Features
Is Justice Being Served in the Fight Against ‘Cyber Abuse’?
March 28, 2012 Nicola  |
As student Liam Stacey starts his prison sentence for his Twitter remarks, has the episode left more questions than answers?
Today 21-year-old student Liam Stacey will begin his 56-day prison sentence after admitting to a racially-aggravated public order offence following posts he made on Twitter. These comments were made on the social networking site following the collapse of Fabrice Muamba during an FA Cup game and who needed emergency CPR on the pitch after suffering cardiac arrest.
This is by no means the first time there has been coverage in the media regarding the issue of abuse through social network sites; however, this is perhaps the most high profile and the first that has led directly to jail.
The judge who oversaw the proceedings in court, District Judge John Charles, said in summing up proceedings in court the comments were “vile and abhorrent”.
When sentencing, Judge Charles told Stacey: “In my view, there is no alternative to an immediate prison sentence.”
The use of a custodial sentence has received a mixed reception, with Mervyn Barrett, a representative of crime reduction charity Nacro, stating that he felt the sentence was “manifestly excessive”.
In another recent case involving racism on Twitter that did not receive the same level of publicity, the offender was spared a jail sentence.
Law student Joshua Cryer, 21, sent a string of racial abuse to ex-footballer Stan Collymore. He admitted to a charge under section 127 of the Communications Act of sending grossly offensive messages.
However, during the sentencing, District Judge Stephen Earl said it would not serve society to give Cryer a jail sentence, instead ordering him to complete 240 hours community service and complete a two-year community order.
Judge Earl said the sentence was made to make an example of Cryer and that what he had done was “foolish, immature and pathetic”.
Judge Earl also added: “I don’t doubt you are not an inherently racist person but you did act in an intentionally racist way.”
In an interesting aside, shadow health minister Diane Abbott caused controversy after posting on Twitter: “White people love playing ‘divide and rule’. We should not play their game. #tacticsasoldascolonialism.”
Ms Abbott was forced to apologise for these comments after MPs had branded them racist. She later insisted that these comments were interpreted maliciously.
Maybe here determines the line between a remark that is racially insulting and one that is insinuating a racist stereotype or behaviour. Even on Twitter there is a profile for the ‘Funny Racist’ who sends out jokes that are based around racial stereotypes and has nearly 250,000 followers. There doesn’t seem to be any clamour to remove the profile even though some people may find the posts offensive.
There are other topics to look at in regard to ‘cyber abuse’. There have been several cases of footballers being reprimanded for using homophobic language in their tweets. West Ham player Ravel Morrison was fined £7,000 for offensive tweets he made, whilst Federico Macheda, Nile Ranger and Manny Smith were all charged by the FA for improper conduct following offensive posts.
The FA released a statement on the matter which said: “The charge is that the players acted in a way which was improper and/or brought the game into disrepute. It is further alleged that the breach included a reference to a person’s or persons’ sexual orientation.”
Another incident involving footballer Lee Steele ended in him being released by Oxford United following homophobic tweets posted on the site about gay rugby player Gareth Thomas who was appearing in Big Brother. Steele posted: “I wouldn’t fancy the bed next to Gareth Thomas.” The football club released the player and said to the BBC “On this occasion Lee’s had to pay for his error of judgment. He’s made a homophobic comment, [but] that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s homophobic.
“The Oxford City board have decided to release Lee Steele in view of his recent comment via social media which is considered seriously contrary to the ethos of the club.”
It is a matter of opinion as to whether people would find this post offensive, however, it was thought severe enough for Steele to be punished by losing his job, whereas others were merely handed a fine, or just a warning.
None of these incidents were taken any further and have not become a police issue, yet the use of abusive language against people of a certain sexual orientation is surely as intolerant as the use of it against people of different races and religions. The act of sending these messages should also come under section 127 of the Communications Act of sending grossly offensive messages for which Joshua Cryer was sentenced for.
Is one racist Twitter post worse than another? And why did one footballer lose his job for something that others have only received a wrap on the knuckles for?
There needs to be much more stringent guidelines as to what amounts as a criminal offence and the punishments to those that are found guilty need to be uniform, not based on the level of profile the case has generated in the media.
By Jonathan Trickey
[Image courtesy of LaMenta3]
