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
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.
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.
There is a clear and substantial difference between "Following up" on something someone says and "Pointlessly dragging through the courts at great expense to the taxpayer someone who demonstrably hasn't done anything threatening, disruptive or illegal".
The guy shouldn't have even been arrested, at worst he should have been questioned by police and it quickly established that he didn't pose any threat. At which point he should have been released without charge, perhaps with a warning that doing what he did is likely to get the police interested in him and so isn't a great idea.
Everything has its limits.
Only if you put limits on it.
Those limits are where your "free speech" results in real harm to other individuals.
Unlike in this case!
When you mindlessly apply these laws to people who clearly didn't intend to do any harm, you end up harming innocent people, degrading respect for the law, and wasting taxpayer money.
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.
No, because I don't worry about unlikely events, and I don't believe that people who are very likely not intending to do harm should be harmed just because there is a minuscule chance that they could. Incidentally, I also don't care for pro-TSA mentalities (everyone getting punished).
Now mod me as troll, because I don't tow the ridiculously naive and cluelessly idealistic slashdot party line on "free speech".
I think you picked the wrong story to make this comment on if that was your intention.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
I don't really see why tweeting is taken so seriously. Something that can be posted from anywhere at any time with little barrier, on the spur of the moment, should not be taken seriously. At All. A few words in text and it's the end of the world is it..
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".
Yes but if I make a statement like "our new goalkeeper needs a good kick up the backside" it should not be construed as an actual threat of physical violence. Should the police and courts punish everyone who makes such clearly non-serious remarks?
You never said anything along the lines of "I'm going to kill that idiot" or "Best way to fix this is to just blow the shit up and cash in the insurance"? I did. And anyone with half a brain knows that it is said in jest. If you take someone serious who threatens to blow up an airport for his flight being late or the runway not being cleared of snow, I don't know who is the lunatic here, but I'd guess you'd win the contest.
The absolute maximum that I'd accept in this case is an investigation which will turn up that he is in general a pretty normal guy who just got ticked off by something going wrong. But jailing him?
Did common sense and rational thought get unpopular among judges?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My mother repeatedly and pointedly informed me on numerous occasions that she was going to kill me / would kill me if I performed action X (where X was a totally legal endeavour).
Should I have reported each instance to the police, be put into care, have my mother jailed, etc. for that? No.
"Free speech" is a misnomer in that what the average person calls "Free" is not what I call "Free" and isn't what the word "Free" means. Most people definition of "free speech" doesn't include hate speech, lies, threats or anything else. Thus it's not *technically* free.
If someone (say a UK police commissioner) wants to claim that, for example, most inner-city crime was committed by black people (a verifiable fact given the data at the time), then can we censor that because it could be construed as hate speech? Does that mean that a guy shouting that same fact in the street would be subject to different laws than a police commissioner saying it in a press conference? That's a dangerous precedent to set.
Is it also "against free speech" to lie? Surely if my speech is truly "free" I can say or claim anything? But that runs into libel laws and other problems (i.e. lying in court).
Thus there is no one fixed definition of this magical "Free Speech" and if you try to make an all-encompassing one you will absolutely fail unless you accept a world where people can freely lie all the time and where they can also never be harassed for telling the truth, or for lying (or, alternatively, where they can ALWAYS be harassed no matter what).
True free speech does not, and cannot exist, in the current political and legal climate or even, I would posit, at all. Thus it's pointless to consider it, which is why most countries do NOT have an explicit statement regarding free speech (and even some of the largest and most influential countries in the world have no formal legal statement of such a right - for instance, the UK - and never have had in their entire history).
Free speech is a fabrication of idealism that doesn't actually work in real life. In its absence, we have to fall back on the law and common sense. Was what he did illegal? Only if it could be reasonably be construed to be a threat. This says that it couldn't. Was what he did stupid? Not particularly. No worse than I hear a thousand times a day or heard from my own mother (seriously, what's the difference between his tweet and someone saying "If another person pulls the plug out of that server, I'm going to boil them in acid?").
10 years ago, nobody would have even cared. And today, he was proved innocent on all counts. That kinda means that nobody SHOULD have cared at all. The problem here is not the legal definition, or irresponsible behaviour - it's a prosecution service that ever thought such a petty thing could be the basis of a case in the first place.
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
You appear to have been misinformed. Providing one does not incite imminent lawless action, it is perfectly legal under the First Amendment to advocate killing a specific person or blowing up a specific building, as a result of Brandenburg v. Ohio.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
"Only if you put limits on it."
no, the limits are natural. people like to whine about government taking away their rights, and in many cases the government is hurting rights for bad or no good reasons. but there are also people who whine about limits on their rights who are just idiots who don't understand where their "freedoms" impact others: my freedom to drive drunk, my freedom to blast my music at 3 am, my freedom to have an unchained dog run at you on the road, etc.
there's that famous quote: "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
and what it means is your rights and freedoms naturally exist in tension with other people's rights and freedoms
so no, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because... fascist controlling government WHARGARBBBLLL...
no, because you might cause someone else's death or injury in panic
NATURAL limits on your freedoms
this is the difference between understanding freedom as a teenager understands it (freedom from responsibility) and understanding freedom as an adult understands it (freedom and responsibility)
this is not denigrate chronological teenagers: plenty of teenagers have a well-developed sense of morality on the subject, and plenty of chronological adults are immature irresponsible assholes: mental teenagers
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
So what?
Saying that everything has limits is false (as those limits, if they exist, are simply defined by the law, and those limits needn't exist).
Your opinion.
Yes, and? How else would I discuss it?
So free software hippie
Don't know where you got that.
do you stand for free speech or not?
Of course. Not sure about the one I replied to, though.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
'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.
Can you think about killing someone, or blowing someplace up? Will the Thought Police come arrest you if the idea comes to your mind? What about movies, they portray killing and blowing stuff up all the time, should we put limits on Hollywood too? There is such a thing as common sense, and knowing when your serious or not. The man wasn't yelling in a theater or plane. To me tweeting is no different than speaking your mind in forums, or emails. People say outrages things all the time, but knowing that no one will be taking it serious.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
no, the limits are natural.
No, the limits are defined by law. If there were no legal limit, then... there would be no legal limit.
so no, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre
I can. I just might be punished for it since that apparently isn't considered protected speech.
because
Because the law says so.
no, because you might cause someone else's death or injury in panic
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic at hand (this specific case).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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."
Context and intent. Without these meaning and criminality are indeterminate. In fact your ranting about reaching your "LIMITS" over the nude pictures I posted of your mom seems awfully threatening...
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."
I blame the CPS far more than I do the police. The police make an arrest - the CPS decide whether to pursue a charge or not.
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."
So do you believe Chik-Fil-A should be allowed to deploy franchises to Chicago or Boston then? Will you support their COO's right to free speech?
Yes.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"without charge"
perhaps better with just a fine to cover the cost of investigating his idiotic ass.
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.
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon.
--- Paul Brandt
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
So if I say that new soft drink is "the bomb", I deserve to be prosecuted?
If some paranoid schizophrenic somehow parses your message as a threat against the pope, we have no choice but to prosecute you? (After all, you DID write the message and it DID cause someone to feel terrorized).
If some derp can't comprehend a bit of humor or irony in text, why should the writer be prosecuted and not the derp?
I'm British. We don't *NEED* to specify freedom of speech in the same manner. It's an inherent privilege.
We don't have, nor need, a right to bear arms. We haven't had in hundreds of years. We don't need a specification of religious freedom, we have it already.
And nobody in the UK pays a tax to watch television. They pay a fee to own a television capable of live reception and display of TV signals - which funds the BBC directly, one of the world's most renowned broadcasters, let alone public service broadcasters. We also have hardly any toll roads, a free healthcare service, and a press which has only the other year fought the political and legal system to ensure freedom of speech was preserved above all else (see "super injunctions"). By comparison a minor "luxury tax" on owning a TV is a drop in the ocean. In the same way, I could distil your entire country into a bunch of people who don't care that the poor die of simple illnesses they can't afford to have treated. I know which I'd rather have.
And this article is about that same British freedom of speech overriding the law WITHOUT THAT RIGHT NEEDING TO BE STATED - because it's so inherent in the legal system and culture that we don't need to. And it has also made news BECAUSE nobody believed it had got so far under UK law (because it was meritless from day one).
And never, in the entire world, have I seen an entire country so scared of calling someone a dickhead live on TV as the American people. You can't, because they'll sue your arse off for doing so. Your libel laws actually do the opposite of what you claim. Like the stereotypical American, you have no concept of how "unfree" you actually are and wish to point fingers at other countries and say "that's wrong" when you suffer worse every day yourself.
You have to pick your example from the 1800's, for someone that nobody has ever heard of, because all the more recent examples work against your theory and you an only state one-off. The guy you mention was himself sentenced to be horsewhipped a few years after - hardly a "modern" case.
My country is far from perfect. Read my comment history, I'm the first to admit it. The difference is that I know it.
P.S. How's that imprisoning-"suspected"-terrorists-for-10+-years-without-trial-or-appeal-in-lands-foreign-to-them-and-including-public-proof-of-torture-techniques coming along? You still have NO idea how to behave as a civilisation - those people could well be random innocent foreigners and neither your country nor your president give a shit. Don't lecture me on freedom.
That's ridiculous! We have thoughtcrime now, see?
HAND.
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-
You are trolling, because you know fine well that no reasonable person would treat this case as a real threat.
Surprise me, deal with specifics, don't just wave your hands and walk away, chuckling. You know better than that. You - we - have been around long enough to know what we're doing.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
They pay a fee to own a television capable of live reception and display of TV signals
Minor quibble: the fee is paid to use a device for reception of live TV signals; merely owning a device theoretically capable of receiving them doesn't require paying the fee.
Even if a company is already employing someone, say an electrician, anyway it still costs money to send them out to your house and have them do work. you can't insist that their time costs nothing and expect to get the service for free. similarly when you waste police time.