You can’t say that

[ewx]

Someone on the radio, discussing Twitter abuse cases like this one, seemed to think that the thing that made a message illegal was being “menacing”. But the law is broader than that; from the Malicious Communications Act 1988:

(1) 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;

(ii) a threat; or

(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

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.

I think that makes quite a lot of online unpleasantness illegal, although you wouldn’t know it from the scanty levels of enforcement.

Comments

[lnr]

Which apparently means it's perfectly legal to send people non-grossly offensive stuff completely intended to distress them provide it's not indecent or threatening and you believe it to be true.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Apparently so. (Or at least, if it’s illegal, then it’s not this particular law that makes it so.)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

But wouldn't that include "Oh no! The ninjas found your address, they're coming there right now GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT!" That's non-offensive, non-threatening non-false and intended to cause distress, but is obviuously helpful and should be legal, if you read the law literally...?

[atreic.livejournal.com]

Interesting, isn't it? I was surprised - I always thought that, eg, evil teenage girls writing lies in letters to hurt each other was shitty, but I didn't really expect 'I saw your boyfriend with another girl ha ha ha' (if a lie) to be _illegal_ Also, does it make it illegal to write things down in private correspondance that it's legal to say? That would be Odd. Presumably there is lots of case law making it make more sense?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Isn’t it just the same view that people wouldn’t say in person things they say online (or in general: at a distance)? Which I think is true for many people much of the time, even if not universal. The simplistic version of this notion is that the speaker would get thumped for it, but it may also be that empathy actually does work better up close and personal.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

Saying things which are likely to result in violence is covered by the public order acts, which effectively make it illegal to swear near a policeman.

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

I don't know much about England¹, but in Scotland a 2001 Sheriff Court case Kinnaird v. Higson, is a modern instance in which the court held that the mere fact that bad language has been used towards a police officer does not, of itself, justify a conviction for breach of the peace (a broadly defined common law offence, as the various public order acts don't run in Scotland). There is now a substantial line of authority from this case.

1] Although I believe that in England&Wales, Nawrot and Shaler v DPP 1987 took a similar line, in the High Court.

[fanf]

Written conversation comes under the obscene publications act: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/03/text_talk_legal_status/

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I was also thinking of things like deliberately false news broadcasts: "MMR causes autism" is false and intended to cause distress. I think it's quite possible that SHOULD be illegal, but I'm surprised if it is. It's also quite possible the law is interpreted more narrowly than a literal reading would suggest: I massively disapprove of deliberately overbroad laws designed to see how much the legislature can get away with, but it's also common (I think?) to read sensible inferences in, like, a reasonable minimum standard for "distress", or how much of communication looks intended to be taken seriously, etc.

[gerald_duck]

Waaaaait a minute!

TV Licensing keeps sending me letters with "Action required immediately" stamped on the front. This is false, and there's probably a good argument they know or believe it to be false, given a significant percentage of the people they hassle (including me) have no television and therefore need take no action.

Their letters, including that marking on the outside are pretty clearly intended to cause distress or anxiety to people who don't have television licences.

Does that mean they're breaking the law? This sounds like an interesting new angle from which to approach their blight on society. (-8

(Actually, even if I can't argue that they know it's false, by my understanding all I have to do is tell them it's false that any action is immediately required of me, and it would then be a criminal offence for them ever to send me another anxiety-inducing letter printed with that lie?)

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

I have heard of cases where people have got so many wrong council tax demands that they successfully took out an injunction against the council..

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

That's one tack; but Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd 2009 is clear authority for criminal harassment (Protection From Harassment Act 1997) by a company pursuing non-existent debt. Interesting to speculate how that might impact TV Licencing's communications.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I look forward to finding out if you’re right l-)
(Do read the full statute, of course.)

[gerald_duck]

I wonder how this law pertains to online discussion forums, blogs, etc.

If, for example, I submit a comment on a Cambridge News article which is moderated, and Cambridge News accepts it, is it I who is sending it to the reader or Cambridge News? What if it's not moderated? Who is the intended reader of your LJ?

I'm assuming, as a further example, that I have a reasonable expectation that George W. Bush will never read anything I ever post on LJ…

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

Surely no-one actually reads the comments on the Cambridge News website?

[geekette8.livejournal.com]

They're useful to read when you're waiting to give blood and you want to speed up the donation...

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

Does this mean that indecent messages which are not offensive to the recipient are illegal?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Don’t forget the intent requirements. But prohibiting failed attempts at things which, had they succeeded, would be illegal, doesn’t seem particularly unreasonable to me.

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

ah, OK, I didn't read that last para properly. So long as the burden of proof of intent is on the prosecution...

[bjh21.livejournal.com]

Note that there was a different law used in the Chambers cases (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2157.html), namely section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/2003/21/section/127) (which was commenced by SI 2003/1900 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2003/1900)). This is where "menacing" comes from, and notably lacks the purpose requirement of the 1988 Act.