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.
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.
4 comments:
If someone like Marc Stevens had been involved in the trial, the case would have been thrown out after his questions to the judge; one needs to bear in mind (among various other factors) that an offence - the definition of which is defined by Common Law - must involve an injured party to be valid. No such injury was either inflicted nor received. Moreover, since the Communications Act of 2003 is a statute, it can only carry with it the weight of law with the consent of the governed. Without that consent it's a toothless dog. If the defendant hadn't yielded to jurisdiction in the first place, the case wouldn't have had any legs..
Hmm, I need to learn more of this common law business. I was just watching this video earlier today, which is interesting:
http://dearhmrc.blogspot.com/2010/11/councils-courts-and-conmen.html
Hey Trooper, Caedmon is 100% spot on. All of their so-called Acts are completely full of shite and can be thrown out if you dont give them jurisdiction. Common Law prevails every time.
have a look at this real beauty of an eye-opener. It's save you loads of time.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835#
Cheers DM, I'll check it out.
Post a Comment