tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post6141148221471251956..comments2024-03-18T09:13:19.346+00:00Comments on panGloss: Section 127 Communications Act 2003 - Threat or Menace?panglosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-54190298357016097882013-02-21T15:50:49.189+00:002013-02-21T15:50:49.189+00:00Isn't this a good one for the Law Commission? ...Isn't this a good one for the Law Commission? I am very wary of prosecution guidelines myself in all fields - too much power to the State thereby arises. <a href="http://www.loweryreporters.com" rel="nofollow">court reporter oklahoma city</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15474189970288337453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-66021369434999028572012-10-09T15:10:41.359+01:002012-10-09T15:10:41.359+01:00Lilian, I agree that one of the flaws in the High ...Lilian, I agree that one of the flaws in the High Court's Chambers' decision (although the ultimate quashing of the conviction was correct) was the assumption that s127 was a simple rewriting of the 1935 Act for the Internet age. <br />Lord Judge attempts to make this point jokingly with the Shakespeare quote. But it is nothing of the sort, particularly when the Court interprets that provision to mean Twitter and Facebook and the like are public electronic communications networks. <br />The other key flaw was the Court's declaration that the audience for a tweet was the public as a whole (I think that's para 25 but don't have the decision in front of me). Police, lawyerly and judicial misunderstanding of technology - in this case the one to one versus many to many distinction - in combination with the assumption that the audience is the whole of the public means s127 creates open season on and the potential for mob justice targeted at anyone on the Net that anyone else might dislike and that the authorities disapprove of (or could be pressurized into disapproving of).<br />So though a key problem with the Chambers case was the OTT response of the airport authorities and criminal justice system, s127 was inevitably going to and will continue to generate these kinds of cases, unless or until it gets appropriately shackled e.g. through the DPP's consultation or scrapped as you suggest. Even the DPP himself wanted the Chambers case dropped before the High Court eventually killed it off in the summer. But the CPS couldn't drop it because of the key findings of fact in the Crown Court.Ray Corriganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06810875779011470290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-21177028159175912642012-09-24T13:39:13.598+01:002012-09-24T13:39:13.598+01:00Lilian,
I still can't get over the fact that ...Lilian,<br /><br />I still can't get over the fact that the original Post Office (Amendment) Act 1935 was necessarily a provision addressing real time communications - section 10(2)(a) is addressed to telephone messages that are grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character, whereas section 10(2)(b) is addressed to both telephone messages (real time) and telegram messages.<br /><br />Indeed, Hansard comments about the provision suggest one of its purposes was to stop callers making a nuisance of themselves with manual switchboard operators (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1935/mar/19/post-office-amendment-bill), which, incidentally, would block the switchboard as well as divert the operator.<br /><br />In the many re-enactments of the provision, this real time element has been lost, with a result that the original mischief the provision was intended to remedy has been overlooked.<br /><br />In its re-enacted form, as interpreted by DPP v Collins and DPP v Chambers, s127 Communications Act 2003 has turned into a monster.<br /><br />Andrew <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-35820350378094350072012-09-21T15:48:18.666+01:002012-09-21T15:48:18.666+01:00There is a good article on the SCL site reflecting...There is a good article on the SCL site reflecting the horror of Chris Watson and Bailey Ingram, a couple of commercial communications lawyers, at the upholding of the definition of public telecommunications network: http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ed27370<br />Isn't this a good one for the Law Commission? I am very wary of prosecution guidelines myself in all fields - too much power to the State thereby arises.Laurence Easthamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13410134222396646078noreply@blogger.com