UK Prosecutors Finally Acknowledge The Need For A Real Discussion About Free Speech Online
from the he-said-what??? dept
As Tim Cushing rightly noted earlier this week, the UK's "Free Speech" laws are more about the many things you can't say. As if to back up that view, in the last few days, there's been yet another case of somebody being arrested there for "an offensive Facebook page."
At this point, you might have written off the UK and its laws as a hopeless case, and made a mental note not to say anything rude if you ever go there. If so, you would probably assume that a new statement about social media prosecutions in a post from the UK's Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), on the official blog of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), is just more of the same. Amazingly, it's not.
It relates to yet another, earlier, case where "a homophobic message" was posted to Twitter. Surprisingly, perhaps, given the UK's track record here, the authorities decided not to prosecute the person involved. The new blog post explains this decision, offering a series of eminently sensible reasons why it would have been inappropriate in the circumstances:
This was, in essence, a one-off offensive Twitter message, intended for family and friends, which made its way into the public domain. It was not intended to reach Mr Daley or Mr Waterfield [the subjects of the message], it was not part of a campaign, it was not intended to incite others and Mr Thomas [the sender] removed it reasonably swiftly and has expressed remorse.
Not content with this unexpected outbreak of good sense, the UK's DPP goes on to make some general observations that are equally notable:
This case is one of a growing number involving the use of social media that the CPS has had to consider. There are likely to be many more. The recent increase in the use of social media has been profound. It is estimated that on Twitter alone there are 340 million messages sent daily. And the context in which this interactive social media dialogue takes place is quite different to the context in which other communications take place. Access to social media is ubiquitous and instantaneous. Banter, jokes and offensive comment are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions.
Well, indeed. And thus:
To ensure that CPS decision-making in these difficult cases is clear and consistent, I intend to issue guidelines on social media cases for prosecutors. These will assist them in deciding whether criminal charges should be brought in the cases that arise for their consideration. In the first instance, the CPS will draft interim guidelines. There will then be a wide public consultation before final guidelines are published. As part of that process, I intend to hold a series of roundtable meetings with campaigners, media lawyers, academics, social media experts and law enforcement bodies to ensure that the guidelines are as fully informed as possible.
He concludes with words that echo what many people in the UK have been thinking for last few years:
In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media.
Pity it hasn't happened sooner, but better late then never....
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, social media, uk
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Complete
I noticed he wants to talk about the "boundaries of free speech." Freedom doesn't recognize boundaries.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Complete
Well that's nice. So what are you going to do about that, Mister DPP? Have a public consultation? Invite interested parties to discussion groups? Open up some sort of forum for comments? Apparently not.
Of course, he's completely wrong. The time for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media was quite a few years ago. And we had it. Without him. Not just debating the issues over things like the Twitter Joke Trial, or "offensive" Facebook pages, but how free speech is impacted by laws on copyright, defamation, child abuse, contempt of court, the Olympics, privacy, terrorism, mass-surveillance, religious and political freedom, pornography, suicide... and that's just the stuff I remember dealing with over the last few months.
This is the DPP; the person responsible for all public prosecutions within the jurisdiction. He issues guidance on when to prosecute, he is one of the most powerful people in the country when it comes to abusive limitations on free speech (judges and lawyers can work to throw cases out, but the CPS and police are the ones able to destroy lives before it gets that far). He should be actually getting involved with debates, opening up discussions to the public, commissioning studies... all those things good, transparent government agencies are supposed to do. Not writing a blog post explaining why he has (inconsistently) decided not to bring this particular prosecution (perhaps due to the guy being popular/rich enough to afford good lawyers).
Calling for an informed debate that has already been going on for several years doesn't strike me as particularly "informed". Still, at least the CPS has finally noticed that there are some issues with free speech online, and some people might want to talk about it. Only a decade or so behind the rest of us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Complete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Complete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not defending him because he's a fucking scumbag to be talking shit like that but it's supposed to be his right to talk like that if he wants to.
Shitting on freedom like that is completely fucking absurd. If it was just non police I doubt he would have been in trouble.
I have news for you working for the law DOES NOT put you above it mother fuckers. Karma is a bitch so keep abusing it and it will come back to bite you in the ass someday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Above his pay grade
Establishing guidelines for prosecutors to follow may provide for greater consistency in enforcing the law, but it does little to instruct the people who are expected to follow it on what exactly the law is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tweets and the UK Crown Prosecutors Office
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tweets and the UK Crown Prosecutors Office
Yet only a handful of prosecutions, it appears.
This DPP's sudden wish for a serious, principled debate and "...guidelines ... for prosecutors..." reminds us that every Briton has a Constitution-shaped hole (to paraphrase Pascal).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The right to "not be Offended" = win ?
failing that...
The right, "not to be Offended", should not exist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's so nice of them!
So they're not going to prosecute him because he removed a PRIVATE message and expressed remorse. Gee, I guess things are JUST FINE over there! >.>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boundaries
mlevi2538@gmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]