No, that's not the reason. They'll forget about it because it will become a harder story to dig into from there, and the media are all about writing about something someone posted on Twitter then buggering off to the juicer earlier. No interest in something deeper that could potentially affect the public and the future.
And so shall we just go along with every law that exists? Not challenge anything? Doesn't sound like progress to me. Even someone like me who said the dumbest thing in history understands it is a changing world with laws that no longer truly apply in the current environment. The internet and the changing face of the way we do things necessitates new laws. The UK is light years ahead of Australia and therefore have been quicker to act.
Not 'shut the f*ck up Robbie'. Shut the f*ck up trolls. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people want the right to talk shit themselves on here because they're the sort of dogs that would prefer to bark than bite. So play on.
I can't believe you're using the UK as some sort of model, a beacon of legal light, all the while born Britons, all over the isles, are foaming at the mouth (Except for pensioners and statists.)
He called him a androtop..I don't see anything too drama-filled in that. Tell me, if a radio host or a journalist had written or said what the original tweeter did, you think there'd be a comeuppance? Of course. So what's the difference? Print, tweet or spoken, it's all under the same umbrella of free speech measured against decency.
You have it arse backwards. What we see with the UK style policing of Twitter is that the police are being inundated with nonsense complaints in regards to people who aren't committing crimes. This is what police themselves say, publically(in the media, or on Twitter) and privately. Save for a few exceptions it's shown
already a massive waste of police time and can only lead, ultimately, to more censorship and spying - and that's at the cost of democratic freedoms that distinguish Western Europe from a country like China or Saudi Arabia.
What's happening is - and this is again in direct contrast with your strange argument - that the media are pushing forward and witch-hunting people to sell papers, in the worst cases they're effectively badgering the police and politicians to make guilty people who haven't commited any real world crimes, in lesser, more frequent cases they're encouraging impressionable and idiotic children - and idiotic adults - to waste police times by reporting similar non-crimes.
Stories such as
this are in the media every day.
In Britain, today, you can say outside of the internet far more than you can on it. In recent months, in Britain, there has been a plethora of nonsese charges against people for nothing more than holding an opinion online. Whether it's some random Muslim having an opinion on British soldiers or some random calling a politician a merkin, we've learned that it's no longer acceptable to speak on the internet as you would off it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/19269353
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/aug/21/social-media-stifle-literary-endeavour
Funny that throughout the thread you've been most insulting, continually turning to character attacking people who disagree with you, portraying everybody else as knuckle-dragging scum. I suppose because you don't swear and opt to use use long, drawn out sentences when belittling people that you're somehow better than say, Frailty, for getting to the point and just calling you a merkin. Both of you have done the same thing, but because you express yourself in a different way you're innocent of the same crime? That's what it seems like.
