...no menacing tweets to be directed at the accused then?
Can we still send harmless abuse at them? Simple ones proclaiming them to be idiots?
Two people have been charged with allegedly sending "menacing" tweets to a feminist campaigner. John Nimmo, 25, of Moreland Road, South Shields and Isabella Sorley, 23, of Akinside House, Akinside Hill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne will both appear at Westminster Magistrates Court on 7 January, Scotland Yard said. The two were charged …
...no menacing tweets to be directed at the accused then?
Can we still send harmless abuse at them? Simple ones proclaiming them to be idiots?
That is my understanding - the clue is in "menacing"
That would be fine, e.g. "That was a rather stupid thing to do, I think you may have a little idiot DNA in your blood" would probably be fine whereas "When I find you, I'm going to a**rape you, put a bullet in your head and bury you in a field" may not be looked on quite as favourably, and in all likelihood will have you in the dock shortly after them.
What is menacing to one person is the truth to another, it won't be long before you will get arrested for hurting someone's feelings.
So much for free speech.
So you think that texting I'm going to rape and kill you 50 times in one our is not menacing? you think that telling a person I'm going to rape and kill you over 50 times in one hour is not worth of the plod to investigate ? Or should ` they wait till she is dead before some action is taken? Some one tells me they are going to rape and kill me 50 times in one hour damn right I want the police involved. I don't want to be the one to figure out if these people are serious or not. I want the cops to arrest them. Seriously if some tweeted you 50 one hour saying that they want to rape and kill you, leave your body in field, you should be worried. If not I wounder about you.
"Some one tells me they are going to rape and kill me 50 times in one hour damn right I want the police involved."
Well, first off, they can only kill you once unless they have a defibrillator and some of that stuff they stab people in the chest with in the last 5 minutes of medical dramas. And as far as the raping goes, well, 50 times in an hour - let's just say that they're probably exaggerating their prowess, if you know what I mean.
You could send them to their street address, publicized in the article.
Which is creepier, being followed and liked on SNS, or being told you are being followed & liked via surface mail?
"So much for free speech."
Your free speech ends where it harms others. Hurting someone's feelings or offending them is very different to being menacing/threatening. Same would be said about someone shouting bomb in a movie theatre.
The law has been clear about this for a long time, regardless of means. If you threaten someone in person you're committing an offence too.
Remember a time when it was though the web would be a lawless place? Sooner or later people are going to realise that the stuff they do on line has consequences (and the law for things like libel or incitement work just fine on-line, no need for a separate ‘on a mobile device’ bit of paper). Sure, if you’re savvy enough you can make it very difficult but it seems obvious that the people sending the tweets here don’t have that.
One thing that wasn't mentioned in the article is apparently one of the victims only heard about the arrests from the media rather than the police.
It seems that lots of modern legislation only applies to electronic communication. So send your menacing messages by Royal Mail in future.
I remember a time when the web WAS pretty much a lawless place, and idiots abusing others was dealt with by administrators banning them..
But unfortunately with the advent of twitter, the world is just full of Twits...
Bring back the banhammer.;
There was such a time, but then came eternal September...
"So send your menacing messages by Royal Mail in future."
I think there is legislation already in place to cover this - since about 1800
'Criado-Perez said she had "stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women"'
She just assumed it would be men - now it turns out one of the accused is a woman. Will a retraction be forthcoming?
As a man I find her comment that it's all men sending her abuse to be discriminatory. Can I press charges for that?
Well, to be fair, she said the nest of men co-ordinated the attacks. Doesn't mean that there weren't women among those actually doing the attacking (as indeed there were).
No, because you're not being threatened by her.
That's interesting, Since when did "nest" become the collective name for men?
Or is it the collective name only for the rapey ones?
If it's freely available, I might start to use it in conversation: "Coming down the pub? There'll be a nest of us down there". Or "just popping out with the nest".
Its ok for women to be sexist. In that case it is socially and politically acceptable. Actually, today the only stereotype that is acceptable, is for that of the lampooned white male.
It is important to remember that feminists dont rely on facts to prove their point, just emotions and shouts of misogyny.
Let's not forget that feminist scientific research is based on "a feeling". Yes, I do have that from a very senior Canadian university feminist research scientist (or is that "trick cyclist"?), who said it under oath in open court.
I think the collective term for men is "barfull".
These people aren't in trouble because they're sexist, they're in trouble because they were "menacing". You can be menacing without being sexist, and that will still get you in trouble; you can be sexist without being menacing, and that won't, at least not with the plod.
'I think the collective term for men is "barfull".'
Good suggestion. However, in this case the word "basket" could also be used, given that men who send threats to people campaigning for an image of a famous female author to be put on a banknote, should be treated as basket cases. If people make serious threats of violence in any media (or indeed verbally). simply because they disagree with them, prosecution should certainly be considered.
@ Michael H.F. Wilkinson
"However, in this case the word "basket" could also be used, given that men who send threats to people campaigning for an image of a famous female author to be put on a banknote, should be treated as basket cases."
What about the women involved in sending threats? What should we call them? Should they be treated differently or exempt from this rant? Man or woman such threatening behaviour should be dealt with by law. And they should be branded the same and labelled the same for the sake of equality
or do you post tweets? Just wondering about the correct verbage for future reference.
You could send a tweet to someone or post a tweet on twitter
I would suggest neither. I was always under the impression that you simply "tweet".
John tweeted Sally.
Sally re-tweeted John's tweet to Jane.
Jane got upset at the tweet and decided to tweet John directly.
[All sounds just a bit cuckoo really]
I think some more interesting verb conjugations are needed. I would suggest:
"Sally normally tweets once a day",
"John twit Sally yesterday",
"He twote about something completely mundane",
"Has she twat him back yet?"
"No, she hasn't twotten anything all day"
"Oh. He probably should have Skyppen her instead."
"Yes, I Skope Sally last week - we Skap for half an hour"... etc.
You suffer tweets.
"it would not be in the public interest to prosecute...having particular regard to the young age and personal circumstances of the suspect"
Don't we have youth courts to deal with young offenders? Why do "personal circumstances" allow you to avoid prosecution? Surely they only come into consideration during sentencing? Or were the accused youth's parents rich and/or well connected?
I would be more accepting of the decision if the CPS said there was no point prosecuting because the threat wasn't credible. But it might be little comfort to the victim.
As I ready it they didn't avoid prosecution, they were "just" prosecuted for sending menacing messages, but the CPS chose not to prosecute them under section 127 of the Computer Misuse Act as well.
i.e. they were done for the less serious crime, due to their age/circumstances.
The Misuse of Computers Act isn't in play here. It's only the Communications Act 2003, which TFA helpfully linked to. To clarify, this is a verbatim extract of the Met press release:
<quote>“Isabella Sorley, 23, from Newcastle and John Nimmo, 25, from South Shields have both been charged with improper use of a communications network under Section 127 of the Communications Act.
“We have also determined there is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution in respect of one suspect, whom it was alleged also sent offensive messages to Ms Criado-Perez, and have advised the police that no further action should be taken as the high threshold for prosecution has not been met.
“In respect of one other suspect, who allegedly sent offensive messages to Stella Creasy MP, we determined that although there was sufficient evidence that an offence had been committed under Section 127 of the Communications Act, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute, having applied the Director’s guidelines and having particular regard to the young age and personal circumstances of the suspect.
“In relation to the fifth suspect, we have asked the police carry out further investigation before a charging decision can be made.”
I may be reading this wrong, but I think the CPS are saying that the suspect is at least partially "educationally challenged" (or whatever the current euphemism is.)
but menacing tweets threatening anyone is unacceptable. I do wonder if anyone will slap her down for her prejudice against men though saying- "stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women". There are good and bad people as well as good and bad groups. The unfortunate fact of equality is that both parties are as good and evil as the other.
Now it is down to the process of law. Hopefully without any 'ists' perverting the course of justice.
"stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women"
She knew it was men, as women just don't have that level of organisational skill </sacasm_for_the_hard_of_thinking>
Where does it say anywhere that Caroline Criado-Perez or Stella Creasy are feminists?
And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?
Or are you just assuming (not unreasonably) that they are likely to be feminists as they are intelligent campaigning women? And what is wrong with that? Why should that irritate you?
They are simply women just trying to be treated fairly by a male-dominated world.
Some feminists are irritating - like those who make comments like "Men are all closet rapists". Most have more sense, and don't make stupid generalizations. Perhaps you should try avoiding similar stupid generalizations.
In a similar vein (including Sarcasm):
"Women can be sexist too. It's just that men, as in most cases, are better at it."
"...Where does it say anywhere that Caroline Criado-Perez or Stella Creasy are feminists?"
Says it in the article. In the first frigging line.
"Two people have been charged with allegedly sending "menacing" tweets to a feminist campaigner."
So it appears men lack reading skills, too.
Two people have been charged with allegedly sending "menacing" tweets to a feminist campaigner..
Oops. Missed that. Sorry.
Doesn't invalidate my post, though.
"And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?"
Referring to a group as a nest of men, especially since she appears to be wrong and there be women involved. But the comment does seem to suggest prejudice that it must be that horrible group (men). However I do get irritated at anyone calling themselves feminists just because feminist is the fight for better rights for women (equal or better than for men) and a complete disregard for equality. Kinda like when a religious person claims they need religion to be 'good'. Funny how the collective group (or nest if you like) demand better treatment for just their group.
"They are simply women just trying to be treated fairly by a male-dominated world."
In which third world country are they? There is still inequality and there is still sexism but from all and both sides, yet in the name of feminism we have acts of sexism and discrimination which are acceptable.
"Some feminists are irritating - like those who make comments like "Men are all closet rapists". Most have more sense, and don't make stupid generalizations. Perhaps you should try avoiding similar stupid generalizations."
I hope you reread that comment. You complain at me generalising (associating themselves under a banner I disagree with) yet generalise that most have more sense than irritating feminists. I cant really answer that but I did find it funny.
Equality should be for all. Equal opportunity, equal to make our choices and not making the situation us and them. That goes far beyond just women. And back to the point that nobody (even feminists) should suffer such threats as she did. Lets hope the law does right
It says LITERALLY IN THE FIRST SENTENCE that Criado-Perez is a "Feminist Campaigner", so it would stand to reason (if you can accomplish that) that she is indeed a feminist.
Basing my opinion on what feminists have done to "irritate me based solely on this article" not a whole hell of a lot. But once again, your prove how asinine you are but wanting to make it just about THIS article. Feminists enjoy shouting down other people, and self victimizing themselves in the face of this so called patriarchy. The simply fact is that many are over privileged white women who really dont have much to complain about. The average feminists does a poor job expounding exactly why she is a feminist when you take away her favorite lines crying about misogyny and so forth. The simple fact is, women have the same rights as men, and can do anything a man can.
Sexism goes both ways, and there is a reason why there are gender stereotypes. Women want to emasculate men, and I for one am proud to be a man. Since I am proud to be a man I am daily told I should be castrated, or killed or some other random threat. It is just the internet, therefore it doesnt bother me, but this is just showing its a two way street.
Criado-Perez is a nobrain fuckwit who hopefully will fade out of the medias attention, because that is her ultimate goal. If she wanted to contribute to the world, maybe she could go help people in Africa or what not.
Sidenote: Thank god I live in the US were we dont have laws like this yet.
I think you'll find its the nest of men comment that got us a little annoyed, particularly when it turned out a female was allegedly involved in the attack on her. Perhaps she shouldn't assume men are always responsible for this stuff.
"The simple fact is, women have the same rights as men, and can do anything a man can."
A rather simple world-view there.
You appear to have missed wanking with pineapple rings and leaving town without their husband's permission in the Gulf States.
The man from Del Monte says "Yes! Yes!! Ohhh God YES!!!"
Maybe, but calling her names is not the same a saying you're going to ride her bicycle until the tyres go flat.
if you really believe the world is male dominated then you have a problem, different areas are dominated by different genders, try being a bloke in HR, or on th eother hand a girl in the stock market.
i have a real dificulty in the idea that equal means the same. men and woman are different but should be valued as people the same. th elaw seems to thing that we are all the same.
need to agree on this as a "nest of" is normally used with vipers, and the assoiation is that men are the same as vipers, just a choice of emotice language