127 Improper use of public electronic communications networkSo there you have it - the usual bollocky of vague terminology. In the case of Paul Chambers, the wigs are sticking to their story that his message was 'menacing' - even though no one was actually 'menaced' by it. As for the tory councillor, maybe they'll fall back to causing Yasmin AB 'needless anxiety' or some such twaddle. I note there is no reference to 'a reasonable person' which is often used as a yardstick (and in the case of Yasmin would provide an escape hatch). I also note, regarding 2(a) above that this applies to about 95% of every politician ever says.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a
message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent,
obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance,
inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a
message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary
conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine
not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
Friday, 12 November 2010
I've been trying to find what the legislation involved in these twitter cases actually states, and I think I've tracked it down in the Communications Act of 2003.