UK Twitter Users Declare 'I'm Spartacus'

An anonymous reader writes "Tweeters have joined forces to support Paul Chambers, the man convicted and fined for a Twitter message threatening to blow up an airport. A so-called 'I'm Spartacus' campaign encouraging users to 're-tweet' his words has also become a huge hit. The hashtag #IAmSpartacus is currently the number one trending topic on Twitter in the UK, with #twitterjoketrial in second place. Chambers is believed to be the first person convicted in the UK for posting an offensive tweet. After the hearing, actor and Twitter fan Stephen Fry tweeted that he would pay Chambers' fine. Comedian Dara O'Briain tweeted that the verdict was 'ludicrous' while Peep Show actor David Mitchell said it was 'punishment for flippancy.'" I suspect not as many people will re-tweet on behalf of Garreth Compton.

Comments

Re:The British Way...

[AdmiralXyz]

It is more effective. The judge's ruling was based on the idea that an "ordinary person" would not recognize the joke, take it seriously, and be terrified. The point of this campaign is to demonstrate that that's nonsense.

Re:Why Spartacus?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to ask? That's sadder than not knowing where "KHAAAN!" is from.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Idiots

[t0p]

So do terrorists generally issue bomb warnings over Twitter? I don't think so; the police (in their saner moments) don't think so; and the judge in question probably doesn't even know what Twitter is.

Re:Just goes to show

[kainosnous]

For a moment, I had started to write to defend American culture, but then a quick moment of thought revealed that you are correct. That wasn't the way in my grandparents' time (from what I hear), but it certainly is the case these day. In the U.S. we live in a culture of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. On top of that we have a political system where common sense takes a back seat to party squables and a media that looks only for the sensational. That's why political ads here focus on the negative: people would rather vote "against" somebody than for somebody.

I do disagree with your explination for the problem. I say that it's not a matter of too little ambiguity, but too much. There should be a sharply defined line that one should not cross. In this case, I don't see how the man would have crossed it. What crime did he commit? It's only since it is left to ambiguity that a judge could rule him a criminal. Traditionally, we were a nation of laws in America, and I think that worked well. That has changed with more and more unconstitutional "legislating from the bench" making us more like a common law system. Don't like the law banning homosexual "marriage"? Just ask a judge to remove that law for you. Want to kill a baby? Don't worry, a few judges is all it takes to make the law go away. I believe that it is exactly this that leads people to sensationalism. They've learned that if you make something emotional enough (e.g. "Think fo the children!") then that rigid line can disappear.

Eheh

[SmallFurryCreature]

And in the NEXT shot it shows each and everyone of them killed... somehow people always forget this.

Also, is it just me or is there a difference between a man who fought against slavery and a man who made a bomb treath for no reason?

Re:Eheh

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I'm fairly sure that the whole point at issue is that it was clearly absurd and therefore not a bomb threat.
I did a back-of-the envelope calculation last night:
Knowing that the runway is 2.88km long and 60m wide,
assuming that it's 0.5m deep, and has a density about equal to that of concrete,
and assuming 'sky-high' means the cruising altitude of a 747.

You would need the energy equivalaent of nearly 5000 tons of TNT just to overcome gravity in blowing just the runway 'sky-high'.

I doubt even the armed forces could pull that much explosive together in a week, let alone place it under an airport.

In conclusion, the 'threat' is absurd, and therefore isn't actually a threat. Or do we only read it literally and out of context when it's to the advantage of the prosecution?

Re:Eheh

[internewt]

>>>Or do we only read it literally and out of context when it's to the advantage of the [government]?

Fixed that for you. This is about leaders wanting control over the commoners..... no different than how it was in 1500. Different society of course but still the same root motivation - tyranny.

It isn't just leaders, it is anyone who wants to "win" an argument, and doesn't care how they do it. Or is lacking logic and reasoning skills, and doesn't realise what they are doing.

We see similar quite frequently on /.: someone will make a statement, and then someone will seemingly take the statement totally out of context. Which is very likely to distract others from the point initially being made, or make the original statement seem incorrect.

It happens in the media very frequently, and even more so in political and economic debates (though politics and economics are very closely linked, and people will advocate differing political points of view based on economic positions, and vice versa).

It is similar to why it can be frustrating to argue or debate with some people. Some people will just do things like constantly change the subject, or interrupt just as you are coming to your point, or ask silly and pointless question as you are approaching your point. Anything at all to stop you making your point, or to make you not present your point how you would like to.

This trait isn't exclusive with leaders, it seems to be common amongst authoritarians. Most of those who rise to the top though tend to be authoritarians, but they probably wouldn't have much support or stay there long if it weren't for other plonkers in society who don't see the misrepresentation due to manipulated context and literal presentation.

You need to explain that nowadays?

[denzacar]

I mean... I'd somehow understand if it was "I'm Jack the Ripper". But Spartacus?

What would have happened had they referred to... say... "A Tale of Two Cities"? Or "Les Misérables"?
Would The Internet collapse or just the Twitter?

Not the issue

[orbweaver]

Those same idiots will scream even louder when someone really does blow up something and the cops ignored it because of these protests.

That's not the issue. The complaint is not that the police investigated the tweet; this might well be argued to fall under due diligence. The complaint is that they investigated it, discovered it to be totally harmless, and still brought the full force of the law to bear on the tweeter simply for the hell of it.

So, why did he do it?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Gosh I am paranoid but somehow I just always keep looking for what is MISSING from a story. So why the bomb threat? Which is by the way illegal. Why did he threathen people who had no way of knowing whether he was serious or not?

Some of the highschool shootings had the criminals making claims they would do something as well. So clearly the police now HAS to act when someone makes a public threath.

Yet many a slashdotter is saying that terrorists wouldn't use twitter to announce it? How small minded, only terrorists use bombs now? Only terrorists carry out attacks? Plenty of nutters do as well AND some of them make announcements about it. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_17_112/ai_n27436671/

If only then people had listened. How is the police to know if someone is just spouting off or making a serious threat? Damned if they do nothing, damned if they do something.

But the law is very clear, you are not allowed to make threats, no not even as a joke. Just try this at an airport "he got a bomb" and see what happens. But I wasn't serious? Tell that to the police dog chewing on your crotch.

Should the police have ignored the threat, like they ignored others that did turn out to be right? Or just put a fullscale alert on the airport just in case and let the taxpayer pay for it?

This story is just more evidence of the sad state of our voting population who just doesn't seem to be aware of the real world and its rules. If you do not like them vote to change them but don't go into some kind of hissy fit when long established laws end up biting you in the ass.

It reminds me of a story years ago when the british press went into sob story mode about a mum whose driving license was taking away and she needed it so badly... yeah... those anti-drunk driving laws sure do suck don't they. Guess what, freedom of speech does not exist in the UK, stop being suprised by it constantly and either change the law (and invite anarchy) or learn to accept that bomb threats are not allowed.

Real story: Asshole who wanted to show off got send to jail for breaking the law. Fellow assholes outraged that breaking the law is not allowed!

Really, this guy wasn't making a political statement, this was just someone wanting to scare others because his penis is to small. And before you get all outraged, answer me this. WHY did he send this message out into the world? When THAT reason gets reported I think his public sympathy outside wanker land will be lost instantly.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[lga]

He didn't send this to the world. He sent this to his Twitter followers, who are not stupid enough to think that a hyperbolic joke is actually a real threat . It just happened to be visible to other people if they took the time to look for it. Maybe if you read the details you might realise that the airport saw it, and deemed it not a threat. The police investigated and recognised that this was not a threat. The CPS and the Judges, however, threw the book at him and prosecuted under an antique law that should not even apply.

This tweet was clearly not a real threat, and anyone with half a brain can recognise that, apart from judges. And you.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh I am paranoid but somehow I just always keep looking for what is MISSING from a story. So why the bomb threat? Which is by the way illegal. Why did he threathen people who had no way of knowing whether he was serious or not?

Because he isn't a hand wringing coward. Do a google search on "moral development." "You have to follow the rules" is a perspective only about half-way along the path to being an honest-to-goodness human being. If you can't grow up, at least do us the favor of not making it a crime for the rest of us to do so.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Dr_Barnowl]

Note the important part ; the IRA rang the local TV studio, giving a warning and codeword.

IRA codewords were typically established by issuing a prior warning for an act of terrorism in conjunction with the codeword. The same word could then be used to claim responsibility for other acts, either before or after they occurred (although "before" obviously generates more credence).

If it was the modern era, I'd probably sign my communiques using a public key known to be associated with terrorist acts ; much more secure.

All said and done, they probably wouldn't use Twitter, even if GCHQ has a 250,000 strong server farm scraping it, along with all the other social networks. They'd probably send their communiques straight to people that they know can disseminate the information rapidly. But they do announce their atrocities in advance, because it's the only sure way that they will be getting credit for it.

Re:Just goes to show

[isorox]

We know that this sort of thing would NEVER fly in America, not in spirit nor in the letter of the law. We've got the First Amendment for that.

Sure, you can threaten to kill thousands or ordinary folk, as long as it's not a threat against some politician, which would be covered under section 871 of US code title 18: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html

For example, Adam Albrett, who pleaded insanity to get away with it:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Fairfax-man-accused-of-threatening-Obama-pleads-insanity-1008023-100164259.html

I'm not saying UK law isn't stupid, but the US isn't as great as you might think.

Re:Puts law enforcement in a difficult position

[M2Ys4U]

Not really. The Crown Prosecution Service will declare that it is "not in the public interest" to charge the thousands of solidarity tweeters and nothing will happen.

Re:Why Spartacus?

[RealGrouchy]

Ah, the good old days: when memes came from well-produced blockbuster films, not some annoying teenager with a webcam.

- RG>

Re:Just goes to show

[Cruciform]

You mean the laws against gay marriage which contravene the equal rights guaranteed by the constitution?

The 'Old Testament' thumper shines through. After all, Jesus never said anything about homosexuals. Leviticus certainly did. Give me 5 minutes to go through your daily habits and I'll show you at least one case for you to be killed by your fellow YHWH worshipers.

Would you also like to go back to the old standard of Deuteronomy 22? You know, the part where raping a virgin is an acceptable precursor to marrying her?

And the "baby killing", that would refer to abortion of a fetus right?
Exodus 21:22 says that a man who causes a miscarriage should receive a fine. That's it.
In Genesis life comes with the first *breath*. So where has it been made legal to kill kids by a judge?

In your sig, why didn't you include "Though shalt not seethe a kid in it's mothers milk"? Is some of the 'Word of God' not up to your standards? Seems like the love thy neighbor stuff that you *did* include went out the window with your griping about homosexual marriage.

Do YOU happen to have a ring on your finger from a Christian wedding ceremony? As that would make you a "bride of Christ", whatever genitalia you might have.

 

Re:Idiots

[Nemyst]

Until you have read the tweet, you can't honestly say anything. Seriously, just read the damn thing and you'll understand how idiotic this is:

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

It's obvious that it isn't a threat, it's obviously said by an angry person over missing his flight and I honestly am totally stunned by how this thing blew out of proportions.

Re:Just goes to show

[MoonBuggy]

I know the GP started it, but this isn't the time for nationalism - things are going to shit on both sides of the Atlantic, and trying to argue that one side is doing better or worse is not productive; they're bad in different ways.

To paraphrase your post "People in the UK look at stuff that goes on in the US... teens being charged as sex offenders for taking pictures of themselves, or strip searched at school for carrying a headache pill...".

In my experience, Britain is more susceptible to allowing 'big brother' style intrusions from the government, while the US is more likely to get caught up in moral panics. Not to say that either country is immune to either problem, of course.

America looks at some of Britain's free speech violations and shakes their head at how the likes of this could never happen with the constitution for protection, while Britain looks back at America and wonders how much more power the fire-and-brimstone Christian minority can seize.

Re:no win scenario

[Serious Callers Only]

Uniforms spend a lot of their time investigating this sort of unimportant crime, it comes with the territory. Personally I'm happy with the tradeoff in time/expense if they simply talk to people like this (after all they may really be a nutcase, in which case it was worth investigating), but not happy with them spending public money taking him before a magistrate when it was simply a tasteless joke. It does seem very unlikely to be a real threat.

I sincerely doubt prosecuting him has made others do anything other than laugh at the police, but you're welcome to your opinion. I would say it's somewhat contradicted by the hundreds who have imitated him on twitter though.