Prev
Next

The online world doesn’t need real-world police

Tory Maguire

by Tory Maguire

02 Aug 12:10pm

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: London Olympics, Social Media, Society, Sport, Tom Daley, Twitter

53 comments

Far from being the Twitter Olympics, London 2012 might well be remembered better as the Censorship Olympics.

With social media you've got to dive in head first… Picture: Getty

Not for the first time the Poms have arrested a young man for using social media to taunt a sports star. Instead of allowing the social media sphere to sort it out itself, which it has a remarkably human capacity to do, police have smashed down a teenager’s door in the middle of the night and hauled him off to face charges.

The UK has a uniquely punishing set of laws designed to curb bullying and racism on social media. Back in March Lucy Kippist wrote on The Punch about the jailing of a young Briton for what he wrote on Twitter about Fabrice Muamba, a Bolton footballer who collapsed on the field.

This time a 17-year-old wrote some nasty stuff about British diver Tom Daley, after he and his diving partner finished fourth in their event. He wasn’t the only one.

A Welsh Premier League footballer has been suspended by his club for a foul homophobic tweet directed at Daley.

There’s no denying what Daley copped was disgusting. No need to repeat it here.

But the world of social media has a tendency to rain down ridicule on people who behave so anti-socially, in a way that the tangible world can be slow to catch up with.

Before he was arrested, the idiotic teen involved had faced an international campaign of outrage. It was spurred on by Daley himself, who instead of using the block button and ignoring @rileyy_69, retweeted the message to his own followers with the message: “After giving it my all…you get idiot’s sending me this”.

There are two options for dealing with a Twitter bully. Block and forget, or call them out and set your fans on them. Daley executed the second manoeuvre with a double pike.

According to this post on Radio Free Europe:

Then the more sophisticated elements of the Internet hate machine went into overdrive—smelling blood, the ambulance-chasers of the meme world and the snarkistas had a new victim. Now @Rileyy_69 was the meme. Videos of him were mashed up and set to music, (here and here), his stupider utterances were Photoshopped onto his more gormless photos, and the tweets of abuse just kept on coming: from other teenagers looking for a fights (digital and real), from lovesick teen girls who felt their beau had been attacked, and from plenty of responsible adults.

See, the internet has its own lynch mobs to kick down virtual doors in the middle of the night - it doesn’t need Bobbies to do its work for it.

Most commented

53 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • trentyn says:

      09:08am | 03/08/12

      Couldn’t agree more… you don’t stop an online bully by setting other online bullies on him/her. Exactly how do you differentiate the good from the bad? The bad guys taunt the famous? give me a break.

    • Lucy says:

      12:46pm | 02/08/12

      Great article.  Nice to see free speech advocacy and the idea that we can work this out without heavy over reaching policing.  I’m shocked it has got to the point where police and bashing down someone’s door, its just beserk.

      Reply

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:50pm | 02/08/12

      I saw the rileyy_69 exchange on failblog and thought it was initially pretty tame. Just goes to show that there is no context or tone on Twitter.

      Reply

    • Paul says:

      12:51pm | 02/08/12

      According to this article mob rule is to be accepted, and mob rule gets it right.

      Tell that to the parents of those kids who committed suicide after online bullying… when the mob chose to side against them (and the mob can be downright nasty).

      Tell that to the person whose career/relationship is ruined by a false rumor spread by a vindictive colleague.

      To agree with this article is to side with anarchy…  Sure, it’s one thing to censor the views of the public, but it is another thing altogether to allow real world laws to be broken, peoples lives to be destroyed, children to be thrown into suicidal depression because you think that mob rule will always get it right.  If anything the virtual nature of the internet demands a more global solution (Yes, I know people fear this might deny their “freedom”, but when credit card number are being stolen, nuclear reactors are being hacked and real worl impacts are being felt, a real world solution starts to become justified).

      Reply

    • Lurker says:

      01:00pm | 02/08/12

      Yep it is called the Hive-mind. Net Denizens are perfectly capable of sorting out this stuff themselves, Reddit and other sites do it commonly to those that believe the internet is anonymous.

      PS : Its not but pelase keep doing it, we at work need something to read in our luches

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      01:00pm | 02/08/12

      To me, censorship is censorship. If Andrew Bolt is not allowed to write an article that supposedly offended members of a particular ethnic group, why should some moron be able to tweet something much more offensive just because they are using an online tool (and being one)?

      My personal view that people should be able to speak their mind even if it does cause offense seems to be very much out of fashion in the allegedly ‘free’ world (with the honourable exception of the US). The only difference between the UK thought police and our own seems to be that Blighty’s have Facebook and Twitter accounts.

      In saying this, I accept that there are going to be situations in which self-expression becomes effectively an assault on someone else. However, I cannot see how existing laws against stalking and making threats cannot be used to address these.

      Lastly, I didn’t even realise Tom Daley was gay. What is it with gay divers? (Mind you, I could think of plenty of less attractive sports people we could have on our team.)

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:31pm | 02/08/12

      I think your post overlooks an important difference though, Adam.  While Bolt simply offended someone, this young fellow apparently threatened the diver in question in a public forum and was stupid enough to do so using his real name.

      Much like bomb threats, I think it legitimate that police take all threats of violence seriously.

    • Hamish says:

      01:50pm | 02/08/12

      I agree James1, threats to kill and/or maim made via twitter should be actionable criminally. The Muamba situation was different. That guy was a racist jerk, but he shouldn’t have been sent to jail. However, had he done the same thing in Victoria he probably would have been.

    • Chris L says:

      02:23pm | 02/08/12

      I have to agree, I don’t think anyone should face charges just for upsetting people. (this is a change from my original reaction which was “sucked in Bolt!”)

      Mind you, I’d like to see some sort of regulation that requires accuracy in the media, not that there wouldn’t be a score of loopholes in any such attempt.

      Death threats are another matter and generally depend on how seriously one takes them. Doesn’t sound like Daley was taking it all that seriously himself, he’s probably made of sterner stuff than his detractor.

    • Mr. Jordon says:

      03:42pm | 02/08/12

      Bolt got his facts wrong. The offensive parts of his article never would have been an issue had he got his facts right. After all, his tone etc was based on false facts.

    • egg says:

      03:57pm | 02/08/12

      “While Bolt simply offended someone” doesn’t quite cover the situation. Good to see history being re-written by his fans, though.

      “While Bolt simply misled the public & made verifiably false accusations against people based on their race and his perception of same” is slightly more accurate.

    • James1 says:

      04:15pm | 02/08/12

      And Anita Heiss has never gotten a fact wrong?  Have you read her latest book?  You only care about him getting things wrong because he is of the right.

      That said, I am not a huge fan of Bolt.  I find his work overly simplistic, repetitive, and smarmy in tone.  But I think he should be able to ask the questions he did without being dragged before the courts for it.

    • Hamish says:

      04:20pm | 02/08/12

      The gullibility of left types is a constant source of amusement. I guess that’s why they’re called useful idiots.

    • AdamC says:

      04:21pm | 02/08/12

      James1, Hamish and Chris L, you are right. This kid who got arrested went way beyond any reasonable expression of opinion with the death threats. I suppose I was speaking generally, rather than defending this idiotic tweeter. 

      Mr. Jordan and Egg, a lot of media reporting focussed on these supposed ‘errors’ in Bolt’s article at the time. When you read the judgement, it is significantly more complicated than that. It should also be noted that the errors, real or imagined, were not the basis of the claimants’ action.

      Not to mention, you would have to be pretty naive to expect censors to acknowledge they are silencing an opinion simply because they disagree with it. They will always try to come up with some nobler justification.

    • Alex says:

      01:06pm | 02/08/12

      Very interesting article. I think the police themselves are wondering what to do. In fact, they are complaining that they have fielded thousands, if not tens of thousands of calls about social media in recent months.

      It’s true the internet has it’s own amazing version of democracy that kicks into gear as soon as outrage is caused by morons. It’s kind of like if someone does something stupid at a kids football game on a Saturday and there’s enough responsible adults around to sort it out. It’s not necessary for the police to get involved.

      The issue is when there’s fewer responsible adults online and many trolls who can gang up on others - perhaps the resources need to be put into better educational programmes to counteract cyber-bullying.

      But certainly knocking teenager’s doors down and charging them isn’t going to help.

      Reply

    • wolf says:

      01:06pm | 02/08/12

      The laws are there to protect celebrities from the great unwashed airing negativity and rightly so.
      Remember people - celebrities are better than you are.

      Reply

    • Fiddler says:

      01:20pm | 02/08/12

      more to the point, do we really need it enforced? Offences like this both happen ridiculously often, are very difficult to prove (except the offenders normally admit to it in the media, cause hey it’s THEIR goddamn 15 minutes) and in the grand scheme of things compared to say, drink driving and assaults causes bugger all harm.

      The biggest fear of any government is to admit it is not omnipotent. I would love for a politician to simply say when fielded a question about something like this to be “aren’t enough things illegal, I think the government dictates enough to peoples lives”

      Reply

    • mikespol says:

      01:25pm | 02/08/12

      Are you kidding? Are you seriously advocating on-line “lynch mobs” to “kick down virtual doors” as the means to deal with behaviour that is actually against the law (whether you agree with the law or not)?

      Online lynch mobs can inflict real world damage. Should they post this person’s real world address, name, date of birth, bank account details - all of which on-line hacktivists can get pretty easily? Or should we perhaps let professional investigators and trained police deal with these matters in a civilised country. Because I can think of a few other crimes where lynch mobs would be useful. Sure, the person might not be guilty but hey, mob “justice” deters right?

      I generally like your stuff Tory, and I get the point you’re trying to make about overdone laws, but advocating “mob summary justice” is bad, whether it’s e-justice or not.

      Reply

    • Baloo says:

      01:25pm | 02/08/12

      He trolls Daley and you think feeding him is like some kind of justice?
      I bet he thought the reaction he got was hilarious, young girls squealing at him for attacking their love, macho teens trying to fight him “say that to my face and not online and see what happens”, yeah he definitely got a kick out of that.

      What I bet he didn’t think was funny was when his door was kicked in and he was dragged out in his PJs, I’m pretty sure he won’t be tweeting stuff like this ever again now.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      02:29pm | 02/08/12

      Maybe so Baloo, but there’s plenty of people here who post nasty remarks about various people, especially the PM and the opposition leader. I wouldn’t advocate anyone having their door knocked down and them dragged off by police just for posting a comment.

    • fml says:

      03:05pm | 02/08/12

      Chris L,

      What about death threats, I’m pretty sure they will knock down your door making those kind of threats against any parliamentary member.

    • Chris L says:

      04:20pm | 02/08/12

      @FML - As with death threats in person or over the phone, it seems to depend on how credible the threat and how seriously the person receiving the threat takes it.

      I’ve had wannabe tough guys tell me how I’m “dead” on more than one occassion, which I have successfully demonstrated to be false by putting my finger on my pulse in an exaggerated fashion. They never seem to laugh, but the fact remains the implied threat was never credible enough to involve police.

    • steve says:

      01:34pm | 02/08/12

      “There’s no denying what Daley copped was disgusting. No need to repeat it here.”

      I never get this kind of thing.  The media seems to assume that either everyone has already seen the comments in question or that everyone would agree with their assessment of it.

      I haven’t read the tweets so I have no idea what was said, and I would bet that a fair number of your readers are in the same boat.  Therefore I would say that there is a reason to repeat them in a story about them, that way we can make up our own mind as to whether or not they are disgusting and debate the fact if we see fit.

      The media (which the punch is a part of even though the writers seem to often pretend they aren’t) is supposed to report facts and let the people decide, not decide what the people should think.

      Reply

    • James Mathews says:

      01:44pm | 02/08/12

      This Article shows a difference of law between Australia and The Poms, this isn’t what we’d want to have happen in Australia as we’ve a media that has decided to embarrass the repeat offenders some of the times which is fair enough.
      The Poms are a big fat nanny state, this article also raisers the questions about the current proposal that the government has been given by the security authorities to grant them more power.
      I say get rid of #nannystate policies such as this one over in Pommy Land.

      Twitter: BigJamesMathews

      Reply

    • Colin says:

      01:57pm | 02/08/12

      Arrested for Twitter comments? Jeez. It’s only ONE step away from throwing journalists in jail for publishing anti-government stories…Like to live like Burma, anyone..?

      Reply

    • fml says:

      02:58pm | 02/08/12

      It was a death threat though. You are not allowed to make death threats in real life, you shouldn’t be able to make them online, especially as your threats have the potential to reach a much wider audience.

    • LC says:

      09:07pm | 02/08/12

      fml, there’s no mention of death threats made anywhere on stories regarding the issue. At worst, it’s defamation, and there are legal remedies for that should the man wish to pursue them, and no need for the government to get involved at all.

    • M says:

      01:58pm | 02/08/12

      If someone doesn’t like what someone else said on the internet they can sue them in court. Is easy, no?

      Reply

    • Ironside says:

      02:14pm | 02/08/12

      Now while I’m sure there are a lot of details not included in the article here let me summarise what you wrote Tory and tell me if you think its reasonable.

      An Olympic athlete didn’t do as well as expected and as a result in 150 characters or less some anonymous idiot abused him (apparently more than one but we will stick with one). Rather than being an adult and ignoring it the athlete re tweeted the insult to his fans in a successful attempt to generate sympathy for himself and anger towards the original author.

      His fans then started a concentrated and prolonged attack on that author creating entire pages on websites to abuse him and trolling back through every post he has ever made, this torrent of abuse from around the world was enough to alert the authorities to the existence of the original tweet and so the author was arrested. Also going by what you wrote you think that this is an entirely appropriate sequence of events right up until the point the law steps in.

      Now I know that there is more that you haven’t put in your piece in an effort to both further ridicule the original author of the tweet while at the same time as saying the law should let the internet sort itself out.

      Do you not see the hypocrisy in stating that it is terrible for a person to abuse someone on social media but its ok four millions of people to abuse someone who breaks some unwritten line between satire and abuse and that line can be very thin on the internet.  Tell me Tory, if the young man now commits suicide due to the international bullying that he has received will that be only what he deserves or will you be on here writing an apology and saying that its terrible when the mob goes too far?

      Reply

    • fml says:

      03:01pm | 02/08/12

      Ironside,

      The tweeter made a death threat, philosophically why would a death threat be any less valid on the medium it was made? If I were make a death threat on a birthday cake for someone, would that make it all fairies and hob goblins?

    • Ironside says:

      07:42am | 03/08/12

      @fml i know the tweeter made a death threat but it was not that tweet that was being referred to. Tory made no mention of a death threat. In an effort to lend her article more punch i guess, she simply said he tweeted some nasty stuff.

      If someone makes a death threat regardless of the medium it was made it is a police matter, which is exactly the oppisit of what Tory was saying - she said the online world can take care of itself.

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      02:21pm | 02/08/12

      “his stupider utterances were ...”

      Is stupider an actual word???? I know it’s used a lot and a google search on web dictionaries say it is an actual word but I don’t believe it is. If it is I’m very disappointed in the human race.

      Reply

    • Al says:

      02:43pm | 02/08/12

      Stupider is definately a word.
      Something can be stupid but that doesn’t prevent something being stupider (which is still stupid, it is only in the comparrison that the er is added).

    • Colin says:

      02:56pm | 02/08/12

      “Stupider” may annoy your English language sensibilities, but you also failed to capitalise proper nouns or insert commas where you should have, so if in glass houses…

    • Chris L says:

      02:58pm | 02/08/12

      It’s all very antidisestablishmentarianist, isn’t it?

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      03:56pm | 02/08/12

      Gee Colin (or is that Colon?).  Is that the best you have?

      You can’t even answer a simple question without having a go at the writer

      I don’t believe I was throwing stones at anyone, so your glass houses analogy doesn’t fit.

    • spell checker says:

      04:53pm | 02/08/12

      @ Al

      Stupider might be a word but “definately” is definitely not one.

    • spell checker says:

      05:01pm | 02/08/12

      @ Al Stupider maybe a word but “definately” is definitely not one.

    • Shane from Melbourne says:

      07:38pm | 02/08/12

      Used in a sentence -

      Wayne Swan is stupider compared to Gillard

    • Colin says:

      09:16am | 03/08/12

      @Wayne Kerr 03:56pm | 02/08/12
      “...I don’t believe I was throwing stones at anyone, so your glass houses analogy doesn’t fit…”

      Yes, it does. As the “Glasshouses…” analogy actually refers to that fact that you should not criticise other people for bad qualities that you display yourself. You were “...very disappointed…in the human race…” for such poor grammar, and then you demonstrated your very own version of the same thing…Really; must I have to explain this to you..?

    • subotic Torquemada says:

      02:23pm | 02/08/12

      Burn the witches, burn them….

      Reply

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      04:04pm | 02/08/12

      She turned me into a newt….I got better”

    • BruceS says:

      02:59pm | 02/08/12

      Thank you Tory, for an informative article. I agree, except when National Security is breached.

      Reply

    • Garry says:

      03:16pm | 02/08/12

      I have to disagree Tory, we need real people to investigate and smack down these animals. Why do we allow people to even make fowl comments even death threats we must act immediately. Sure they may be nothing more than words but what if, and its the what if that should not be left to the online community.

      We have had a case in NSW where a young lad had a web site rating girls that anyone could enter details on. He’s been charged, and should be. But then are the writers accountable for their actions - is it fair that they get away with it due to being ‘free speech’.

      We have had facebook accounts broken into after people have died to have pornographic photos inserted - is that fair that they get away with it - no its got to be stopped

      and lastly girls (or guys) hounded by school mates for being not part of a circle, how nasty is that the people can get away if the person then commits suicide.

      I certainly believe people should be able to say what they want but if they overstep a mark, morality or else, it should be slammed down and people see that actions have reactions

      Oh and sorry to correct - Fabrice plays for a club called Bolton who were playing Tottenham at Tottenham’s ground.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      03:29pm | 02/08/12

      ...and this sort of Police State which the UK has become is exactly what the Gillard Socialist Government of Australia wants to vreate here.
      Muzzle the Media!
      Gillard wants to place restrictions, controls &bans; on the Media in all it’s forms.
      They want to be able to impose Censorship which will enable them to prevent anyone from criticising “The Government”.
      The Punch would be banned. People would not be allowed tobe told the truth.
      Even if Corruption, well hidden at present by all, was blatant & open within the government, any government, Federal, State or Territory or within the various Police Forces, the Government & Police would be able to have it suppressed in the media. So, just as in the now-Police State that is the UK, media owners, journalists & members of the public would be subject to arrest & imprisonment. People could be kept in confinement & though facing charges the Prosecutors, at the behest of the Government & Police, could have those trials deferred for years. We saw what the corrupt SA Government tried to do over the alleged criminal Bikie Gangs. The Police never actually present proof they simply repeat over & over again that those Bikie gangs are criminals. A lie repeated often enough morhs into Truth. The SA Government wanted to have people charged but be refused any opportunity to defend those charges until they actually appeared in Court when they would be told what the charges against them were! That is Australian Socialist-ALP Democracy at work.
      Guess what things like Facebook, Twitter etc. ARE part of the Media.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:15pm | 02/08/12

      A Police State? Send over the East Germans. Their Stasi were the real experts…..

    • Swamp Thing says:

      06:43pm | 02/08/12

      @Fml “Death threat on a birthday cake” - what a cracking idea! Thanks for that, i was wondering what to get the brother in law this year.

      Reply

    • Craig says:

      06:00am | 03/08/12

      Everyone seems to have forgotten that the offender was a 17yr old male. Very young & still very stupid.

      What he did was wrong & deserves punishment, but a quiet word in his parents ear and a talking too by a police officer would have dealt with the issue.

      The police either over-responded (likely) - a mistake or an attempt to send a message -  or had to respond as though it was a serious risk due to poorly written legislation.

      Reply

    • Alec says:

      02:02pm | 03/08/12

      British police are just ‘gung-ho’ little boys dressed with all the noise and Space Monkey toys ....they love bashing or shooting up anything that doesn’t bite back..except the other day when 6 of them were bitten by one dog, so bashing in a young 17 yrs old door would have had them trembling with pants wetting anticipation and chewing gum mashing jollys.
      We were in London last year, an old ladies cat had wedged it self in a trees fork ...the road was clsed down because ...7 cop cars were in attendence so there must have been 14 officers there..you see 1 cop, always 2 !

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter