Case Study: Frankie Boyle

The case study I will be bringing to the project is to provide a comparison with the other studies, in relation to who the tweets are coming from. I have chosen to look at Frankie Boyle, a comedian well known for his near-the-mark humour. The language he uses on his Twitter account is just as bad as the language used in the other case studies, so this will provide an interesting insight as to why Frankie Boyle is not punished for his language - how is the intention of humour come through the vulgar language?

Examples of Frankie Boyle's tweets to look at:

These links are all to articles referring to Frankie Boyle's tweets, which may be helpful to use after we've received feedback from our questionnaries. It might be interesting to compare why his tweets can be referred to as a joke, as they are in the following article, when what is being said is not unlike the other cases we are studying. Is there something in how he chooses to write them that makes it less offensive? This is also something we can include in our questionnaire, to see if when read with just the language, with no knowledge of who wrote them, these tweets are still perceived as humorous.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100007998/sick-comments-on-twitter-are-now-ludicrously-a-criminal-offence-so-how-come-no-one-has-arrested-frankie-boyle/

Fabrice Muamba/ Liam Stacey Case Study: Brief Summary.

Intention: High profile case, studied for the intention of the type of language used and subsequent consequences (hoping that examples – omitting names – will provoke different responses to that of the legal system of our country; and causing us to look at why).

Action: Liam Stacey tweeted “LOL f*** Muamba. He’s dead!!” along with a string of other offensive twitter posts on 17th March 2012, at a time where Fabrice Muamba, Bolton Football Club Player, was fighting for his life after suffering a heart attack during an FA cup quarter final.

Reaction/Legal Response: Liam Stacey, 21, a second year biology student at Swansea University, was found guilty of inciting racial aggravation, under the Public Order Act 1986 and sentenced to 56 days in prison.

As well as this he was suspended from his university degree, having to take his final exams a year late, and was banned from coming near the campus, as well as the privilege of a graduation being taken away from him.

Stacey pleaded guilty, admitting to using threatening, insulting words with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Comments: Stacey’s solicitor said he had “foolishly lost his temper” at a time where the public at large were praying for Muamba’s recovery.

The district judge, John Charles, commented when sentencing that there was “no alternative to an immediate prison sentence”, as well as describing Stacey’s tweets as “vile and abhorrent”.

Stacey was quoted saying “I don’t know why I decided to tweet about it” claiming that he was intoxicated at the time.

Appeal from Stacey: Liam Stacey appealed for a reduced sentence, or community service, with his solicitor putting forth the point that he had suffered enough, and that what he said will remain “a blot on his character forever”.

Justice Wyn Williams rejected the appeal, saying very rarely had an individual attracted so many stigmas. Stacey had pleaded guilty to racially aggravated public disorder with intent. Williams believed that Stacey knew what he wanted to say and intended to provoke the reaction he did.

Reception from the public: the majority of articles that appears when the key words “Fabrice Muamba” or “Liam Stacey” are typed into a search engine result in the bloggers/journalists/news reports branding Stacey’s words extremely offensive and unnecessary. His provocative language and excessive use of expletives have built up a public image of a violent, racist youth whose comments were simply unacceptable in the public domain.

Separate Point of Interest: The Telegraph’s Mic Wright (journalist specialising in technology, music and popular culture) wrote an e-article surrounding twitter ‘trolls’; beginning with “sick comments on twitter are now, ludicrously, a criminal offence. So how come no-one has arrested Frankie Boyle?” His article then goes on to compare the fan base of ‘Celebrity Trolls’ to the comparatively anonymous tweeters that seem to be targeted by the law.

The language of racial discrimination found in twitter trolling

The language of racial discrimination found in twitter trolling
Case Study: Stan Collymore

I have found two events concearning the racial discrimination of Stan Collymore. More racial descrimination cases are availible, however I have chosen to focus on Collymore due to the lesser media attention than other cases (hoping that if I need to reference the case in the questionaire this case will triggar less emtional attached responced) and as the Collymore has published racist attacks which have been both prosequted and ignored.



High profile case which spread awareness however did not lead to any legal action (all data taken from articles)
HEADLINE: Former England footballer Stan Collymore 'receives 200 vile race abuse Tweets a day'

‘Ex-footballer Stan Collymore has told how he is receiving up to 200 vile hate messages from users on a social network site, with one branding him a 'monkey.'
The talkSPORT radio pundit re-tweeted one of the racist messages he had received from one user who wrote: '@StanCollymore why are u black? U look like a monkey.' 
'Using the code name Wpww-hooligan-88m, the user's Twitter profile states 'My blood is my honour, my race is my pride’ and who profile picture is a swastika with the words white power on. Immediately Collymore, 42, tweeted: 'Had enough of twitter tbf but won’t go because it’s a great work tool, and too much positive feedback. Sick of the daily abuse though.’ 'I must get 150-200 abusive messages a day now, just constant reminders of stuff that happened a long time a go. Not nice at all.’

 

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112551/Stan-Collymore-receives-200-vile-race-abuse-Tweets-day-refuses-quit-Twitter.html (Accessed 22nd October 2012)

 

 

 

High profile case which did lead to legal action (Data taken from 2 articles)

HEADLINE: Joshua Cryer, Newcastle Student Who Called Stan Collymore 'Coon' In Racist Tweet, Spared Jail

'Joshua Cryer, 21, admitted using the social networking site to bombard the football pundit with abuse in an attempt to "snare a celebrity", a district judge at Newcastle Magistrates' Court heard today. Cryer told police he hoped to gain a reaction from Collymore, who is a broadcaster for talkSport, campaigns against racism and is a supporter of the Depression Alliance charity.'

'Admitted a charge under section 127 of the Communications Act of sending grossly offensive messages. District Judge Stephen Earl ordered that he complete a two-year community order with 240 hours unpaid work, and pay £150 costs to the court.'

Prosequtor Veronica Jordan said: 'It was not impulsive. He has done this up to seven times over a period of days.’ 'That does not smack of impulsive behaviour’ 'He was intending to insult and abuse.'

SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/21/joshua-cryer-newcastle-university-stan-collymore-racist-tweet_n_1369478.html (Accessed 22nd October 2012)



HEADLINE 2 (ACTUAL TWEET CONTENT): Stan Collymore subjected to racist abuse on Twitter

Talksport confirmed that a Twitter user sent one racist message which read: "@StanCollymore has anyone ever called you Stan Cooneymore #greatracistabuse."
The second read: "@StanCollymore has anyone ever referred to you as semi pro as in a semi pro coon #neitherwhitenorblack."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/07/stan-collymore-racist-abuse-twitter (Accessed 22nd October 2012)

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Chambers Basic Case Study (Summary)

Paul Chambers threatening airport tweet (May 2010-July 2012)

·         Paul Chambers, 28, of Northern Ireland, was found guilty in May 2010 of sending a "menacing electronic communication" via twitter. Case was taken to High Court in London

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

-       Courts stated that the message intended/did create fear/apprehension in those who read it and therefore can be deemed menacing and criminal

-       This sparked attention from supporters of Paul Chambers, stating that the law needed to catch up, and accommodate irony and wit

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, said: "If the person or persons who receive or read it, (the message) or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character."

·         Chambers appealed, believing he should not have been fined £385:

-First appeal was dismissed by a crown court judge in November 2010, who said the electronic communication was "clearly menacing" and that airport staff were sufficiently concerned to report it.

John Cooper QC highlighted to the judges it was obvious the tweet was a joke and it was sent by someone who did not hide his identity. It is also relevant to consider the tweet was discovered five days after it was posted, when Paul had flown, making it an empty threat.

“It was certainly not sent in the context of terrorism and it was wrong for the crown court to make such an association” Cooper.

Paul Chambers' QC told the High Court you can't define a "menacing threat" - but "you know it when you see it."

Did those who read the Tweet regard it as a joke or a bomb threat?

His lawyers argue the context of the words are important and that the judges should take into account where and how they appeared on his Twitter timeline.

OPPOSING ARGUMENT: The case to uphold the conviction is simple: It doesn't matter if Mr Chambers' friends chortled as they read his tweet as a joke. It became a crime because anyone at all, of reasonable state of mind, could regard it as a genuine threat.

Mr Cooper said for a message to be considered menacing, the person sending the message must intend to threaten the recipient and it has to contain a credible threat.

During the hearing, Mr Cooper was challenged by one of the judges on whether there was a genuine freedom of speech argument. The QC said that freedom of speech was not just there to protect the righteous but the unpleasant too.

·         Media Attention:

-Comedian Stephen Fry, said it was "very important" for freedom of speech.

-Comedian Al Murray "At worst, the tweet was offensive."

·         Conclusion:

-The Crown Prosecution Service said it would not appeal against the judgement. Paul Chambers wasn't convicted.

Response to Feedback

In response to the feedback we intend to post five summaries by Monday next week (22/10/12) of the case studies we will be looking at to see if they are appropriate and to receive feedback from other members of the group. As we have discovered the concept of Internet trolling is a new term, we will clarify our perception from the definitions given by broadsheet newspapers and academic journals to help focus our analysis.
We felt as though we did not fully explain our intentions concerning the measure of severity we intend to use in our project. We would like to make it clear that we will use the responses from the public expressed in our questionnaire as a basis for interpreting how offensive the language of the case studies is perceived.
In response to your concern about the recipients of our questionnaire, we intend to use the internet service survey monkey and email our questionnaire directly to our participants. We will each ask ten men and ten women to complete our questionnaire. Half of the recipients will be over the age of thirty and half under.
We are no longer planning to only look at high profile cases, as we don't want to focus on the legal side and feel it more appropriate to concentrate on the linguistic features of the troll posts.
Thank you for your feedback!

Project Proposal

Research Question: ‘To what extent does language determine the severity of internet troll posts, focussing specifically on Britain?’

Overview: We intend to create an in depth study into the language of internet trolls in Britain. We aim to focus particularly on high profile cases in the media that have provoked not only the attention of the public but may have required legal enquiries, and if so, why? Whilst we are aware that it is often images or content that may provoke such consequences, we want to focus specifically on the language use and the implications of this. We feel this topic is particularly relevant in today’s society with the use of Twitter and Facebook becoming an integral part of everyday life.

Methodology: To start with, each member of the group will explore a specific case study of this kind and post their findings to the blog. We are aware that with using only five case studies, we will not be able to provide an entirely comprehensive conclusion, as this is an area of language that is constantly developing and consistently gaining new examples. We do, however, intend to provide an extremely comprehensive analysis and insight into the reaction of the public and courts of law.

Once we have five examples we will discuss and analyse the language, looking particularly at the words that appear to be the most severe. Following this, we will create a questionnaire which will obtain the responses of hundred participants from two different age groups, in order to compare perceptions of the language we are studying.

Ethics:   Due to the nature of our study, a lot of expletives will be involved. In order to keep our study ethical we will ensure to only question those over eighteen – before inviting people to complete the questionnaire we will brief them on the sort of language that will appear and warn them that it may be offensive to some. We intend to keep all cases anonymous, and just focus on the linguistic features rather than who the example might be about.

Hypothesis: We are hoping to obtain a consensus on what types of internet trolling posts are considered the most severe; maybe also some consensus on the types of language used in these posts. We will look to find what words used have caused the most offence, in the media, courts of law and from results of our questionnaire, which may differ between gender, age, beliefs and values.

A literature review will follow, compiling information from current internet journals, broadsheet newspaper articles and general books regarding the language of the internet.

Agenda and Minutes of First Meeting

Agenda:

1. Discuss which area of language will be used for the group research. 
2. Discuss what needs to be done in terms of wider reading .
3. Discuss what initial research must be done to narrow down the initial ideas.

Minutes of Meeting

1. It was immediately decided that the most interesting investigation would arise from choosing a project that was interesting while also being unusual.
2. All agreed that "the language of internet trolls" was a good starting point for our investigation.
3. Various ideas were mentioned as potential aspects of this topic that could be investigated; famous trolls, extreme or highly offensive trolling, trolling culture and regularly used terms and the lack of politeness principles and maxims to cause offense.

Follow-up

1. Each participant agreed to read around the subject and investigate aspects of this topic that they found interesting before the next meeting for discussion.