Life in crime | The criminalisation of free speech has gone too far

Matthew Woods, a nineteen-year-old from Lancashire, decided to post a number of derogatory remarks on Facebook about two missing girls, April Jones and Madeleine McCann. He was recently sentenced to 12 weeks in custody for these 'sick jokes.' Newspapers reported that the same bench had earlier fined a man £100 for shouting racial abuse at a woman, who had pulled up in her car beside him at a junction.

Azhar Ahmed was fined £300 and sentenced to a Community Order for posting an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers. He wrote that British soldiers in Afghanistan 'should die and go to hell'

Both were prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits sending a 'message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character'. The DPP is expected to issue guidelines following several cases in which substantial sentences have been imposed on people who have posted offensive remarks on social media websites.

There is a glaring disparity when one man goes to prison and the other receives only a fine. The only difference is the way the offensive remark was communicated. On this basis, direct speech merits a lesser punishment than the written word. The usual response to hearing an offensive or sick joke is to display your disgust by turning away and ignoring the comment; shunning the speaker and moving on quickly to safer conversational territory. Should we be more offended by the written word? Offensive language in the street, or pub can perhaps be mitigated on the grounds of impulsiveness, speaking without thinking. Is the same phenomenon prevalent in social media? Do we think before we tweet? Arguably, it takes longer to write a tweet than uttering an offensive remark in anger or haste. The idea of an individual sitting at home spilling poisonous bile onto the page and making the deliberate choice to publish may seem more blameworthy. We choose to post by the pressing of the button or the clicking of a mouse. Many of us will have experienced that feeling of hovering, hand poised over the computer, debating whether or not to post that tweet or message. Sometimes we change our minds, our inner voice warning us that it is open to misinterpretation, that we may regret what we are about to say. The post is instantaneous, once pressed, it is irrevocable.

Then there are those who are seeking that sort of reaction. Who would not stop to think, mull over or decide what they want to say. Those who are affected by mental illness and are unable to rationally decide what is and is not appropriate. Those who seek to prod, irritate and provoke. They are the internet age equivalent of the irritating boy at the back of the class, who makes crass jokes to the silent disgust of his classmates. Like everyone else in the world, they use the internet too. However, blameworthiness and moral revulsion are not the same as criminality.