Police In Scotland Tweet Out Plans To 'Investigate' Any 'Offensive Comments' On Social Media
from the really-guys? dept
So we just had a story about a 19-year-old guy being arrested for making a (bad) joke tweet about an out of control garbage truck. The Northumbria police who arrested Ross Loraine are insisting that the bad joke was a "malicious communication" under The Communications Act. Many people have been calling out this rather ridiculous attack on free speech, but police in Scotland seem to be doubling down. They just sent out the following tweet:Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated.In other words: "fuck free speech -- if you say something we deem offensive, we can arrest you." So far, nearly all of the reply tweets seem to be mocking the police. Here are just a few examples:
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, malicious communication, offensive comments, police, ross loraine, scotland
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Don't you have something more important to be doing?'
'the crime rate must be incredibly low north of the border if all you guys have to worry about is 'offensive' comments here.' -PaulStott
If the police are able to spend time and manpower on monitoring social media sites for 'offensive' speech, then clearly that means that all other crimes in that area have got to be non-existent, right?
No assaults, robberies, domestic disturbances, public disturbances, car crashes or people speeding, nope, all of that has apparently disappeared in that area, and the police are now free to spend their time 'policing' social media for 'offensive' posts.
Well that or they're admitting to being completely incompetent and terrible at their jobs, prioritizing protecting people's delicate feelings over their lives and property. It's one of the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Don't you have something more important to be doing?'
And in either case it's time for some major layoffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck
Fuck.
Wow. That made me feel like an adult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fuck
Those that claim that 'freedom of speech' should only be used to protect speech that they agree with are showing either a stunning lack of historical knowledge, or incredible arrogance, in assuming that their views and values could never be seen as 'offensive', and in need of protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fuck
In the US. I don't know about Scotland. But here in the US, I find is genuinely distressing that what you say -- which used to be something that was uncontroversial and widely accepted -- is something that fewer and fewer people understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fuck
Perhaps you meant to say instead that here in the US (some of us) still believe in the Freedom of Speech while Scotland does not. And I agree, far too few Americans can even fundamentally understand what freedom of speech is at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fuck
That's a viewpoint that is shared with a number of cultures (and which I personally agree with), but the purpose of things like that is determined by culture in the end, and no single culture is universal. I didn't want to make assumptions about Scotland since I know very little about Scottish cultural values.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fuck
You have no idea how many times I've tried to explain that idea - using almost the exact same words. . .
I'm sure you can, however, guess how many times understanding escaped them. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fuck
All well and good. The only problem comes when someone tries to censor, block, prosecute or otherwise hinder the speech of another because they didn't like it. Hopefully, the Scottish police will understand that people telling them to fuck off is merely a free country in action, not something they will try to remove peoples' right for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuck
, give them time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opportunity
I wonder if they share their popcorn, or does each officer have to bring his own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The UK really hates freedom, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tor and Tails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhh...?
Any more late contenders for the UK's Officious Cretins of the Year Award? Just one more day to get your entries in, guys...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@15
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which branch of the government?
You all are too quick to jump on the bandwagon. You are part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which branch of the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
Jury Nullification.
As Citizens we should be ready and willing to sit as a Juror to prevent the corruption of the law.
If the American Citizens started acquitting every person indicted by the Federal Government we could grind their Tyrannic BS to a flapping halt.
How many of you knew you had this power?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
Most people either don't know about it, for reasons that should be obvious after reading this next bit, or, if they slip up and admit that they do, they'll be struck from the jury pool.
Judges and prosecutors really don't like the idea that the jury has the power to go over their heads like that(they tend not to be the biggest fans of that whole 'trial by your peers' thing), so they do their best to make sure it never happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
Yes, there is a serious problem with education and America, but this failure is not accidental. It is very intentional, because of the very reason you mentioned... they don't like it when a juror knows they can go over their head. They definitely do their best, including outright lying to the jury, to prevent that from happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
That's why nullification is something that is verboten to bring up by any attorneys/solicitors and is contemptuous (or made out to be) if it is.
As for lying if they ask you if you know about nullification.. Yes its quite ok to lie in that regard since nullification has no relevance in voir dire and again since it is a legal ability you cannot be found contemptuous for lying about whether you know it or not.
Whether nullification is correct or not in every situation, or whether the jury should consider it except in very exigent circumstances is another discussion altogether though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
ANY control from Empire in the judicial realm...
2. DOES NOT matter if jury nullification is 'correct' or 'right' all, most or some of the time; JUST LIKE it does not 'matter' whether 'normal' judge/jury decisions are 'right'...
they are BOTH (or should be) valid means of reaching verdicts, whether the verdict is 100% metaphysically 'correct' or not, is another matter... (thus, appeals courts)
it is the FACT that we SHOULD (as jurists) have the RIGHT to both reject bad laws, and make new precedents based on WE THE PEOPLE's verdict...
of course, as that one and others have commented, that is depending upon an open, honest, and progressive district attorney's office recognizing and honoring that right, which they do not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
And once again, you ignore the culprits who wrote the bad laws, attacking the other branch of the governt we charge with obeying them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which branch of the government?
Right, because there's certainly nothing wrong with locking up people over bad laws for the years it would take to get those laws changed (if that ever happens).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
And no, I don't think it would take long to correct the law, if the true consequences were to unfold. Especially if politicians were targeted.
In a modern western government the three branches aren't meant to fully cooperate. They are meant to collide head to head on key topics, in order to create the checks and balances we always talk about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
What solution? I saw him point out a problem with enforcing bad laws, I didn't see him propose any solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
Not that my solution works either, since it depends on the police being clean in order to force the law makers to be clean. But that was the original intent of splitting the government, to force the corruptions in one branch to collide directly with the interests of the other branches. The executive branch should be MORE police like, not less. And the legislature should write laws with that in mind. And you the voters should be voting that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
Because that's the only possible solution other than yours, or did he say that somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grovel you dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: grovel you dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like people find this tweet offensive. I think the Scotland Police should investigate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to wonder if they think only people in Scotland can see their tweets. And right after The Interview media storm about free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obey or die, love corrupt police institutions everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is Scotland?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where is Scotland?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@policescotland in the same vein as Arkell v. Pressdram (1971): FUCK OFF! now go investigate that you narcissistic twats
https://twitter.com/alpharia/status/550159164706533376
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid police gangsters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech abolished
Brought in allegedly to deal with rival football (soccer) fans saying nasty things about each other, its scope is so broad and the wording so vague that it is a de facto abolishion of free speech / free expression.
It also claims to apply to anyone attending a football match outside Scotland if they happen to live in Scotland most of the time, and to any communications sent from outwith Scotland if they are read / received by a person in Scotland.
As of yet, it has not been challenged in the ECHR, where it would likely be torn a new poop chute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech abolished
"if you say something we deem offensive, we can arrest you"
That is EXACTLY what the aforementioned legislation allows. A person can make a complaint, but it is entirely down to the police to deem whether it is offensive (the Act does not define what is offensive and what isn't), and therefore whether to arrest and subsequently seek prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paedo police
http://www.moneyteachers.org/Braveheart.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually gets worse
A TV pundit made some crude Tweets about Scotland in the wake of an ebola case in Glasgow.
Det Insp Glyn Roberts, of Police Scotland said:
"Police Scotland will thoroughly investigate any reports of offensive or criminal behaviour online and anyone found to be responsible will be robustly dealt with."
I can't stress how angry this makes me. As someone already posted above being offensive is not illegal. Hell this guy even acknowledges that in his comment as he differentiates between ofensive and criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If your masters deem something you say as something your masters demand as inapropriate, your lives value will be reduced to 0, so say your masters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Varke Skotland
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Varke Skotland
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do not fuck with us, the kettle will whistle!!!
So this is a message to the british establishment and the little beta test you have going up there in Scotland. Should you find a sudden urge to implement this south of the border, resulting in my arrest, resulting in a lost job due to cautions on my crb, then you will find me at the centre of the info war with you. Do not fuck with us on this, I promise you a shit storm in return, be warned!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scotland Yard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scotland Yard
Different police force. Different laws (to some extent).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech
From what little I know of Scots, it seems they would not react well to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police and commmon sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]