
      Non-douchebags have nothing to fear from saying normal stuff via social media.

    2. Re:Lesson... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      And the flip side is that social media doesn't produce anything worth reading anyway.

      Well, if you had more interesting friends...

    3. Re:Lesson... by MojoRilla · · Score: 1

      This drunken pirate says otherwise. Anything you post may be used against you, given the right circumstances.

    4. Re:Lesson... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. I've had a great time making interesting friends on Twitter. Maybe parts of it are cesspools? I wouldn't know because I don't go there. Follow cool people and read cool stuff, or follow trash and read trash.

      Imagine Twitter as a mailing list with no set topic and a perfect killfile so that you only hear from the people you want to. What's not to like?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    5. Re:Lesson... by danomac · · Score: 1

      I'll bet this could even affect even things like his employment for a long time.

    6. Re:Lesson... by Hentes · · Score: 1

      And why doesn't Wikipedia count as a social media?

  27. He didn't send a direct message to the guy by Hentes · · Score: 0

    He retweeted another public tweet. Even if he did, it's not harassment until it continues after an explicit demand from the other party to stop.

  28. UK doesn't have the US constitution either by fantomas · · Score: 1

    The UK having the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would suppose that the United States Constitution applies to the UK. It does not. While some may muse about how much influence the USA has politically over the UK, the UK does have its own legal system. However, it does not have a written constitution.

    1. Re:UK doesn't have the US constitution either by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Which is what he said, i far fewer words and with far more clarity.

  29. Prosecution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To the prosecutor who went ahead with this... You let your dad down i hope you know that

    1. Re:Prosecution by hattig · · Score: 1

      There are no prosecutors involved yet. This is the police following up on a death threat. They didn't know if it was a 17 year old kid talking shit, or a someone who would actually be a real threat. Anyway, talking shit and making threats in public always runs the risk that someone will call you out on it, or call the police. The guy should get a warning for being a complete tit, but it needed to be investigated.

  30. Misleading headline. by abgohel · · Score: 1

    " You let your dad down" is cannot be termed as "Criticism". There's a difference between the two.

  31. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're right that England isn't covered by American laws. Why should it be? It seems you're yet another typical American who's never been anywhere and 100% believes the propaganda your schools and TV brainwashes you with that US == the world.

    I've lived in both countries and you really think people are 'freer' to speak their minds in the US than the UK? Thats laughable.

    You need to check your facts too:
    Free speech has long been recognised as a common law right in Britain, it also has a statutory basis in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act.

  32. Clearly a dangerous criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm happy that the police are involved in this. I feel my tax money is being spent wisely here.

    This person should not be banned or moderated on twitter, instead he should be sent to the Gulag for trolling online.

    In fact, if you think about it, trolling should be made illegal, punishable by public stoning in public football field on live television.

    Of course, I do wonder why the police has not arrested all the other dangerous online trolls, are the celebrities granted some sort of biased special protection? surly not.

    I feel so much safer now that this dangerous criminal has been located and being dealt with. I'll leave my front door wide open from now on.

    If that twat that twitted had any sense whatsoever he wouldn't have forgotten to also mention that her mother is fat, for good measure.

  33. What do you expect making public death threats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently it isn't the criticism that was the problem, but a threat that he made saying he wanted to track Daley down and drown him.

  34. What the hell!!! by mostwanted678452056 · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, A man got hanged, drawn and quartered for dying in the Houses of Parliament.

  35. HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    *According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning.

    So, the Slashdot story summary is a completely fabricated pile of shit, with a little explanation on the bottom, after the preceding propaganda already riled up the prejudices and produced a cascade of comments from the usual Salshdot poster who can't even bother to read the story summary, nevermind the story, before commenting in completely contrived, manipulated outrage.

    Congratulations Slashdot, you are playing the same game as Fox News: half-truths intended to incite anger, without relevance as to actual truth.

    Guy threatened someone with violence, guy arrested. Common sense, end of story. Everything else is bullshit.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, the problem with this is that the courts require certain standards when arresting someone for making a threat, such as a reasonable person finding the threat credible. And because we're talking about a troll with no means to make a credible threat, they needed something else to arrest him for.

    2. Re:HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      What is a credible threat? We assume all anonymous threats are not credible and then find out they are credible after the fact of the committing of the crime?

      No, we should assume all threats are credible until proven otherwise. And how do you prove it otherwise? We all have the ability to get in a car or subway, walk up to the person, and hurt them. So how do you ever say a threat is not credible?

      If you are in the business of threatening people online with violence, then you deserve your privacy violated and your real life looked into, potentially up to arrest and incarceration. Do you disagree?

      I understand the value of anonymity. I understand the value of privacy.

      But why, when we defend those principles, must we be in the business of defending a**holes who threaten real world violence?

      Regardless of "credibility", whatever that means, since it doesn't take anything except being a hate-filled douchebag or insanity to deliver on a threat.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We assume all anonymous threats are not credible and then find out they are credible after the fact of the committing of the crime?

      Indeed. I believe that if you don't have reason to believe they're going to do something, nothing should happen. Otherwise you waste taxpayer money catching people who wouldn't even do anything, arrest people for making jokes, and if anyone had faith in the system, they certainly won't now! Don't be a robot that takes everything seriously; you're reminding me of those TSA goons.

      It's on them to prove the threat was credible.

    4. Re:HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      No, we should assume all threats are credible until proven otherwise.

      Do you realise that this would produce so much work that it would stop the criminal justice system from being able to achieve anything for the rest of time?

      If you are in the business of threatening people online with violence, then you deserve your privacy violated and your real life looked into, potentially up to arrest and incarceration. Do you disagree?

      It's not about what people "deserve". Criminal justice is for the benefit of society, and it doesn't work like civil law.

      But why, when we defend those principles, must we be in the business of defending a**holes who threaten real world violence?

      We do not need to do anything about people who simply fail to express themselves decently - unless they are also a threat.

      Regardless of "credibility", whatever that means, since it doesn't take anything except being a hate-filled douchebag or insanity to deliver on a threat.

      Read the judgment in Chambers.

    5. Re:HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. I believe that if you don't have reason to believe they're going to do something, nothing should happen.

      The problem is that occasionally you're going to be wrong and "they" will actually do something.

      And the common sense defense of we didn't "have reason to believe they're going to do something" isn't going to cut it.

      And if you're lucky, you'll only lose your job.

    6. Re:HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      no: if you make an online threat of violence, at the very least, your privacy and anonymity should be immediately violated. simply as insurance against the possibility you may carry through on your threat

      i do not and can not understand championing the completely valid and important notions of anonymity and privacy, that also protects the kind of a**hole that would threaten real world violence. complete failure of common sense

      anonymity and privacy are to protect us from authority goons. correct? well not all goons are in authority. plenty of hate-filled douchebags and completely insane people also walk this earth. and when they make threats, they should be investigated. will this catch false threats? sure. but what the hell is anyone doing making threats of violence online? make a threat of violence online and you should learn that it is serious by having your privacy and anonymity removed. then maybe you won't do something so stupid anymore

      unless you actually believe there are situations where threats of real world violence are valid? do you believe that? if no, then why would disagree with any of this?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* by c · · Score: 1

      > Congratulations Slashdot, you are playing the same game as Fox News:
      > half-truths intended to incite anger, without relevance as to actual truth.

      You're sure it's intentional rather than, say, a lazy and ignorant Slashdot "editor"?

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    8. Re:HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      So, the Slashdot story summary is a completely fabricated pile of shit, with a little explanation on the bottom, after the preceding propaganda already riled up the prejudices and produced a cascade of comments from the usual Salshdot poster who can't even bother to read the story summary, nevermind the story, before commenting in completely contrived, manipulated outrage.

      The face is that there IS a law on the boosk in the UK that means you can be guilty of an offence if you try to annoy someone or send a "grossly offensive" message, whether or not that's what this guy has been arrested for. I think that's worth some serious concern if you care about reasonable free speech. It's a path to allowing every overly-sensitive person to get someone arrested. I don't want to live in such a society.

  36. Both title and content of this post are wrong. by Michael_gr · · Score: 3, Informative
    The guy was arrested but not for said tweet - he was arrested for those other tweets in which he threatened Daley and several other tweeters with murder. Making death threats is NOT free speech whether you are using Tweeter or cut-out letters from a newspaper. The article does mention that and says that "the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made". Perhaps that's true but in *this* case he *was* arrested because of the death threats, not because of the abusive nature of his first tweet. The poster is clearly attempting to obfuscate the truth here.

    The one thing that's puzzling is that according to the article the same tweeter first made a disparaging comment, then apologized, then backtracked and threatened Daley and was abusive to others. That's some odd behavior. Was he high? Is he suffering from bipolar disorder? perhaps someone hacked his account? I don't know

    1. Re:Both title and content of this post are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making death threats is NOT free speech

      It is free speech; what it's not is protected speech. The problem with arresting him is that they've wasted public resources arresting someone who is just an Internet tough guy. In other words, someone who would never follow through, anyway... Criticize him, insult him, whatever... don't waste my tax dollars arresting him.

      This is just a typical Internet tough guy.

      That's some odd behavior.

      Probably because everyone was attacking him.

    2. Re:Both title and content of this post are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one thing that's puzzling is that according to the article the same tweeter first made a disparaging comment, then apologized, then backtracked and threatened Daley and was abusive to others. That's some odd behavior. Was he high? Is he suffering from bipolar disorder? perhaps someone hacked his account? I don't know

      If you bothered to visit his account and read backwards to before this "incident" you wouldn't need to ask that question... He seems to be just a fairly typical teenage gobshite.

    3. Re:Both title and content of this post are wrong. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      don't waste my tax dollars arresting him

      Well since none of your tax dollars were involved in this event that happened in the UK, you can kindly shutthehellup.

    4. Re:Both title and content of this post are wrong. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Everyone's "just an Internet tough guy" until they go on their first killing spree.

    5. Re:Both title and content of this post are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only hear very high frequencies when I use my tweeter...

      I think you meant twitter...

  37. I wish these sites would get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It WASNT the "you let your father down" tweet, it was the violent THREAT the kid made against the swimmer later on. That is grounds for arrest in pretty much any country.

    1. Re:I wish these sites would get it right by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Show that the arrest was based entirely on the "menacing" aspect of the provision, with the indecency/obscenity aspects not applied to strengthen the grounds for arrest. Or at least why the police would do that, when he has obviously been indecent/obscene but not obviously menacing.

  38. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saying death threats to specific people in a public area would get you arrested in the US. Just saying. The fact that the medium was Twitter is neither here nor there. The guy made specific, targeted threats to kill, one at Tom Daley, and then many to other people.

    Tom Daley should have ignored the tweet as a troll, but to be honest there is nothing wrong with responding and calling out the troll as he did.

  39. Hang down your head, Tom Daley by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that the teenager threatened Daley with drowning is only referenced in a convenient side note. Because that would cause less fear and hysteria than the submitter actually intended to stir up.

    But are the two tweets from the same person? Or did the cops, ehrm, cop out, and went for the first tweeter due to convenience or ignorance?

    1. Re:Hang down your head, Tom Daley by tangent3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the two tweets are from the same person rileyy_69
      Submitter conveniently left out that fact to troll people that don't RTFA.

    2. Re:Hang down your head, Tom Daley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, perhaps, the UK is enforcing some sort of weird act where internet behaviour is monitored for ... decency?
      Shouting "you let your dad down" when said dad passed away a few months prior is quite low.
      And frankly, arresting people for such matters is quite a nice change of pace from arresting people for hurting the RIAAs business model.

      Just imagine, a world in which being a douchebag on the internet could lead to your arrest... . o O ( happy thoughts ... )
      USA, direct your next iteration of SOPA in this direction and some of the nerds will support you! ;-)

    3. Re:Hang down your head, Tom Daley by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Yes, the two tweets are from the same person rileyy_69.

      Well there's your problem. Anyone with a "69" in their username has a 90% chance of being a douchebag/troll/flamebaiter/teenager. The remaining 10% grew out of it but kept the name, made an innocent mistake, inherited the account from someone else, or some other outlier case.

  40. What an douche by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    People should be able to say whatever they want, but that's a really shitty thing to say. Intentionally malicious.

    I think if the law wants to get involved, make the kid spend a few weekends in a hospice center as "community service". Monetary fines and other nonsense just don't matter in cases like this.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:What an douche by toriver · · Score: 1

      He was able to say it, and now he gets to taste the consequence of his threats.

  41. SLASHDOT EDITORS, DO YOUR JOB by gtirloni · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Check the facts, rewrite the posts that are CLEARLY trying to manipulate you and the readers.

    --
    none
    1. Re:SLASHDOT EDITORS, DO YOUR JOB by houghi · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:SLASHDOT EDITORS, DO YOUR JOB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there actually editors on Slashdot? It seems there is no one checking the stories, they seem to go from the firehose to the first page without any intervention except the voting on the firehose page.

      If the editors exist, are they being paid or are they just volunteers?

    3. Re:SLASHDOT EDITORS, DO YOUR JOB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably the editor who changed the post in the first place. It is in Slashdot's financial interest to troll it's audience widely, and that they have. As long as it riles people up and gets people to participate (and thus view ads), then they make money. Without wild sensational headlines and posts, Slashdot would not make as much money.

  42. Weapon of choice by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    for this kind of people UK police should use Hanlon's Razor

  43. Interesting by ilsaloving · · Score: 0

    So they have laws against asshole-ism?

    I think it would be more valuable to have laws against stupidity. You REALLY thought it would be a good idea to use a toilet brush as a personal hygiene product? That's a $125 fine!

  44. "Death" threats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he made a 'death' threat, but on a regular basis left wingers threatent to kill bush (alec baldwin on national TV) wish sarah palin gang raped (Bernhart) hang her in effigy and it's ok - someone then hung obama in effigy and got a visit from the secret service .

    as a side note, I think hanging in effigy is a political statement with a long pedigree and doesn't necessarily imply violence, but the hypocrisy is stunning.

  45. CB Radio by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Remember these (for anyone on Slashdot over the age of 12) ? During the mid 70's into the mid 80's, people would talk trash on the radio all the time. I myself remember threatening some kid making racial slurs over the air. I told him I was tracking him down watching the signal meter.

    And this was over the air, FCC-controlled airspace. For anyone with a receiver to hear.

    Have we become so paranoid, so fearful, so concerned that everyone out there is a maniac, that we are now going to preemptively arrest any kid who trash-talks via the current equivalent of CB radio?

    Has our world come to this? Pre-crime? Thought crime? Buttle/Tuttle? It's madness.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:CB Radio by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Have we become so paranoid, so fearful, so concerned that everyone out there is a maniac, that we are now going to preemptively arrest any kid who trash-talks via the current equivalent of CB radio?

      No, and that's a dishonest spinning of the situation. The kid made death threats. Even though the threats are probably not credible, there's a different between threats of violence and the "u fucking suck" comments that invariably come. We shouldn't criminalise the causing of offence to be taken - that's batshit crazy and way open to abuse. What should be dealt with harshly are harassment of the kind that's sustained and clearly unwelcome, and threats of illegal behaviour. The tricky part here is in drawing a line, which I'll admit is not always an easy one. I disagree with the changes made against the Robin Hood Airport guy, but they were not directed at an individual. Sure it'd find for police to call the guy and tell him to be more careful, but not to charge him. I don't think this kid should be charged unless he has a habit of doing this.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  46. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've lived in both countries and you really think people are 'freer' to speak their minds in the US than the UK? Thats laughable.

    Bullshit. It's not like the UK is China or anything, but are you free to have a Nazi party? Do you have an active KKK group? These things are still free and legal in the US. Hate-speech laws exist in the UK that would preclude that.

    Neo-nazi's and the KKK are disgusting, but removing their rights to speak turns us into them.

  47. Re:HALLELUJAH yes! by The+Askylist · · Score: 1

    I think you'll find that Mitt Romney is a 100% owned subsiduary of Likud, and may in fact be even more craven than the average politician when it comes to singing for his supper.

    But please, believe otherwise if you wish.

  48. Re:HALLELUJAH yes! by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

    Didn't Mitt Romney just come out and say (yesterday even) that he fully supports Israel?

  49. Fuck the Olympics, Fuck the IOC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Said it before, will say it again. Arrest me, fuckers.

    1. Re:Fuck the Olympics, Fuck the IOC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, they only arrest people for plausible threats, and since you probably can't get it up, I think you're off the hook.

  50. Why does it matter that this douchebag is 17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being 17 doesn't mean harmless. They guy is clearly a hate-filled nitwit, and that type has done serious harm before.

  51. Told you the UK is worse than USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They wouldn't've arrested him in the US.

  52. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Bigby · · Score: 1

    We are free to speak with our guns too

  53. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, there's free speech in the UK as long as your speech doesn't offend someone:

    http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/local/update-police-now-issue-statement-on-boston-pensioner-s-religions-are-fairy-stories-poster-1-3962839

    The police say the pensioner "could only face arrest if he causes offence and refuses to take the poster down when they ask"

  54. Inflammatory headline anyone? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    "According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning, but the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made."

    Should have been the FIRST line in the summary.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Inflammatory headline anyone? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Look at his posting history. He makes meaningless, trollish threats like this all the time - as do a thousand other trolls on the Internet at any one time. A threat which is "ridiculous banter" is not necessarily "menacing", thus not necessarily illegal.

      He was arrested this time because he criticised an Olympic swimmer. And the indecent/obscene nature of this and other tweets are grounds for arrest.

      I'm not sure why everyone is so confused. Ask yourself a) What's different this time? b) What's the simplest explanation?

      Answers are a) he attacked an Olympic swimmer; b) The policemen observed indecency/obscenity in his tweets (which, unlike menacing threats, are unquestionably present). At worst, the indecency/obscenity strengthen the grounds for arrest - can you not see why that alone is a bad thing?

    2. Re:Inflammatory headline anyone? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      He was arrested this time because he criticised an Olympic swimmer. And the indecent/obscene nature of this and other tweets are grounds for arrest.

      So how many times prior to this did he make threats that were subsequently reported to the police? If similar has happened before, and reports were reported by dismissed, then yes there is a problem. I've no doubt the nature of his target is related, but mainly because it draws a lot of attention to the issue and a threat of violence from a stranger to a public figure (i.e. one who is pretty easy to find) is different to a tweet made to a stranger on the other side of the planet. Doesn't mean that all threats shouldn't be responded to, just that the nature of the target is obviously a factor, just not necessarily in the way your post implies.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    3. Re:Inflammatory headline anyone? by fran6gagne · · Score: 1

      "According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning, but the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made."

      It is like saying:

      Well the summary is all wrong but it could have been true.

  55. Liberty by Mondak · · Score: 1

    The defense of Liberty is often spent in the company of scoundrels. . .

  56. Re:JEWS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of this is thanks to our unelected JEWISH 'masters'.

    It amuses me how you bust out the capital letters for that, yet you continue to blather on as if we haven't already dismissed you as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

    No, no, please, do go on. It was a rough night last night, I need a good laugh.

  57. Sue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't he get a good lawyer and sue the government for freedom of speech? the Magna Carta was still legally binding last time I checked.

  58. I don't follow.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Why was the teen who made a nonviolent remark (albeit one that was certainly nothing less than deliberately mean) arrested, while the people who made arguably more threatening remarks, such as the ones which talked about drowing him, or going to his house and shooting him were not?

    1. Re:I don't follow.... by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1

      Because dickery is less well-regarded than equivalent counterdickery.

  59. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Recognized," not "recognised."

  60. title should be soulskill trolls slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did slashdot become a tabloid?

  61. Thanks lefties! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it amusing how most folks here are against this kind of censorship and yet most folks who post subjects and comments here are political lefties ... what political side do you think makes these kinds of laws??? Lefties!

    You can't legislate prosperity OR morality folks, liberty and personal responsibility is the only way to go.

    1. Re:Thanks lefties! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen a vagina....one size usually fits all....even the itty bit ones like yours. Have a blessed day!

  62. Re:THE OLYMPICS ARE GAY by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This leads to a number of complicated dichotomies. Surely by being 'cock loving' the female athletes must at the minimum harbour some attractive to the opposite sex, making them at least bisexual if not full-blown hetero-sexual.

    Yet at the same time you've unambiguously stated that they are homosexual.

    I can see only two ways out of this:
    - either you're suggesting that there are no female athletes at the olympics, and that Caster Semenya is merely a little more obvious than most, or
    - all Olympic athletes love male chickens.

    While the latter may well be true, it feels a little oblique to the discussion at hand.

    However, it's still quite beyond me how olympic athletes can be deemed faggots or faggots.

    I can only conclude that you are in fact delusional and that olympic athletes represent a broad spectrum of sexual diversity and chicken consumption.

  63. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's when you think that the guns are speaking back that I start to worry.

  64. Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool, this is democracy and freedom of speech.

  65. This doesn't surprise me. by Westwood0720 · · Score: 0

    We had a local police officer (white) holler at a baseball player (black) and got fired for a "racial slur". He hollered at the player to "stop being a Monday".

    What a bunch of pussies.

    1. Re:This doesn't surprise me. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if the black man was insulted he should have drawn his gun and shot the insulter, like in the old days...

    2. Re:This doesn't surprise me. by Westwood0720 · · Score: 1

      I was more pointing to the fact of calling some a "Monday". how is that even a racial slur? Someone calls me a Monday, first this that comes to mind is that fat ass from Office Space. People get so butthurt nowadays.

  66. No value left in the Olympics anymore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I say "Fuck the Olympics and all those who participate" will I disappear in some remote torture facility ?
    Fuck 'em and their corporate whores.

    1. Re:No value left in the Olympics anymore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, nobody will find you interesting enough to arrest.

  67. More comment... by BigBadBus · · Score: 1

    There are more tweets, plus a link to a YouTube video on Digitalspy

  68. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've lived in both countries and you really think people are 'freer' to speak their minds in the US than the UK? Thats laughable.

    Bullshit. It's not like the UK is China or anything, but are you free to have a Nazi party? Do you have an active KKK group? These things are still free and legal in the US. Hate-speech laws exist in the UK that would preclude that.

    Neo-nazi's and the KKK are disgusting, but removing their rights to speak turns us into them.

    The BNP is our Nazi party - check out what they were like in the 70's and 80's - they've 'mellowed' so-to-speak lately, but mainly because outright racism isn't as good a policy in the UK as it is in the US.
    As for the KKK... no, we don't have it quite that bad. Again, this is probably due to different attitudes to outright racism over here - we're much more about class wars and race then feeds into that.
    However the EDL does come fairly close - just with skin-heads and jack-boots instead of ghost costumes, and more of a focus on Islam and Eastern-Euro immigration.

    So yeah, we have institutional racism almost as much yourselves, and it does enjoy some degree of legal protection - how proud I am to have made this point.....

  69. This needs to change! by no-body · · Score: 1

    It's abused by individuals lacking something.

    Somebody is offended by some outward event entering his/her input sensors and then run through interpretative programming routines, often unpatched boot code burnt into firmware during the initial startup time of maybe 0 - 12 years and this code is usually heavily hacked by vested abusive interests in the surrounding programming institutions (schools, churches, families) to drain energy off the affected individuals.

    Patching and cleaning this error-prone code is then left to the individual, taking usually 10 years more.

    If firmware code is left unpatched by individuals with severely hacked code unable to do the cleanup themselves it creates all kinds of problems.
    One typical situation is - Some system input creates the response "I am offended" and the signal originator is blamed do have created defective signals.

    How can someone be blamed for somebody else's defective firmware and be penalized for it?

  70. Are you an actual moron? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    You must be really stupid, your parents weren't just related, they must have been the same person.

    A thought stays in your head, well except in your case. If you want to call it a crime, call it a Twitter crime or even a speak crime. But thought crime is about THOUGHT. This would have been obvious anyone who isn't a walking poster for abortion at any age but alas, killing those with low IQ is not yet standard practice.

    You are still free to THINK in the UK what you want. It is when you start broadcasting it to the entire world, that the law steps in. You might not like but call it what it is. A limit on free speech, not on thought.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Are you an actual moron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason I find this post extremely fitting, and ironic at the same time...

      You are still free to THINK in the UK what you want. It is when you start broadcasting it to the entire world, that the law steps in.

      You must be really stupid, your parents weren't just related, they must have been the same person.... This would have been obvious anyone who isn't a walking poster for abortion at any age but alas, killing those with low IQ is not yet standard practice.

  71. is there a way to mark an entire story negative ? by vpness · · Score: 0

    is there a way to allow the posters to vote on the story itself, so the entire story could fall below the threshold of being worthy of readable, and by the time I got around to looking at /., the story would have been yelled down ? What makes /. useful is that amidst the noise posts, insightful and funny folks vet TFA in ways that as individuals, we never could. It'd be good to do that vetting as a whole. This story clearly being a good candidate for being voted negative.

  72. threats by hugebrownbag · · Score: 1

    was it because he also sent threats? http://voces.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1722241 But a message sent later from the Twitter account read: "i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky tw*t your a nobody people like you make me sick."

  73. Timeline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems from reading other fora that what happened was the following: Reece tweeted to Daley about his dad; hopefully we're all agreed that this was poor taste, but probably not illegal. However, if someone had said that to me, I'd be pissed too. Daly re-tweeted to his followers. Reece gets swamped with hate messages, even saying (improbably) that he didn't know that Daley's dad had died. Reece tries to apologize, but Daley has blocked him so Reece's apology doesn't get through. Reece goes beserk and resorts to his previous provocative behaviour, this time with extra hate and death threats thrown in for good measure. Reece now realises he's in the news. The penny drops that he's in the shit. Police arrest him.

  74. Re:is there a way to mark an entire story negative by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    Please consider that your understanding of the context or of the law might be at fault, and not the original summary.

    The lowest bar to justify an arrest of this guy would be his indecency/obscenity. The facts that he made some non-menacing threats and that he is a dick are irrelevant - ask yourself instead what stupid laws you have broken which mean that you can be easily arrested when you annoy the wrong person.

  75. Re:HALLELUJAH yes! by pjabardo · · Score: 1

    Well, to be fair, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel are not the same thing. Far from it. There are plenty of anti-Semitic Israel loving people. And Israel doesn't have much of a problems with anti-Semitism if it suits them: Anwar Sadat was an unrepentant Nazi sympathiser and is loved by every Zionist around. Extreme right wing groups and politicians all over Europe have always been rabid anti-Semitics and now are always seen kissing up to Israel because of a common enemy: Muslims. In the US kkk types used to be anti-Semitic and because of the "ayrabs" they have become Israel admirers. Then there are all those groups of evangelical Christians that love Israel because this way God can strike dead all the Jews in the same place, or that the rapture will only happen when all (or most?) Jews are back in the "holy" land.

    To sum it up, it is very simple *and common* to be an Israel-loving anti-Semitic bastard!

  76. Re:HALLELUJAH yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure he was going for irony.

  77. Can we mark the summary as flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tweets that caused the arrest were death threats, not the one highlighted in the summary.

  78. oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'malicious tweets'
    'tweeting up a storm'
    excited songbirds chirping with glee

  79. Aspergers by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    This kid had Aspergers. That is sort of an important fact that I don't see being discussed. Aspergers syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction. The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome. So the kid, with a disorder that makes it hard for him to empathize with people, posted some words that were emotionally hurtful, e.g. un-empathetic. He is taken to court and convicted.

    I'm sure he'll learn his lesson from his punishment — just like how all schizophrenic people stop hearing voices and all depressed people become happier after you sentence them with crimes.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Aspergers by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Most people with aspergers I know can handle societal rules if they're spelled out as rules. In the case of Sean Duffy - who I presume you're referring to here - things like "Don't post insulting messages about dead people" for example.

      There's a difference between lacking empathy and going out of your way to upset people.

    2. Re:Aspergers by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      This kid had Aspergers.

      Citation?

      I certainly don't see any sign of Aspergers in his behaviour. There seems to be no lack of understanding on his part about how what he says can upset other people. He's not offending through lack of social ability. Indeed he displays a reasonable skill in being deliberately offensive.

    3. Re:Aspergers by Builder · · Score: 1

      Or threaten to kill them. That's what he's really in trouble for.

    4. Re:Aspergers by neoshroom · · Score: 1

      Being a spectrum disorder, perhaps most people you know are a bit more functional? From the article, we have no way of knowing. Schizophrenic people can also restrain themselves from following the commands of voices they hear, but I am suggesting if we catch them having an outburst where they are yelling at their voices, that there may be a more effective method of handling it than convicting them of disturbing the peace.

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    5. Re:Aspergers by neoshroom · · Score: 1

      RTFA.

      However, it's the third link if you didn't read them all.

      Defence agent Neil McRobert told the court that Duffy, who was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome when he was five, was in retrospect, "devastated, ashamed and upset" about what he had done.

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    6. Re:Aspergers by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Ah, that's a different guy. He's not the one the story is about.

    7. Re:Aspergers by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      The kid that criticized the athlete doesn't have AS -- the troll that posted the inappropriate image of those dead teenagers did. However, I agree: I don't see any reason to assume that charging someone with a crime or punishing them will, on its own, teach them a lesson if the misbehavior was caused by some kind of disability.

      More to the point... The "lack of empathy" is a two-way communicative barrier between autistic & non-autistic people from the same culture, in the same way as the "Mars vs Venus" clash. Simply put, empathy is ultimately just assuming how somebody will/does feel about something based on how you would; that's why we see such cultural clashes between people from different parts of the world, skin colors, and genders. It'd take me far too long to explain adequately, but the excellent AutismAndEmpathy.com has more than enough links to studies, articles, and commentaries to cover it.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    8. Re:Aspergers by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If your particular mental illness makes you a danger to the public, and you are incapable of controlling your behaviour, the right place for you is certainly not in prison. It's in a fucking maximum security hospital.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  80. Malicious, really? by realsilly · · Score: 1

    Uncouth, sure, but malicious? It's a sad day when we arrest someone for saying something insensitive. I mean a really sad day. I hope the kid is let go, for what a waste of tax payer money. He didn't threaten he said something distasteful. And he didn't say it to millions, he said it to one.

    But next, if you're on twitter and your in the public spotlight, either get off twitter or expect the worst in people. Don't expect that simply because you're in the spotlight that you won't be criticized or piss off your fans. Shit, professionals face this sort of crap every single day, let it go, ignore it.

    Personally, my feeling is that each athlete is at the Olympics because they earn their spot (hopefully because of natural raw talent, not because of doping). The feats these athletes perform are phenomenal and the rest of us should be so dedicated to anything. Many don't get sponsorship or much financial help from the country they represent. I know that these men and women bust their asses training all the time. Their training is a 2nd full time job for them. I am personally impressed and humbled to be represented by any one of them in the Olympics, even the worst of them. Being on TV, being in the spotlight in front of billions and being scrutinized in every thing they do must be vast amounts of added pressure to perform their best. Heck I bet most /.'ers are too scared to come out of mom's basement just to see the sun. (j/k) In all seriousness, I wonder how many of those athletes are scared of big crowds or can't speak in public, but there we are with lights, cameras, and mics shoved in their faces demanding to know how they feel.

    I don't need them to tell me, I can tell by how they start and finish their competitions. They are nervous and trying to focus on getting a task done and once it is done, they are relieved that it's done, and sometimes they are happy with how they performed and sometimes not so much. The entire point of the Olympics (IMHO) is to compete against people of your equal skills from all over the world, and a close finish between competitors means it was a great competition in which all athletes respect their opponents.

    Hey, but what do I know, I'm still scare to stop being an introvert.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  81. good justice from bad law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually these laws appear to be bad policy, but in this case I'm happy to see this thug get arrested.

  82. The V for Vendetta universe is HERE! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    The V for Vendetta universe is HERE!

    Ain't it quaint when they call it the "free" world?

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    1. Re:The V for Vendetta universe is HERE! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The V for Vendetta universe is HERE!

      Ain't it quaint when they call it the "free" world?

      That world isn't here until we have a FORMER united states.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  83. Cancer? by alexru · · Score: 1

    What father's cancer has to do with anything here?

  84. Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pay attention America. As you see, England doesn't have real freedom. Observe, learn. Keep supporting the liberal (political definition) left, and this is what will become of America too. Do you want to have the freedom to speak your mind, via the internet, or any other medium? If we continue along the current path, one day the police will come knocking on your door should you have the temerity to voice your opinion, and it will happen right here in the good ole USA.

  85. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I married an American in the UK. Before the wedding her grandmother called to ask if we "still use dollars" over here.

    Strange but true.

  86. However Vague the Law Is... by Angrywhiteshoes · · Score: 1

    We shouldn't be surprised by that. However, he threatened to kill him, that's grounds for arrest here in California as well. I'm not opposed to what happened to this guy, its another case of people believing they're untouchable online.

    Do I agree with how the law can be abused? No
    Do I agree with how it was used in this case? Yes

  87. I wouldn't call that critique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It might be too rough to arrest the boy over his tweet, but it wasn't critique either, it was a mean insult.

    cb

  88. Law & Order by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    "Your honor, we are charging the defendant with Felony Butthurt."

  89. Youtube? by konaya · · Score: 1

    If hateful and aggressive comments are forbidden by law, how is Youtube able to function?

  90. What he said by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    The summary conveniently left out this little gem: "i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick"

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  91. Re:JEWS... by drkim · · Score: 1

    Uhhhhh, Mr. Gibson's been drinking again.

  92. Re:is there a way to mark an entire story negative by vpness · · Score: 0

    marking entire story as negative: I completely get that *my* understanding of the story or TFA might well be at fault. In this case, the modded up posts all effectively voted down the story as being /. worthy. legal prescedent: It is slightly interesting to note that a tweet was arrest-worthy. Knowing only a little about case law in the US, and less in the UK, I'm left wondering what's different about tweeting 'his dad would have been disappointed' and his writing to a paper in the op ed section, or taking out an ad. Legally, I'd presume that there's no difference. Practically, there is, as the paper would never publish such twaddle. Tweeting has removed (most) barriers to anyone permanetly expressing themselves, without any deliberation or peer review. Moderation is what /. has going for it that I'd have hoped other forums would have adopted. Tweeting has (virtually) no moderation.

  93. FTFY by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    "The idea that your feelings are the most holy ideal is rubbish."

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:FTFY by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "The idea that your feelings are the most holy ideal is rubbish."

      The idea that you would still be able to walk or breathe unaided after sending me a tweet like this cunt did is rubbish.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  94. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    Free Speech in the EU cannot be equated with free speech in the US. If it could, censorship would not be so rampant and unchallenged in many countries, i.e. Germany.

    Yes, I think people are far more free to speak their mind in the UK, for better or for worse.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  95. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Makes me think... What is the location of the server he sent his messages to?
    If it's the USA, he should be protected by the 1st amendment.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  96. Re:No such thing as free speech by slashrio · · Score: 1

    We are free to speak with our guns too

    Wait a minute... was that a threat?

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  97. The future by zeroryoko1974 · · Score: 0

    This is the future of America.

  98. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    It's not like the UK is China or anything, but are you free to have a Nazi party? Do you have an active KKK group?

    We have 2 nazi parties: the BNP and the EDL. KKK would be legal but (and this is where the line is), hate speech is illegal. Specifically, incitement of hatred against race or religion.

    It really shouldn't be a slippery slope but this is what the original article is about.

    NuLabour wrote laws such that almost anything was a criminal offence. Teenage kissing is f***ing illegal.

  99. Britain went beyond criminalising thoughtcrime by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    If you are inadvertently in a position which might aid a crime, you can be banished from that part of the country.

    Whether or not any crime was committed.

    http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php/?page_id=155

  100. Thoughtcrime? Pah, small-time totalitarianism. by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    Britain went beyond criminalising thoughtcrime.

    If you are inadvertently in a position which might aid a theoretical crime, you can be banished from that part of the country.

    http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php/?page_id=155

  101. Blair's many Enabling Acts by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    Hitler got an Enabling Act passed to give him absolute power in the event of a minor emergency. He burned down the Reichstag and the rest is history.

    Blair copied it.

    It's Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act

    There's also:

    Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act -- dubbed Abolition of Parliament Act by the media as it could do this abolition without debate in Parliament.
    Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act -- unlimited internet surveillance (recent internet surveillance attempts have just been about getting the ISP to pay for data storage). Also made it illegal for you to not hand over your private key even if you forgot it (latter repealed by coalition).
    Serious Crime Act -- actually passed by Brown. This isn't even thoughtcrime punishment. Get this: even if no crime is committed or even thought about you can still be punished (banishment etc) for inadvertently being in a position to facilitate a crime. It's like Wrong Place Wrong Time, only it's Wrong Place All The Time.
    Identity Cards Act -- forcing anyone who wanted a passport to submit to iris scanning and fingerprinting, along with giving their bank details. Creation of a Stasi 2.0 database with records for every single adult in the country.

    There are many many other totalitarian laws, including numerous 'anti-terror' and 'police' acts that allowed random stop and search, kicking your door in without a warrant, taking your DNA upon spurious arrest and banning protest within a mile of Parliament.

    Blair had two people locked up for reading out the names of the Iraqi dead at the Cenotaph.
    Brown, not to be outdone, passed the aforementioned Serious Crime Act and had Shadow Minister Damian Green arrested for doing his job.

    1. Re:Blair's many Enabling Acts by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Hitler got an Enabling Act passed to give him absolute power in the event of a minor emergency. He burned down the Reichstag and the rest is history.

      Blair copied it.

      I must have been in semi-coma for the last fifteen years because I really can't remember the bit abut the Houses of Parliament burning down and Blair emerging as the Fuhrer.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Blair's many Enabling Acts by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      We got rid of him. The law is still there waiting for someone to invoke it, as easily verified

      "Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative;"

      ie unlimited power.

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/section/22

  102. Or, "fascism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it is rarely used and the police have not indicated whether they are pressing charges,...

    Or, the police will always have a pretext to do whatever they want to you if you ever cross them or a protected group. Or if they feel like it: There are so many laws that've been passed that no one is innocent - you, whoever you are, probably commit misdemeanors at a rate measured in number per mile travelled on your way to work, and there's probably a felony or two mixed in.

    And the government wants it this way - after all, they have no power over innocent people.

  103. UK government is fostering self-censorship? by cjcela · · Score: 1

    As much as I disagree with the kid's comments on Twitter, I think that there is a dangerous double-standard at play there: If Citizens will be arrested for just saying things like that in public, 90% of the population would be in jail, because at one time or another, most of us have said foolish things. I will argue here that the issue is that the offensive comment was posted online. If a police officer would have overheard the same comment made in a public place, I argue he would not have been arrested. Then, we ran into the situation where the government is fostering self-censorship, because you can talk about certain things or express certain opinions privately but cannot print or post publicly out of fear of being arrested. This is what a totalitariam regime would do, and it is not good for the UK.

  104. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    OK here's an exercise:
    Burn a US flag in a US street, the US police will tazer you to the ground, kneel on your back while they put you in cuffs, beat you up then put you in a cell with someone called Bubba who wants to rape you.

    Burn a UK flag in a UK street and the police may ask you to move but they will recognise your freedom to demonstrate.

    Now tell me who has freedom of speech.

  105. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly the US > the world!

  106. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my god, will you fucking go die please.

  107. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

    Fucking WHOOSH

    --
    Take off every 'sig' !!
  108. Arrest the entire British Government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm completely offended and horrified by the law you've passed, and accordingly, because you passed this into law, you are all now under arrest and will be held while we determine which charges will apply.

    Please walk yourselves down to the local constabulary office and turn yourselves in, it will go much easier on you.

  109. Would you also arrest Harry Reid? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Because Harry Reid just said approximately the same thing about Romney. I say arrest the bastard and throw his ass in jail.

    In an interview with the Huffington Post, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid alleged (totally unsubstantiated, of course) that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for more than a decade, and that his father, the long deceased George Romney, would be embarrassed by his own son.

    "His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son."

    1. Re:Would you also arrest Harry Reid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Harry Reid say he was going to kill Romney?

  110. Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1
    At least Germany has a reason. Lets look at post WWII: Germany had just been utterly broken by the allied powers, the condemnation of the world came down upon them as the enormity of the crimes committed was made known, and all of those militaries (still smarting from having just done this in WWI) are keenly interested in not having this happen again.

    So in the interest of not having their shit completely ruined again, Germany took it upon itself to censor much of racist speech. Including, perhaps most significantly, criminalizing denial of the holocaust. Even so, Germany wasn't re-unified as a single country until a little over two decades ago. That's two entire generations paying for the sins of their fathers. I'd probably be in a censoring mood too trying to stop a repeat of mistakes from the past.

    And don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom of speech, I'm just saying I kind of understand where Germany is coming from with their particular brand of censorship.

  111. Re:THE OLYMPICS ARE GAY by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

    *slow clap*

    This is for you.

    Also this

  112. "Remember, remember..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, remember the fifth of November
    Gunpowder, treason and plot
    I see no reason why gunpowder treason
    Should ever be forgot

    Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent
    To blow up the King and the Parliament
    Three score barrels of powder below
    Poor old England to overthrow
    By God's providence he was catched
    With a dark lantern and burning match
    Holloa boys, holloa boys
    God save the King!
    Hip hip hooray!
    Hip hip hooray!

    A penny loaf to feed ol' Pope
    A farthing cheese to choke him
    A pint of beer to rinse it down
    A faggot of sticks to burn him
    Burn him in a tub of tar
    Burn him like a blazing star
    Burn his body from his head
    Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
    Hip hip hooray!
    Hip hip hooray!

  113. Distributed punching bot networks ... by zapyon · · Score: 1

    What do you think how long it would take before somebody evil would swarm unprotected networked computers with bots for distributed punching attacks (DPAs) on people he singled out for a good beating? And how problable would it be that YOU might be singled out for a second by the first victim for suggesting such a tool ... ;-)

    --
    I like my spaghetti with source.
  114. On the other hand ... by zapyon · · Score: 1

    How about a social voting website so we can pick the politician of the day to be presented with a good remote beating as "award" for worst recent "achievements" :-D (just brainstorming options, not intending to harm humans)

    --
    I like my spaghetti with source.
  115. Regarding your sig, ... by zapyon · · Score: 1

    shouldn't it be "therminated"? ;-)

    --
    I like my spaghetti with source.
  116. Hanlon's Razor for the lazybones (see inside) by zapyon · · Score: 1

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    Hanlon's Razor, as quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_Razor

    --
    I like my spaghetti with source.
  117. I will be happy to not be human anymore a few more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    years.

    If you don't want tweets why join twitter.
    I only want your tweets if your calling me god.

    Giving the unlimited ability to tax causes this kind of thing. Giving cops too much budget causes to much time on there hands, arrest for tweets.
    What you in for? Murdering my last celly ,you? mean tweeting.

    Violating terms means losing my account not you can arrest me.

    I just reread my terms no where does it say violating them subjects me to arrest.

    I might have to remove all computing devices if this can stand.

    I hope he can sue for millions.

  118. Telemarketers by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

    Can such laws be used to arrest annoying telemarketers who won't give up, and who would willingly disregard Do Not Call registries? Then I am all for them. I am not for selective implementation.

    --
    Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
  119. You should be arrested for your offensive slur ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... against Unitarians (and some Buddhists).

    Religion: There's a flavor for everyone, even atheists.

  120. Read some modern Neuroscience. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read some modern Neuroscience.

    Words can indeed cause grevious harm.

    Look up the definition of assault.

    Words, in the wrong circumstances, can be a very effective weapon, and even be used to kill.

  121. Re:it is obvious what the intended use is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RE: Selling a "kit" containing a mirror, razor blade, and straw together is illegal because it is obvious what the intended use is.

    Slicing and sucking out your pimples?

  122. Exactly! by denzacar · · Score: 1

    We can have a lot of freedom in life, but the freedom to not be offended is not an option.

    Freedom to BE offended IS a part of and based on the freedom of speech.
    Only way everyone may be guaranteed a freedom from being offended would be through government's or some other organization's BAN on being offended and/or doing things anyone anywhere may find offensive.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  123. Because... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...it is a logically invalid claim presented as if it is a valid argument, with the aim of inflicting psychological pain.
    It is also a form of character assassination as it is used to present the other side as evil and morally and otherwise corrupt.

    Haven't you heard that only bad people go to hell, where they are then buggered with hot pokers by devils for eternity?

    Also, sticks, stones, sentences... Same shit to pSyche. Stress.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  124. Alright, Brits... by jep305 · · Score: 1

    ... I don't want to ever hear another word about how screwed up the US is for detaining and deporting those two British tourists who joked about digging up Marilyn Monroe and destroying the USA.

    --
    In Reason We Trust
  125. and here we thought the Nazis were dealt with. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fascism is alive and well and living in the UK. seig heil!

  126. USA next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A law als coming to America very soon!

  127. You can't legislate stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That said, it is extremely uncaring and offensive to make a statement liek that to someone who has lost a parent

    In the case of "Olympic athlete parents" there is generally a very strong bond between parent and child, due to all the work and sacrifice that goes into providing ht e opportunity for the child to train and compete.

    Instead of arrested, I'd like to see the kid who made the remark given a chance to meet to the athlete, and perhaps learn a bit more about his father (that passed away). and if that didn't make an impression, give them 5 minutes alone in a closed room.

    You can't legislate stupid and callous people, but you can provide an education for them.

  128. Freedom Of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Amendment to the United States Constitution
    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Unquote.
    LOOKS like the UK is well on their way to adopting communism Comrade! (With an ENGLISH accent)

  129. Teenager Arrested In England For Criticizing Olymp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really crappy comment to have made ,but arrested, at 2.30am. Butterfly on the wheel.DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD.

    Shouldn't group 4 be dealing with this anyway, the police are doing their (G4S) job. Would go someway to pay back for the £57,000,000 they've trousered.(no, I don't really think we taxpayers will ever see that again )

  130. The sequence of events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What actually happened was first he sent the original message. Then he did indeed offer a sort of grudging apology. But then he started to receive hostile messages himself and he retaliated against those messages by threatening to drown Tom Daley.

    1. Re:The sequence of events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry I don't know what the system named me "Anonymous Coward". My name is David Kessler. I am a writer and my books are available on Amazon - including Kindle editions.

  131. Thems Fightin' Words by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Is that a death threat? that's illegal. While the asshole deserves a punch in the face, that would be assault. That people want to inflict violence on this guy because of what he said, makes me think of the fighting words doctrine in the US.

    If you already didn't know, In the US we have a ruling (yay for common law systems) that some speech can be considered "fighting words". And is not protected by the first amendment. People can be and have been arrested for directing personal insults to an individual.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  132. 3rd option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - all female Olympic athletes are post-op homosexual men

  133. Justice? by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

    I am very disturbed about seeing all the posts that say "this teenager should be allowed his free speech rights". What if the olympic athlete decided, because of this very distasteful, moronic tweet, to take his own life? Would everyone still be supporting his "free speech" rights? Hateful remarks are powerful. They can cause the target of such remarks great pain. I'm sure that if the "teenager involved" is found guilty of anything, he may recieve a slap on the wrist and a stern "don't do that again" from the authorities. I believe a better punishment would be to publish the name and address, both internet and physical, so that the aggrieved party or some of his/her more adament supporters could look this kid up and beat the living cra*p out of him. Next time he may be a little more sensitive about the trash he twits!!!!

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
  134. Izzy Kalman's advice for those who are bullied by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://bullies2buddies.com/ He's a school psychologist.

    Izzy Kalman points out that behavior that is not rewarded tends to extinguish itself over time. Bullying victims participate in that cycle by their reactions. What sustains bullying as a social process is intermittent rewards for those who bully (seeing the rise they get out of their victims). That is why the grandparent's post is insightful. However, that is not to suggest your personal experience might be unusual either. I liked your "Yeah. No." comment in that sense.

    Still, what is the ultimate alternative to encouraging freedom of speech in school (including accepting people will say unpleasant things for all sorts of reasons)? Is it turning school staff into judges and juries (as if they did not have enough difficulties already)? What happens when reporting "bullying" itself is taken as an offensive act by the one labelled now as a "bully", leading to further escalation of the problem? Will such a change towards less and less tolerance (as many other anti-bullying programs promote) even invite new forms of manipulation and misuses of the quasi-legal system as well? What happens when the bullies become those who can use the quasi-legal system to harass innocent victims by making them look like the "bullies"? Is that a place we want to go? For example, what it that tweet was made by someone else in such a way as to look like the now arrested teenager was the one who made it? Like maybe someone who had access to the teenagers phone for two minutes? How can the teenager prove otherwise? That is an example of the law of unintended consequences...

    Izzy Kalman does point out that some very small percent of bullies do indeed need to be deal with legally by involving the police (when extreme violence is in the picture). That part also echoes your comment, though one can argue about percentages (as in 10%? 1%? or 0.1%? of the entire population of teenagers). Izzy Kalman mainly focuses on breaking the cycle of escalation that can lead to violence. As he points out, generally these issues start small. They key is to prevent them from escalating. That means breaking the feedback loop. In practice, that means educating the "victim" about better ways to respond to the situation. Focusing mainly on changing the behavior of the one labeled "bully" just does not work that well in practice according to Izzy Kalman.

    However, I would agree that cooping up lots of people in a small space where they are compelled by law to be there every day, regardless of personal relationships with others in that small space, is a recipe for creating bad behavior, whatever the institution is called or whatever its supposed aims. One might even argue compulsory schooling models "bullying" itself -- forcing kids to do things they don't want to do for fairly arbitrary reasons (witness the recent slashdot discussion on whether algebra should be forced on everyone).

    That's one reason why I prefer the idea of a "public library" to the idea of a "public school" -- where "public" means a completely different thing in the two terms. If someone is mean in a public library, you can generally avoid that person in that part of the library, go to the library at some other time when that person is not there, or just use a different library, or even bring your brother or mother or friend along, etc.. You don't have those choices in a public school where you must legally be in a certain room at a certain time of day most days. If you don't go along with the public school's authority, then ultimately you will be forced to go to an even more controlling institution where you don't get to go home nights and weekends. Unless you opt out of the public system in some formal way, like homeshooling/unschooling, tutors, special private schooling, etc.. But those options in practice so often seem beyond most families given our society's economics (even if more might manage them than think to try).

    I am also reminded a bit of the fall of Rome, wh

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Izzy Kalman's advice for those who are bullied by ancienthart · · Score: 1

      I understand and know the theory that you speak of. However, it does assume that the only attention that the bully/disruptor receives is from their victim/teacher. Don't work when the teen is getting attention from their peers or the world in general. There's a reason why toddlers throw their biggest tantrums in malls.

      Yet again in my experience, groups of teens will seek to test adults. Each class that I have taught, I generally see the following steps:

      • 1 day to 1 week - kids go gentle on you to see if you know your stuff.
      • Week 1-2 to 1 and 1/2 months - kids will test EVERY one of your rules. If you have no explicit rules, they will test EVERYTHING. Adolescents test to find out the boundaries - what are the REAL rules of your classroom? Are they consistent between students? Do you obey the same rules you set for them? You as a teacher also find out what your real rules are as well. :D
        If you don't stand up for yourself at this stage, it doesn't end - welcome to your first teaching year. Until you snap.
        If you're lucky, you snap the right way and throw a "temper tantrum" (note the quotes here - there's a real skill to throwing your 'nana.) that shocks the kids back into correct behaviour. "Oh, he expects to be treated as a person too." In your second teaching year you make DAMN sure to avoid this, by being quietly authoritarian for the first few months until the students get used to you.
      • After that, most students will respond to the method you mentioned. But students won't participate with you in an appropriate and social manner, until it's made very clear that you are part of the society as well.

      As for encouraging freedom of speech, the best idea I've ever seen was in a school where the diary listed student, teacher and parent responsibilities FIRST, then rights. All rights come with their own set of responsibilities - freedom of speech comes with a responsibility to speak responsibly.

      I also come down pretty strictly on students that play the "Definition Game" or the "Loophole Game". Responsible people understand that there is a difference between Legal and Moral.

    2. Re:Izzy Kalman's advice for those who are bullied by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Omega-3, fancy name for a common component of animal fat. I don't doubt today's low-fat diets cause excitable (nutrient-seeking) behaviour in humans just as they do in animals. [I am a pro dog trainer.]

      As to your note that victims participate in the bullying cycle -- yes, and we've made that worse by telling our kids that fighting is not allowed, defending yourself is not allowed, etc. The best way to cure a bully is to give him the shock of his life back, not to bend over and take it. But what do we teach today? You're not allowed to hit back; you're required to get Mommy To Make Him Stop. (See my post above.) Which just proves to all involved kids that you're a wuss who deserves to be bullied.

      As to just walking away, that only works if you can get away entirely. If you can be followed, it may make matters worse (prey flees from the predator).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  135. What the Soviets failed to do... by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 0

    The British are succeeding at spectacularly.

    --
    Grar II
  136. Topher would like to have words with you. by BMOC · · Score: 1
    --
    I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
  137. Sigh ... more social networking morons by Cherubim1 · · Score: 1

    Just another moron, or should I say "TWIT", on Twitter. It really is a haven for clueless idiots and imbeciles.

  138. Send him to Guantanamo for torture! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kid ought to be sent to Guantanamo for torture, that'll teach him to know it and let down his own dad!

  139. Damn, I must be old... by alexo · · Score: 1

    you can quickly prove your innocence [...]

    In my days, it was the other way around.