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

Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

UKians are idiots.

Re:Just goes to show

[Dr_Barnowl]

The trial shows that our judiciary are a bit out of touch. And that our institutional sense of political correctness has gone a bit too far.

But expressing solidarity through protest, by repeating the same "crime" - admittedly with a very minor risk of prosecution? That nobility. That's the British spirit. There's a reason that the colloquial phrase for contravention of fair play is "not cricket". It isn't "not baseball", is it?

I view the whole sorry affair as the result of over-exposure to American culture, a culture of flying off the handle, an overinflated sense of entitlement, and above all, an almost complete lack of understanding of the concept of irony. We've lost our ability to cope with the ambiguity and the grey areas in life, instead taking the simpletons viewpoint that right and wrong are black and white, that there is a sharply defined line you must not cross. Deary me. Life is complicated. For those of us who can't cope without a truly rigid set of rules, might I suggest that you go back to kindergarten.

Re:Just goes to show

[A. B3ttik]

I view the whole sorry affair as the result of over-exposure to American culture,

Are you kidding me? People in the US look at most of the stuff that goes on in the UK... getting arrested for Tweets, getting arrested for flying certain flags, while guys in America get police protection to obscenely picket funerals. 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.

a culture of flying off the handle, an overinflated sense of entitlement, and above all, an almost complete lack of understanding of the concept of irony.

Yeah, whatever.

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.

Re:Just goes to show

[Radres]

No one says "not cricket" in en-US, FWIW.

Re:Just goes to show

[DarkKnightRadick]

I guess someone doesn't realize just what sort of despicable garbage we in the U.S. have to defend (as someone mentioned earlier, protesting funerals) just so garbage like what is happening to this guy doesn't happen here (not saying our judicial system is perfect, far from it), but with Free Speech protections, it's a lot harder for the prosecution to win.

Re:Just goes to show

[DarkKnightRadick]

parenthesis fail.

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What the fuck are you talking about? This is some of the most incoherent nonsense I've seen on this site -- and that's saying something.

Re:Just goes to show

[Charliemopps]

Yes, your judges have been watching way too much Mary Tyler Moore late at night and that's why they made this stupid decision. It has nothing to do with your lack of a written constitution.

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you don't acknowledge the phrase kinda proves his point.

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

[memyselfandeye]

Or you can threaten to blow up Apple after having a bad day...

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/right-to-remain-silent
http://www.joelipari.com/

Re:Just goes to show

[Shimbo]

Are you kidding me? People in the US look at most of the stuff that goes on in the UK... getting arrested for Tweets... 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.

You can get six months in a federal jail for posting ridiculous threats posting on 4chan though. It seems to me that the main difference between the US and the UK is that you would get punished much more severely in the US.

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

while guys in America get police protection to obscenely picket funerals.

And the current SCOTUS is looking for a way to make those picketers liable for civil damages for hurt feelings without, somehow, completely fucking up the First Amendment -- just because they find the notion of the protests so abhorrent. Once that decision's handed down, we're going to be just as bad as the UK except that free speech will be limited by how much money you have rather than as limited to the upper class as the lower.

Re:Just goes to show

[moonbender]

parenthesis fail.

Man, now I badly want my compilers to say that when I mess up the syntax.

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you put my marriage in quotes, you bag of biblical mumbojumbo.

Re:Just goes to show

[lexidation]

Since your God has directed you to "love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matt22:34-40), to quote your sig, and since you are against homosexual marriage, may I presume that you, too, have refrained from marrying? Out of, you know, solidarity for your gay neighbors whom you love.

Or would that be requiring more logical consistency than you're willing to offer?

Re:Just goes to show

[kevinNCSU]

I know I'm just an American so my sense of irony is sorely lacking, but how does one blame not being entitled to free speech online on being exposed to our citizen's overinflated sense of entitlement?

Re:Just goes to show

[Antisyzygy]

But expressing solidarity through protest, by repeating the same "crime" - admittedly with a very minor risk of prosecution? That nobility. That's the British spirit. There's a reason that the colloquial phrase for contravention of fair play is "not cricket". It isn't "not baseball", is it?

That is not unique to the British. Apparently you've never heard of the Boston tea party, the American revolution, the American feminist movement, the Hippy movement, the Vietnam war deserters, and illegal file sharing.

I view the whole sorry affair as the result of over-exposure to American culture, a culture of flying off the handle, an overinflated sense of entitlement, and above all, an almost complete lack of understanding of the concept of irony. We've lost our ability to cope with the ambiguity and the grey areas in life, instead taking the simpletons viewpoint that right and wrong are black and white, that there is a sharply defined line you must not cross. Deary me. Life is complicated. For those of us who can't cope without a truly rigid set of rules, might I suggest that you go back to kindergarten.

Sure thing. I view your whole post as a pompous diatribe of bull shit. You have an obvious superiority complex, and its completely unfounded in reality. In America, you could do exactly what this guy did and no one can do anything to you. Its called freedom of speech, and its guaranteed our government cannot interfere with this natural born right. I can call you Euro-trash and say you deserve to have your ass kicked without my government doing anything to me.

Re:Just goes to show

[mysidia]

You can get six months in a federal jail for posting ridiculous threats posting on 4chan though. It seems to me that the main difference between the US and the UK is that you would get punished much more severely in the US.

4chan? You can potentially get six years or more in federal jail for visiting 4chan. Or for that matter, any website that allows users to post images without review or filtering.

Due to the fact anything goes on /b/, sheer anarchy, people can post any text or pictures they want, and there exist pictures in the world that it is such a crime for your computer to retrieve. It is against site rules to post those pictures, but according to Wikipedia, the rule is not obeyed and is a running joke.

People can wind up in jail, and an unemployable social pariah when you get out, just because they visited 4chan on the wrong day.

And note, 4chan is not special in that regard..... any unknown website is in theory a possible risk

It occurs problems with ensuring 'free speech' might not be the worst things wrong with society and government. When there exist [potentially] more innocent people in society than those making threats, who are subject to even more severe action.

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

[Chucky_M]

That is not unique to the British. Apparently you've never heard of the Boston tea party, the American revolution, the American feminist movement, the Hippy movement, the Vietnam war deserters, and illegal file sharing.

The Americans were British during the first two - just sayin... Feminist movement, deserters yeah you could be proud of that, but illegal file sharing? phew..

Sure thing. I view your whole post as a pompous diatribe of bull shit. You have an obvious superiority complex, and its completely unfounded in reality.

And it is confined to him and not you in any way, clearly..

Re:Just goes to show

[Antisyzygy]

The Americans were British during the first two - just sayin... Feminist movement, deserters yeah you could be proud of that, but illegal file sharing? phew..

American's were not entirely British. There were Germans, Dutch, French, Mexican, ect. The portion that rebelled was a British Colony, but the people many times where fairly removed from their British roots and they rebelled because they didn't want British rule. For example, half my ancestry stretches back pre-Revolution and is composed of Scottish and French. Doesn't matter if illegal file sharing is right or not, its still done in protest of paying for media and of copyright law.

And it is confined to him and not you in any way, clearly..

It is confined to him. I didn't go out of my way to insult someones culture. As a matter of fact, I admire parts of British culture. I also admire UK government, such as the parliament being made up of representatives from a variety of parties by a percentage of votes. I wouldn't trade that for the Bill of Rights however. Its ok to be proud of your own culture, but when you blame your own nation's and cultural failings on another culture's influence its complete horse shit. Not to mention this individual has a gross misunderstanding of what American culture even is.

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:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

Albrett was arrested after the White House Correspondence Office received a message on May 14 that read:

"This is not a joke. Inform the FBI, CIA, U.S. military and DOJ that I am going down to D.C. to blow the brains out of Obama unless he vacates the White House and I am going to shoot up the place and Rahm if I see him...This is not a joke...I am going to leave Mara at home with water and some food..."

That's pretty different from a tweet.

Re:Just goes to show

[horza]

I agree with MoonBuggy, "Our system is slightly less broken that yours" is not a bragging right. Both nations can be justifiably proud a system that has had excellent human rights and freedom of speech, both of which have been eroded by the past couple of governments. The time is now to correct the downwards trend.

Phillip.

Re:Just goes to show

[Thing 1]

Use Lisp.

Re:Just goes to show

[Chucky_M]

Its ok to be proud of your own culture, but when you blame your own nation's and cultural failings on another culture's influence its complete horse shit. Not to mention this individual has a gross misunderstanding of what American culture even is.

This statement makes sense and I agree with it, he might indeed misunderstand "American culture" but as many have shown before you he is not alone in this.

Your job as a literate American is to prove him wrong, not the opposite.

Re:Just goes to show

[mug funky]

how was this modded flamebait?

apart from misspelling "squabbles"?

i think the UK badly needs a 1st amendment equivalent. they also need to clear out the remnants of the hereditary (inbred) peer system before they can do any more damage.

fleet street also could do well to fall into a giant sinkhole.

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I give two craps, but Exodus 21:22 says that it's a fine if everything turns out to be alright with the baby. If not, well, that's where the whole "eye for an eye" saying comes from.

Re:Just goes to show

[Cruciform]

They've "prettied" it up with successive versions.

The KJV:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

The "new" KJV:
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Re:Just goes to show

[Totenglocke]

Not that I agree with banning gay marriage, but the Constitution doesn't give ANYONE the "right" to get married, straight or otherwise.

Re:Just goes to show

[DaveGod]

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.

Yeah I'm tempted to draw the same conclusions. But, even if we were make the dubious assumption that media reporting is generally excellent, bear in mind it is logical that there be an inverse relationship between reporting and the actual general position. By nature media reports on things that are unusual or exceptional, so if it was common for UK teenagers to be charged for sexting it'd rarely be covered, while US media might prominently report every one of the very rare instances of it happening there.

The real story to take from OP is not that you can be convicted for making silly jokes about bombing in the UK, but that the public is shocked by what is seen as an anomaly and sufficiently confident in the judicial system's ability to make this right that they go and make the same joke.

Re:Just goes to show

[complete loony]

This quote from the West wing seems appropriate...

Re:Just goes to show

[Sulphur]

Albrett was arrested after the White House Correspondence Office received a message on May 14 that read:

"This is not a joke. Inform the FBI, CIA, U.S. military and DOJ that I am going down to D.C. to blow the brains out of Obama unless he vacates the White House and I am going to shoot up the place and Rahm if I see him...This is not a joke...I am going to leave Mara at home with water and some food..."

That's pretty different from a tweet.

Too long?

Re:Just goes to show

[metrix007]

I just love it when you guys ignorantly summarize the US.

Re:Just goes to show

[kainosnous]

I'll admit that I was tired when I posted, but the points still stand. First, as for homosexuality, it is wrong, the same as stealing or any other sin, in the new testament as well as the old (Romans, etc). A homosexual man has every right to marry a woman the same as any other man does. Marriage is not about fulfilling sexual lusts. The question is why would somebody who doesn't care about the Bible want to get married. Why not just have a civil union rather than redefine marriage?

Your point does stand, though, that there's plenty of things that people do wrong that are just as damning since breaking one law breaks them all. The point of the law as a school master is to show people what righteousness is and that none of us are good and in need of salvation. Although we should strive to follow it, we are all worthy of death. The gospel is that even people who have done wrong can be forgiven, but that doesn't make the wrong right. Loving a sinner doesn't mean accepting their sin. How much love is it to lie to somebody?

If you will read that passage in Deut 22, you will find that the rape (lay hold on) is not excused, but that the remedy is that the man be forced to marry her. In fact, a few verses earlier in a case where a man raped (force) an engaged woman, the man would be put to death. Yes, I think that we would be better as a nation under the OT law, but since we aren't I don't think that we should legislate morality. I wouldn't support a law prohibiting homosexuals from sin, only I don't want to be legally required to recognise it.

The "bride of Christ" is the church (all born again believers) whether or not thy are married. Marriage is a picture of that divine union which is why it is so important to defend its sanctity.

I'm not aware of any scripture declaring that life begins with a breath. If you know of such, please share it as that would be important. I do know that there are penalties for harming a pregnant woman if harm come to the child.

Re:Just goes to show

[jackbird]

The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi , translated from the original in the 20th century, is rather more frank:

22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].
23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life,

Not only is there a lesser penalty for causing a miscarriage, said miscarriage explicitly isn't considered a fatality.

Re:Just goes to show

[russotto]

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...".

The prosecution backed down on that first one; they didn't get off scot-free (as they should have) but they were not convicted of any sex offense.
Cite

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the strip search was wrong

Cite

In the UK, not only was the Robin Hood tweeter convicted, but his conviction was upheld on appeal. So I'm afraid that while the US is indeed fucked up, the UK is more fucked up.

Re:Just goes to show

[Antisyzygy]

You are being harder on me than I deserve, and softer on the OP as he deserves. I admire your stance as "devil's advocate" and I admit that I am reacting poorer than I should. However, his post is simply asinine. I try my hardest to take the higher ground but sometimes I get pissed off at people and my human nature overrides by frontal lobe. Touche sir, and I think we would probably agree more than disagree if we were to discuss things outside of /. .

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, I don't think the US and UK have more stupid laws or people than the rest of the world in general.

Re:Just goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

Corinthians 6:9–10 and a few others. However, Christ was generally pretty supportive of daddy.

Re:Just goes to show

[Coren22]

I see nowhere in that comment where he condemns gay marriage, he just says that the courts are being abused to squash unpopular laws. It is the law in most of the country that marriage is between a man and a women. If you don't like that, protest. But, going to the courts to get the law taken out is the wrong way, as it encourages legislation (part of the legislative branch of government) from the bench (party of the judicial side of the government) which is against the constitution.

Re:Just goes to show

[Coren22]

I don't agre with your summary there, are you sure you are reading it correctly? It sounds like:

If there is a premature birth due to above actions there are two outcomes
1. the baby lives, there will be restitution
2. the baby dies, he will die

Pretty clear to me, though it seems like this has little to do with abortion as it is talking about a woman being hit during a fight.

Re:Just goes to show

[BJ_Covert_Action]

First, as for homosexuality, it is wrong...

First, as for that statement, it is wrong, so fuck you.

Yes, I think that we would be better as a nation under the OT law...

So you don't think we should be allowed to eat pork or shellfish? Oh, you're just a crazy moralist dick that wants to impose his own set of arbitrary values on the rest of the society in which he lives. I get it.

On that note, double fuck you. Asshole.

Re:Just goes to show

[jackbird]

The way I read it, the question revolves around the outcome for the mother. The word 'miscarry' says to me that the baby didn't make it. With bronze age medical care, I have to imagine the mother's chances weren't that good in the aftermath.

Why Spartacus?

[Anonymous Coward]

For those wondering, from TFA:

The I'm Spartacus campaign is inspired by the famous scene in the 1960s blockbuster, when slaves stood up one by one to claim "I'm Spartacus" in order to save their fellow gladiator from detection.

Re:Why Spartacus?

[ArsenneLupin]

Oh, and here I was hoping that Paul Chambers is gay...

Re:Why Spartacus?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Why Spartacus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww, and here the first thing i thought of was this quote.... is that bad?

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>

Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Uk are crazy bunch of hopeless idiots.

Re:Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

People who live in the UK are a crazy bunch of hopeless idiots.

There, fixed it for you. But you're wrong, you're an idiot.

Re:Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a very British attitude. You may insult me all you like, but I shall take offence if you do so with with poor grammar.

(Apologies if you're not British - however your attitude certainly is )

Re:Crazy

[XSpud]

You've reminded me of the latin scene in Life of Brian - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8

Re:Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

With with?

The British Way...

[Ga_101]

Why get hot and bothered about something when you can make a mockery of it?

It is usually more effective too.

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:The British Way...

[Ga_101]

I couldn't agree more. I just wish there was an effective way to mock other issues in such a decisive way.

Re:The British Way...

[TapeCutter]

Here is how the "ordinary person" reacts to terrorisim in the UK.

Re:The British Way...

[sbates]

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Timothy makes an excellent point about who we . Here's what Mr. Chambers originally said:

"Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

Here's what Mr. Compton said:

"Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."

Neither one has the ring of a joke, neither one is in good taste, but the former is defended while the latter is fodder for criticism. Now, back to your comment:

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.

If a complete stranger (and Paul Chambers is a complete stranger for 99.999% of the world) posted the bomb threat on Twitter and you were inside the airport you would probably want to know whether it's a real threat. It doesn't matter what the medium is: Twitter could simply be part of a new MO for a modern brand of terrorist.

In summary:

• No indication of a joke
• Posted on what amounts to a popular public forum
• Threatens death for potentially hundreds of people

That's not even considering the possibility that Paul really was setting up a secret plot to bomb the airport and the evidence simply hasn't been discovered and his friends simply didn't know. That would be rather embarrassing for these kinds of "I'm Spartacus" campaigns..

Re:The British Way...

[MysteriousPreacher]

I think that your post, justifying the action against Chambers, is an attempt to draw attention away from your plan to crash planes by sneaking cheese in to the sandwiches of lactose intolerant airline pilots.

Re:The British Way...

[Anonymous Coward]

If a complete stranger [...] posted the bomb threat on Twitter and you were inside the airport you would probably want to know whether it's a real threat

Why? Were you planning on staying there for a week?

Re:The British Way...

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Both are clearly facetious and I think every male in the world says stuff like that all the time...

Re:The British Way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they both sound exactly like jokes, poor taste ones perhaps, but in both cases it is quite clear the poster is not serious. Maybe not to non-native English speakers (which seems to include many, but not all Americans), but certainly to those of us from this side of the pond.

Re:The British Way...

[internewt]

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Timothy makes an excellent point about who we . Here's what Mr. Chambers originally said:

"Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

Here's what Mr. Compton said:

"Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."

Neither one has the ring of a joke, neither one is in good taste, but the former is defended while the latter is fodder for criticism.

What it sounds like is what you have done: misrepresented one quote so as to be able to make them equal.

Mr. Chamber's quote is longer than what you said, and so has more to it.

The point is though, seeing as you have missed it by choice, is that the airport gag was one guy claiming to want to do something that is clearly very difficult, if not impossible, for an individual to do. The second is someone who has not insignificant amounts of power in society requesting that a journalist is stoned (and not in the good way).

If you can't see the difference between someone stating they want to do something improbable, and a politician making a threat to a journalist (ignoring religions, genders, events that are more likely to occur in some parts of the world, etc.), then you come across to me as truly stupid. Or perhaps you are an authoritarian who thinks that those in powerful positions shouldn't be held to account for things they do in those powerful positions?

Re:The British Way...

[sjames]

Really, I think it's fairly clear to anyone not in the habit of jumping at the sight of their own shadow that neither of the statements in question were anything more than expressions of frustration. Some might find the expressions to be in bad taste, but that's not supposed to be a criminal offense.

Re:The British Way...

[Culture20]

"Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

If a complete stranger (and Paul Chambers is a complete stranger for 99.999% of the world) posted the bomb threat on Twitter and you were inside the airport you would probably want to know whether it's a real threat.

Only if it was posted a week ago. Otherwise, SEP field is in full effect.

Re:The British Way...

[1u3hr]

No indication of a joke

? EVERY indication it was a joke. NOBODY involved thought for a moment that it was a real threat.

Posted on what amounts to a popular public forum

"Published" in a message intended for his girlfriend only.

That's not even considering the possibility that Paul really was setting up a secret plot to bomb the airport

Yeah, announcing his "secret plot" on Twitter... You had me going there. Until that line I thought you really were a moron, but that went over the top.

Re:The British Way...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Threatens death for potentially hundreds of people"

Not in this case. I'm certain he was talking about just the airport. Call for its evacuation, once it's emtpy... *boom*. right?

Re:The British Way...

[VJ42]

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Timothy makes an excellent point about who we . Here's what Mr. Chambers originally said:

"Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

Here's what Mr. Compton said:

"Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."

Neither one has the ring of a joke, neither one is in good taste, but the former is defended while the latter is fodder for criticism. Now, back to your comment:

You have no sense of context - Chambers' tweet was @hisgirlfriend whom he was going to fly to Belfast to see when he discovered that the airport was closed, Compton's tweet had the hashtag #R5L because he was replying to something he had heard on Radio 5 Live. Viewed in that context it becomes very obvious, very quickly that neither were actually malicious.

Re:The British Way...

[rtb61]

An interesting thing judges can do where they feel the law is overly broad and difficult to enforce properly without giving excessive interpretive power to law enforcement is to apply a broad interpretation and force a rewriting of the law to narrow it's scope.

Under the law as it is currently written, the individual cited did break the law and should be penalised, the problem is the law needs to be rewritten to narrow it's scope to something far more reasonable otherwise police are able to abuse the law to victimise select individuals who make casual unintended errors of judgement.

this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

let me be the first to say.

THIS IS SPARTAAAAAACUS!

#IAmSpartacus

[Anonymous Coward]

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

obAMS: Microsoft code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what is it about twitter that makes it so dangerous you daren't write "ahmonga bomb LAX" on it? Are they using MFC libraries?

mm
--
now that's a .sig (once mefus)

Idiots

[Aladrin]

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

Actually, I don't think cops are that dumb... But if they were, that's how it would go.

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:Idiots

[Tukz]

Maybe not twitter, but people have announced terror acts on the internet before, prior to doing it.
That got ignored to and behold, a school got slaughtered.

Not saying we should act on every little internet post, but there has to be a line somewhere of what you can post.
I have not read said "threat", but a threat to bomb an airport does sound like the kind of thing law enforcement should consider.

I think a slap on the wrist and maybe a small fine is in order.
Just to tell the public "think before posting".

Re:Idiots

[91degrees]

So are the only options to do absolutely nothing, and to throw the book at the guy?

The police had several hours to determine whether the guy meant it or not.

And as for taking things seriously, the airport manager didn't consider it serious enough to close the airport. Perhaps what they should do have done is ask the guy a few questions and then suggest that he consider his tweets a little more carefully in future when they determined he wasn't a threat.

Re:Idiots

[JustOK]

think before reacting would be better advice. Applies to both sides.

Re:Idiots

[arivanov]

In the UK? Not twitter, but phone - yes.

The IRA usually warned the police that they are going to blow up something to avoid collateral damage casualties.

If those bombs were happening today I would not be suprised if they were tweeted instead of phoned-in.

IRA however is a strange exemption to the overall "rules" of terrorism. Most of today's terrorists would go for the opposite - to kill as many bystanders as possible.

Re:Idiots

[isorox]

So do terrorists generally issue bomb warnings over Twitter?

No, but in the good old days the American funded terrorists from Ireland used to phone up newspapers/samaritans/etc to warn of bombs before they blew kids to bits. They occasionally got the location right too.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

as far as im aware, the IRA did that as they felt they had a legitimate protest against the British government, rather than random bystanders, and they felt they were in a military situation, rather than simply trying to injure and kill as many people as possible

Re:Idiots

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yeah. Probably something that should have been handled by a chat with Chambers, but then the police are going to be pretty busy if they follow-up on such things.

After traveling through Heathrow Terminal 5 I made similar comments, but said that I planned to first buy the terminal. Presumably that'd be okay, since by that point I'd be blowing up my own personal property.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Security and theater have become so confused that even the actors can't tell them apart. The majority of laws like this were designed to provide a flimsy piece of evidence to use to go after real threats. Unfortunately, after this many years of failing to accomplish real results and a lack or real targets, they are using the laws to intimidate people into submission. It really isn't any different than the new TSA guidelines implemented for those who refuse to pass through the full body scanners.

If you notice, the majority of people aren't saying that the police shouldn't INVESTIGATE statements like this, the dispute is over the PROSECUTION of the event. Once it was established that he wasn't a threat, there wasn't a case. This is just a pathetic attempt by a government to intimidate it's people into complacency.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those car bombs and shopping centres they blew up were certainly legitimate military installations.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention all of the civilian shootings / stabbings over the years.

And as for the IRA phoning in bomb threats...some of the time they would do it when there wasn't a bomb and sometimes they'd give inaccurate information. My best guess is that it depended on WHO in the IRA was making the phone call and how much they really wanted to hurt civilians.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

So who gets the job of trying to figure out if he was joking or not? The passengers maybe?

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:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

they would also include code words, which changed regularly, to prove that they really were people who would blow things up. many places get random bomb warnings and do nothing about them because the chance of them being real is so slight.

Re:Idiots

[isorox]

I had a phone call once (at work, at an organisation that does receive these sort of things) from someone who gave me a codeword, but that was it.

Re:Idiots

[Totenglocke]

All they have to do is their JOB and "investigate" to see if there's any reasonable amount of truth behind the post. If there is, detain the person and investigate further. If there's not, forget about it. The problem is that the police fall victim to the same failings as everyone else - most people just want to do the least work possible to get paid.

Re:Idiots

[icebraining]

Also ETA, in Spain - they usually warn before blowing them up. Not that they haven't killed a bunch of people over the years, but most of their bombs don't.

Re:Idiots

[VJ42]

In the UK? Not twitter, but phone - yes.

The IRA usually warned the police that they are going to blow up something to avoid collateral damage casualties.

If those bombs were happening today I would not be suprised if they were tweeted instead of phoned-in.

IRA however is a strange exemption to the overall "rules" of terrorism. Most of today's terrorists would go for the opposite - to kill as many bystanders as possible.

They didn't phone to warn, they phoned to make sure that everyone knew it was them - if they waited until after the bombs went off all of the myriad of republican paramilitary groups would have tried to claim responsibility. By phoning a warning 5mins before the bomb went off, the police knew it was them & they gained some positive PR whilst maximising damage and casualties.

Re:Idiots

[Grumbleduke]

Yes, terrorists do sometimes call in bomb threats (often as a way of proving responsibility - it happened a lot in NI). In fact, the UK has a law against it. However, the CPS decided not to charge him with this, rather an obscure law against sending a malicious message using a public communications system (something originally aimed at protecting telephone operators from harassment) because the bomb threat laws actually require proof that the threat is intended to be taken seriously. Also, terrorists sending in bomb threats tend not to do so from their personal Twitter account from which they can easily be identified and located.

Law enforcement only found out about the threat because an off-duty airport worker stumbled across it and reported it to airport security, who decided it wasn't real, but forwarded it to the police. It was never considered a credible threat.

As for the punishment; yes, he received a slap on the wrist and a small fine (around £1,000, iirc), but the "slap on the wrist" consists of a criminal record which lost him his job, got him kicked off his professional-qualification course and has seriously limited his chance of getting another job for quite a while (iirc). If you think this is proportional to posting a joke on twitter, fair enough. Obviously a lot of Twitter users disagree.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Crap!

[fluch]

Such kind of failed appeals makes me want to bom.... %$!%$$*&! CARRIER LOST.

Don't be so sure...

[Ga_101]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing

Most Mancunians I've spoken to say it was the best thing to happen to their city center.

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:Don't be so sure...

[DaveGod]

But they do announce their atrocities in advance, because it's the only sure way that they will be getting credit for it.

The primary reason was PR. Killing innocent folk did not achieve their goals. The Omagh bombing was a notable disaster for the IRA. They could not get a parking spot by the planned target then gave multiple confused warnings. The police then unwittingly ushered people towards the bomb. The resulting atrocity was a major factor in the success of the Peace Process.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, that was the "Real" IRA, a splinter group opposed to the Good Friday Agreement. Not that I'm defending the PIRA, but just for accuracy.

How quaint...

[MacGyver2210]

1943 called.

The Nazis want their laws back.

Re:How quaint...

[MrWeelson]

You lose, thread over, Godwin's Law applies. Probably the shortest time into a thread I've seen!

Andy

Re:How quaint...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

As it was pointed out to mindless "rule" followers already, Godwin's quaint bit of social engineering is not only a product of a bygone era when there were no such things as TSA, Homeland Security Department, TARP and the like and when some last vestiges of personal liberties still remained, but also using it today is a mere attempt to squash obvious and valid comparisons to the wide-spread at-the-time in Germany Nazi tactics being outright recycled by today's supposedly "democratic" governments.

So it is you who have shown yourself a thoughtless stickler for made-up crap which you mistake for "rules" and "laws" and thus a type of character which the Nazis loved the most as they also made up their own "laws" as they went and needed mindless followers to obey them. Following "rules" without any question as to their validity leads straight to the very thing mentioning of which you are trying to ridicule: totalitarianism.

These day anyone who tries to "Godwin" a discussion, despite widespread and patently obvious evidence of many Nazi (and Soviet) policies being adopted again by the very self-declared "defenders of freedom", effectively "Godwins" himself.

Seriously though...

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

I am Spartacus!


...other people need to knock that off

Re:Seriously though...

[Adambomb]

I'm Brian, and so's my wife!

Re:Seriously though...

[antdude]

No, I'm Spartacus.

Re:Seriously though...

[Kierthos]

I always imagine Daffy Duck standing in line, pointing to Spartacus and saying "He's Spartacus" and creeping out of line.

If you don't mean it, don't write it.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between saying "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!" among friends who know your personality and writing the same on the public internet. People have very little information which they can use to decide if you're joking or if you're someone with an real anger management problem. At the very least, put a smiley on it. On the internet, nobody knows that you're a dog and nobody knows that you're just kidding unless you make it bloody obvious. The reason why emoticons exist isn't that people are idiots who can't tell a joke from seriousness, it's that people who are not serious on the internet frequently forget that all non-textual cues are left out, so what's obvious to them isn't to others, even if the recipients have a fully developed sense of humor.

Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[radio4fan]

The Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees freedom of expression in article 10.1:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

... and then takes away the protection on the contentious speech that might actually need protecting in 10.2:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[mog007]

"Territorial integrity"? Does that mean it's illegal for people to protest about getting Scotland's independence while they're in London?

I think the Brits should try adopting something a little easier to remember. Something like "The Parliament shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." We've got a similar sort of thing in the US, and it seems to be doing well.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[Anonymous Cowpat]

yes, more mess. Since we won't get a definitive answer (that anyone will believe) as to whether the get-out clause applies until it gets to Strasbourg, all the human rights act does is put 5 or 6 layers of British courts between this chap and that definitive answer.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[bhtooefr]

Except our lawmakers and courts simply make up the second bit about what doesn't constitute free speech as they go.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[augustw]

Although the get-out contained in article 10.2 is not a UK invention - it's in the European Convention on Human Rights -- the Human Rights Act 1998 is simply the acceptance into UK law of the Convention.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

"Territorial integrity"? Does that mean it's illegal for people to protest about getting Scotland's independence while they're in London?

I think the Brits should try adopting something a little easier to remember. Something like "The Parliament shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." We've got a similar sort of thing in the US, and it seems to be doing well.

Don't be ridiculous.

Your interpretation of that bit is wrong.

And don't forget that the freedom of speech is restricted in all sorts of ways in the United States.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that Paul Chambers gets arrested and fined while Abu Hamza gets to say whatever he likes and gets a passport.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[radio4fan]

Interesting that Paul Chambers gets arrested and fined while Abu Hamza gets to say whatever he likes and gets a passport.

In fact Hamza was prosecuted and jailed for three charges of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" and has had a British passport since 1983.

Hamza is undoubtedly an arsehole, but any insinuation that he's been treated softly is wide of the mark.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[CrashandDie]

"Territorial integrity"? Does that mean it's illegal for people to protest about getting Scotland's independence while they're in London?

Nope, it means that if you shout too strongly near the white cliffs and a pebble falls off, you get beheaded.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[shilly]

Technically true but missing the point that the ECHR was mostly drafted by British lawyers at the instigation of Churchill post-WWII in a never-again spirit. The get outs provided were a quite careful balancing of rights.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[91degrees]

I have a certain fondness for the First amendment, but it does also mean that mandatory school uniforms are illegal, election finance reform is essentially impossible. There are occasions when freedom of speech and democracy are potentially at odds. I think there's an argument for limiting freedom of speech in those specific cases.

Re:Guide to right to free speech in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a government right's act, it gives the government the right to restrict free expression.

FYI

[Dexter Herbivore]

The exact phrase to be re-tweeted 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!"

Re:FYI

[Ihmhi]

Ah, see, now I know why he got in trouble. That's not nearly dry enough to pass for British humor. They're just trying to preserve their heritage!

Well, of course...

[Trip6]

Everyone knows that the first place you look for hints of where terrorists will strike is TWITTER!

Re:Well, of course...

[JustOK]

i thought the best place would be facebomb

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Your a little out Robin hood is a former RAF base, the runways are specially reinforced and can handle extremely large aircraft (Antonov An-225 for example). I remember watching it being layed the foundation alone is over 5m deep!

Re:Eheh

[khallow]

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?

Who made a bomb threat? There's no indication that the tweeter intended his words be treated as a bomb threat, but was just mouthing off to his readers. As for a reason,

Paul Chambers, 26, said he acted in frustration after Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire was closed by snow.

Re:Eheh

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

----- BTW a bomb threat in the US is not a crime. It's protected speech. However if your basement is filled with explosive material, then yes you'd be in jail. Since this Twitter Guy did not have a basement filled with bomb-making material, he would have been found "not guilty".

Re:Eheh

[commodore64_love]

>>>Paul Chambers, 26, said he acted in frustration after Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire was closed by snow.

Unbelievable. He's not a criminal - just a person who was angry. But of course this isn't about Mr.Chambers or protection of other citizens. This is about *setting an example* to demonstrate by the leaders to the commoners that free speech will not be tolerated. They are training us to be sheep! To be submissive and silent and well-behaved "or else you could end up like Paul Chambers" you worthless scum.

My God.

I sound like Alex Jones.

Re:Eheh

[metamatic]

I decided to make my threat even more absurd.

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.

Re:Eheh

[Pichu0102]

So you shouldn't stand with someone if you think all of you will be punished?

Re:Eheh

[Anonymous Coward]

Between this post on the one you posted above, you really need to learn how to spell the word threat.

Re:Eheh

[u38cg]

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

Which is rather the point, is it not? If what Chambers did was wrong, then all the re-tweeters should be punished. Somehow I think that might just show up the stupidity of the original prosecution - which was not a bomb threat. It was a stupid joke. A stern talking-to would be one thing: bending the machinery of the state over it is just wrong.

Re:Eheh

[Chucky_M]

What bothers me, is that more people do not understand exactly what you just said here..

Re:Eheh

[Totenglocke]

He did not make a bomb threat. He was annoyed at the crap service and posted about it using hyperbole.

Re:Eheh

[Anonymous Coward]

did a back-of-the envelope calculation last night:

Only on slashdot...

Re:Eheh

[Kierthos]

Only 5 mil? That's chump change. That doesn't even cover maintenance on orbital lasers, for Christ's sake.

Re:Eheh

[VJ42]

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?

Who made a bomb threat? There's no indication that the tweeter intended his words be treated as a bomb threat, but was just mouthing off to his readers. As for a reason,

Paul Chambers, 26, said he acted in frustration after Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire was closed by snow.

Not even all his readers, the original tweet was directed @hisfriend (now his girl friend) who lives in Belfast and was going to fly to visit.

Re:Eheh

[Lanteran]

oh my god, he has a nuclear device in his possession!

Re:Eheh

[Anonymous Coward]

meh.. i will blow up the entire universe

Puts law enforcement in a difficult position

[orbweaver]

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.

Not only that, but the campaign potentially puts law enforcement in a quandary. They can either arrest, charge and convict hundreds of people (including several popular celebrities) for posting a line of trivial text that harms precisely nobody, or have Paul Chambers' lawyers demand that they explain why they are applying the law selectively and unfairly.

That's one of the biggest problems with taking speech crime this far: it becomes utterly trivial for an angry population to effectively DDOS the enforcement of it.

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:Puts law enforcement in a difficult position

[M2Ys4U]

See http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2010english.pdf (PDF warning), page 10.

Re:Puts law enforcement in a difficult position

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because a large group of people threatening violence has worked REALLY well in the UK in the last couple decades.

Re:Puts law enforcement in a difficult position

[vux984]

The Crown Prosecution Service might get the hint that it was "not in the public interest" in the first place, and come to that correct conclusion in the future. That at least would be progress.

"I actually feel scared now"

[mu22le]

http://i.imgur.com/uPovx.jpg

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?

Re:You need to explain that nowadays?

[safetyinnumbers]

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

I must confess, I initially assumed it was inspired by "Life of Brian"

Re:You need to explain that nowadays?

[denzacar]

Get off my lawn. And turn that music down.

Re:You need to explain that nowadays?

[ross.w]

I'm Brian, and so's my wife.

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:Not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

and still brought the full force of the law to bear on the tweeter simply for the hell of it.

Strictly speaking that was the CPS and not the police. Why, yes it is a pedantic point:)

Re:Not the issue

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yeah. This is the kind of thing that should have been settled with a chat, or even ignored. The context of the message strongly suggests a frustrated traveler - not some nutter who'll be running a van full of fertiliser through the airport terminal.

Re:Not the issue

[VJ42]

Yeah. This is the kind of thing that should have been settled with a chat, or even ignored.

That's exactly what the Police did, it's the bureaucrats in the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) who are to blame for this one, not the cops. Both the cops and the airport did minimal investigation.

Re:Not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The police in the UK do not decided whether to prosecute someone - that is done by the Crown Prosecution Service and in Scotland by the Procurator Fiscal

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]

I'm so glad I don't have to live with your world-view. You must be scared half to death every moment.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to bomb your house, and your local airport. In fact, your capital city!

Do you think I'm serious?
 
Well, do ya, punk?

I don't want to live in your world with your view of law. How was this protecting the population, when it was clear he was NO THREAT at all, BEFORE the prosecution began? You're pathetic.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr: I am a sheepish coward who will gladly bend over for the benevolent Government to rape me at its whim (It's the Law!) and rationalise its actions with whatever cowardly arguments I can come up with. I respect power and therefore will always speak against the Government's opponents. The circumstances aren't important, what's important is that someone dares to act against the Government's will. Since there's no chance I'll ever take a stand, I want all the rest of you to do the same as I do, because I don't want to be left alone in my cowardly corner.

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?

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.

Erm...yeah...except the fact that this wouldn't stop him from bombing the airport if he actually wanted to. He is still a free man, he is still perfectly able to kill anyone he wants should he choose to - and do you seriously think the police investigate all statements of this nature? Of course they don't because they usually use discretion. Your average police officer knows the difference between a serious threat and a comment made in the heat of the moment and I would guess that most police officers also recognise when people are joking.

A fine and a criminal record will *not* stop somebody who wants to unleash violence on random strangers so what's the point in even doing it? If anything it would just make him even more bitter and hate society even more. If they really thought he was a genuine threat the punishment would have been much harsher and hopefully they would have attempted to rehabilitate him. Instead he just got a fine and a criminal record - an extremely harsh punishment given the supposed "crime" but if he was actually genuine in his desire to slaughter innocent people (which he wasn't) this punishment would hardly prevent him from going through with his threat.

So who does this punishment benefit? Nobody. Now that this guy has a criminal record he is going to find it more difficult to get a decent job, meaning he will contribute less to the tax base than he would of before (he was a trainee accountant). All because of a flippant comment on Twitter. The depressing thing is that it's not even that shocking, it's indicative of the legal system we have forged for ourselves in this country.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[misexistentialist]

Just try this at an airport "he got a bomb" and see what happens.

This incitement to mass terrorism is much worse than what Chambers wrote. Since you feel so strongly about the law, you should turn yourself in and serve a decade or two in prison.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

lets see if I can make this plain enough for you..

THREATENING to do something is NOT THE SAME as DOING IT.

If the police thought it was a credible threat, then they are quite within their rights to follow up and try to prevent it happening - when finding the threat not to be credible, they are not within their rights to arrest him anyway.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Cederic]

prosecuted under an antique law that should not even apply.

A 2003 law is hardly antique. It probably should apply. I just don't think his statement transgressed it.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did he threathen people who had no way of knowing whether he was serious or not?

They did know it wasn't serious - that's why both the airport and the police originally ignored it.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

His penis is toO small. Kinda like your brain, AMIRITE?

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I know nobody in this case. How would I, a casual observer, know what he said was materially different than this message?

@SleeperInfidelKiller: Alright, brothers. Now is the time! To the airport!

Without the benefit of hindsight, this seems no different than shouting in a crowded theater. He just was shouting on a crowded SMS service which happens to let "followers" filter SMS messages from people. It doesn't make the messages private, and it doesn't remove the speaker's responsibility from preventing a panic.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[lga]

In normal circumstances only those followers would see it. For anyone else to see it, they would have to search twitter for some part of it. (Such as the name "Robin Hood Airport" on this occasion.)

As for knowing the difference from your example, the message in questions has many markers of a joke, and if you can't see them then you probably need to have more actual conversations with real people.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[noidentity]

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.

Indeed. More and more I see that governments are far more in touch with reality than citizens, who see most things as rich guys with infinite resources who can easily spare however much is needed for others, like free health care, or whatever.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[jklovanc]

Who pays for the airport to determine if it is a threat? Who pays for the police to investigate and determine if it is a threat? The taxpayers of the UK. If you utter what could be a threat that costs money to verify that it is not a threat then you deserve to be fined for doing it. Paul Chambers caused the police to waste time and money investigating his stupidity instead of doing productive work.

As another poster stated, would you want to be the security official who ignored the tweet if the airport had been later bombed?

Re:So, why did he do it?

[lga]

Airport security did see the tweet, (via a random search by an off duty staff member.) and rated it as "No credible threat"

Re:So, why did he do it?

[lga]

The Communications Act 2003 contained parts of a 1930s law aimed at stopping obscene phone calls made to telephone operators. Definitely not aimed at bomb threats, jokes, or any medium other than 1 to 1 telephone calls.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Cederic]

I don't think it's unreasonable to update an old communications decency law to include new communications mechanisms, or to provide protection to people from excessive harassment.

I think it's not inappropriate to consider whether the law applies to the statement made. Approximately 8 tenths of a second later the policeman involved can focus his efforts on real crimes.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[lga]

The same law also makes it a criminal offence to lie on the internet or over the phone in order to wind someone up, or to be indecent or obscene. I guess all those sex phone lines are illegal. And any crude comments on facebook or twitter.

I'm not making this up, read it for yourself here.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

Re:So, why did he do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should the police have ignored the threat, like they ignored others that did turn out to be right?

Maybe they should investigate, determine whether it's a credible threat, and proceed with a proportional response. Most such "bomb threats" can be dismissed as quickly as threats by a linebacker to murder the opposing quarterback.

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:So, why did he do it?

[horza]

It was a joke. Everybody but you and the judge knows it is a joke. And you are both retarded. It would be a pretty prima donna terrorist that would say "I will blow up the airport, but only if my flight is delayed or cancelled this weekend". The district judge Jonathan Bennett has obviously poorly qualified counselors advising him as he really messed things up on this one.

Phillip.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[91degrees]

So why the bomb threat? Which is by the way illegal.

Only if made with intent to cause distruption. There was no intent. The CPS were aware of this and didn't charge him with a bomb threat.

Why did he threathen people who had no way of knowing whether he was serious or not?

Why was the airport not closed if they thought there was some possibility he was serious.

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.

"Doing something" could involve questioning the guy and telling him to be more circumspect in the future. That would have been reasonable.

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?

False dichotomy.

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.

They applied a somewhat arcane law that was intended for a somewhat different purpose.

Guess what, freedom of speech does not exist in the UK,

Yes it does. Firstly by tradition, secondly because it's actually enshrined in the Human Rights Act.

Real story: Asshole who wanted to show off got send to jail for breaking the law.

He had no intention of showing off and was fined, not sent to Gaol.

Really, this guy wasn't making a political statement,

No. Nobody thinks he was.

this was just someone wanting to scare others because his penis is to small.

He had no intention to scare anyone

And before you get all outraged, answer me this. WHY did he send this message out into the world?

He sent it to his friend. Normally the only people who would have seen it were those who were friends of both of them. Do you have the first idea of how Twitter works? The only reason anyone else saw it was because of a search for "Robin Hood Airport".

When THAT reason gets reported I think his public sympathy outside wanker land will be lost instantly.

If he wanted anyone else to see it why did he direct it at a single specific person?

Re:So, why did he do it?

[russotto]

Paul Chambers caused the police to waste time and money investigating his stupidity instead of doing productive work.

Well, this is certainly one of the more stupid statements I've seen on Slashdot, and that's saying something. It costs time and money for the police to determine a crime has not occurred, therefore we should declare everyone who does something that could warrant investigation guilty, regardless of the outcome of the investigation?

Re:So, why did he do it?

[jklovanc]

He did commit a crime; uttering threats. It does not matter if it was going to be followed through or not; the threat was uttered. The outcome of the investigation was that he did utter a threat, was charged for that crime and convicted. He was not charged for causing the investigation.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[russotto]

"Uttering threats"? Really? If that was his crime, why was he charged with (and convicted for) "menacing" rather than "uttering threats".

Here's the actual text of the law he was convicted of:
"A person is guilty of an offence if he--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"
e
Nice and vague. By calling it "of ... menacing character", it makes it simpler for the state because there's no need to show anyone was actually menaced. There's no mens rea requirement either, so it's not necessary that he intended to menace anyone. It's a law which (literally) makes it illegal to say "Boo!" electronically. It's ridiculous.

Re:So, why did he do it?

[jklovanc]

Check the dictionary:

menaced, menacing, menaces
1. To utter threats against.

frighten (frtn)
v. frightened, frightening, frightens
v.tr. 1. To fill with fear; alarm.

Saying "boo" is frightening not menacing. Notice that, by definition, someone does not have to be frightened for menacing to occur.

Well... now that you've mentioned it...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8072043/77-Inquest-suicide-bombers-used-names-of-A-Team-characters-in-text-messages.html

"Mohammed Sidique Khan and Jermaine Lindsay quoted catchphrases used by BA Baracus, played by Mr T in the 1980s television series, and referred to others as Face and Murdock.
.
.
The terrorists then began to argue over which of them was BA and which was Face. On July 4, Khan, who killed six people at Edgware Road, sent a text to Lindsay saying: “Face you motha---- il rearrange ya face if ya stab me wiv dat needle cos i said i ain’t getin on no plain [sic] fool.” "

Also, this interview with Chris Morris should be obligatory reading for everyone.
Particularly for those people who happen to be elected officials of governments. Terrorists are mostly not criminal masterminds. In most cases, they are utterly inept.
I mean, let's face it - if you are blowing yourself up to defeat your enemy, there is a significant chance that you are doing it wrong.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47332

uh

[JustOK]

uh, HE's Spartacus. I'm not. I'm Biggus Dickus.

Re:uh

[Anonymous Coward]

Phallus Maximus?

holy shit, captcha: ramrod

no win scenario

[hort_wort]

Scenario 1.) Airport gets bombed and people are angry. "What?! He tweeted about it, why didn't anyone pay attention to him!?!"

Scenario 2.) Man is investigated, found innocent, taxes are raised to pay for it, and people are angry. "What?! Why was this investigated?! Waste of my money!"

Scenario 3.) Man is investigated, found innocent, individually fined to pay for it, and people are angry. "What?! His rights were violated! Defend the tweeter against The Man!!"

Re:no win scenario

[Anonymous Coward]

Scenario 4) Man is investiated, found innocent. Taxes already pay for police and judiciary. People are happy. "The system works".

Re:no win scenario

[Serious Callers Only]

I think you've missed out a few possible scenarios - how about this one:

Scenario 4) Police receive report of bomb threat on twitter, send a couple of local uniforms to chat with the guy, check his house isn't full of bomb equipment, and let him know his joke was in bad taste and freedom to say what you like in public comes with certain responsibilities. That's vastly different to what they did, and would not be a huge waste of money.

Instead they wasted lots of public money on a trivial event. I can see what they thought they were doing - public threats of death or terrorism are not acceptable even in an open society - but this was just a waste of everyone's time and money.

As to the councillor who made a tasteless joke about stoning (in response to another politician saying we had no right to comment on it, given Iraq), that's a more difficult issue as it is closer to a credible incitement/threat without context. This was obviously a joke.

Re:no win scenario

[jklovanc]

And while the two cops are "investigating" the 'joke' they are not investigating real crime. Have that happen enough and there could be a real issue. How about another scenario.

Scenario 6) Man is investigated, found guilty, individually fined a reasonable amount. Case get publicized. Fewer 'jokes" that need to be investigated get Tweeted. Fewer policemen get sent on wild goose chases. More real crime get investigated.

Re:no win scenario

[Osgeld]

and what happens when they send a couple local uniforms and see the guy isnt full of crap and sparks off a hostage situation

I bet if it was your life you would take it very seriously, and after you found out some retard pudwacker was making a joke you would be pissed enough to want to beat him with a board, well you cant do that so you take him to court

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.

Re:no win scenario

[shutdown -p now]

You conveniently forgot #4:

The tweet is looked at and taken as a joke which it obviously is (seriously, did you see the exact text?). Airport is not bombed. Everyone gets on with their lives.

Re:no win scenario

[Jedi Alec]

Found guilty of what exactly, poor taste?

And I very much doubt that seeing the case get publicized would result in fewer jokes. Just ask the RIAA how succesful their campaign to scare the shit out of downloaders has been.

Feel free to vote for whoever seems most inclined to take your liberties away though. Just don't be surprised when a lot of folks disagree.

Re:no win scenario

[jklovanc]

Found guilty of what exactly, poor taste?

No the charge was uttering threats which is against the law.

And I very much doubt that seeing the case get publicized would result in fewer jokes. Just ask the RIAA how succesful their campaign to scare the shit out of downloaders has been.

Bad analogy, the RIAA are civil suits this case is criminal law; the RIAA is suing unrelated to police involvement; the RIAA is suing about something a large portion of the population does, in this case it is one person so far. Fewer jokes? No Fewer threats? Maybe.

Feel free to vote for whoever seems most inclined to take your liberties away though. Just don't be surprised when a lot of folks disagree.

Since when has there been a "liberty" to utter threats? There are restrictions to freedom of speech and uttering threats is one of them.

IRA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The IRA usually called-in warnings that a bomb had been planted.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1340995/story.html

Of course "terrorist" is a loaded word (especially nowadays), and many people wouldn't call the IRA that; others would. [shrug]

A little research..

[nanospook]

People do dumb stuff all the time. And scare people.. usually their reaction is.. I didn't mean too, wasn't thinking.. Should they get sent to jail for it? Maybe, depends on the extent of the stupidity. But the police responded and arrested him. At this point, a little research.. is he violent? Does he have a history? Does his explanation make sense? Instead, it's we arrested him and from now on, we are not capable of making mistakes. Doesn't matter if he's just being a wanker, we want him imprisoned and fined. But when you look at the case, the guy doesn't even know how to make a bomb, wouldn't hurt a fly. Was just frustrated.. That's where we need some balance..

The Romans solved this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

by crucifying the lot of them. Maybe the UK courts will send them all to jail.

freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't people seemm to understand? This is Britian. The government does not recognize freedom of speech. This is how it's always been. If you want to change it, great, but a bunch of tweets is unlikely to do much, if any, good.

Think about it...

[Roger W Moore]

That is not unique to the British. Apparently you've never heard of the Boston tea party, the American revolution...

Actually, if you think about it, you are agreeing with the OP. The Boston Tea Party and American Revolution involved British citizens rebelling against the British government which is pretty much what is happening here. It was only after you were successful that you became non-British.

Fantasy World

[fathom108]

Words have meaning. Threats have consequences. Chambers and his supporters seem to live in a fantasy world and do not understand this.

Re:Fantasy World

[Anonymous Coward]

Words have meaning. Threats have consequences.
Chambers and his supporters seem to live in a fantasy world and do not understand this.

Oh please, get off your damn high horse..

Cluestick no.1

Here am I, basement dweller that I am, in possession of a device, lovingly hand-crafted and constructed entirely out of Lego(tm), Meccano(tm) assorted bits of old stereos and computers, a bit of a TV set, and the crucial bottle of Encona(tm) Hot Pepper Sauce, said device being capable of destroying the universe at the press of a button. I intend to press this button the morrow, at 11:22ish GMT.

This is a threat, not just a bloody airport going kablooey!, but complete universal destruction!

(Paint me green and call me Gazoo.)

Cluestick no.2

I'm a PO'd 'radicalised' Muslim with a van, assorted full gas cylinders (Acetylene, Butane etc) several gallons of petrol and a home-made suicide belt, I'm going to drive to some public 'celebration' of the return of the 'heroes' who have been murdering my Muslim brothers, and blow them all to fuck, dead Infidels, instant Paradise+virgins for me, what's not to like?.
Of course, I'll be tweeting this, putting it on Facebook (changing my status to Shahid), maybe taking an ad out in the local papers..my arse I will. If they're lucky, the
Stasi, sorry, security services, will be looking in my direction at the right time and maybe they'll catch me If I'm bloody stupid enough to communicate the fact I'm going to do this.

See, difference between idiot venting off and credible threat..

Words indeed have meaning, contemplate both the words arsehole and pompous, rearrange them into a meaningful phrase, achieve Satori..

We are *all* currently living in the 'fantasy world' that our masters have created for us, the current bogey being used to justify anything 'they' want to do being Islamic terrorists, prior bogeys being The Soviets/The West(depending on which side you controlled your country), Irish [terrorists(UK)|Freedomfighters(USA)] etc etc.
Remind me again, what was it? WMD in Iraq?, OBL in Afghanistan?, Anarchists in Whitechapel?(sorry, wrong century).

Tricksy things words, when our masters use them to lie to us, use them to justify the deaths of civilians and soldiers, ('casualties of war' - wonderful phrase, covers a multitude of sins) all is fine and well, (hell, one of the main criminals involved gets to change his religion to one where he thinks he gets a 'get out of hell free' card if he says enough 'Our fathers and Hail bloody Mary's' ). We plebs, when we use the 'wrong' words to vent spleen, fuck me, we're arrested charged and convicted.

If you aren't trolling, and can't/refuse to spot why this prosecution is flawed, then all I can say is, nothing, actually, as you'd ignore it as it doesn't accord with the world view you've been fed and seem happy with.

I'm AC'ing this as I've no wish to be banished to a painfully unfunny 60's cartoon reality as a minor comic relief character for being in the possession of a doomsday machine and threatening to use it..I've stated above, in words, I'm Gazoo, on teh internets, so it must be true (seeing as words have meaning and all that).
That and the fact that I think I saw one of your damn Predator thingies flying overhead t'other day, fuck the black helicopters...

Re:Fantasy World

[internewt]

I'd mod you up, but I've posted elsewhere in this discussion. Might as well do what I can and make your comment appear at 2 (whereas if I +modded it, you'd only get one point).

Words have meaning. Threats have consequences.
Chambers and his supporters seem to live in a fantasy world and do not understand this.

Oh please, get off your damn high horse..

Cluestick no.1

Here am I, basement dweller that I am, in possession of a device, lovingly hand-crafted and constructed entirely out of Lego(tm), Meccano(tm) assorted bits of old stereos and computers, a bit of a TV set, and the crucial bottle of Encona(tm) Hot Pepper Sauce, said device being capable of destroying the universe at the press of a button. I intend to press this button the morrow, at 11:22ish GMT.

This is a threat, not just a bloody airport going kablooey!, but complete universal destruction!

(Paint me green and call me Gazoo.)

Cluestick no.2

I'm a PO'd 'radicalised' Muslim with a van, assorted full gas cylinders (Acetylene, Butane etc) several gallons of petrol and a home-made suicide belt, I'm going to drive to some public 'celebration' of the return of the 'heroes' who have been murdering my Muslim brothers, and blow them all to fuck, dead Infidels, instant Paradise+virgins for me, what's not to like?.
Of course, I'll be tweeting this, putting it on Facebook (changing my status to Shahid), maybe taking an ad out in the local papers..my arse I will. If they're lucky, the
Stasi, sorry, security services, will be looking in my direction at the right time and maybe they'll catch me If I'm bloody stupid enough to communicate the fact I'm going to do this.

See, difference between idiot venting off and credible threat..

Words indeed have meaning, contemplate both the words arsehole and pompous, rearrange them into a meaningful phrase, achieve Satori..

We are *all* currently living in the 'fantasy world' that our masters have created for us, the current bogey being used to justify anything 'they' want to do being Islamic terrorists, prior bogeys being The Soviets/The West(depending on which side you controlled your country), Irish [terrorists(UK)|Freedomfighters(USA)] etc etc.
Remind me again, what was it? WMD in Iraq?, OBL in Afghanistan?, Anarchists in Whitechapel?(sorry, wrong century).

Tricksy things words, when our masters use them to lie to us, use them to justify the deaths of civilians and soldiers, ('casualties of war' - wonderful phrase, covers a multitude of sins) all is fine and well, (hell, one of the main criminals involved gets to change his religion to one where he thinks he gets a 'get out of hell free' card if he says enough 'Our fathers and Hail bloody Mary's' ). We plebs, when we use the 'wrong' words to vent spleen, fuck me, we're arrested charged and convicted.

If you aren't trolling, and can't/refuse to spot why this prosecution is flawed, then all I can say is, nothing, actually, as you'd ignore it as it doesn't accord with the world view you've been fed and seem happy with.

I'm AC'ing this as I've no wish to be banished to a painfully unfunny 60's cartoon reality as a minor comic relief character for being in the possession of a doomsday machine and threatening to use it..I've stated above, in words, I'm Gazoo, on teh internets, so it must be true (seeing as words have meaning and all that).
That and the fact that I think I saw one of your damn Predator thingies flying overhead t'other day, fuck the black helicopters...

Paul Chambers and his supporters are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

There are so many more worthwhile instances of "free speech" that need to be protected. For instance, why aren't these people tweeting images of Muhammad? Or tweeting about the Chinese Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Here is why:
1. There is no risk to support this guy. Those who support him aren't brave, they are cowards for not supporting more "dangerous" causes.
2. People who Tweet / Facebook / Blog are content with talking, not action. That's why Prop 8 failed. That's why Prop 19 failed.

Until people realize that action mean everything and Tweets mean nothing then we will keep having this stuff happen.

An introduction into bomb threats

[eriqk]

This is a bomb threat:
"This is $ORGANISATION. We have placed a bomb at $LOCATION. It is set to go off at $TIME unless you fulfill $DEMAND." Typically called in to a news paper or the police.

This is not a bomb threat:
"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!" on Twitter.

One would think that a country that has decades of experience in these matters would know the difference. The behavior of the folks at Robin Hood and the police would suggest this, too.

Re:An introduction into bomb threats

[Anonymous Coward]

Those that think this is a serious bomb threat miss the point - even if you were dumb enough to take the tweet seriously, the bomb going off was contingent on the airport being CLOSED.

In other words, nobody was ever in danger, because people can't enter a CLOSED airport! Duh!

Twibbon

[Anonymous Coward]

As part of this campaign, some UK Tweeters are now adopting the "May Be A Joke" disclaimer twibbon.

http://twb.ly/cpom1w

Monty Python

[lexsco]

When the romans went to free Brian from crucifiction -

Centurion: Where is Brian of Nazareth?
Brian: You sanctimonious bastards!
Centurion: I have an order for his release!
Brian: You stupid bastards!
Mr. Cheeky: Uh, I'm Brian of Nazareth.
Brian: What?
Mr. Cheeky: Yeah, I - I - I'm Brian of Nazareth.
Centurion: Take him down!
Brian: I'm Brian of Nazareth!
Victim #1: Eh, I'm Brian!
Mr. Big Nose: I'm Brian!
Victim #2: Look, I'm Brian!
Brian: I'm Brian!
Victims: I'm Brian!
Gregory: I'm Brian, and so's my wife!
Victims: I'm Brian! I'm Brian!...
Brian: I'm Brian of Nazareth!
Centurion: All right. Take him away and release him.
Mr. Cheeky: No, I'm only joking. I'm not really Brian. No, I'm not Brian. I was only - It was a joke. I'm only pulling your leg! It's a joke! I'm not him! I'm just having you on! Put me back! Bloody Romans! Can't take a joke!

damn kids just don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah the threat was non-serious
guy wasn't going to do anything

but what happens when you let _everyone_ make those comments
then one the airport gets blown up by a citizen, who do you blame?
- the government for not chasing up all these "leads"
- society for not taking this kind of thing seriously

i'm lets change this situation slightly
lets say they let him off with a warning and left it be
what happens if someone "following" him on twitter does the act
not even by instruction, but by sheer coincidence
the investigation eventually finds this link between the two
at that point the media and people will pick up on it
the guy will then be dragged over hot coals by half the population
the other half will argue it's just words so the guy is innocent
separately, half blames government for being incompetent
the other half argues government did the right thing and blames people

so wtf do you expect a government to do?
a) be a prick about the issue initially
b) be a retarded and never do anything
(though some would argue governments are already covering a) and b) quite nicely)

WTF is a Tweet, and why should I GAF?

[RockDoctor]

Bollocks.

Does this mean that I'm going to have to find out WTF a Twit is, and how to Tweet one's nose at them?

Chambers should be punished

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been stuck in an airport for an extended period of time looking after my three year old and a one year old boys, during a bomb threat (that turned out to be a hoax), I can only say that this idiot should be punished to deter other idiots causing misery to innocent people. The "terrorists" who support the murder of innocent people are bad enough but wannabe's who descend to this level of juvenile humour are as degraded human beings as those they seek to emulate. After all part of the strategy of "terrorists" is to cause confusion and hysteria to attract attention to their "cause".

Publically announcing, whatever the medium, a bomb threat has to be taken seriously by the authorities. Idiotic behaviour just costs the tax payer more money.

BTW I do tweet, and no I have no affiliation with any security/enforcement service.