Margarida S

Oh, I forgot to add celery sticks to the list!  Man, I hate celery sticks.

The UK has a Twitter problem that we may think only affects countries far away. It has been said that Turkey has a Twitter problem: as we watch the protests unfold in Istanbul and Ankara, protesters take to Twitter to relay in real-time the police brutality and and the situation on the ground before it gets to the main media. According to the Global Post, Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan called social media "a menace to society", and the police have "raided [...] dozens of addresses" to arrest those posting photos of protests onto Twitter.

It may seem disproportionate to lead into a discussion of Twitter-related arrests in the UK by introducing the case of a Turkey in turmoil, however, to this accusation I have two retorts:

1. Unlike Iran and Egypt, Turkey is seeking membership of the European Union, and discussions of its accession are ongoing. Turkey is "closer to home" than some might initially think.

2. Whilst plausibly not in the same scale or with the same political motivation and severity, Twitter-related arrests and subsequent sentencing in Britain are problematic, not as rare as they may seem, and should cause as much indignation as similar arrests abroad.

In Part I I had a look at the case of Ben Townsend, 25, of Cheltenham, who tweeted racist abuse at footballers Adebayo Akinfenwa and Clarke Carlisle. I had a look at the offending tweets and the responses they received, the sentence he was given, and a variety of relevant legislation.

One of the most important points I make, and which I will elaborate on below, is that "s127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to publish a grossly offensive message, thus allowing someone to be penalised for an action that is entirely (culturally, morally, personally) subjective". This is similar to the offense created by s1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988,  relevant in the case of Deyka Hassan (below), which states that

"any person who sends to another person

(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys — 

(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive [...]

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated."

Deyka Ayan Hassan, 21, of Harrow, contacted the police "after receiving hundreds of vitriolic responses to the message on May 22, including threats to rape her and kill her by burning down her home", but was herself arrested when she told police that she had sent a tweet saying: "Anyone who wears a help for heroes t-shirt deserves to get beheaded tbh" (tbh means "to be honest").


The response was similar to that which Ben Townsend received, as "the Internet" is quick to respond with threats of violence and abuse. Responses (pictured below) included a call for her to die; to be gang-raped with a handsaw; and a suggestion to commit suicide:



Deyka was sentenced to 250 hours unpaid community service but she was told that she could have been jailed for the offence had the magistrates not been convinced that she had not known the victim of the Woolwich attack had been a soldier.

There are several points in this case which should concern us:

1. Deyka's initial intention was to report messages of abuse directed against her person; she sought help from the police but was promptly arrested, with the messages of abuse against her being used as evidence of the impact of her own offence.  
2. Chairman of the bench Nigel Orton is quoted as having said: "It had a huge impact and clearly caused offence and distress. We accept you didn't intend to cause harm and you felt it was a joke. Your act was naive and foolish and without regard to the general public at a time of heightened sensitivity.", despite the Malicious Communications Act 1988 requiring (as quoted above) that the purpose of the message be to: "cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated". 
3. Deyka's tweet, although controversial, was a statement of opinion aimed at no-one in particular. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 requires states that the offence arises when "any person who sends to another person [...]", which seems to indicate again a rather liberal interpretation of the Act. 
4. Whilst Twitter and its 140 character limitation may make it difficult for tone and jocularity to be appropriately conveyed, it seems that the sentence is greatly disproportionate to the act, particularly when regarding the entirely subjective nature of the word "offense". Furthermore, offense does not require a legal definition as "indencent or grossly offensive" are ordinary English words (Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 All ER 1012).
5. It seems unthinkable that her knowledge of whether Lee Rigby was a soldier or not could be the difference between 250 hours of unpaid work and a jail sentence as this is not within the scope of the Act. And, if it were to be included in the Act, that in itself would be a point of great contention.

On #FreedomToOffend - Part I
Hashtags and Timelines: New Challenges for Legislators

---

mapgie.co.uk - Blog

An Australian photographer has succeeded in having her work reinstated to a prominent exhibit, after authorities initially pulled the graphic image of a baby seconds after birth for being “too confronting.”

Adelaide photographer Victoria Berekmeri specializes in documenting a child’s arrival into the world, from maternity through the first few weeks as a newborn.

That includes detailed photos of the child’s birth, such as her prize-winning entry in South Australian Professional Photography Awards:

The image was included in a display of the winners at the Adelaide-based National Wine Centre, until several visitors complained about it. The image was withdrawn without advance notice to Berekmeri, whose complaints on Facebook about censorship attracted widespread support from clients, fellow photographer and more.

The mother of the baby in the photo also started an online petition protesting the removal, chiding the Wine Centre for its “need to censor such a natural and beautiful moment in mine and my family’s life. ”

The protests worked, and the picture was rehung in a few days, albeit with a translucent cover and a warning sign:

“I understand people’s comments but at the end of the day, it’s a public venue and while some people find it a fabulous photograph, others find it a bit confronting,” Adrian Emeny, general manager of the Wine Centre, told Adelaide’s Herald Sun.

(via Herald Sun)

---

Image credit: Photograph by Victoria Berekmeri

In this video, krissychula explains how hot it is in much of the United States right now.

"I am not tropical. I am not a damn toucan. It should not be so hot that I am having dreams about being on fire."

About her air conditioner's coolness settings, she asks, "What the fuck do I need to put this bitch on, Power Ranger?"

(via Joe Sabia)