When someone expresses a particularly offensive opinion, repeatedly, and with the intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress, they fall foul of the criminal law.

The fact that the person in question chose to use Twitter as his vehicle, and was charged with some sort of offensive communication, seems by the by.

No, not really - see above.

Harassment, alarm or distress? Come off it. Had he called him a paedophile or something I could see that point. He had called the councillor 'stupid' or 'a rubbish councillor' on twitter, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He's been prosecuted merely because some people get overly upset by use of the word 'c*nt'.

Reference Harassment, alarm or distress - yes, this is a very low threshold, but that is they way the law stands.

The actual offence they have got him on is:

127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

Also, I love the way the article linked to says that the Prosecution are 'seeking 180 days for that Tweet'. The Prosecution do not 'seek' any sentence. They are usually required to have sentencing guidelines ready to assist the Judge, but this is relatively new.

Interesting that Liam Stacey, of previous good character, got 56 days for calling someone a 'w0g', or words to that effect, on Twitter. His original Tweet was read by no more than about 20 people. What are your views on this?

I'd be interested to know what "public electronic communications network" extends to. If I, you, or anyone posts and offensive message on twitter, which can be read by anyone, that appears to be included in this. But what about if I, you, or anyone posts the exact same message on facebook with the settings set to private, so only 'Friends' can view it? Surely that is a private network then isn't it?
Or what about a text message from one friend to another?

Good point well made. I have no idea if posts on Facebook, only viewable to friends, are classed as being posted on a public communications network. It will make for an interesting test-case.

If you use text message to harass someone I believe text would be classed as use of the public communications network.

Yeah probably, I'm perfectly happy for someone who is harrassing someone else through these methods to be prosecuted, im just a little nervous/unsure of whether the police/state should be prosecuting people for swearing etc. Maybe if it is genuinely public then it might be ok to prosecute (although I'm sure some kind of warning could be administered first rather than a prosecution) but on private networks like private facebook accounts, private messaging systems, or text messaging then I wouldn't be happy at all.

Even the Public Order Act allows you to swear inside your own house. I think there needs to be some clarity on what you can and can't do on what networks/systems.

The Video Ref wrote:Interesting that Liam Stacey, of previous good character, got 56 days for calling someone a 'w0g', or words to that effect, on Twitter. His original Tweet was read by no more than about 20 people. What are your views on this? He said a lot more than that - you can see his feed here. And it was read by a helluva lot of people - granted, thanks to retweets. I was on Twitter that night and watched the fervour spread. There was another lad saying similar stuff but I don't think anyone made a complaint about him. I think it's common sense. If it's something a police officer might arrest you for if said in their presence, don't say it.

The Video Ref wrote:Interesting that Liam Stacey, of previous good character, got 56 days for calling someone a 'w0g', or words to that effect, on Twitter. His original Tweet was read by no more than about 20 people. What are your views on this? He said a lot more than that - you can see his feed here. And it was read by a helluva lot of people - granted, thanks to retweets. I was on Twitter that night and watched the fervour spread. There was another lad saying similar stuff but I don't think anyone made a complaint about him. I think it's common sense. If it's something a police officer might arrest you for if said in their presence, don't say it.

My views are that he's a racist shlthead, but that he shouldn't be serving time for calling someone a name, however unpleasant that name is.