Scottow verdict: Guilty

No, but if you carry on doing the same type of thing under different accounts even after being banned, why, why would you do that?
Exactly. Why would you do that?
Kate didn't do that

I literally read a tweet today saying that she did have several accounts and mentioned the victim (in the case) in them.
Think it was from Kate herself? Said she had several accounts.
That talked about the defendant.

Angry protest by the terven

No, but if you carry on doing the same type of thing under different accounts even after being banned, why, why would you do that?
And just to be super clear.

If one person had more than one account, even without being banned, ie sock accounts, and they continued to post hate, threats and lies along with insults, should they be hauled in front of the courts for "causing annoyance"?

Or should we allow the police to tackle actual crimes such as femocide, rape, paedophilia, domestic abuse, child abuse, knife crime (it's an endless list)? or should our police force be paid to be the school prefects and play favourites?

No, but if you carry on doing the same type of thing under different accounts even after being banned, why, why would you do that?
Exactly. Why would you do that? Kate didn't do that.

Kate had one account, bustedwench, which got in a Twitter spat with hayden. Hayden reported her to the police, her account was targeted and she got banned from Twitter. She came back after a month (need to confirm that but she refused to come back for quite some time) she didn't tweet hayden, not mention them. Hayden searched her out, told her to remove account or police would be notified, notified police and got account targeted. Same thing happened with 3 account. Now.

I'm on my 6th account. Not because I'm a terrorist, or because I continually @ someone with abuse, or indeed because I discuss any one individual online. I am on my 6th account because I am a radical feminist. I don't post about any one individual or topic but someone (in Germany apparently) is continually offended by me and my posts. Shall I send myself to the gulag?

Hayden admitted in open court that he knew these accounts were Scottow because she'd posted pictures of her dog. Now. I have a few friends with dogs. Personally I'd need confirmation to see if a pic posted online were of their dog. Hayden also admitted knowing all about Kate, her husband, their pets, their kids, workplaces and university course BEFORE reporting the first account. Indeed, hayden first went to Kate's university before going to the police.

Now. While I see your good intentions to "be kind", maybe you should actually know the background before giving such a damming conviction to a fellow woman.

Remember this is a person who said, in court, that this was not racist, and who has tweeted in favour of the Nazi gassings.
Maybe you should take the judges advice, as causing anxiety and annoyance @ is now a crime ?

So the problem for you is the fact that a person has more than one account to tweet out abuse?
No, but if you carry on doing the same type of thing under different accounts even after being banned, why, why would you do that?

Sorry, what
Sorry was working and not paying attention

So the problem for you is the fact that a person has more than one account to tweet out abuse?

Who's the midnight misogynist? Was he targeting an individual or just generally on the board?

Just think, we could have sent the police round to talk to the Midnight Misogynist a year ago! Or not, because being a pain in the arse shouldn't be illegal.

I frequently encounter people who annoy me during online debates. Frequently their behaviour is persistent and it's fairly obvious that their sole intent is to cause annoyance. Sometimes they keep up this behaviour over months or years.

I always thought they were just annoying but it turns out they are criminals.

Indeed. The law has been struggling to keep up with the internet for a while, and this law is an example of doing so poorly. Whether or not the stifling of free speech potential was intentional or unintended consequence we could debate for several threads, but as written it's a bad law that threatens other important legal principles.

Regardless of anybody's views on women's rights, brexit, party politics, whether someone should LTB, whether you should own a loo brush, bla bla ... this law says that if you cause annoyance to someone by persistent use of a public electronic communications network then you have committed an offence.

Online debate is potentially illegal if it annoys someone.

Everyone should have a problem with this, even people who hate women.

Just reading that Twitter thread. if somebody makes an appearance with a new account but shows from a picture tweeted it's the same person albeit under a new name.

Why should person think no, I'll let slide, I'm imagining things?
What has anyone breastfeeding got to do with anything if you've been guilty of harrassing online?

Won't be problem lies in having more than one Twitter account to post out abuse? Right?

Sorry, what?

This twitter thread covers much of why I think it has relevance

twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1228105053279588352

wotcha

Won't be problem lies in having more than one Twitter account to post out abuse? Right?

We'll have to disagree on that point. I think it has plenty of relevance

What has someone being able to give as good as they get got to do with anything though?
If as a result they were tweeting/messaging/whatever counter harassment ok, can see that.
If not, multiple accounts set up talking about you can see how that would be seen as harassment if so.

We'll have to disagree on that point. I think it has plenty of relevance.

In the case of Kate v Hayden the latter is not without blemish and can certainly give as good as they get

No I agree, that's fair enough - that's not to do with the verdict today though?
Regardless of the latter being able to give as good as they get, had no bearing on the result today or any relevance really

Why is it an either or situation?

Well of course it's not in terms of the Communications Act 2003.

Telling women to die in a fire or suck girldick
Calling male people men
Wotcha's persistent, irritating, faux naive Mumsnet posts

All of these fall under the catch-all category of annoying someone on the internet. That's why I said:

I'm asking purely out of general interest, obviously all of these examples could fall under the catch-all category of 'causing annoyance'

Yeah, I agree the whole platform is set up to comment on their content, how does that expand to personal shit or abuse though?

I agree personal abuse isn't nice but half of the platform is made up of people slinging insults at each other. Twice today I saw a well known comedian single someone out calling them a cunt.

I can't support the police getting involved in twitter spats especially when they are cherry picking who they go after. In the case of Kate v Hayden the latter is not without blemish and can certainly give as good as they get.

If things get taken offline as is the case with Caroline Farrow then police intervention is appropriate (though funnily enough they seem a lot less bothered about that). When it's twitter based name calling and back and forth rows then the block button and report system should suffice.

Being offended and having feelings hurt is not nice for anyone but to go down a road of policing meanness is a recipe for disaster (credible threats of harm obvs fall into a different category).

To add, I don't think harassing people is okay but Twitter is not real life. The whole platform is set up to follow individuals and comment on their content

Yeah, I agree the whole platform is set up to comment on their content, how does that expand to personal shit or abuse though?

Done what? Which bit are you referring to? You can quote me, I don't mind

OK, but why would you (general you) go down the route of repeatedly saying things about a person?
Trans women aren't doing anything wrong if they're just going about their lives, minding their own business. Why would anyone single people out? That's the issue here

Are you talking about Hayden here? Because I dispute they are someone just going about their life. If they were we would never have heard of them.

I don't randomly search out those who identify as TW in order to call them men but if they start putting out misogynistic content, attacking women's rights or cheating at sports then as a feminist I do want to be able to point out the obvious behaviour patterns in straightforward language.

Trans women aren't doing anything wrong if they're just going about their lives, minding their own business

That's not exactly an accurate description of the person in question.

Who’s done that Willis ?