Law in Action on social media prosecutions

16 October 2012 by

A short post to say that I was interviewed by Joshua Rozenberg for today’s Law in Action programme on BBC Radio 4. I was debating, with Nadine Dorries MP, a recent series of criminal prosecution (see my post from last week) brought against social media users. The debate centred on the implications for freedom of speech as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The full programme can be listened to here (UK only, I think) – the social media section is from around 20 minutes in. You may have guessed from my post as well as this interview that I think the current state of the law under the Communications Act 2003 is causing very significant problems for freedom of expression.

Relatedly, I am chairing an interesting panel debate tomorrow (Wednesday) evening on this very topic. I understand the event is full but you can submit questions ahead of the event to or follow for live tweets @HumanRightsLawA ; #lawandtwittering

Enjoy the show, and be careful what you tweet.

Sign up to free human rights update s by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

 

 

4 comments


  1. Great to hear. This viewpoint is very important, and I personally feel that prosecutions over social media cases are a breach against our freedom. Thank you!

    Tom
    Social Media Agency

  2. Joe Wills says:

    Thank you Adam, I wholeheartedly concur with your critique of this unnecessary and anachronistic offence. It is pleasing to learn that opinion at the CPS public consultation seems to be coalescing around the belief that prosecutions should usually only be brought in cases that involve on-line campaigns targeting individuals in such a way that they are placed under fear or distress. Causing offence, or even gross offence, is surely not a serious enough wrong to argue that it is ‘necessary in a democratic society’ to interfere with freedom of expression by criminalising such conduct? Imposing a criminal sentence on individuals – and often rather young individuals it should be noted – is not a proportionate response to the causing gross offence (and to whom it must be asked?). The potentially devastating effects of ‘cyber-bullying’ are sadly becoming known to the public. The tragic recent case of the 15 year old girl from Vancouver being driven to suicide after a protracted online campaign of harassment and blackmail underscores this point. But as you pointed out, these types of conduct could be dealt with under the Protection from Harassment Act and other legislation that outlaws hate speech and threats of various kinds.

    A second point should be made here about the recent prosecutions of Matthew Woods and Azhar Ahmed. Even if could be argued that their prosecutions were ‘necessary in a democratic society’ (which I doubt) it must be questioned whether the interferences with their rights to freedom of expression were ‘prescribed by law’. As evidenced by the CPS public consultation there is clearly much uncertainty as to what the scope of the s127 offence actually is. It must be asked: if not even the prosecution authorities are clear about the contours of the offence, how are members of the general public supposed to be? There appears to be a strong prima facie argument that these prosecutions were inconsistent with the Rule of Law and that they amounted to infringements of the defendants’ rights under article 10 of the ECHR.

  3. David Williamson says:

    It’s good to know that you were interviewed by Joshua Rozenberg in Law in Action program. I listen to the whole program and learn a lot of things. Thanks for another great post.

  4. Stephen says:

    I am glad cyber stalking / harassment, where damage to another person is forseeable, was distinguished from other postings which, although they may be unpleasant (even “grossly offensive”), are not forseeably DAMAGING to another person. I think damage must be a key element to resolving the free speech puzzle presented by the new technology.

    A “grossly offensive” tweet or posting may be distressing to some or many but will usually not be forseeably damaging, even if it was intended to be offensive. Individuals and groups who are offended by jokes in poor taste, or by robust political and religious views, should just “man up” or avoid postings which are likely to cause them offence. Much humour depends on shock value and saying the un-sayable and surely it must be wrong to criminalise it..

    Nadine Dorries did not entirely seem to grasp the issue when she implied that prosecutions should proceed based upon a subjective test of whether a complainant had been distressed by a posting.

    NO, Nadine! Prosecution should proceed only in cases where DAMAGE to another person is forseeable.

    I would hope that the damage test would be age sensitive so that special consideration would be given to children and teenagers who are being cyber bullied. Intervention in these cases should be swift and certain. The CPS and the police would be better employed allocating scarce resources to that type of case rather than prosecuting Chambers, Woods, et al

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: