Teenager Arrested In England For Criticizing Olympic Athlete On Twitter

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Teenager Arrested In England For Criticizing Olympic Athlete On Twitter

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 31, 2012 @01:35AM from the arresting-jerks-on-the-internet-will-keep-police-busy dept.

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.

29 of 639 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-31 01:37 · 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 · 2012-07-31 01:41 · 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 · 2012-07-31 01:54 · 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.
3. Re:Wow... by Zemran · 2012-07-31 02:28 · 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.
4. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-31 02:36 · 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.
5. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-31 02:49 · 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.
6. Re:Wow... by Dunbal · 2012-07-31 02:54 · 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.
7. Re:Wow... by XxtraLarGe · 2012-07-31 03:21 · 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.
8. Re:Wow... by readin · 2012-07-31 03:43 · 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.
9. Re:Wow... by readin · 2012-07-31 03:46 · 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.
10. Re:Wow... by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-07-31 03:48 · 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"
11. Re:Wow... by sjames · 2012-07-31 04:33 · 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.
12. Re:Wow... by PRMan · 2012-07-31 05:12 · 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...
13. Re:Wow... by Gadget_Guy · 2012-07-31 05:30 · 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?
14. Re:Wow... by fa2k · 2012-07-31 06:53 · 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.
15. Re:Wow... by lgw · 2012-07-31 08:40 · 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.
16. Re:Wow... by ancienthart · 2012-07-31 18:11 · 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
Wait, what?? by PenquinCoder · 2012-07-31 01:38 · 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?
Of course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-31 01:39 · 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.
In days of yore, this was solved differently by StuartHankins · 2012-07-31 01:42 · 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 · 2012-07-31 01:53 · 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.
Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-31 01:44 · 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.
Lesson... by MojoRilla · 2012-07-31 01:58 · 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.
Re:Np such thing as free s[eech by JustNiz · 2012-07-31 02:00 · 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.
Hang down your head, Tom Daley by arth1 · 2012-07-31 02:12 · 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?
SLASHDOT EDITORS, DO YOUR JOB by gtirloni · 2012-07-31 02:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Check the facts, rewrite the posts that are CLEARLY trying to manipulate you and the readers.

--
none
Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. by hamburger+lady · 2012-07-31 02:21 · 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!
Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually by kiriath · 2012-07-31 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe they arrested him because of his usage of the word "your" instead of "You're".
Re:THE OLYMPICS ARE GAY by Cederic · 2012-07-31 03:35 · 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.