[XCabbage]

Two journalists criticised how their daughter's primary school handled her disabilities and were arrested for it, ostensibly on the grounds that their doing so was harassment and was grossly offensive, and you think this isn't worrying, isn't arbitrary, and doesn't hint that the standards set out in those laws are vague?

[pcrh]

Here's a BBC article on the case. Obviously 1) there was more to this than just a few posts on Whatsapp, and 2) the situation did get out of control for a brief while and the police were called. Probably similar to common "affray" or public disorder cases.

>The school said it had "sought advice from police" after a "high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts" that it said had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo

[perching_aix]

I appreciate the hostile tone, very in vogue, but no, what I'm saying is that this...

> THE POLICE arrived at Maxie Allen’s door at midday on January 29th. None of the six officers seemed to know much about why they were there, recalls Mr Allen. But they read out a list of charges and searched the house, before arresting him and his partner and taking them to the police station, where they were held for eight hours. The couple’s alleged crime? Disparaging emails and WhatsApp messages about their daughter’s primary school.

...is a lot more vague and less compelling than what you drew up here.

Namely it doesn't mention:

- that these people are journalists

- that they were criticizing their daughter's primary school's handling of her disabilities

- how exactly were they criticizing it and to what audience

- any links to any of the court documents for people to inspect, to support these

Am I supposed to conjure up these details from thin air or something? I'm not from the UK, this is not a story I was familiar with. Literally all the article had to say in the way of the arbitrariness and vagueness of this case was:

> At one point during his questioning Mr Allen’s partner asked for an example of a WhatsApp message that constituted “malicious communication”. The detective had to stop and Google the crime.

Which sounds crappy enough, but then this is pretty on par for cops to begin with in my impression, topic nonwithstanding. So yeah, not very compelling.

> you think this isn't worrying, isn't arbitrary,

Correct, what was written in the article isn't particularly worrying at all, nor does it do a particularly good job of demonstrating the arbitrariness. That's exactly what I said.

> and doesn't hint that the standards set out in those laws are vague?

Law is written in natural language, imposing rules over things in the natural world. It will never not be vague, and it cannot in good conscience afford to not be vague either. It could be specific in some ways I'm sure, at the cost of effectiveness as usual, but the article doesn't exactly support or detail this idea much, by virtue of not saying anything more specific. Which is what I was talking about.