The law has to define crimes, which means it can run behind new technology. I'm also not sure whether people should be convicted of inciting a riot if the riot doesn't happen. Or have I missed something?
IIRC you can be done for hate speech even if no one acts on it, and this would seem to be similar. On the other hand, it's probably nearer to slander or libel, and given how the civil law on those have been abused to protect the rich and powerful I'd be nervous of criminal law getting into those areas.
This seems like a complex example of a new thing. There appear to be elements of dishonesty and intent to cause some public disorder and the use of new technology. I think I'd prefer the police to proscecute and see what the courts thought about it.
I think I agree with you. And it should go up through the courts, they should agree how things currently stand, and then politicians can tweak it if they don't like that conclusion.
I think I agree too - having a few cases of a new thing go unpunished or underpunished from time to time might be the price we pay for not having an extremely draconian catch-all system with over-general laws.
This does feel like it should be at least in the category "underpunished" rather than "unpunished" though. I would be unsurprised if the Met and the DPP were currently exploring the options here, behind the scenes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think I agree too - having a few cases of a new thing go unpunished or underpunished from time to time might be the price we pay for not having an extremely draconian catch-all system with over-general laws.
This does feel like it should be at least in the category "underpunished" rather than "unpunished" though. I would be unsurprised if the Met and the DPP were currently exploring the options here, behind the scenes.