[R1king]

sometimes, I feel,people who use the internet a lot tend to extend the internet forums into day to day life

If you get urg'd enough by someone online to hurt them offline that is quite sad

[sterofthemasteool]

Why should people be able to abuse online and not in person? That doesn't make sense. Some people think they can get away with it online and act like a complete **** when they wouldn't have the balls to do it in person. I completely agree that there should be a crack-down on it.

[excholza]

"In Britain, tweeting messages considered menacing, offensive or indecent can lead to prosecution."

John Milton is turning in his grave.

I'm getting the impression you're a bit of an idiot.

A death threat is an offence in America too, you muppet.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/

[womberte]

Can't they just close down Twitter so we can be rid of it altogether? God I hate Twitter.

[SarkisPioute]

Can't they just close down Twitter so we can be rid of it altogether? God I hate Twitter.

Like it or not, it's an important communications and marketing tool.

What exactly do you hate about it? Is it the concept, content, name?

[Injurnerona]

I love Twitter, problem is the same as anywhere else - there's always some **** trying to mess it up for others.

[valentinesdayyy]

Threats of violence aren't "free speech".......

ah I failed to read the full article where he said he was going to drown him,,,

still I doubt that msg was serious, sounds more like a troll post if anything.

[DavidQD]

ah I failed to read the full article where he said he was going to drown him,,,

still I doubt that msg was serious, sounds more like a troll post if anything.

Just read his tweets instead of guessing.

[Scukonahuy]

I'm getting the impression you're a bit of an idiot.

A death threat is an offence in America too, you muppet.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/

It is also an offense to threaten to burn, destroy or damage property or threaten to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that belongs to a person.

Yep, good old USA and their free speech and us poor Brits who aren't allowed to say anything.

So threatening to kill someone's pet bird is a crime in the USA yet Americans on here continually bang on about their right to free speech.

Quality.

[Saqwnht]

So threatening to kill someone's pet bird is a crime in the USA yet Americans on here continually bang on about their right to free speech.
[/COLOR]

You'd have to be a bit simple to think that the right to free speech includes the right to threaten someone.

[SappyAppy]

You'd have to be a bit simple to think that the right to free speech includes the right to threaten someone.

The distinction comes down to expressing an intent, Vs expressing an opinion, I believe. Not overly complicated, you could even tweet it without leaving anything out.

[Sheelldaw]

The distinction comes down to expressing an intent, Vs expressing an opinion, I believe. Not overly complicated, you could even tweet it without leaving anything out.

So "I would like it if someone drowned him" is fine, but not "I will drown you" (which was what was tweeted). Also, surely if he did get drowned after someone suggested it that would also be a crime of inciting violence?

[HonjUopu]

So "I would like it if someone drowned him" is fine, but not "I will drown you" (which was what was tweeted). Also, surely if he did get drowned after someone suggested it that would also be a crime of inciting violence?

Maybe the distinction is more complicated... I might need two tweets. Incitement is a tricky definition, because it's really an urging of something rather than something passive - it's almost an incentive. I am not sure how British law defines it specifically and can't be bothered to look it up.

I think your second example sentence would fall under that, even if no one actually carried it out, because it would be an enticement for anyone who wanted to please you and shared your thoughts. But if he was going swimming in the Bahamas, or something, and you tweeted "if he drowns out there, I won't be too sorry", that shouldn't fall under incitement and doesn't suggest any intent for yourself or others.

[ThekvandoVideo]

Maybe the distinction is more complicated... I might need two tweets. Incitement is a tricky definition, because it's really an urging of something rather than something passive - it's almost an incentive. I am not sure how British law defines it specifically and can't be bothered to look it up.

I think your second example sentence would fall under that, even if no one actually carried it out, because it would be an enticement for anyone who wanted to please you and shared your thoughts. But if he was going swimming in the Bahamas, or something, and you tweeted "if he drowns out there, I won't be too sorry", that shouldn't fall under incitement and doesn't suggest any intent for yourself or others.

All true, the point is (for me, at least) that this teenager tweeted Daley saying he was going to find him and drown him, and like the uninformed oaf that he is, sparafucil seems to think that is OK to say due to the rights to free speech.

[SarSerceSaice]

I'm getting the impression you're a bit of an idiot.

A death threat is an offence in America too, you muppet.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-threat/

Let's try this again:

"In Britain, tweeting messages considered menacing, offensive or indecent can lead to prosecution."

Now try reading that again slowly without mouthing the words. Not only is death threats an offense in Britain, so is tweeting anything that can be construed as menacing or offensive apparently. I'm surprised your government lets you breathe without its permission.

[toyboy]

Let's try this again:

"In Britain, tweeting messages considered menacing, offensive or indecent can lead to prosecution."

Now try reading that again slowly without mouthing the words. Not only is death threats an offense in Britain, so is tweeting anything that can be construed as menacing or offensive apparently. I'm surprised your government lets you breathe without its permission.

What is wrong with you?

http://www.ehow.com/how_5061920_hand...l-threats.html

I can't believe "Mr I'm so intelligent and educated" is actually such a dumbarse!

You can't threaten (menace) people in many countries and get away with it!

You're also taking the law far too literally.

[SantaGanstag]

eHow DM, seriously?

[accotMask17]

What is wrong with you?

http://www.ehow.com/how_5061920_hand...l-threats.html

I can't believe "Mr I'm so intelligent and educated" is actually such a dumbarse!

You can't threaten (menace) people in many countries and get away with it!

You're also taking the law far too literally.

Now try reading that again slowly without mouthing the words. Not only is death threats an offense in Britain, so is tweeting anything that can be construed as menacing or offensive apparently. I'm surprised your government lets you breathe without its permission.

[qQVXpYM6]

Now try reading that again slowly without mouthing the words. Not only is death threats an offense in Britain, so is tweeting anything that can be construed as menacing or offensive apparently. I'm surprised your government lets you breathe without its permission.

Try a) understanding that the law isn't meant to be interpreted literally, and b) reading your own ****ing law.

--- Post Update ---

eHow DM, seriously?

It's not the best source, but it has the law on it.

[glasscollector]

Try a) understanding that the law isn't meant to be interpreted literally, and b) reading your own ****ing law.
.

A) Laws are written to be taken literally. B) Show me where in your authoritative e-how link it says sending offensive or menacing tweets is illegal.