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.

83 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 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)

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

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

      You're probably just too stupid to understand them.

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

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

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

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

      This is how we roll on Airstrip One.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. 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...)

    16. 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.
    17. 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.

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

      No, it says needlessly annoyed and you needed it.

    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    21. 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?"
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.

    25. 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.
    26. 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 ).

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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.

    30. 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...
    31. 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
    32. 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?

    33. 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!
    34. 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.

    35. 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.
    36. 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.
    37. 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

    38. 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?
  2. Think of the Children(tm) by vezepo · · Score: 2

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

  3. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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!
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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'?
  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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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 azalin · · Score: 2

      Well in that case, set an example and protect the queens english!

  14. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    *stupidest

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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 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...

  18. 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.

  19. 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
  20. 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

  21. 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?

  22. 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
  23. 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.