TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

Can you get arrested for things you say on Facebook and Twitter?

Short answer: yes.

Image: AP Photo/Paul Sakuma

ANYONE WHO HAS spent more than a few minute on the internet will have come across the abusive and offensive comments that can reside on social networks and in comments sections.

The comments are nothing new – they’ve existed since the dawn of the web in the 1990s. But what’s changed is how quickly and how widely these messages can spread through social media.

In the past year, Britain has started to crack down hard, using existing laws to prosecute comments made on Facebook and Twitter which break the law.

In March, a 21-year-old student who posted racist tweets about footballer Fabrice Muamba as he lay collapsed on a football pitch was jailed for 56 days for a racially aggravated public disorder offence. Last August, two men who set up an event on Facebook encouraging people to riot in their home towns were both sentenced to four years in prison for trying to incite disorder - despite the fact that no-one actually showed up to the event.

In one of the most infamous cases, a man who posted a tweet threatening to blow up an airport in England, which he said was light-hearted and a joke, was found guilty by magistrates of sending a menacing electronic communication.

The British government is planning to go further: this week it proposed new laws which would require internet service providers to unmask ‘trolls’ who post defamatory comments online.  The issue is gaining increased attention in the UK after several high profile cases of online harrassment, including the jailing Frank Zimmerman, the 60-year-old who sent threatening and offensive emails to a Conservative MP.

But despite similar issues arising in Ireland, the situation is very different here.

What you can’t say on the internet

trolls

(Image: cali4beach via Flickr/Creative Commons)

Technically anything that is said on the internet is subject to the same laws as if it’s published in any other format; in other words, the most likely charges that could be brought against a tweet or a status update are defamation – publication of a statement about someone which injures their reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society – or incitement.

In practice this means that calling someone the worst curse word you can think of is a crap thing to do on Twitter but is unlikely to break the law – but making an untrue allegation about them could, as could encouraging or threatening someone else to commit a crime.

“It’s worth bearing in mind that crude abuse is not defamation, and thus a lot of what goes on online will not ground a defamation action,” explains Fergal Crehan, a Dublin-based barrister.

However crude abuse can possibly, if extreme enough, be prosecuted under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989. Unlike similar laws in other countries, this Act does not specify that the hate must be racial in nature. It simply makes it an offence to engage in actions ‘likely to stir up hatred’.

The use of fake names on social networking sites can also act as a barrier to cases being brought before the court. In order to take a case against a person who has said something on the internet, you have to first find and identify the perpetrator – which, as Fergal Crehan explains, is not always easy online.

“You can get a court order against Twitter or Facebook  or whichever website is involved to hand over the IP and email details of individual accounts, but that requires an expensive trip to court which can end up doing you more harm than good,” explains Crehan.

The Irish government is not currently looking at bringing in any UK-style laws in the near future which would specifically target people who post abuse on the internet.

“The Department of Justice is aware of the UK intentions but has no specific comment to offer until adequate consideration has been given to the relevant proposals,” a spokesperson for Department told TheJournal.ie, adding that harrasment is also considered a criminal offence.

Are many people prosecuted in Ireland for what they say on social networks?

The number of people arrested in Ireland for something they said on a social network is  miniscule;  a spokesperson for the Gardaí said that complaints have been made but the number of actual arrests made is very low.

Last year a Kerryman who created a Facebook page page entitled ‘Promote The Use of Knacker Babies as Bait’ was brought to court in a landmark case, charged with an offence under the Incitement to Hatred Act . The case was dismissed by the judge who said there was ‘reasonable doubt’ whether the 27-year-old had intended to incite hatred towards members of the Traveller community.

Three years earlier, a man was initially prosecuted in Dundalk District Court for posting obscene messages on a teenage girl’s Bebo page. However the trial was declared a mistrial due to a technicality over the charges that were brought against the man.

Cases have also been brought against bloggers and websites hosted in Ireland.

“Someone has to make a complaint in order for the matter to be investigated,” explained the Garda spokesperson. The Gardaí have a dedicated Computer Crime Section which mostly deals with fraud but also tackles issues of online abuse and offensive material.

Despite the huge number of people on Facebook and Twitter, there is little government impetus to introduce any specific legislation to deal specifically with online abuse. If the British laws to unmask trolls pass however, that may easily change.

Explainer: The 274 books and magazines still banned in Ireland today >

Explainer: After the global financial crisis, why are ratings agencies still trusted? >

Read next:

Comments (75 Comments)

  • Comments on Facebook like:
    “I Fuc*ed a 15 year old escort” in hindsight would have been Better worded as:
    “I crashed my 1997 XR3″

    Reply
  • I hope they have WiFi in jail then.

    Reply
  • Can you get arrested for saying something on the Journo?

    Reply
  • I got tired of all this nonsense and closed my FB account – best move I ever made!

    Reply
  • Enda Kenny is a liar !!!! sue me

    Reply
  • That’s the funny thing people think they are all big over Facebook and twitter with their horrible comments about racism ect…. Then you see them crying in court saying there sorry lol pathetic!

    Reply
  • higgs its only time before it will happen here the people are starting to become informed,the political classes could not be having that,

    Reply
    • That’s the nail on the head! Gone are the days when the gov could rely on the older populace for the guaranteed vote. Now it’s the younger generation who are in control and voice their distrust/concerns/theories on the web. Can’t be having this sort if influence spreading esp if it goes against the grain!! But I’d imagine it’s alright for them to spew out their propaganda and untruths !! One rule for them and another for the rest of us.

      Reply
    • Yeah, and imagine how difficult it is getting to avoid being answerable to voters voicing legitimate concerns by email, social media etc.
      Bloody interweb!

      Reply
  • Don’t mistake this as an attempt to protect the average online user. It is being done specifically so that those in power can try to gain control of something they see as a threat – the internet – and will be used to protect those in power and them alone.

    Reply
  • M 16/06/12 #

    I always thought that ‘Internet Defamation’ was based on the location of where the website is hosted will enact the located country’s laws? Politics.ie moved their website to a US host/servers to avoid Irish laws regarding defamatory posts afaik. How can you prove your twitter/Facebook page is hosted directly in Ireland or UK?

    Reply
    • Well in this case the crime is being committed by the individual, not the company who runs the server.

      Reply
    • Facebook is supposed to be a real name environment so it is relatively easy to work out who you are. Most Twitter and Facebook users have a location set. In the case of Facebook, it’s an Irish limited company with an address in Dublin.

      Reply
    • M 17/06/12 #

      If I go to an internet forum, that is hosted in the US and post something defamatory then I will be prosecuted under US law as the location of the publication. Twitter and Facebook are hosted in the US, their DNS records and server locations say Paulo Alto, California, not Dublin. So anyone posting anything should be subject to US law

      Reply
  • They’ve lost the plot over in the UK. I fear for freedom of speech over there.

    Reply
    • We already have pretty much the same defamation laws here. You can be charged for damaging someone’s good name, for threatening someone, or for persistent harassment. That applies whether it’s done face-to-face, over the phone, in writing, online or whatever.

      Reply
  • …and do any of you remember its not that long ago two people went to America for a holiday but were deported when they got to immigration because they wrote on Twitter that the were going to have a blast or something to that effect…

    Reply
    • Any country can decide their immigration and border control rules. If the two people had verbally said what they did in the airport they would have probably suffered they same fate.

      Reply
  • Good old Sickipedia has lot to answer for so! How that site is still active I’ll never know!

    Reply
  • I do think one should be answerable when giving comment’s, as much as I agree with free speech, which let’s face it is one of the few things we have left that has not been forbidden or taxed, however there are people who would abuse this if giving a chance, and I for one enjoy having the opportunity to have my say……

    Reply
  • I would not even consider using Twitter without connecting through a VPN.

    Its simples: hide your IP and all personal information through a reliable VPN – only way to be truly anonymous!
    As a techie – I will always defend free speech by staying two steps ahead of the cultural marxist thought police!

    Reply
  • John F 16/06/12 #

    Basically the answer to ‘Can you get arrested for things you say on Facebook and Twitter?’ is yes, if you are stupid enough to get caught! For example if you post something racist or slanderous or hate filled to your personal page and your profile is set to public, so basically accessible by anyone (including your 3 thousand friends) your asking for trouble!
    Short answer is.. if you want to air your controversial views online, do so from an anonymous profile, one that doesn’t have a picture of you smiling and giving thumbs up as the profile pic and one that’s not linked to your personal email address either.
    Remember Homer and his Mr X website? Anonymity is your friend! :-)

    Reply
  • I feel so lucky to live in the free world and not a country where what you can be arrested for what you say, print, post or tweet even if it’s a reference to the government massacring students in a TS or a photo of a pregnant women who’s just been tied down and had the the foetuses ripped out of her…

    Voltaire: ‘I may not agree with what you have to say sir, I shall however defend to my death your right to say it’

    Reply
  • I crashed a 97 escort if any body asks.

    Reply
  • Scotland is the strictest with online policing when it comes to sectarianism and racial hatred.

    Reply
  • This is typical of our failed justice system, a law which allows the prosecution of any behaviour. Laws for this and laws for that and nobody knows what’s what. Laws that are written so as to be able to prosecute, just in case, any eventuality litter our statute books. Less laws and statutes so that people can understand them and their usefulness. More enforcement of the laws we do have, and none should be above them.

    Reply
  • It poses a question when dealing with opinions being expressed by people. Successive so called Irish Governments have been using opinions in law since 1922.

    If you introduce opinions into law then who is to judge whether its good or bad? right or wrong? treason or loyalty?

    This sight assumes authority to judge and censor like other social media, which will clearly infringe peoples rights to express opinions.

    Reply
    • You make this same comment on every law-related article. What do you mean by “using opinions in law”?
      Could you try to explain what you mean without using the word “opinion” because I genuinely have no idea what exactly it is that you have a problem with.

      Reply
    • @James Daly: Opinions, if you have one in law are used to commit crime, pervert the course of justice and hide the details/evidence.

      Should you allow anybody the facilities to commit crime and hide the details / evidence?

      People have a right to question evidence and not opinions that do not exist.

      Its not that difficult.

      If you want to understand opinions read the back of a paperback book in the libraries. You will find opinions on the back of most paperback books. If you want the details you have to read the book.

      Reply
    • And the first word in the explanation is ‘opinions’.

      Sounds like some flavour of Freeman woo. A cursory Google search for “opinions in law” +Ireland shows that Loyal Irish Citizen seems to be almost alone in being concerned about this, whatever it is.

      Reply
    • Loyal Irish,
      I didn’t want to mention this, but I have an Honours Bachelor’s Degree and a Master’s Degree in Law. Yet I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to get at. You haven’t explained at all what you mean.

      Could you give a concrete example of where this problem you are describing has happened? I still can’t figure out what is is that you have a problem with.

      Reply
    • @Finland O’Toole: In your comment you admit you don’t know what opinions in law are.

      Should you in any form of judicial system be allowed the details / evidence of the situation?

      Hiding the details will interfere with your rights.

      Why would those applying law need to hide the details / evidence?

      By example, in recent times they have been stealing from Social Welfare Recipients and hiding the details / evidence and nobody is getting protection by law. Opinions in law are very dangerous in the wrong hands.

      Reply
    • @James Daly: Successive so call called Irish Government have introduced opinion 8448 times since 1922.

      Opinions are everywhere.

      It looks like the country is going to be in a lot of trouble if you cannot explain the use of opinions to us.

      Your statement would explain why the Garda do not know what to look for when it comes to crime.

      Reply
    • Loyal Irish,

      I’m still trying to figure out what you’re getting at.
      Could you give just one example of where this has happened?

      Reply
    • @James Daly: As you work in law you already know.

      Reply
    • Yes, I don’t know what you mean by “opinions in law”, and like James I was hoping you would explain.

      You mention theft from Social Welfare recipients. Could you use this as an example, and explain how this theft is carried out?

      Reply
    • @Finland O’Toole: Try this.

      Details of their legal obligations!
      Details of accusations being made!
      Details and evidence!

      Everything about law is details.

      Should anybody use opinions to interfere with the due process of law and hide the details?

      Reply
    • Loyal Irish,
      Up until now I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt but you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

      Your comments make no sense, you can’t explain what you mean and you can’t give an example of what it is you’re talking about.

      Next time you make this “opinions in law” comment on another article I won’t even bother engaging with you.

      Reply
    • @Loyal Irish Citizen

      That really doesn’t help me to understand what you are talking about.

      There have been 8,448 instances of this in the last 90 years, yet you cannot describe one example?

      That’s nearly two a week, surely there has been mention of this previously.

      Reply
    • @James Daly : Considering you work in law and don’t understand law it might best best if you get another career.

      @Finland O’Toole: So opinions are so good at hiding details it has been kept quiet for a long time.

      For those who want to use opinions commit crime, opinions clearly work.

      Reply
    • Yet again, Loyal Irish, please describe a case involving your bugbear, “opinions”.

      It would also be enlightening if you could explain “opinions in law”.

      Reply
    • @Finland O’Toole: You can always do some searches on http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/home.html

      Use the “More Search Options”

      It has all the information you need.

      Reply
    • Calm down bro, your jimmies are full on rustled.

      Reply
    • Trying desperately to decode LIC’s meaning (and, to be fair to him, his general use of vocabulary and grammar suggests English isn’t his first language) the closest I can come is that he’s talking about laws which are dependent on a judgement of the *intent* of the accused.

      That is to say, as opposed to laws where throwing a brick through someone else’s window is a crime (and either someone has thrown a brick through someone else’s window or they haven’t) there are laws where whether someone used a phrase with an *intent* to intimidate and to incite hatred.

      Now IF that’s what he means (and God knows, that’s just my best guess) then I don’t see the problem. YES, juries in such cases must make a judgement about whether they think someone was thinking but then most criminal cases involve juries making judgements of facts based on what they think someone did.

      Reply
    • @Peter Nolan: English is my first language. It is your lack of knowledge on opinions in law that’s the problem.

      One word from your comment stands out “guess”.

      Is law a guessing game?

      Can you obey law with a guess?

      Maybe you should try to work things out properly with reading, writing, arithmetic, skills and evidence only.

      Reply
    • Loyal Irish, what should I be searching for in the statute book?

      You are obviously upset about this, but you haven’t explained it at all.

      Reply
    • @Finland O’Toole: You should be typing is the word “opinion” in the field Search for word(s)/phrase in Title/text.

      Learn to use the facility.

      Opinions hide the details of any given situation.
      Opinions hide the details of any given situation.
      Opinions hide the details of any given situation.
      Opinions hide the details of any given situation.

      I really can’t make the explanation any simpler. I think you will have to try and figure it out for yourself.

      Reply
    • What do I run a search for in the Statute Book, Loyal Irish? Is it some kind of super-secret code I’m not yet aware of?

      Again, a quick example of how Social Welfare recipients are being stolen from would help out.

      Reply
    • Dear me, I should run a fairly common English word through a clumsy search function to engage you?

      Any news on those examples?

      Reply
    • @Finland O’Toole: I think you must be taking the piss.

      You search for the word opinion and it will give a list of examples.

      There are 8448 examples for you to choose.

      Reply
    • Words fail me.

      Yet again, what does “opinions in law” mean?

      Reply
    • @Finland O’Toole: This is my last entry on this subject with you.

      Opinions in law = dishonesty.
      Opinions in law = crime.

      Reject opinions in law in favour of the evidence if you want to know the truth.

      Reply
    • Loyal Irish. Yet again

      Can you explain what “opinions in law” means?

      As I mentioned earlier, you seem to be the Internet’s sole expert on this.

      Reply
    • @Finland He’s probably talking about consilia, a cornerstone of the common law system.

      Reply
    • @LIC You obviously have your panties in a right twist, because you are failing to make any sense whatsoever. Here’s a little challenge for you. Point to one case where opinions have been used in the sense that you mean showing clearly what the opinions were, how those opinions allowed anyone to hide the “details/evidence” and demonstrating how those opinions in any way resulted in a biased verdict.

      Reply
    • @Noel Cosgrave: You could try Statutory Instrument 272/273 of 1996.

      Statutory Instrument 272/273 of 1996 is where Mervyn Taylor set up the Legal Aid Board as judge and jury using opinions to keep people away from domestic or international courts.

      Condition 1. Means Test.

      The poor do not get legal assitance in tribunals in D’Olier Street.
      The rich get legal assitance in tribunals in Dublin Castle.

      Legal Aid is designed for those without resources in the interest of justice. Its a contradiction in applying the rules that the rich get legal aid and the poor do not.

      You cannot fight long lengthy legal battles without the proper legal resources.

      Condition 2. Merit Test.

      The Legal Aid Board (Solicitors and Barristers) apply a merit test of a case to see whether the case should be brought before the courts and provide a barriier / filtration system to keep people away from domestic or international courts using opinions.

      For the Legal Aid Board (Solicitors and Barristers) to assume authority of a court is a fundamental change to the system and coupled with the fact they are leaving social welfare recipients to starve is committing crimes against humanity.

      How legal is it to have a psuedo / kangaroo court keeping people away from proper courts where they should protect their rights?

      Reply
    • @LIC You seem to be alluding to a particular case. Which one? As for the Legal Aid Board, they are there to provide free legal aid to those who can not afford it so that they have the possibility to be represented in a court of law. A Social Welfare tribunal in D’Olier Street is not a court of law.

      Reply
    • @Noel Cosgrave: 90+ years of opinions since 1922 or before will effect the outcome of all potential court cases where those employed in law can use an opinions to censor the details and pervert the course of justice.

      The Social Welfare Appeals system is an independent statutory process where people have statutory rights. The process is legally binding and is as close to a court system that you can get with the official title.

      Reply
    • @Noel Cosgrave:

      Meant to say :

      The process is legally binding and is a close to a court system that you can get without the official title.

      Reply
    • Rebecca Smith Wed, 6:03 PM #

      The problem is that not everyone has the same opinion, James, therefore who gets to be in ‘charge’ of the personal opinions that should be legislated into law. You? If lawmakers use their own personal opinions and bias when creating law, it discriminates and violates the rights of people who have a different opinion. It’s called fascism.

      Reply
  • Racists should be locked up for their hate filled nonsense whether in the virtual or real worlds. No tolerance for intolerance!

    on another note, Irish Republicans have had what they’ve written on internet forums and social sites used against them in the past number of years. You can be locked away for expressing opinions that don’t adhere to the status quo of the Good Friday Agreement!

    Reply
    • i think the world has gone mad, people should say what they want. if you’re sensitive then thats your problem. call me a pink bear for all i care, it doesn’t hurt me. theyre just words. grow up.

      Reply
    • @Kerron The trouble with locking up someone for their intolerance is that it is likely to have the effect of further entrenching their attitudes and those of the people around them and could result in escalation into something far more serious than verbal abuse. Then there’s also the problem that one person’s hatred is another’s legitimate protest, a dichotomy I’m sure your friends in Éirígí are all too well aware of.

      Reply

Add New Comment