Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Teenager Arrested In England For Criticizing Olympic Athlete On Twitter

Posted by Soulskill on 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.

10 of 639 comments (clear)

  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: 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 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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...
    7. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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".