Slashdot Mirror
"Bomb Threat" Tweet Conviction Overturned By UK Appeals Court
New submitter Kupfernigk writes "Paul Chambers was the man who was convicted (in England) of a terrorist offense based on a tweet threatening to 'blow up' Robin Hood Airport because they couldn't get snow cleared. Despite the fact that it was obviously a (feeble) joke, the Crown Prosecution Service actually went ahead with a prosecution and were able to convince a junior judge sitting with magistrates. The senior judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, said 'We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the Crown Court that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it. On this basis, the appeal against conviction must be allowed.' In effect, they have said that the original decision was not made objectively, which can be considered a severe slap for the Crown Prosecutor."
A well deserved slap too.
Yea!!
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
"It's Twitter, remember, not the pub!"
Its not severe until the Crown Prosecutor gets fired and jailtime.
they have said that the original decision was not made objectively, which can be considered a severe slap for the Crown Prosecutor
Not really. A severe slap for the orginal judge, maybe, but at most a bit of a raised eyebrow at the Crown Prosecutor. The prosecution isn't supposed to try the case and decide who's guilty. Maybe the case should never have even been brought, but it's the original judge who really messed up severely for not saying so at first instance.
More on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
FTA:
Today, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, [..], said: ”We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the Crown Court that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it."
When it's no longer clear where your title ends and your name starts, you've definitely found the right profession.
Donate free food here
While the crown prosecutor may be an idiot, crown prosecutors don't put people in jail - police & judges do.
How about a severe slap for the judge who convicted this poor schlub?
I can only imagine how much money was wasted in man-hours on something that never should have went beyond one guy looking at it and saying "He's obviously joking."
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Maybe he can be extradited to USA to face proper conviction after a brief tour in Guantanamo?
He's probably wearing an electronic wrist watch that can be used as a detonator, so he can easily be convicted, like the other people USA is torturing there.
Complain about anything you want in a free society.
But the concept of freedom of speech does NOT apply to:
1. talk about killing someone specifically
2. talk about blowing something up specifically
If you don't understand why, you are pretty stupid.
Everything has its limits. EVERYTHING. You don't shout fire in a crowded theatre. You don't threaten to kill or maim or bomb. You don't publish your ex-wife's nude photos, etc.: there are actually LIMITS on what you can do or say in a free society. Those limits are where your "free speech" results in real harm to other individuals.
Plus, much of the people whining that no one can take a joke any more will be whining about why the police didn't follow up on the public comments of the next psycho who shoots up a mall or bombs a bus terminal, comments made before he did those atrocities.
The concept of freedom does not include the concept of freedom from responsibility.
Now mod me as troll, because I don't tow the ridiculously naive and cluelessly idealistic slashdot party line on "free speech".
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The men who went ahead and tried to prosecute this guy are professional men. They get up early, and put on suits. They carry briefcases. They went to college and graduated. Within the entire spectrum of the human race, they are in the top 5% of education and work.
And they still went ahead with the prosecution of such an obvious joke.
I weep for the human race.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the Crown Court that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it.
What is "it"? Am I missing the bleedin' obvious again?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I disagree. I think he made the decision very objectively. He carefully weighed "I'm an overly-aggressive asshole" with "I support security theater over logic when it comes to airports" with "I'll be such a famous anti-terrorist, zero tolerance judge and get famous in the media" and made a logical decision. Of course, all he managed to do was get famous in the media lol. Time to start looking for a new job hopefully since he's proven to be completely incapable of doing his current one.
Wait, there's a "Robin Hood Airport"?
And we can't even get an "Elvis Presley International Airport" and he was a real guy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
'We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the Crown Court that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it.
I've reread this sentence several times and it doesn't make sense to me. If remove the clause "that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character" you're left with "We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the Crown Court was not open to it."
The decision was not "open" to what, exactly?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
A physical threat, i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, does NOT justify "limits" on free speech, and the fact that such an incident results in arrest does NOT validate your position (that freedom has "limits").
The speech isn't the problem here, it's the threat. Do you honestly not understand the difference? The fact that that threat came in the form of speech is irrelevant. What if the same "fire" yeller, instead of yelling, chose to set off the alarm? Or perhaps he could set himself on fire and run down the aisle blazing. In these instances, he would achieve the same result (chaos) with no speech at all. There is no practical difference. He caused the same dangerous situation -- the same threat -- justifying a retaliation of physical force.
In your mind, would setting off the fire alarm justify "limits" on speech? How about running down the aisle blazing? It makes about as much sense as citing the yeller as justification for your "limits".
Let's be honest with ourselves and put the agenda on the back burner. The fact that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater isn't a limitation on free speech -- it is a prohibition on physical threats.
Perhaps it is early but... did anyone else read that last line as
"which can be considered a severe slap for the Clown Prosecutor."
?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
They didn't take it seriously. Outside London and Birmingham, our police forces are pretty sensible. This was entirely down to the CPS.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The CPS consists of the lawyers who didn't get a place at a decent firm of solicitors or a good Chambers.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The police didn't want to take action. My Lords of Appeal said there was no case. The case was brought entirely at the instigation of the Crown Prosecution Service and your beef is with them.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
This must stop, we cannot allow common sense and humor to prevail. We must punish people that vent frustrations using colorful language to the fullest extent the law provides. Do we really want a world that is filled with humor and jokes? I think it would be so much better to ensure that people just stair at the ground and keep their mouths shut, for fear of prosecution. I don't want them walking along bouncing, I want them walking along, somber, like they have been beat down all their life, like someone just shot their favorite dog.
I think, as a test of the freedom of speech, this person should now receive death threats for the rest of his life. As a joke. For fun.
The whole "joke" bit just sounds like the usual scumbag escape clause to me, of course it was a joke, it wouldn't look good in court if he said "I made that tweet because I am a self-entitled asshole who threatens senseless violence at the drop of a hat".
10 to 1 that everyone who defends this guy, is the type who go screaming to the police if someone even looks at them funny. Oh wait, Stephen Fry? Isn't he the one who ran out of play that people had payed him for because he didn't like a review? Guess reviews aren't free speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_Mates_(play)
Ah no, that was bipolar disorder, another standard excuse when people realize they did something that they don't want to be hold accountable for.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm not a Tory or even a LibDem but are you oblivious to Blair's totalitarian laws?
Civil Contingencies Act Schedule 2 is the same as Hitler's Enabling Act by which he gained absolute power. In the event o a minor emergency, absolute power can be claimed by ministers.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, dubbed Abolition of Parliament Act by the media as it could do that without debate in Parliament.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act -- unlimited internet surveillance (recent internet surveillance attempts have just been about getting the ISP to pay for data storage). Also made it illegal for you to not hand over your private key even if you forgot it (latter repealed by coalition).
Serious Crime Act -- actually passed by Brown. This isn't even thoughtcrime punishment. Get this: even if no crime is committed or even thought about you can still be punished (banishment etc) for inadvertently being in a position to facilitate a crime. It's like Wrong Place Wrong Time, only it's Wrong Place All The Time.
Numerous 'anti-terror' and 'police' acts that allowed random stop and search, kicking your door in without a warrant, taking your DNA upon spurious arrest, banning protest within a mile of Parliament.
Identity Cards Act -- forcing anyone who wanted a passport to submit to iris scanning and fingerprinting, along with giving their bank details. Creation of a Stasi 2.0 database with records for every single adult in the country.
There are many many others.
Blair had two people locked up for reading out the names of the Iraqi dead at the Cenotaph.
Brown, not to be outdone, had Shadow Minister Damian Green arrested for doing his job.
Women tend to exceed even men.
That's ridiculous! We have thoughtcrime now, see?
HAND.
Eh, the Nibs are out'a fuckin' 'and agin... you gotcher sword, Jon Tailor? You, Garrick Pubmaster? Right, right, good-o. Let's go chop the blighter's 'eads off. Again.
Well I wish it was a slap, but:
(a) they point to the fact that two courts found the case merited a conviction, and indicate that this vindicates their original decision to prosecute:
"Following our decision to charge Mr Chambers, both the magistrates' court and the crown court, in upholding his conviction, agreed that his message had the potential to cause real concern to members of the public, such as those travelling through the airport during the relevant time," it said in a statement http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344/,
and
(b) whoever decided to bring the case probably still has that box ticked, that quota reached, or whatever else it takes to give a CPS bureaucrat a feeling of job satisfaction -- I'm afraid.
-wb-