Thread by @AdamWagner1

1/ A man has just been convicted of a criminal offence for filming his dog giving Nazi salutes. Please let me try and convince you in a few tweets why this is a *bad thing* [THREAD] bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla…

2/ I am no fan of Nazis, and I’m sure you aren’t either. But you don’t need to like or agree with Mark Meecham to agree that shouldn’t be criminalising “gross offence" and really bad jokes. That's because to do so strikes at the heart of free speech protections. Let me explain.

3/ Meecham was convicted under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it a criminal offence to send “by means of a public electronic communications network” a message that is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”.

4/ Section 127 is dangerous to free speech for 3 reasons.

First, it is extremely wide. “Gross offence” is vague and highly subjective.

Second, it puts the question of what is “gross offence” into the hands of the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

5/ Third, it strikes at the heart of the right to free speech. In all illiberal societies, free speech is the first thing to go. Because the dominant ideology or leader must be protected from ridicule and challenge. That's why comedians don't do well in dictatorships.

6/ So human rights laws always focus on protecting free speech. But that must mean protecting speech which offends, shocks or disturb the state or any sector of the population. That’s how the European Court of Human Rights put it in a famous case rightsinfo.org/stories/the-li…

7/ Criminalising “gross offence” means the police are - literally - policing free speech. The CPS have guidelines on what they will prosecute in the “public interest” but imagine how those decisions are being made. It will usually be about what ideas are *popular*

8/ Meecham said this was a joke. So where we end up is that the police and courts are deciding whether speech is funny. That is exactly what happened in the famous “Twitter joke trial”, where @ChambsP was rightly acquitted en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_J…

9/ Some people are arguing that Meecham’s conviction is a good thing because (i) we hate Nazis, and (ii) it discourage people from hate speech. I agree with both. But we have extensive criminal laws against hate speech. We don’t need “gross offence” to back them up.

10/ My worry is that for every famous case there are loads under the radar in magistrates courts. Stupid teenagers pushing boundaries on Facebook or Reddit (which is basically a gross offence factory). Those cases don't get famous supporters or rights lawyers backing them

11/ People should be free to say stupid and offensive things, unless they are inciting violence. That's where I would draw the line.
So you can think Meecham is an unfunny idiot and hate Nazis and still think section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is a bad thing /END

12/ A couple of points arising from the really interesting comments - thanks to everyone who has commented and shared. First, I got @pauljchambers (of Twitter Joke Trial fame)'s Twitter handle wrong. There must be an internet rule for that.

13/ On the relevance of Meecham saying awful things to his dog like "gas the Jews". It's interesting that the BBC headline is that he was convicted of hate crime. He wasn't - it was gross offence cps.gov.uk/hate-crime

14/ I don't see what gross offence as a crime adds to hate crime laws, except the unacceptable risk of free speech violations by the courts and police. As a Jew, I am terrified of extremist violence towards my religion. But that should be the focus, not offence.

15/ I am a strong believer in the marketplace of ideas. We may (literally) be disgusted by some ideas, but why be afraid of hearing about them? We should expose them to argument and ridicule. Psychologically, people will cling to an idea which has been banned. So don't ban it.