"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."

Comments

Look

[circletimessquare]

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".