NEW Debate (!) - Online "Hate" Crimes

[ExeterCityLad]

OK. Please read this post.

(i) the individuals that recorded and published the video were at home and had no reason to believe anyone would see the video outside of their own home (clearly not the case for a public video with modern technology)

'Public video'


HEAD. WALL. BANGING.


I'm going to start ripping my hair out in a minute I swear to God.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

Tezza, let's just wait until the charges are dropped. This is pointless. Time will tell who is right/wrong.

 

[elginCity]

Interesting re my previous public interest comment that the CPS guidelines here talk about whether the motivation behind the communication was discriminatory. Presumably the police will have to decide whether they truly do believe this was in some way motivated by race..

Interesting indeed, especially paras 54 & 55. <snip> "...a reference within the communication to a recent tragic event, involving many deaths of persons..." = Grossly offensive.

If they can't nail them with the Public Order Act, then the Communications Act 2003 section 127 should suffice.

"Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network. "

Bang to rights !

 

[Hermann]

Interesting indeed, especially paras 54 & 55. <snip> "...a reference within the communication to a recent tragic event, involving many deaths of persons..." = Grossly offensive.

If they can't nail them with the Public Order Act, then the Communications Act 2003 section 127 should suffice.

"Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network. "

Bang to rights !

Before the Lad steps in, the key word there is public. Whatsapp isn't a public network. The person who shared it from the whatsapp group might have a case to answer under this though.

 

[elginCity]

Before the Lad steps in, the key word there is public. Whatsapp isn't a public network. The person who shared it from the whatsapp group might have a case to answer under this though.

Whatsapp is a public network, the group was private. Still wondering which of the two sharers, or is it both, would be culpable ?

 

[ExeterCityLad]

Whatsapp is a public network, the group was private. Still wondering which of the two sharers, or is it both, would be culpable ?

Neither is the correct answer.

 

[Hermann]

Whatsapp is a public network, the group was private. Still wondering which of the two sharers, or is it both, would be culpable ?

Whatsapp is publically available, but I don't think it would count as a public network. You have to have someone's number, so in a sense it's no different from sharing something by text. Unlike facebook/twitter where by default anyone in the world can see it (obviously there are settings to prevent this). I could be wrong though, that's just the way I see it.

I maintain though that whoever shared it to a public network from whatsapp would be guilty under the comms act though. That is specifically about sharing offensive material, not creation.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

Whatsapp is publically available, but I don't think it would count as a public network. You have to have someone's number, so in a sense it's no different from sharing something by text. Unlike facebook/twitter where by default anyone in the world can see it (obviously there are settings to prevent this). I could be wrong though, that's just the way I see it.

I maintain though that whoever shared it to a public network from whatsapp would be guilty under the comms act though. That is specifically about sharing offensive material, not creation.

Of course they wouldn't. This would mean every news outlet that also published the video when reporting the story is also culpable.

 

[Hermann]

Of course they wouldn't. This would mean every news outlet that also published the video when reporting the story is also culpable.

No they wouldn't. Whoever first put it into the public domain is theoretically culpable. Don't get me wrong, they won't be prosecuted - unless they are one of the group who was involved in the creation, but if so it's being treated as a public order offence rather than under the communications act.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

No they wouldn't. Whoever first put it into the public domain is theoretically culpable. Don't get me wrong, they won't be prosecuted - unless they are one of the group who was involved in the creation, but if so it's being treated as a public order offence rather than under the communications act.

It's being treated as neither. The police are still desperately searching for something which they can charge them under - The police aren't as intelligent as our Terry unfortunately, so haven't realised there is sufficient grounds to charge them under the public order act.