DPP to issue interim guidelines re Online Abuse Prosecutions

DPP to issue guidelines on prosecutions over Facebook and Twitter abuse

Move follows news that footballer who tweeted homophobic message about diver Tom Daley will not be prosecuted

Owen Bowcott
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 September 2012 14.41 BST

The director of public prosecutions is to issue guidelines on when criminal charges should be brought against people posting abusive comments on social media networks.

Keir Starmer QC made the announcement on Thursday after revealing that a Welsh footballer who posted a homophobic message about the Olympic divers Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield on Twitter will not be prosecuted.

Starmer said he will launch a public consultation and issue guidelines on how to deal with the daily avalanche of hundreds of millions of comments – some abusive, some potentially criminal – posted on social media sites.

One of the Crown Prosecution Service's main grounds for concluding that Daniel Thomas, a semi-professional midfielder with Port Talbot Town FC, would not be charged was that his comments, "however misguided", were intended to be humorous and not to offend the athletes.

That principle, stressing the sender's intention and the online context, reflects a landmark judgment by the court of appeal in July that overturned the conviction of Paul Chambers who had previously been found guilty of sending a menacing tweet about Doncaster airport which he meant to be a joke.

Under the Communications Act 2003 it is an offence to send a message using a public electronic communications network if it is "grossly offensive".

"The time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media ... This case is one of a growing number involving the use of social media that the CPS has had to consider. There are likely to be many more," Starmer said.

"The recent increase in the use of social media has been profound. It is estimated that on Twitter alone there are 340 million messages sent daily. And the context in which this interactive social media dialogue takes place is quite different to the context in which other communications take place."

Explaining the decision not to prosecute Daniel Thomas, Starmer said: "This was, in essence, a one-off offensive Twitter message, intended for family and friends, which made its way into the public domain.

"It was not intended to reach Mr Daley or Mr Waterfield, it was not part of a campaign, it was not intended to incite others and Mr Thomas removed it reasonably swiftly and has expressed remorse.

"Before reaching a final decision in this case, Mr Daley and Mr Waterfield were consulted by the CPS and both indicated that they did not think this case needed a prosecution." The message "was not so grossly offensive that criminal charges need to be brought".

Daley and diving partner Pete Waterfield missed out on a medal at this summer's Olympics when they finished fourth in the 10m synchronised dive.

"Access to social media is ubiquitous and instantaneous. Banter, jokes and offensive comment are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions," Starmer said.

"Against that background, the CPS has the task of balancing the fundamental right of free speech and the need to prosecute serious wrongdoing on a case by case basis. That often involves very difficult judgment calls and, in the largely uncharted territory of social media, the CPS is proceeding on a case by case basis."

The DPP said he would be issuing interim guidelines to assist prosecutors in deciding whether criminal action is required and then launching a public consultation with "campaigners, media lawyers, academics, social media experts and law enforcement bodies" to ensure that the final guidelines "are as fully informed as possible".

The problem was also one the police, court services and internet service providers need to confront, Starmer added: "The fact that offensive remarks may not warrant a full criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean that no action should be taken. In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media."