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

[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.