Somewhere in that range are threats to social cohesion and incitement to harm which, potentially, rise to the borders of the offence of terrorism.

Lucy Connolly (which for some reason the Court report spells "Connelly") posted vile and abusive comments on twitter. From the report and from media reports it seems to have been something of a hobby for her: although the case refers to a small number of "tweets" in the immediate aftermath of the murder of three children, she has a history of posting material which, at the very least, is ill-advised.

One post, in particular, was at the heart of her prosecution and it is that one that demonstrates the point about speed of distribution of false information: it was live for only three and a half hours but in that time was viewed more than 31,000 times. There is no information as to how many times it was reposted.

Unlike other cases, this one did not require significant investigation: she posts under her own name. But she is hardly a household name although, locally, her husband, a councillor, is, demonstrating how fast the stuff that should not be on the internet spreads and why platforms should be held liable for the content that appears on them, be it inflammatory comment, outright lies or adverts for counterfeit goods.