"These interim guidelines are intended to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the need to uphold the criminal law.
"They make a clear distinction between communications which amount to credible threats of violence, a targeted campaign of harassment against an individual or which breach court orders on the one hand, and other communications sent by social media, e.g. those that are grossly offensive, on the other.
"The first group will be prosecuted robustly whereas the second group will only be prosecuted if they cross a high threshold; a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest if the communication is swiftly removed, blocked, not intended for a wide audience or not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.
"The interim guidelines thus protect the individual from threats or targeted harassment while protecting the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it."
It seems to me that the actions of both Woodhouse and the original troll would fall within the scope of these guidelines, leaving both liable for prosecution. No-one is saying that the troll's actions are justified, acceptable or anything of the sort, even vile people have the right to be protected from violent threats.
« Older How Americans live today. A video report describi... | cloud-to-butt is an open-sourc... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt