Slashdot Mirror


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.

16 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Why Spartacus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:The British Way... by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
  3. Re:Just goes to show by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Re:Idiots by t0p · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
  6. Guide to right to free speech in the UK by radio4fan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Just goes to show by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Eheh by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Eheh by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      FGD 135
  9. Puts law enforcement in a difficult position by orbweaver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Not the issue by orbweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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 )

  12. Re:So, why did he do it? by lga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Just goes to show by isorox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Just goes to show by Cruciform · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

     

  15. Re:Just goes to show by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.