Chapter 6 Answer guidance to end of chapter questions

Social networking and antisocial conduct
  1. People cannot say what they like on Twitter. It is a public space not a private one and all Twitter speech must be regulated accordingly. If you break the terms of an injunction you should expect to be prosecuted for contempt of court; trolls should expect prosecution under relevant criminal provisions while anyone who tweets ‘You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!' should expect to be treated as making a criminal threat or communication.

To answer this question I would expect the student to discuss in order:

  1. A discussion of the nature of a Twitter feed (and tweet). Is it a public utterance or a private one? Why?
  2. An analysis of key cases as trailed in the question – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd (injunction); Chambers v DPP (threats) and Matthew Woods or Reece Messer (trolling).
  3. A discussion of the impact of s.127 of the Communications Act, the Protection from Harassment Act, the Malicious Communications Act  and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have on freedom of expression. Do they balance the interests of free speech and protection from harm responsibly?
  4. What is the responsibility of the individual and Twitter? Should Twitter reveal account details of users when a request is made? Should Twitter delete tweets and block accounts more readily?
  5. Did the courts ultimately reach the correct decisions in cases such as Chambers v DPP, R v Blackshaw and Divin & McGinlay v Her Majesty’s Advocate?
  1. Is there a right not to be offended in one’s religious beliefs? Should YouTube take down copies of the movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’? If not should they selectively block access to it on a country-by-country basis?

To answer this question I would expect the student to discuss in order:

  1. A discussion of the balancing of international speech principles as already analysed extensively in ch.6 and the cases of Licra et UEJF v Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo! France and Yahoo! Inc. v LICRA.
  2. A further discussion of the issues raised in R v Sheppard and anor, also discussed in ch.6.
  3. A description of the Innocence of Muslims affair. The cause of the offence, the response of Muslims internationally and how YouTube responded.
  4. Which interests should be protected by YouTube – the speech interests (1st Amendment) or the religious beliefs of those offended? Should YouTube remove the film or is it right to allow selective blocking on a country-by-country basis?
  1. According to Lord Toulson in PJS ‘the court needs to be very cautious about granting an injunction preventing publication of what is widely known, if it is not to lose public respect for the law by giving the appearance of being out of touch with reality’. Do you agree with him? Is Lord Toulson a cyber-libertarian?

To answer this question I would expect the student to discuss in order:

  1. Firstly to identify the factual framing and the legal question in issue in the PJS case. This involves contextualising the PJS case against prior Internet privacy cases such as Giggs (CTB), Trafigura, Terry and Ntuli.
  2. Then the PJS decision should be situated in the post-Giggs, post-Neuberger Report legal framework. A short explanation of the factual background including vitally that PJSs identity had been published in the US and in Scotland.
  3. The position of the majority in the Supreme Court should be given, as set out by Lord Mance. Lord Toulson should be identified as dissenting.
  4. The basis of Lord Toulson’s dissent (as partly set out in the question) should be explored and identified.
  5. A Cyberlibertarian approach (as set out in chapter 4) should be explained and the question of whether Lord Toulson’s position is essentially within cyberlibrtarianism should be explored. 
Back to top