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.

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.

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?

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.

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: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: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: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.