SOCIAL media users say what they like when discussing criminal proceedings involving footballers because twats think that, on the internet, anything goes. Such as:
Strangely ‘harassment’ and ‘malicious communications’ are still offences whether or not a computer screen is involved. However it’s a lot quicker than cutting out individual letters from newspapers to make an old-fashioned postal death threat, so hurrah for the information age.
There’s nothing more fun than ruining a public figure’s life with no actual evidence, right? Especially twats sanctimoniously pretending to be protecting ‘kiddies’ when really they’re just thoroughly enjoying being an armchair paedo hunter sharing all the latest hot nonce gossip.
Prejudicing court cases
If you’re accused of a crime the last thing you need is a mob of knobheads behind keyboards deciding your fate in online court. Judges take it very seriously, yet people who end up in prison for it always find it surprising, possibly a by-product of being a twat.
You can get away with this and from 2000 to 2010 everyone did. It does rip off creative types but in a way that’s hard to care about; who got hurt when you downloaded Finding Dory? Ellen? She’s got loads of money, it’s fine.
Inciting hatred does not somehow magically become legal when it’s online. The only exception is Call of Duty voice chat, where the sheer volume of gay and racial slurs would require half of the world’s teenagers to be detained indefinitely.
Amazingly, unsolicited dick pics aren’t illegal unless you keep doing it, but they soon will be. Maybe preempt the law by not acting like a f**king pervert who thinks women would love a close-up of your dangling, veiny man-meat to keep, treasure and use as phone wallpaper.