Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service for posting an offensive tweet

A UK Twitter user was sentenced to 150 hours of community service for posting a tweet deemed “extremely offensive” about Sir Tom Moore, a British army officer who raised money for that country's National Health Service (NHS) during the pandemic.

The Twitter user is named Joseph Kelly and a day after Moore's death he posted the following: “The only good British soldier is one who is dead, he burns old man ardeeeee”. After 20 minutes he deleted the post. It should be noted that Moore was knighted by the Queen for her commitment during the pandemic and other achievements.

As a result of that Tweet, Kelly was investigated, and found guilty in February of last year. Now came his sentence: 18 months of supervision and 150 hours of unpaid work in the form of a Scottish Community Reimbursement Order (CPO).

His lawyer said that his client was simply wrong and took action to resolve the problem almost immediately: he deleted the tweet just 20 minutes after he wrote it.

“His crime level was a drunken publication, at a time when he was struggling emotionally, which he regretted and deleted (the publication) almost instantly,” said his defense attorney Tony Callahan.

However, that explanation was not enough for the justice that decided to make this an example to deter, in the future, other users from demonstrating aggressively on the networks without fear of reprisal.

“After hearing the evidence, my opinion is that this was a highly offensive tweet. Deterrence is really showing people that despite the steps you took to try to resolve the matter, as soon as the blue button is pressed, that's all. It's important for other people to realize how quickly things can get out of control. You are a good example of that, not having many followers,” said Sheriff Adrian Cottam, reading Kelly's sentence.

The Twitter user was found guilty under Section 127 of the UK Communications Act. The law was originally intended to prosecute people who said offensive things over the phone, but since then it has also been used to punish content considered highly offensive on social media.

This is not the first time that a citizen of that country has been found guilty of violating that rule by harassing or insulting public figures.

Several countries are considering reforms for the regulations that regulate this type of content. In some cases, platforms are sought to assume a greater degree of responsibility for the content they allow to circulate.

It is worth recalling the controversy surrounding section 230, of the Communications Decency Act, in the United States. In mid-2020, the US Department of Justice introduced a reform, in line with an executive order signed by Trump, that seeks to reduce the exemptions enjoyed by platforms.

Section 230 is a provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that affects all online forums, ranging from Twitter or Facebook to comments on any page. According to this provision, forum operators cannot be held responsible for what users share on their sites, even if it involves any violation of the law.

But beyond the liability that may or may not be attributed to platforms, there are different regulations under which claims can be filed for different types of damages. In Argentina, for example, in 2018 there was an unprecedented ruling in which a Twitter user was convicted of the crime of slander and insult.

A woman invented a Twitter account and from there she reported a man for committing a series of crimes. The accusations went viral and the respondent felt that it affected his name and honor. So he went to justice and after a year he turned his case into the first judicial precedent to watch out for: posting a false incrimination on social media could end in a conviction.

KEEP READING: