I spent the morning at the Crown Prosecution Service\u2019s offices in London, taking part in a round table discussion on guidelines for prosecuting offences committed on social media and emphasising recent prosecutions impact on free speech.<\/p>\n
The consultations, chaired by DPP Keir Starmer — the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales — are taking place in a week when social media prosecutions are very much in the news. On Monday, Matthew Woods<\/a> was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison for unpleasant, distasteful remarks on Facebook about missing Welsh schoolgirl April Jones. On Tuesday, Azhar Ahmed was given community service and a \u00a3300 fine for suggesting — again on Facebook — that British soldiers should burn in hell.<\/p>\n Index condemned these prosecutions and that of Paul Chambers, whose quip that he would blow Doncaster\u2019s Robin Hood airport \u201csky high\u201d landed him in deep trouble before the Lord Chief Justice ruled that his joke should be taken as just that.<\/p>\n It\u2019s clear to many that there is a problem with the law and social media, in particular the use of Section 127 of the Communications Act, which states that a person is guilty of an offence if she \u201csends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.\u201d<\/p>\n At the meeting today, the DPP seemed to share Index\u2019s unease with the use of this law, pointing out that its genealogy dates back to the 1930s, and laws to protect telophone operators from abuse.<\/p>\n This was certainly encouraging to hear. But Starmer was keen to point out that prosecutors can only work within the existing laws — it is up to others to change the law.<\/p>\n What was not so encouraging was his view of the Lord Chief Justice\u2019s opinion offered in the Twitter Joke Appeal.<\/p>\n