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

[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.)