Twits Tweeting...

[Frontpaw]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17936006

I am sure someone will be able to enlighten me as to the law in such matters, but how can people post Tweets threatening to kill/maim/rape etc people and get away with it?

Mensch berates 'immoral' Twitter users over abuse The MP, a former author, has documented the abuse in the "favourites" section on her Twitter page
Conservative MP Louise Mensch has hit out at "immoral and misogynistic" Twitter users for subjecting her to abuse for her stance on Rupert Murdoch.

The Commons media committee, on which she sits, passed a Labour amendment describing Mr Murdoch as not "fit" to run a major international company - but Conservative members voted against it.

Mrs Mensch's criticism of the charge prompted tweets calling her a "whore".

She told the BBC that it was important to "call bullies out".

The MP for Corby has publicised some of the abuse she had received on the social networking website, including one message that branded her a "bitch" and another that read "given half the chance, you'd strangle her".

Another Twitter user said they would "love to hit Louise Mensch in the face with a hammer". She was also called a "slut" and likened to diarrhoea.

'Horrendous'
In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mrs Mensch said: "Abuse directed at women is always sexual or violent.

"If somebody is considered attractive, it's a sexual and violent fantasy levelled against them. If someone is considered unattractive, it's personal remarks about their body."

She added: "The stuff directed at me was not illegal, it was just immoral and misogynistic."

The website itself should not be held responsible for the abuse, she said: "It's the fault of the users - they have to be responsible for their own words and what they say."

Cumbria Police chief constable Stuart Hyde, who has national responsibility with the Association of Chief Police Officers for e-crime, said: "I have read the comments made about Louise and it is sexist bigotry at its worst."

Some of the tweets were "pretty horrendous" and could be illegal, he added.

"There is quite a bit of legislation available to us - the Communications Act 2003, the Malicious Communications Act back in 1988 talks about offences of communications with an intent to cause distress, anxiety or are grossly offensive.

"And clearly some of this is either in or very close to that border."

I think it's because it's phrased as a fantasy rather than a direct threat - 'I would love to hit x with a hammer' rather than 'I am going to hit x with a hammer'? An article I read mentioned someone being convicted for threatening to kill one of her children.

It should be illegal and Twitter should act on misogynist abuse the way they (I imagine, though I probably shouldn't take it for granted) would on racist abuse.

People who hide behind the keyboard are just cowards. I would hate to be in the public eye.

there is another thread in the feminism topic as well OP if you are interested.

I deplore the misogynist comments about Louise Mensch because they are vile and also because the abuse is allowing her to cloud the issue.

The correct terms are 'attention-seeker', 'stranger to the truth' and 'shameless apologist for the Murdochs'.

You think that if a woman complains about being abused in that way she is an "attention seeker"?

Baffling.

Lady Warsi also "attention seeking" today - a UKIP spokesman called her a "bitch" on twitter.

No sardine, my reason for calling her an attention-seeker is because of her general conduct in the important role of MP and her own addiction to tweeting banalities.

That and my comments about 'stranger to the truth' and 'Murdoch apologist' are also specific to her performance on the Culture, Media and Sport Sub-Committee which I'll kindly describe as below par because I don't want to think that someone holding such an important inquisitorial role into Press standards was deliberately letting James and Rupert Murdoch off the hook with weak questions, irrelevant statements and invitations to James Murdoch in particular to grandstand about what a lovely person he was.

Have you been following their deliberations? I have. Mensch was a disgrace as was the chairman John Whittingdale and committee members Therese Coffey and Philip Davies.

They should have also been attacked, but not with personal abuse, for their attempt to bring in a whitewash of a report.

Mensch should also be questioned about whether she or anyone else revealed confidential deliberations of the committee to James Murdoch which prompted a seven-page, unsolicited letter to the committee which uncannily addressed many of their concerns.

She should also be asked closely about her account of the timeline of the tabling of the amendment calling the Murdochs 'not fit' to be in charge of a company and her misrepresentation of a conversation with fellow committee member Paul Farrelly on the day the report was released.

That's all been lost now because of the twitter idiots. Something I deeply regret.

As I said, while I deplore the vile comments about Mensch, they've given her a handy opportunity to dodge proper criticism and she's seized that opportunity with both hands.

Mensch also took the opportunity of the press conference to swipe ex-NoW editor Colin Myler. I'm not a fan of Myler at all but if you're going to accuse anyone of misconduct at NI then he's further back in the queue than the Murdochs.

If Mensch thinks it's important to 'call bullies out' she should have started with them.

I don't think that "tweeting banalities" is the same as tweeting abuse, is it?

I think that it is perfectly reasonable that she draw attention to the things that have been said to her. It is perfectly reasonable for all women who receive abuse, especially of a violent/sexual nature, to draw attention to it. It happens all the time and it is terrible.

She's drawn attention to it and she was right to do so.

Perhaps she could spend time on other things that have been said to her - specifically questions about her version of events leading up to and on the day of the publication of the report and her role in attempting to soften criticism of the Murdochs.

The questions were put by Andrew Neil, Tom Watson and Paul Farrelly without a word of abuse.

It's a very important issue and it would be terrible if the row about Twitter should prevent it being addressed. That is what is happening.

But I'm sure Louise Mensch can handle more than one thing at once.

I'd add that tweeting banalities does mark you out as an attention-seeker and not a person to be taken seriously. As does using parliamentary privilege to make false and libellous comments as Mensch did with Piers Morgan about his use of phone-hacking while editor of the Mirror.

She might have done that to deflect attention from the crimes of News International or maybe she just got muddled up and isn't up to the job. Either way that's a legitimate criticism to make. Much better than calling someone vile names on Twitter.

Sorry, that should be Piers Morgan's alleged use of phone hacking for which there is no proof and that he completely denies.

I can't libel people and claim parliamentary privilege like Mensch.

At least I apologised for my mistake, unlike Mensch.

I get that you dislike her intensely.

But still there is nothing wrong with her talking about this.