Daily Deal: MEMOBIRD Mobile Thermal Printer
Sprint Sues AT&T Over Its Fake 5G, Says AT&T's Tricking Consumers
NYPD Sends Letter To Google Demanding It Remove Cop Checkpoint Notifications From Google Maps
Google Caves On Russian Censorship

UK Cop Calls Up 74-Year-Old Woman To Ask Her To Stop Tweeting Mean Things

Free Speech

from the time-to-waste-and-money-to-burn dept

Mon, Feb 11th 2019 10:44am -

The policing of tweets continues in the UK. The literal policing of tweets.

Because there’s apparently not enough people being stabbed on a daily basis, local law enforcement agencies have decided making house calls over reports of “hateful” tweeting is a worthwhile use of resources. This fairly recent law enforcement tradition dates back to at least 2014, but in recent weeks police have ramped up efforts to… well, it’s unclear exactly what the endgame is.

Irish writer Graham Linehan was recently visited by a Scottish police officer over supposed harassment of a trans rights activist. There didn’t appear to be any actual harassment. Instead, it appeared the alleged harassee wasn’t satisfied with the Mute and Block options offered by Twitter, and decided to file a formal complaint about speech he didn’t like.

The end result was a stupefying mix of force and futility. The officer asked Linehan to stop engaging with Adrian Harrop (the offended party). Linehan refused to do so. The officer left and Linehan got back on Twitter to talk about this bizarre waste of everyone’s time.

More time is being wasted by UK law enforcement, this time in an attempt to persuade an elderly person she harbors some outdated ideas.

Margaret Nelson is a 74-year-old woman who lives in a village in Suffolk. On Monday morning she was woken by a telephone call. It was an officer from Suffolk police. The officer wanted to speak to Mrs Nelson about her Twitter account and her blog.

[…]

Among the statements she made on Twitter last month and which apparently concerned that police officer: ‘Gender is BS. Pass it on’.

Another:

‘Gender’s fashionable nonsense. Sex is real. I’ve no reason to feel ashamed of stating the truth. The bloody annoying ones are those who use words like ‘cis’ or ‘terf’ and other BS, and relegate biological women to a ‘subset’. Sorry you believe the mythology.’

The only way any public official should have felt “concerned” is if they know her personally and frequently attend social events where she’s both present and vocal. That’s a very low level of concern, one that could be mitigated by steering clear of these social functions. It shouldn’t be “concerning” enough for law enforcement to get involved. No one should be getting phone calls from cops because they said something stupid on the internet.

This phone call was especially pointless. The officer asked Nelson to stop writing things other people found offensive. Nelson asked the officer if free speech was still something the officer considered important. The officer said she thought free speech was important and Nelson said that’s exactly why she wouldn’t stop writing things that mildly upset other people.

The oddest aspect of this futile interaction was the department’s response on Twitter — one that makes it appear as though officers have voluntarily deputized themselves on behalf of Twitter.

Hi Margaret, we had a number of people contact us on social media about the comments made online. A follow-up call was made for no other reason than to raise awareness of the complaints. Kind regards, Web Team.

No law enforcement agency needs to be wasting its time acting as a complaint box for social media. If Nelson’s content violated the terms of use, Twitter (and her blog host) are free to do something about it. If readers don’t like what they’re reading, they can simply stop reading Nelson’s posts. Twitter also allows users to block or mute other users. Reading blogs you don’t like isn’t mandatory. All anyone has to do is not navigate to sites containing content they dislike.

Instead, an unknown number of internet users chose to make this a police matter. We could blame this entirely on them if it wasn’t for the fact that multiple UK police agencies have made it clear they’ll investigate impolite speech if someone’s willing to waste their own time filing a complaint. In the end, they can’t do anything more than ask someone to stop making other people angry. But that’s all they can do, so it becomes a waste of taxpayers’ money on top of everything else, which should make people angrier than whatever happened to piss them off as it rolled through their timeline.

Filed Under: , , , ,

69 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “UK Cop Calls Up 74-Year-Old Woman To Ask Her To Stop Tweeting Mean Things”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
69 Comments
bob says:

quotes for the situation

Help help, I’m being repressed.

Relevant quote for the situation.

Come see the violence inherit in the system

What would have become an appropriate quote if this was a police state and the cop had gone further than his or her duties required.

Course just reading the headline, I so badly wanted the quoting to start when the King starts calling out to the "old woman"

Anonymous Coward says:

There’s much more serious harassment going on online that the police should be dealing with. I’ve seen it firsthand. Given who some here follow online, so have they. Some who post here and are spoken of fondly have even engaged in conduct for which they should have gotten a visit from police, but America doesn’t work that way.

If one really paid attention to the bread crumbs leading from this site, they’d find a certain person who is mentioned rather often who did business with a certain other someone who has done far worse than anything cited here, but that’s above my pay grade.

Perhaps if we have Section 230 we can do away with the single-publication rule so individuals aren’t under time pressure to deal with every instance of harassment and defamation, but we’re not there yet.

People who aren’t verbally aggressive or bigoted have nothing to fear from this new approach to law enforcement, and the more civilized society which will result.

TFG says:

Re: Re:

If one really paid attention to the bread crumbs leading from this site, they’d find a certain person who is mentioned rather often who did business with a certain other someone who has done far worse than anything cited here, but that’s above my pay grade.

Or you could stop being cagey and just call it out directly. What are you afraid of?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Probably because you aren’t actually calling it out.

Let’s paraphrase this exchange:
"Some TechDirt people are linked to some bad stuff, wink wink nudge nudge."
"Oh really, how so?"
"Nah bro, I ain’t gonna say it, it’ll be broken on some other much better spot, y’all would just dismiss it anyway."

And now we’re over here sipping tea and not believing you, because, you know, you refuse to provide evidence.

As the adage goes: "Pics or it didn’t happen."

Rog S. says:

Re: care to back it up?

“if one really paid attention to the bread crumbs leading from this site, they’d find a certain person who is mentioned rather often who did business with a certain other someone who has done far worse than anything cited here, but that’s above my pay grade.”

Um, stop being opaque, or what do YOU have to hide? Name names!

And: what IS your pay grade, at WHAT agency?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, this was covered in … Brietbart, the Daily Mail, and other random trash publications. This is kind of my point, that I don’t consider those to be "media" in any real sense of the word. So no, I did not find this out from those, but did find that no one of any real significance (well, apparently a Boris Johnson op-ed in the Telegraph, but again, not a source I think anyone should get news from) is touching it, despite that the NYT ran their own op-ed decrying English feminism last week.

What exactly do you think someone should not be angry about, when it comes to women being arrested for wrongthink?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"This is kind of my point, that I don’t consider those to be "media" in any real sense of the word."

So, the reason that it wasn’t covered by the respectable media is that it was either complete fiction, or context made it not newsworthy. The fact that literally nobody outside of that echo chamber has touched it even to give a different version of events leads me to believe it’s made up.

"apparently a Boris Johnson op-ed in the Telegraph"

That’s less respectable than the Breitbart or Sun links.

"What exactly do you think someone should not be angry about, when it comes to women being arrested for wrongthink?"

I’d wait to see if it was actually what was reported in the shitrags before passing judgment. I didn’t bother reading the articles when I saw the laughable sources, but its likely that there were other context (i.e. the harrassment by the woman was extreme enough to have been considered as such no matter the identity of the target), the police action was more mild than reported, or it really didn’t happen.

When something like this actually happens, get angry. When all you have is a story that popped up at the same time in every right-wing crap outlet that happens to have an anti-trans agenda, carefully consider your sources before getting angry about anything.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Oh, and I haven’t read the articles, but I find it curious that you reference "months ago" above, yet every link is from the last 24-48 hours, from both sides of the pond. The woman having just come forward to complain would explain that, but why has no outlet other than those with an outright anti-gay / anti-trans narrative even touched the story? Rather suspicious, I think.

Until I see further context, I’ll assume that this is just another work of fiction like the many that those outlets tend to run to get people scared of the EU / immigrants / gays / etc. on a regular basis, that have little basis in facts when an actual journalist starts looking at it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

It’s not so much the time scale alone, rather which type of outlet has latched on to it so quickly with nary a peep from more reputable outlets. Nothing for months, then it’s picked up by the Daily Fail (apparently, I’m not clicking through all of them to see who the primary source is), and within 24 hours is all over the right-wing propaganda outlets and not mentioned anywhere that practices real journalism?

That’s a big red flag, though the people who frequent those sources will doubtless have been convinced it’s because the "mainstream media" (who mysteriously never include the populist rags that agree with them) are covering something up, and not because they’re being lied to again.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

These stories are always suspicious. I’m not saying they never happen, but there’s definitely way more to the story if someone sees the inside of a cell as claimed by the above. There’s also definitely a difference between someone posting satirical posts about a political party and intentional directed harassment of an individual, in terms of the reaction justified.

It’s also worth noting that the police in your link apologised for their overreaction almost immediately after it was reported, yet the above has still not been reported or followed up by any reputable source several days later. Although it does seem to have spread to further American and international muppets of the same ilk, feeding the echo chamber as any justification for bigotry seems to.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/13/ukip-tweet-police-chief-inquiry

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

They actually apologised at the time but I think we both agree they should never have shown up in the first place. The blogger found it very intimidating.

As I said elsewhere this is a low-hanging fruit thing, doing things for the sake of being seen to do something. It does chill speech whether you have "approved" views or not. It’s not about being locked up, it’s about having uniformed LEOs showing up at your door telling you it’s Not Very Nice to express such views, whatever they are. This is what our police are doing instead of investigating burglaries, etc. It’s a waste of time.

I see views I disapprove of all the time on Twitter. I just mute the posters and move on, however obnoxious the posts are. It’s not my job to control other people but I’m not obliged to leave it in my timeline either.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

"They actually apologised at the time but I think we both agree they should never have shown up in the first place. The blogger found it very intimidating."

I’d say that was the point – the UKIP rep wanted to intimidate and managed to get the police to agree. That’s unacceptable, which I’m glad they realised early on.

But, I can see the original point – they believed that they were defusing a more serious situation before it happened, and so a small call out could prevent issues further down the line. The redirecting manpower argument only holds water if there were other crimes in the area that went unattended. Otherwise, it’s the same redirection that would apply to sending the same cops patrolling the area. They were obviously wrong in their judgment here, but not every action by the police is at the expense of investigating more serious crimes.

Of course, this is different to the woman who claims to have been locked up for views – there’s definitely more to that story.

"I see views I disapprove of all the time on Twitter. I just mute the posters and move on"

Good for you. Many obviously don’t, else we wouldn’t constantly be seeing laws floated to try and change other peoples’ behaviour and whining that Twitter responds to the companies they get.

Nate P Cilver says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Exactly, what a Rube getting news from those propaganda sites. It is not news unless it shows up on a non-propaganda site such as CNN. There is a reason such high quality news is in every airport and required watching in government run schools in the form of CNN10. That is how I know it is real news and not propaganda.

Those Trumpards need to be reeducated to watch official news instead of that right wing propaganda.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

The funny thing is – on a global scale, they are actually within the conservative / centrist realm. Which is why it’s quite easy to dismiss people who bring them up as somehow radically left-wing or communist – people who say that have their views so skewed they don’t know what any of the words mean, let alone what an actual polar opposite to Fox/Breitbart would really look like.

Anonymous Monkey (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 communist / conservative ... eh whatever

I was just highlighting the "non-propaganda" with what the communist govt’s have always been shown to do with their media outlets.

I don’t watch CNN, nor any other MSM/Broadcast news. Internet is where I get it, usually more detailed too. So I thought it was Central News Network myself.

Jeff Green (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I, of course, no nothing about the background of either case. However i do know the two cases are not entirely similar. Kate Scottow used two separate twitter accounts in what was described in court as a campaign of harrassment. "Dead naming" was not her sole attack, there were also allegations of racism, xenophobia, being a crook and a fake lawyer.
It would also help if Americans would remember that a visit from the police in the uk doesn’t often involve stun grenades and battering rams, it does mean a polite chat with a single unarmed man or woman, who will not force entry if not invited in. And, we value free speech highly, but we don’t worship it as some Americans do. Most people here accept more limits on what you can say in public, and we expect our police to "keep the peace" rather than come to see who shot who. They aren’t angels, some are thugs, some are racist bastards, but many of them are nice helpful people.

Daydream says:

…Uh, seriously? "Old woman makes a huffy post on Twitter, man rings her on the phone to ask her to be more polite, old woman says no, man’s friends tut-tut, nothing else happens."

Am I misunderstanding what happened? Is there some civil rights issue here I’m not aware of? Because this seems like normal people doing normal things.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

…Uh, seriously? "Old woman makes a huffy post on Twitter, cop rings her on the phone to ask her to be more polite, old woman says no, man’s friends tut-tut, nothing else happens."

If it was just some random person asking her to be ‘nicer’, then your comment would have been accurate and it wouldn’t have been a story. That it was a cop ringing her up changes it just a wee bit, similar to the difference between your co-worker asking you to do something and your boss asking you to do something.

Between the authority which makes their actions more worthy of attention and
scrutiny and the fact that they are apparently spending time on the clock policing people’s speech, despite said speech not being illegal, who did it is worthy of concern and what makes it noteworthy.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"Old woman makes a huffy post on Twitter, man rings her on the phone to ask her to be more polite, old woman says no, man’s friends tut-tut, nothing else happens."

Am I misunderstanding what happened?

Apparently so. Rather than "nothing else happens", the government intervened to attempt to suppress speech based on its content. So it seems you missed the core of the story.

Rog S. says:

Civilization and its Incontinence

I am sure article 13 will fix this….

… but here in the US, the DHS puts people on bad words lists, and local police tracks them from Fusion Centers in perpetuity, for something they said on Twitter /Facebook /etc.

re: No law enforcement agency needs to be wasting its time acting as a complaint box for social media

Many /most men who become mass shooters were tracked and harassed on social media. Fusion Centers all across the country participate in this.

And (coincidentally) the ICE manual has placed internet operations at NUMBER 13.

Sure….dont let those coincidences make you crazy.

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/13/ice-hsi-asset-forfeiture-handbook/

(Waiting for some NSA /Agency mockingbird to call me crazy for noticing numbers now…. )

Rog S. says:

Re: Re: Civilization and its Incontinence

Its just another number.

It has plus/minus value only to those who choose to use it as a sign or signifier.

Which, ironically, seems to be a bunch of alphabet agencies, and speech suppressing, mass murderer creating neocons who use that number in their batshit crazy social engineering/repression schemes, as demonstrated above.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Daily Deal: MEMOBIRD Mobile Thermal Printer
Sprint Sues AT&T Over Its Fake 5G, Says AT&T's Tricking Consumers
NYPD Sends Letter To Google Demanding It Remove Cop Checkpoint Notifications From Google Maps
Google Caves On Russian Censorship