A 17 year old teenager, from Weymouth, has been arrested today after sending offensive tweets to Olympic diver Tom Daley yesterday.
After finishing 4th yesterday in the synchronised diving event, Tom Daley (@TomDaley1994) received a tweet from another user @Rileyy_69 sent a tweet to the Olympic diver saying “you let your dad down i hope you know that”. Daley’s father died last year after a battle with cancer.
Tom Daley responded with a tweet on his own profile saying “After giving it my all…you get idiot’s sending me this…RT”.
Prior to the Olympics, Daley has spoken fondly of his father and stated that he “gave me all the inspiration that I’ve needed”.
The response on Twitter was of disgust towards the user known as Rileyy_69 with messages of support for Daley being sent from other Twitter users.
This is the latest of a number of arrests made by Police with regards to harassment and offensive messages on the social networking site, with a man previously being arrested for sending threats to Tory MP Louise Mensch.
After creating somewhat of a scandal on Twitter yesterday with his comments, Rileyy_69 attempted an apology to Daley tweeting “TomDaley1994 I’m sorry mate i just wanted you to win cause its the olympics I’m just annoyed we didn’t win I’m sorry tom accept my apology.” and “please i don’t want to be hated I’m just sorry you didn’t win i was rooting for you pal to do britain all proud just so upset.”
Several news sources are stating that Rileyy_69’s account has been suspended by the social networking site, however the account appears to be fully accessible now, albeit with the profile set to ‘private’ so only current followers can see his full profile.
This news story again highlights the fact that the Police are taking ‘social networking crime’ seriously and that statements, harassment and abuse using social networks can have serious consequences. Many Internet users still believe that a lot of their activity online is anonymous but the latest string of social networking arrests proves how easy it can be for users to be traced by computing professionals if necessary.
View Comments (10)
1 2 Next »Hmm...I hope I'm permitted to say this considering we are supposed to be living in a democracy; but I'm not entirely sure how someone can be arrested for saying something that is hardly nothing more than ignorant behaviour. Can I get someone arrested for insulting me on YouTube if they live in the UK now? There's plenty of people that have insulted me online so I assume it's OK for me to report them and be arrested for it?
I would have hoped the person's comment comes under freedom of speech and expression, but evidently not. While I could imagine Tom would be upset by the comment (not very nice thing to say in my personal opinion), I think getting someone arrested for saying something as small as that is concerning to our freedom to speak without fear of being arrested for expresssing our opinion. For all anyone knows, that person may be merely expressing their opinion about how Tom performed during the Olympics. Not that I'm interested in the Olympics much.
I think there needs to be tougher laws to protect freedom of speech & expression in the UK / EU. I do not agree with someone being arrested to what some journalists are calling a "sickening" message. I can't help but think this has been blown out of reasonable proportion and it's unfair to be targeting a 17 year old for a simple ignorant and misunderstood tweet this person had made.
I am offended by your post David. Yes, you didn't say much of an opinion yourself, but I can understand both sides; but sometimes we have to bite our tongue and accept people's behaviour and focus on the people in our lives we care about and ignore the ones who are ignorant and say "malicious" things.
If it's so easy to be arrested for saying something as simple as that then there's something very seriously wrong with our fundamental rights to speak reasonably freely. Sure, there's boundaries and most rational people know what the limits are, but I am more disgusted by an arrest on a 17 year old for a very simple, yet offensive, comment than the comment itself.
Hello Ben,
We are sorry that you have been offended by our post however I feel that we have reported it in an objective way that states fact, rather than us giving our opinion on the subject.
It's a tricky line, we've seen arrests up and down the country for people tweeting, shall we say 'inappropriate' things.
My personal point of view is that the tweet is out of order and I could see that if I was in Tom's shoes, a comment like that would be very offensive and very upsetting.
The legality of tweet is another thing. I am no legal expert so I wouldn't feel comfortable passing a judgement on the legal stance of the tweet, however I have full confidence in the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to make the correct decision.
If I was to speculate on what part of law may cover this I would imagine that it could possibly be a Public Order Offence under "intention to harass, cause alarm or distress". Under this law it is not only the affect on Tom which is taken in to account but the possibility of "harassing, causing alarm or distress" to members of the public who read the tweet.
As I said, its only speculation.
And of course you are free and permitted to comment! Getting opinions from people is good and something I would actively encourage! :).
I still cannot justify having someone arrested for an offensive comment. This is the Internet; people are bound to post offensive comments because of the way people are. I find it unacceptable to arrest someone for saying something that should have reasonable grounds under freedom to express yourself; which is a freedom I thought we had under the law.
Yes, I understand why the person was arrested. Thomas' father had passed away from cancer and this is why the tweet was offensive; but blowing it out of proportion is just as unacceptable and the press can be disproportional because there is a justification to do so.
I'm not going to be biased and derail the person making the message because I don't know the person nor is it any better to say how unacceptable and "sickening" the message is without knowing the facts and the reason and context of the message and why it was tweeted.
Twitter suspending the account is another matter which I don't like either. Not sure why Twitter suspends an account for saying something moderately offensive because the person who was tweeted to is well known to the public.
Why don't we get over ourselves and enjoy the Olympics and perhaps smile for a bit? So much noise nowadays. It's apparently breaking news that someone has been arrested for sending a stupid tweet. Meanwhile people crying over an offensive tweet, some random people would have been killed on our motorways in an accident and their family has to live with that - seeing as a lot of people want to moan.
Adding onto the end:
Hence, what's your priority?
As I said, we're not trying to justify the arrest - that is a matter for the Police to justify, or, at least someone from a legal background if they so choose.
I'm sure everyone agrees the comment or tweet in question was completely unnecessary - and if they were going to say it, there was no need to directly tweet to Tom. After all, its not like they're a family member or personal friend. And it is undoubtedly considered unacceptable by the vast majority of the public - after all, it's not the kind of thing most people would say in real life at all - no matter if they actually thought it.
The reason cited for the tweet was Tom's 4th place yesterday and tweet itself is quoted in our article above.
Obviously, Twitter is a private company, so how they choose to enforce their rules is naturally their prerogative.
The tweet itself caused quite a public outcry yesterday, so as a matter which interested many people and was very recent news, it was thus categorised as breaking news. :)
What do you mean when you say "Hence, what’s your priority?"? :).
Wasn't specifically referring to you by "Hence, what's your priority?" - I was referring more to people raging over someone's comment to a person on Twitter versus them perhaps commenting about something more important such as someone crashing on a motorway or someone suffering due to a terminal illness, or someone being bullied or ANHYTHING ELSE that we don't really talk about much - or at least, as much as the other "very important" subjects which often concern publicly-known people(!).
And obviously David, Twitter being a company they have the right to do whatever they want (under reasonable grounds) - suspend accounts, remove tweets, etc. etc. I actually do believe that there should be an element of responsibility with companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook as to when it goes a little too far with freedom of speech before it becomes fair enough to start slapping account terminations because of very offensive behaviour - realistically, no one likes that sort of behaviour.
I still do not understand how it is so damn offensive for someone to post a tweet like that. Yes, the way you THINK about it is offensive. But what did the person writing it think? What did they intend? Who knows. Unless we're all perfect mind readers we won't know unless this person says. And as much as you can believe this person intended xyz; unless you ask him, you could be wrong.
The primary concern I have, David, is that my belief is this person's "insult" (to a fashion) should be protected under the freedom for one to reasonably express themselves. It's really simple to ignore someone. In fact, you can EVEN REPLY to such an insulting person - it's really easy. But is it fair to have a 17 year old arrested for a simple tweet that perhaps was upsetting to Tom? Sure, it's a matter of opinion; and my answer to my question is no. I don't think it is fair.
Without doubt everyone has a different opinion on this.
Ah, OK, I get what you mean. Well I can see where you are coming from :). From the POV of DPS Computing, as we only report on computing/tech related news this was the biggest story of the moment. And, to quote a famous fictional spy - "Remember the first rule of mass media.... give the people what they want!" ;).
Yes, I agree with your comments re: Twitter and similar sites, and I do think that on most occasions they get it right. Contrary to other reports, the 'offenders' account appears to be fully accessible and available on Twitter - I would surmise that Twitter probably suspended it temporarily while they investigated and decided to not terminate his account (although I'm only guessing obviously!).
I can see where you are coming from, but, say, take this example from real life. If you are out on the street with friends and shout 4 letter swear words (I'm sure we can all think of some! - f***, s***, for example). Assume that you mean no real harm to anyone and say its not even directed at anyone else (or maybe its just directed at your mates). You might not mind that language and your friends may not mind that language. However, if another member of the public walks past (including a Police Officer) and takes offence at that, you could still be arrested for a Public Order Offence if a complaint is made. So from that point of view, the original intention (as far as current UK law is concerned) is irrelevant if it has caused the other member of the public to be offended / alarmed / distressed etc by the comment.
A clearer example would be with racism. If someone makes a racist comment, but they don't see it as racist, and they mean no harm by it, the law doesn't really take that into account. It's how the people around it may interpret it / be affected by it etc. The original intention of the person and the fact that they don't regard the comment to be racist etc doesn't help them.
I imagine if it was tweeted "XYZ is crap" or something similar, then nothing would have come of it, however action has probably been taken as it is borderline "abuse" in the eyes of the law I imagine.
For example, sending a direct tweet could be compared to a phone call. While saying "XYZ is ......." to family and friends wouldn't cause a problem, picking up and telephoning the 'XYZ' person and saying 'XYZ is ........' could, I imagine, be constituted as harassment / crossing the line.
As you've said, there's likely to be many different opinions on the subject. I doubt that the matter will be taken to court (in my non legal opinion!), I imagine it will be dealt with by way of a warning or something similar :).
I've done some more digging and the teenager has indeed been released with a Police Warning for harassment.
It is said that the warning was issued with regards to the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (as amended).
Part of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 states:
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.
If we take "any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature", it could be argued that the message was indecent (which is defined as - "Not conforming with generally accepted standards of behavior or propriety; obscene." or "Not appropriate or fitting.").
It's good to see that its not been blown out of proportion but I think it does highlight the need to educate people regarding the use of social media / the Internet and the potential 'cause and effect' of their actions online :).