The British police aren’t doing a great job of adjusting to life with social media. After trying a “common sense approach” to Twitter in the wake of several ludicrous cases, Kent Police have fallen victim, so to speak, to issues surrounding the arrest of a Facebook user.

Said arrest concerns a 19-year-old who, for reasons best known to his own tiny mind, decided to post a photo of a burning poppy on his Facebook page. With an offensive caption. On Remembrance Day. Lovely.

Now, I’m not for such behaviour. Not one iota of me thinks such an image is in the same universal realm as things that are ‘okay’. But extremely offensive images aside, the idea of arresting a person over a Facebook post of this nature sounds insane. The image reportedly falls under section 127 of the Communications Act, which covers sending “a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” on a “public electronic communications network”. Or to the layman in this case, something nasty or threatening posted on the Internet.

This doesn’t sound quite right, and a world away from a ‘common sense approach’. Common sense should dictate if you wouldn’t arrest a person for committing a certain act in public, you shouldn’t arrest them for posting an image of it online. I’m not legal expert, but I suspect you’d be hard-pressed to find a copper who’d arrest someone for burning  a poppy. More likely a stern finger wag and a clip ‘round the ear before being moved on (esp if you’re local police station happens to be in Ashfordly).

Expert legal types tend to agree. David Allen Green, the defence loyal for the Paul Chambers / ‘Joke Twitter Trial’ tweeted “Dear idiots at @kent_police, burning a poppy may be obnoxious, but it is not a criminal offence”. He also seems to be starting the hashtag #PoppyCock – clever clogs.

Social media isn’t going to go away, and neither are idiots who choose to use it to peddle their own brand of offensive nonsense. So, the police and social media sites themselves need to come up with a solution to policing content without restricting freedom of speech, or tying up the judicial system with an increasing number of random cases.

That’s obviously an enormous challenge, and won’t happen overnight. The widespread use of social media could lead to the requirement of dedicated team (or department, branch, bureau or other appropriate term) to work with social media sites to deal with complainants, and lay out new legal precedents to cover online activity and offenses.

This may seem crazy – but it’s far saner than trying to arrest everyone who is offensive on Facebook. 

Following last week’s ups and downs for Twitter, or more specifically downs, the micro-blogging / social upheaval platform has resolved the legal cases for the short term.  Twitter’s legal issues seem to have taken on bus-like properties, with three coming along at once. 

Despite the increasing amount of legal questions Twitter users are causing, police chiefs in the UK are rejecting calls for new legislation to deal with online abuse. According to The Guardian, the Association of Chief Police Officers (or Acpo for acronym fans) believes “problems may eventually be resolved by the microblogging website itself.”

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today Programme, chief constable of Cumbria Stuart Hyde reportedly stated a “common sense” approach to Twitter trolls is what the Police should be aiming for. This will avoid officers being “dragged off the streets to deal with frivolous complaints”.

He continues “It is important to look at the whole context. It is not just about one tweet, it is a whole range of tweets. Look at what the individual has done: is this a concerted attempt to have a go at one individual in a way that passes the threshold for offences against the law? If it is, then clearly we should intervene and do something to stop it.”

Despite a few false starts with Twitter arrests, it seems the Police force is now using the right approach when dealing with Twitter. It’s no longer being treated as some large, unknown virtual world that could be harbouring serious criminals – which can only be a good thing for all Twitter users.    

The legal precedents around Twitter continue to be established at a rate of knots this week, driven in part by everyone being uber keen to tweet about the Olympics (although not always in a nice way).

Yesterday we posted on several legal wranglings involving Twitter; those of Guy Adams of The Independent newspaper, the anonymous user behind @UnSteveDorkland and teenager @Rileyy_69. In less than 24 hours, there’s been progress on all three.

Guy Adams

Bit of a bad one for Twitter, this. It turns out Twitter workers originally alerted NBC to Adams’ critical tweets of the news outlet’s coverage of the Olympics. This resulted in his account being suspended. Twitter has now published an apology, admitting “we did mess up”. Adams’ Twitter is back up and running, but the questions around Twitter’s reputation won’t go away overnight. It’s likely this example will be dragged up time and again when a user is accused of something untoward. This leads us to…

@UnSteveDorkland

Today, 1^st August, was the deadline for Twitter to handover details of the user behind @UnSteveDorkland, a spoof account of Northcliffe Media’s chief executive Steve Auckland. Handing over user details is well within the rights of Twitter’s T&Cs, if the site receives a complaint from a third party about said user’s account.

However, Twitter also provides details of how the user can acquire legal aid. This, combined with a high level of media attention for the case, led pro bono layer Frank Sommer to take up the case. He’s now filed a motion to halt the disclosure order from Northcliffe. According to the BBC, Sommer has stated “I have been unable to find any website that lists this controversy in terms of someone being deceived that any of the Twitter usernames listed in the subpoena are anything other than a satire on Mr Auckland.”

Take that out of legalise and it simply means if an account is obviously a spoof, there’s no case for taking it down or even handing over a user’s details. The difficultly here is defining exactly what counts as ‘obvious’ in a court of law. Amazingly, this could reach a court room (if Northcliffe decides to push on) on 2^nd September. If this happens, presumably we’ll get a clear ruling and precedent on what can and can’t be deemed an overtly satirical, spoof Twitter account. Good luck reaching a verdict on that one. 

@Rileyy_69

Finally, the rather unpleasant case of @Rileyy_69 appears to have been settled. After the 17 year old behind offensive tweets to Olympics diver Tom Daley was arrested, he was released with a harassment warning. Clearly this wasn’t a case that would ever make it to court, but hopefully one that shows you can’t get away unscathed with vicious comments on Twitter anymore than you would saying it to someone’s face (although you’re far more likely to get arrested, and less likely to get punched in the nose, it seems).

@simonhill

In the last week or so, Twitter has been tripping over itself with legal wranglings here and in the US. The legal world is still in something of a catch-up scenario with the digital world generally, and Twitter specifically. The advent of the web, and everything there on, means new precedents are being set at a unprecedented (geddit?) rate. Hard and fast rules are not forthcoming.

Aside from marketing execs getting slaps on wrists, there is a more serious side to Twitter judgements. One report this week was heralded as a victory for common sense, and for everyone who has ever tweeted in jest.

Back in 2010 Twitter user Paul Chambers posted “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!”. While it was obvious to most this was a jovial posting from a frustrated traveller, it attracted legal action against Chambers. Yesterday he won a High Court appeal, with judges concluding “[the] appeal against conviction will be allowed on the basis that this ‘tweet’ did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character.”

The downside: this “dose of common sense” took over two years to come to fruition, meaning stress and almost £1000 in legal costs for Chambers. 

When Twitter itself gets involved, a situation can get more complicated. There’s two ongoing situations involving an individual’s use of Twitter right now. One is the case of @UnSteveDorkland, a spoof account of Steve Auckland, chief executive of Northcliffe Media. The publisher of the Daily Mail, and 113 other regional UK papers, has both requested the identity of the user from Twitter and filed a court order in the US. Twitter has notified the user, and made it clear his details will be revealed by 1^st August 2012. While this may seem a little harsh, Twitter is simply complying with the law and informing those who are involved. If you’re going to tweet material that will be offensive to a powerful person within a powerful organisation, it seems Twitter can’t and won’t guarantee your anonymity. The company does, however, offer advice of how to find legal help when notifying a user, as was the case with UnSteveDorkland.       

Putting Twitter in this position of being able to aid or take action against users has its own risks. The second situation involves Guy Adams, a journalist writing for The Independent. Adams has been had his Twitter account suspended, according to reports, because he tweeted the email address of an NBC executive after poor Olympics coverage. Twitter claims to have suspended the account as the email address was private, meaning Adams was in breach of the site’s T&Cs relating to publishing private content. Unfortunately, the email address appears to have been anything but private. More unfortunate still is the current partnership between Twitter and NBC as part of the Olympics coverage. It all ties together so well you have wonder at the various motivations of those involved.

Twitter, despite some well meaning intentions, can seemingly be put at the mercy of a corporate partner – although this is still to be proven categorically. What these cases do prove for sure is there’s no clear policy for action against Twitter users following third party complaints. While ‘NotSteveDorkland’ is still tweeting away, and currently using Twitter to solicit further media attention, Guy Adams is suspected.

More troubling still is the case of @rileyy_69 (account now set to private). According to The Guardian, the 17 year old from Weymouth was arrested yesterday following hateful tweets aimed at Olympic diver Tom Daley, including an apparent ‘death threat’. Following Daley’s placing fourth in the synchronised diving with partner Pete Waterfield, and thus outside the medals, he was sent an offensive tweet from @rileyy_69, which he then retweeted. A barrage of outraged followed, with the original tweet attracting over 29k RTs and counting, and Daley fans and followers prompting global trending.

Of course the tweet in question is vile and should never be condoned, but is the hot-headedness of one foolish 17 year old really a matter for the police? Will it take two years and legal costs to conclude teenagers often think before acting, like anyone one of us can be guilty of?

@simonhill

Bit of a landmark in the law and social media worlds came to light yesterday. Chris Cairns, a former New Zealand cricketer, won a libel case against important Indian cricket type Lalit Modi. What’s interesting for none cricket fans (me) is this is the first ever settled libel case involving Twitter.

Some time back in January 2010 Modi made an ‘accusation’ on Twitter (which seems like a fancy legal way of saying ‘tweeted’) that Cairns was involved in match fixing. This being the world of sport, word spread pretty quick and it wasn’t long before Cairns’ career was in tatters. But it seems, as far as Johnny law is concerned, Cairns has never put a thickly gloved finger out of line, and he’s been awarded £90,000 in damages (subject to appeal).

What this does mean, aside from you shouldn’t accuse someone of match fixing unless you have at least a sprinkling of proof, is a solid line has been draw with regards to defamation cases that start on social media.

To grab Wikipedia’s definition, defamation is “is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image”. As is usually the case with legal issues, there are some specific distinctions but broadly speaking think of defamation in two forms; slander and libel. Slander is a statement in line with the above that is spoken (a transitory or non-permanent statement), while libel is written or printed words, images or video – and when it comes up in court we’re usually talking scandalous accusations regarding monogamy-challenged footballers. 

The outcome of  Cairns’ case means the content of mine, yours and anyone else’s’ tweets can be tried as libel in a court room setting – and is considered a permanent form of publishing just as much as a physical newspaper, online article to spokesperson video. It’s an important point to note when tweeting, especially considering the ease of access you have to Twitter on your PC or phone, the often impromptu nature tweeting and that fact we don’t always distinguish tweets as either spoken or written (‘He said on twitter’ vs ‘He posted on Twitter’).    

For PRs this means you must take extra care when tweeting for a client, and it’s also a good idea to keep an extra tight eye on any high-risk spokespeople’s activity online to boot. 

@simonhill

Disclaimer: I have no interest in cricket and have been stretching my brain to its limits to remember the ins and outs of libel, slander and defamation from when I read media law, which was a fair few years ago now. For any inaccuracies this has caused, I am deeply apologetic.