Twitter Jokes: Free Speech On Trial

An anonymous reader writes "On 6 January 2010, Paul Chambers typed a flippant tweet that would turn his life upside-down for the next two and a half years. As the courts repeatedly showed a lack of common sense and an ignorance of technology, for a long time it looked as though the right to free speech in the UK was under very real threat. Now that it's over, we can step back and take a detailed look at how such an insane case even came to trial. This article delves deep into the the Twitter Joke Trial: how it happened, what it means, and the epic struggle to balance civility and civil liberties."

Comments

Faggets should stop using social media

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

glad this didn't happen in the U.S...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because here it would have gone all the way to SCOTUS and the conviction would of been upheld.

Even countries that don't have explicit free speech now have more free speech than the U.S.
(and I know that the EU has explicit free speech in their charter but how often does that really get upheld?)

Re:glad this didn't happen in the U.S...

[Thorodin]

What have you seen or heard about that would lead you to believe that?

Re:glad this didn't happen in the U.S...

[HArchH]

The EU Charter???? The unelected bunch in Brussels that claims to somehow lead the various squabbling nations of Europe? And the UK signed on to that mess and surrendered its sovereignty in doing so? Gads....

Fire in a movie theater.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't yell it out.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[MickyTheIdiot]

If you say "I'm going to kill you if you do that again" should you go to jail?

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[i kan reed]

What always annoys me about this example is that it ignores the possibility of there actually being a fire. Or the perception of a fire. Or something misheard as "fire". Sure, prosecute the liar, but what about good-faith attempts to save lives?

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who knows this airport knows it was a joke. I'm not joking when I say that it's small...... huge runway but as an airport it's very quiet.
The issue, as it has always been with the internet, missing infliction..

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[amRadioHed]

No it doesn't, the source of the phrase is "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". Seems pretty clear there is no problem if you have no intent to cause harm.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Anonymous Coward]

prosecute the liar

Prosecute the people who cause damage (the people who hurt others trying to save their own skin). Kick the guy interrupting the movie out.

That said, yelling fire in a theater is nothing like telling a joke a website. I hope AC was trolling.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[MightyMartian]

As with all crimes, one of the issues in finding guilt AND in sentencing is intent. While uttering threats should be illegal, whether or not a charge is even brought or the extent of the penalty if found guilty is dependent on the context and intent.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> missing infliction

I think you meant "inflection".

(Feel free to add any infliction/inflection to my comment as you see fit.)

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Skapare]

Or "I'm going to kill you if you say 'I'm going to kill you if you do that again' again".

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for the correction. :)

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Anonymous Coward]

uttering threats should be illegal

That's the worst idea I've heard today. I'll leave the ad absurdum argument as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[plover]

Actually, I think this case stopped having anything to do with guilt or innocence a while ago.

Once this case got blown out of proportion, the government changed tack. What they then wanted from this case is for ordinary people to say "hell, I'm not telling a joke about acts of terror, remember that guy they screwed over?" Nobody's going to remember the verdict, but we'll all remember the two years of crap this guy got.

Sure, the twitterverse is temporarily full of stupid people reposting this twat's tweet. But that will quickly die down now that the circus is over. So they'll happily settle for the chilling effect of their Orwellian response, and not have to deal with so many of these boors in the future.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was easy upon inspection.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[MrDoh!]

It was obvious he shouldn't have limited his opinion to just the airport, but the whole of Doncaster.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Anguirel]

The main worry then is who gets to determine what constitutes "intent to cause harm" -- the original case was about handing out an anti-draft flier during World War I. Speaking out against government war policy was an intent to cause harm (to the government's policies). It was later overturned, but still a good cautionary tale regarding censorship.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, your mothers should have used contraception.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[Travelsonic]

Actually, the thing is the example DOES provide it, the problem is too many people butcher the shit out of the quote and leave the important points in the example out, and as a result all we have is a discombobulated mess.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[shutdown -p now]

One thing that people who keep referring to that example keep forgetting is the original context in which it was used. To remind, this was Schenck v. United States, a Supreme Court case where they found that it was legal for the government to prosecute people who published propaganda against military draft during WW1. The specific slogans that he was indicted for included "Do not submit to intimidation" and "Assert your rights".

So, whenever someone brings that example up, be sure to check whether it does indeed have as much in common with the actual situation at hand as the original instance in which it was (ab)used.

Re:Fire in a movie theater.

[HArchH]

Maybe. Sometimes.

Are you holding a knife when you say it?

Do you have that look in your eyes when you say it?

Does the other person really believe you mean it?

Get a fact checker

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no right to free speech in the United Kingdom. They do not have a Declaration of Independence. There is no comparable document. Check your facts.

Re:Get a fact checker

[sir_eccles]

European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory includes the right to free speech.

Re:Get a fact checker

[MickyTheIdiot]

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Art 11. Freedom of expression and information

Re:Get a fact checker

[SJHillman]

Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution

Re:Get a fact checker

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is a right to free speech everywhere. The constitutions and other laws of various nations officially recognize it to different degrees, and it is protected in practice to different degrees. This doesn't change the right that we all have.

But the Declaration of Independence? Are you trolling? Freedom of speech is discussed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Re:Get a fact checker

[Anonymous Coward]

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Art 11. Freedom of expression and information

The EU is choking on debt. The only reason it hasn't blown up yet is because Germany is keeping it afloat for political reasons.

Might as well have it guaranteed by the UN. How much does a Security Council vote from Russia or China cost these days?

Re:Get a fact checker

[Hatta]

That doesn't stop their Public Order Act of 1986 from banning insults.

Re:Get a fact checker

[fustakrakich]

Section 2: ...may may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law...

Nice little catch all there. That is NOT free speech. Only the First Amendment of the US Constitution has full protection of free speech explicitly codified into law... WITHOUT being subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law... Free speech has no written guarantees of protection in the UK.

The convention is a sham. Especially one that can be voided where prohibited by law, as the old contest rules used to say

Re:Get a fact checker

[fustakrakich]

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."

Pure garbage. Where are the free speech rights to challenge the authority of the state, or even the church?

Re:Get a fact checker

[Thorodin]

Declaration of Independence. If you are referring to the US Declaration, it doesn't apply. Free speech is in the first amendment to the US Constitution.

Re:Get a fact checker

[radio4fan]

Freedom of speech is not guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.

Are you perhaps thinking of the Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment to the constitution?

I'm not even american and I know this.

Check your facts.

Re:Get a fact checker

[Jens Egon]

Section 2: ...may may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law...

Section 2 ... Of the explantion provided!

That's just like the little annotations to the US constitution that SCOTUS members have in their heads.

It's just that it's out in the open where you can see it!

Re:Get a fact checker

[Bigby]

It depends on what your definition of "is" is. In all seriousness, does the European Convention interpret what is and what is not speech?

Re:Get a fact checker

[Desler]

Free speech in the US has limits such as when it comes to malicious defamation.

Re:Get a fact checker

[fustakrakich]

Can you point out any limits in the constitution... please? All other laws must conform.

Re:Get a fact checker

[Anonymous Coward]

Well just proves that your constitution is worth as much as ... say ... a piece of toilet paper.

Seriously, this glorification of a document 200 years of age is pretty ridiculous.

Re:Get a fact checker

[fustakrakich]

Regardless of your opinion, it is still the law of the land. And the politicians and all members of the military and civilian police forces have taken a sworn oath to uphold it.

Re:Get a fact checker

[Anonymous Coward]

The western world is choking on debt. The only reason it hasn't blown up yet is because China is keeping it afloat for economic reasons.

FTFY

Re:Get a fact checker

[shutdown -p now]

How much does a Security Council vote from Russia or China cost these days?

I don't think those are for sale, actually. Otherwise Syria would be in ruins by now.

Re:Get a fact checker

[Tore S B]

The Constitution is implemented as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

There are a multitude of limits to freedom of speech, as there must be. Wikipedia has a good list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

As an extra data point: in Norway, we have the concept of protected speech, which refers to types of expressions which are covered by the Norwegian constitutional provisions for free speech. Advertisement, for instance, is not considered protected speech - which is why it's possible to ban false advertisement.

Re:Get a fact checker

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution is implemented as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

And interpretations can be wrong! For instance, if I interpreted your comment to mean that 1 + 1 = 3, that would be idiotic and wrong. Well, you're right in a way: only their opinions matter.

as there must be.

The world wouldn't fall apart if there wasn't. There is no "must" even if you and I agree with it.

Re:Get a fact checker

[cheekyjohnson]

Wikipedia has a good list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

That list demonstrates the slippery slope I believe we're sliding down. While I don't agree with any of them, a few of them seem particularly ridiculous. Obscenity (child pornography seems to fall under this category no matter the arguments against it), fighting words, and offensive speech seem extremely ridiculous and ambiguous. The "reasonable person' nonsense just makes things worse. They just interpret whatever they want into the constitution at this point. Sometimes they interpret it literally (when it's convenient for them) and sometimes not (when it's convenient for them).

Re:Get a fact checker

[redlemming]

It better not be the case that only their opinions (i.e. the opinions of the Supreme Court) matter, or the USA is in big trouble. If James Madison and other like minded people were prepared to trust the institutions defined by the Constitution -- the Presidency, the Congress, or the Supreme Court -- individually or collectively, there would have been no need to add a Bill of Rights to limit the power of those institutions (and incidentally, also limit the States).

Legal professionals, as a class in society, are in a position of conflict of interest with respect to the nature and form of the legal system. Think about this for a bit and you'll see that that this means members of the Supreme Court are also in a position of conflict of interest, not just with respect to actions taken in their present positions, but also considering decisions made during their entire careers as legal professionals.

It would be extremely foolish to trust the Supreme Court: just look at how slavery was handled for reasons why this is a bad idea. The Constitution, while authorizing the counting of persons not free in population totals, did not, for example, say anything about allowing the children of slaves to be themselves enslaved. It did not authorize the abuse of slaves, either. Various Supreme Courts could have done many things to limit the slave system and chose to do nothing, or worse, chose to permit abuses.

A similar failure happened after the Civil War with the numerous violations of fundamental human rights directed against African-Americans by law in the Southern states, which were also permitted by various Supreme Courts for many decades before finally being stopped.

Also consider the Nuremberg Precedent (which can be asserted in the USA under the 9th Amendment as a right "retained by the people"): if we can expect people to refuse to obey illegal orders from their military superiors, we should also expect people to refuse to obey illegal orders from civil superiors. A court order or precedent, from any court at any level, including the Supreme Court, is only valid when it does not involve the infringement of fundamental rights.

Finally, rights "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment are by definition retained by the people. They are not retained by the Supreme Court, and an attempt by Supreme Court justices to take this away would be a violation of the judge's oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights. Similar reasoning applies to the 10th Amendment and rights "reserved to the people".

Re:Get a fact checker

[Tore S B]

Who is them?

Personally, I don't get this idea of turning the Constitution into a dogmatic, religious text. To me, the idea that the document is to be revered for the position it has rather than its content, lessens its value by implying it will not stand its content being tested. My reverence is reserved for liberal values, and not the text itself. Especially when it is generally ignored anyway when it's considered convenient by the executive branch.

Don't get me wrong - as a historical document it is one of the most important documents in human history, but laws appropriate for ensuring a free society in 1776 may well not be appropriate for 2012, hard as that may seem to understand. The Second Amendment is an excellent example of an idea which has no real relevance for the purpose intended in the old days, which should really not be a part of the US Constitution.

At home in Norway, we change our constitution from time to time. It's much closer to being just another law, than it is to being a sacrament. I like it that way.

Re:Get a fact checker

[cheekyjohnson]

Who is them?

The exceptions.

To me, the idea that the document is to be revered for the position it has rather than its content

Its content is what is important to me. I do not claim that the constitution is perfect, but I agree with many of the concepts there. Times have changed, and I believe our rights are being violated in ways never thought possible at that time, so I would say it needs to be updated, and in a way that makes its message explicitly clear.

The Second Amendment is an excellent example of an idea which has no real relevance for the purpose intended in the old days, which should really not be a part of the US Constitution.

I think we need more protection against collective punishment-like restrictions ("Some people abuse guns; ban them for everyone."). Again, I don't think the current amendments go far enough in this regard. I believe it needs to be made explicitly clear.

Re:Get a fact checker

[Tore S B]

Who is them?

The exceptions.

Wait, what? I don't see how that makes sense in the context you used "them" in the above text...

The Second Amendment is an excellent example of an idea which has no real relevance for the purpose intended in the old days, which should really not be a part of the US Constitution.

I think we need more protection against collective punishment-like restrictions ("Some people abuse guns; ban them for everyone."). Again, I don't think the current amendments go far enough in this regard. I believe it needs to be made explicitly clear.

That's a weird way to state the problem. It's not a collective punishment - it's a risk/benefit assessment. The fact that I'm not allowed to carry out biological experiments on contagious diseases or store high explosives in my downtown apartment is good because I don't see any reason anyone would do that. That's not a "punishment". The thought that my neighbor does not have those rights is a relief. And it does prevent random accidents. The point is: Why would you need a semi-automatic weapon for personal use? Is regulating their ownership really "punishment", or is that really just a disingenuous turn of phrase?

The primary reason why it is possible to ensure that the gun control is so incredibly lax in the US, is by harping on the ramifications of the Second Amendment and the idea that it provides some kind of hypothetical balance of power against the US Government. Sure. Try forming a militia, go somewhere and rebel - see how that works out for your group and the crater that would surround it.

But that argument, so incredibly separated from reality, is the primary argument against gun control - and that is possible because the Constitution is turning into something people are supposed to have faith in, in the religious sense, rather than a document that should appeal to rationality.

Ironically, the idea that the Constitution is immutable really does remove freedom of self-determination from the people - subverting the intent of the document.

Re:Get a fact checker

[cheekyjohnson]

it's a risk/benefit assessment.

Which I've already done and have come to the conclusion that it's a bad decision here.

Is regulating their ownership really "punishment"

I'd certainly say so. At the very least, I'd claim it's a bad thing. I don't care about rebels, defense, or combating the big, evil government with the guns; I just don't think they should be banned for everyone just because a few people abuse them (and it's not as if they're nuclear weapons). A few lives lost here and there are acceptable to me (just like how the TSA is unacceptable to me even if the risk they claim is there is real). Some people just want to feel safe, and then we end up with organizations like the TSA. But their desire to feel safe is what is important.

Ironically, the idea that the Constitution is immutable

Who thinks this? The constitution can be amended or disregarded entirely. A constitution won't help at all if the citizens are apathetic about violations of freedom, either.

Re:Get a fact checker

[cheekyjohnson]

I said that it was similar to collective punishment. And it is: the solution is to 'punish'/regulate everyone due to the actions of a few.

because I don't see any reason anyone would do that.

Just because you don't see any reason that they would do that doesn't mean you should be able to restrict it. Many times I fail to understand why people take certain courses of action, but that doesn't mean I think the action should be banned. To me, not banning it would have to result in catastrophe before I would even consider it.

Re:Get a fact checker

[robsku]

The primary reason why it is possible to ensure that the gun control is so incredibly lax in the US, is by harping on the ramifications of the Second Amendment and the idea that it provides some kind of hypothetical balance of power against the US Government. Sure. Try forming a militia, go somewhere and rebel - see how that works out for your group and the crater that would surround it.

But that argument, so incredibly separated from reality, is the primary argument against gun control - and that is possible because the Constitution is turning into something people are supposed to have faith in, in the religious sense, rather than a document that should appeal to rationality.

Ironically, the idea that the Constitution is immutable really does remove freedom of self-determination from the people - subverting the intent of the document.

This must be the most intelligent argument one way or another about the US constitution, thanks :)

Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no reason why this tweet should be protected free speech, it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Whether a joke or not, it looked sufficiently realistic a threat and the sender should've known this. Though not enough for years of imprisonment, this is certainly to persecute him and scare the shit out of him to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Re:Not free speech

[MickyTheIdiot]

> it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

No it's not. Not even close.

Re:Not free speech

[CanHasDIY]

I see no reason why this tweet should be protected free speech, it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Really, jackass? The reason it's illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded place is because of the direct harm to life and limb that will occur when the crowd panics and begins stampeding out.

Who got hurt because of this tweet? Who died? Not a damn soul.

Whether a joke or not, it looked sufficiently realistic a threat and the sender should've known this.

Bullshit. Straight up, unadulterated bullshit. This isn't some known terrorist organization making threats, it was a gaddamn accountant bitching about his flight being delayed. Anyone who actually believed this guy was going to do anything other than deal with the flight delay is a fucking imbecile who should be sterilized for the good of the species. That includes you, AC.

Though not enough for years of imprisonment, this is certainly to persecute him and scare the shit out of him to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Right, 'cause the entire purpose of the legal system is to intimidate those who can't afford protracted legal battles into being good, submissive little serfs, right?

Fuck you, fuck the prosecutors who brought this case, and fuck the authoritarian regimes who push such bullshit policies.

I swear I don't know which is worse: The elitist fucks who are working their damnedest to set up permanent police states, or the loser apologists who expect the rest of us to drop trou and grab ankles as readily as themselves.

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether a joke or not, it looked sufficiently realistic a threat and the sender should've known this.

I totally disagree. It's an ordinary expression of frustration, not a credible threat.
We've all said similar things, and many people write similar things in our modern informal online media.
No one could have expected this guy to anticipate the overreaction.

Re:Not free speech

[betterunixthanunix]

it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre

Where have I heard that expression before...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no reason why this tweet should be protected free speech, it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Really, jackass? The reason it's illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded place is because of the direct harm to life and limb that will occur when the crowd panics and begins stampeding out.

whine whine whine

By your test, nothing is a threat unless it is actually carried out (everyone knew the identity of the person tweeting with such confidence? Like accountants can't kill people?) I suggest you look up what the term threat means, since your expectations are very unrealistic. We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.

You are clearly very passionate about free speech, which is a good thing. You are also clearly very naive when it comes to what is required of a civilized society to not break down under the weight of trying to preserve every idiot's right to it. There is give and take.

Re:Not free speech

[interval1066]

THIS is why I continually question the way "free speech" (it really isn't) is implemented in the UK. You people are completely crackers and and have NO IDEA why its so important.

Re:Not free speech

[fustakrakich]

Blame the apologists. They are the enablers. Without them no dictatorship can ever survive. They are the ones who execute the orders and pull the trigger.

Re:Not free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.

I'd much rather risk someone's death than overreact to everything, take everything out of context, and harass people who intended no harm.

Paranoia is how we get useless organizations like the TSA who violate everyone's rights.

You are clearly very passionate about free speech, which is a good thing.

You don't seem to act like it is.

You are also clearly very naive when it comes to what is required of a civilized society to not break down under the weight of trying to preserve every idiot's right to it.

By no means would society break down by not overreacting to what I believe was clearly not an actual threat. But of course, such a society doesn't have much free speech, anyway.

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.

Oh, let me try! Posting a tweet is obviously "very risky behavior," and so we should prevent users from posting anything which might be considered a "threat"! Did I do good?

You are also clearly very naive when it comes to what is required of a civilized society to not break down under the weight of trying to preserve every idiot's right to it.

Can I can try this one, too? A "civilized" society ought to be aggressive in preventing idiots from making threats, so as to not disrupt society. Thus, it was right for society to bring down this mild-mannered accountant for expressing his frustration at the delay!

Captcha: blunders

There is give and take.

There totally is: thought police for life!

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.

I'd much rather risk someone's death than overreact to everything, take everything out of context, and harass people who intended no harm.

Paranoia is how we get useless organizations like the TSA who violate everyone's rights.

You are clearly very passionate about free speech, which is a good thing.

You don't seem to act like it is.

You are also clearly very naive when it comes to what is required of a civilized society to not break down under the weight of trying to preserve every idiot's right to it.

By no means would society break down by not overreacting to what I believe was clearly not an actual threat. But of course, such a society doesn't have much free speech, anyway.

Good thing we have you on hand to tell us what is and isn't an actual threat. Next time you see some hijackers getting on to some planes, are you going to wink, or nod, or both?

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that US law does not hold in the UK. In particular, the UK has not constitution (or separation of powers for that matter) so protection of the right to freedom of speech is not as such a defense. Whatever is passed by 50% + 1 of the Parliament and then signed by the Queen becomes law and cannot really be disputed.

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we have Democrats and liberals our liberty will be in great danger. OH and last but not least your slash dot hero BO.

Move on you greedy engineers.

Re:Not free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

Let me repeat myself: "Paranoia is how we get useless organizations like the TSA who violate everyone's rights."

I don't believe you're helping in this regard. You will never be perfectly safe, and the solution is to not overreact. If it appears to be a joke, then there is nothing that can be done.

I'd tell you to stop worrying about nearly nonexistent threats, but I think that just isn't going to happen.

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post would be alot easier to read if you didn't resort to ad-hominem attacks and swearing. I didn't bother reading it all because I'm not going to reward someone who can't have a reasonable discussion without resulting to insults by allowing their post to become part of the discussion.

Re:Not free speech

[fa2k]

More generally, I wonder if there is some theory about what should be exempted from "free speech"? To me, it seems very arbitrary in many western countries: threats is the big one, harassment, "yelling fire", copyright, trade secrets, circumvention devices, military secrets, privacy laws. I realise that it's not possible to derive a legal system from basic axioms, but it always seems a bit hypocritical when someone complains about some "decency" law in a backwards country. How do we know that prohibiting threats is good for society?

Re:Not free speech

[CanHasDIY]

By your test, nothing is a threat unless it is actually carried out (everyone knew the identity of the person tweeting with such confidence? Like accountants can't kill people?) I suggest you look up what the term threat means, since your expectations are very unrealistic. We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.

Uh, no, you're just continuing your original line of jackassery. Ever hear of a little process called 'police work?' it goes like this:

1) person makes potentially threatening statement
2) the authorities do their fucking jobs by investigating the person who made the statement, and determining whether it's a legitimate threat, or if it's just some pissed off citizen venting
3) if, and only if, the evidence supports arrest (i.e., the person who made the statement has a history of violent conduct, or is known to be affiliated with terrorist groups, or any of a thousand legitimate reasons to fuck with someone), then the police can and should issue a warrant.

You are also clearly very naive when it comes to what is required of a civilized society to not break down under the weight of trying to preserve every idiot's right to it.

No, I don't take well to morons who, obviously incapable of anything even resembling cogent thought processes, think of the world in all-or-nothing, black-and-white terms.

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully agree w/ your request for more sexual activity among people belonging to such different social groups. This however w/ one exception - authoritarian governments. There are two reasons why. Firstly, I really do not think that most of us would enjoy it except maybe small masochistic minority among us. Secondly, I think to suggest that this case is a proof UK gov is authoritarian on base of this case is silly - they let him go after all and to go this far was really caused by ignorance and sign of major cockup in local police and crown prosecution. There are many other reasons that justify calling them silly & going in authoritarian direction, this case is not one of them.

Re:Not free speech

[Bob9113]

Outstanding. Very good rant. Lewis Black would be proud. :)

Re:Not free speech

[tilante]

By your test, nothing is a threat unless it is actually carried out (everyone knew the identity of the person tweeting with such confidence? Like accountants can't kill people?) I suggest you look up what the term threat means, since your expectations are very unrealistic. We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.

I do have to wonder -- did you read the article? All six pages? This was, in fact, one of the things talked about by the judges who ultimately reversed his conviction. The police themselves did not take his threat seriously, until someone suddenly decided that he needed to be made an example of. The fact that they didn't take the threat seriously indicated to the judges that the threat did not 'menace' anyone, as required by the law he was convicted under -- they stated that in order for there to be 'menace', someone actually has to be afraid. Since he wasn't actually doing anything, and there is no evidence or testimony that anyone was really afraid that he was going to, the court ruled that his tweet did not qualify as "menacing" under the statute.

If there had been real fear -- e.g., if the airport could have produced any evidence that anyone contacted them saying, "I think this guy's going to try to blow your airport up" -- then the statute would have applied. This seems to me like a reasonable standard, so long as the law considers the threshold to be what a "reasonable person" would consider threatening. Outlawing all threats, regardless of how much they might lack any credibility, leads to things like we see happening in the US right now, where elementary school students have been arrested for making "terroristic threats" for angrily saying they wanted to kill their teachers.

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

How do we know that prohibiting threats is good for society?

Stopping people from getting hurt is good for society. Stopping threats? Not so much. Investigate the person who issued the threat (provided it doesn't look like an obvious joke) and if you find evidence that he or she was going to go through with the threat, then do something about it.

Laws against yelling fire are just silly. Kick them out of the theater, yeah, but arrest them? No. If anyone causes damage, they should have to pay for it. And by that I mean people scrambling out of the theater trying to save their own lives from a nonexistent threat because they're incredibly credulous.

Re:Not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you focusing on irrelevancies instead of the actual arguments that he made?

Your post would be alot easier to read if you didn't resort to ad-hominem attacks and swearing.

It's incredibly easy to read. Why is it that you have trouble reading it? Even the attacks and swearing are easy to read. Nothing is wrong with swearing, anyway. I don't think so, anyway, but I'm not the kind of person who would stop reading someone's comment just because a string of letters that I don't like showed up in it.

Re:Not free speech

[robsku]

Reading the article, seems that pretty much nobody took the "threat" seriously. Had it been "sufficiently realistic", I'd assume people would take it a bit more seriously.

Re:Not free speech

[alexo]

Paranoia is how we get useless organizations like the TSA who violate everyone's rights.

The fact that the TSA is "useless" to you does not imply that it isn't extremely useful to the people that established and perpetuate it.

The comment in question.

[khasim]

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. Youâ(TM)ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise Iâ(TM)m blowing the airport sky high!!

Just because it is a bit buried in TFA.

Re:The comment in question.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see the issue. Then again, I don't even know how to pronounce a word like "Youâ(TM)ve". Is that like "ewe-eh-TMM-vvv" or "ewe-ah-TMM-vvv"?

Also "Iâ(TM)m". Is that "eye-eh-TMM-mmm" or "eye-ah-TMM-mmm"?

Re:The comment in question.

[cpu6502]

>>>Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise Iâ(TM)m blowing the airport sky high!!

I'm tempted to post that on my Twitter and Facebook just to see what happens. Maybe like the marine from two weeks ago, I'll find the FBI or DHS dragging me off and jailing me for several days w/o charges. (And then have a judge scold them for being stupid.)

Re:The comment in question.

[WaffleMonster]

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. YouÃ(TM)ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise IÃ(TM)m blowing the airport sky high!!

I can't believe UK actually has an airport named "Robin Hood" ... Did it get its name by hiring TSA bag checkers who takith from the rich and givith to themselves?

This kind of thing has been going on for a long time in many areas including the US you can't joke about anything anymore without someone somewhere thinking it is their duty to take you seriously context be damned. Well the text said you are going to kill yourself or someone else or blow something up so we HAVE to take you seriously because some nut job somewhere might have actually meant what they say.

This OMG terror1st under every bed mentality soo many people appear to be afflicted with is nothing more than a reflection of their own paranoia and cowardice. Its discusting.

Re:The comment in question.

[cpu6502]

Also want to add: "Don't Talk to Police" in response to this part of the article. Opening your mouth is a great way to say the wrong thing & give police enough evidence to charge you. You have the right to remain silent. So become a mute.

The Ron Paul volunteer who was detained by the TSA handled it well (though not perfectly). Every time they asked where he got the $4000 in cash, he refused to answer. He didn't want the police to know the dollars were donations, since Missouri had decided to start arresting Ron Paul supporters as "potential terrorists" under the MIAC Report. So he shutup.

>>>They drove [the tweeter] Paul to the police station and questioned him for two hours. After spending another hour in a cell, he was released while South Yorkshire police and the CPS decided how to proceed. His iPhone, which had been used to send the tweet, and two computers were impounded, despite the absence of any obvious reason why they would need to be examined.

Re:The comment in question.

[sjames]

If I had a twitter account, I'd be tempted to post that and then urge everyone else to do the same. It should be a new meme. Perhaps being the butt of a worldwide joke for a while will generate sufficient shame to convince those responsible to be a bit more careful with prosecuting nonsense in the future.

Re:The comment in question.

[Anonymous Coward]

The way that you spellETH some of your words is pretty disGusting too... are you by any chance a terrorist?

Re:The comment in question.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair to the terrorists, those who have actually gone and detonated bombs to kill people and destroy infrastructure rarely talked about it much in advance. Somebody tweeting that they're going to blow up an airport seems to be posing a similar risk to someone tweeting "Do you want to go to Pete's to watch the game after work?"

Re:The comment in question.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Robin Hood airport due to it lying in/near the Nottinghamshire area - home of Robin Hood. It's actually an old RAF base, RAF Finningley, also known as Doncaster airport to the locals.

Free speech has always been partial

[i kan reed]

Now, I'm not going to side with the government here(who would?), but the assertion that free speech was in jeopardy is real mistake. All sorts of things that are speech are not legal, and if you flagrantly slander someone, or make threats that imply risk of harm to others, or have a youtube channel that promotes terrorism, governments have shown more than enough willingness to let their beliefs about criminality override the core ideal of free speech.

And that's what free-speech is, an ideal, a goal, not an impossible-to-violate core component of society. There are no perfect guardians of that ideal. Not the citizenry, not the elected official, not the courts, and not the police. All you can do is try to make judgements about how and when you can defend your ideals, and do so the best of your abilities.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[cpu6502]

No it isn't partial. The Supreme Court has ruled that decision again-and-again, including one case where a 70s-era black civil rights protestor said, "I will kill you." The justices ruled that all speech is protected, including speech uttered during the heat of protest. The black man was freed.

And yes you can be sued for libel/slander, but that is a case between two citizens. Or a citizen and a business. The government is not involved. They have not made it illegal to slander/libel (though you might have to pay the financial... such as loss of business).

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed it's recognised that free speech imposes a responsibility in it's applicatin:

"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."

As for the ignorance of technology, I'd suggest that's many times with the individual. People have a habit of forgetting that tweets, facebook updates etc. are in many instances a public broadcast, not a private aside to a few mates in the pub.

I doubt this particular comment should have been taken seriously, but I can also see there is a measure of judgement in that, some of these things may come down to charges like wasting police time etc.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[betterunixthanunix]

All sorts of things that are speech are not legal, and if you...have a youtube channel that promotes terrorism,

As opposed to a Youtube channel that supports military actions by the right government, in which case you are fine.

This is what happens when we compromise on fundamental rights...

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[MightyMartian]

...governments have shown more than enough willingness to let their beliefs about criminality override the core ideal of free speech.

I think we need to understand here that the Founding Fathers never intended absolutely unlimited right to express yourself in every possible way. Clearly even the Constitution itself puts at least limitation I can think of right off the top of my head; and that is Treason. You are not free to make contact with an enemy of the United States and start giving them the location of nuclear submarines or the alarm code to the Oval Office (yes, I know stupid examples, but I think you get the point). Clearly where speech is used to cause any form of direct harm (the "shouting fire in crowded theater" test), Congress is within its right to pass laws criminalizing such speech. The Supreme Court tends to give the First Amendment a good deal of space to breathe, but it can never be unlimited, because if it was libel and slander laws, for instance, would be unconstitutional. I could tell all your neighbors you are a child molester, and you would have no remedy at all.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[interval1066]

not an impossible-to-violate core component of society.

And this is where you types consistantly miss the point and obviously don't get it.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[radio4fan]

Please explain to a dumb non-american...

If freedom of expression is absolute, and not partial, why is Bradley Manning in prison?

And presumably the SCOTUS has ruled that threats against the president are a-ok?

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the illegality of the act of Treason is not dependent on public speech, rather on the act of information transference. It is just illegal to privately write down those secrets and deliver them to an enemy of the state as it is to shout the secrets at him in a public park. By contrast, whispering "Fire" to the person sitting next to you in a crowded theater is different from shouting it (I think, anyway).

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's just that, freedom of expression - it's about being free to express your own opinions and beliefs. In no way, shape or form does that give or imply a right to distribute and release classified or sensitive information that doesn't belong to you, which you've not only been trained is legally protected, but have signed an NDA for.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[Anonymous Coward]

The justices ruled that all speech is protected

Nope, that's a lie. Ever heard of "fighting words"? SCOTUS has ruled that those are not protected.

Note, just because I am calling you a liar, does not mean I agree with SCOTUS regarding fighting words.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[i kan reed]

You're going to have to classify "my type" a little more clearly. What exactly do you think makes free speech literally impossible to violate?

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[interval1066]

I don't think its impossible to violate. I think its violated all the time. Usually by opressive governments.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[fustakrakich]

...the Founding Fathers never intended absolutely unlimited right to express yourself...

Then they shouldn't have written it that way. They had the chance to write in "no unreasonable law, or other qualifier, but they didn't. The written law could not be more explicit, and the supreme court is in error to interpret it otherwise. Now if they want to change that, they have to convene to amend the constitution. That is the only available, proper way to restrict speech in the USA. Expediency as applied here is not cool. As for what might be considered 'treason', I can only say that reporting possibly illegal acts by the government is also an absolute right (regardless of any law prohibiting such a thing), if not obligation (you can be arrested and charged for failing to report a crime, but the statues on that are more than a bit lopsided in their enforcement).

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[dwpro]

It bears mentioning that the "shouting fire in crowded theater" test was used from it's very utterance to convict a man for distributing leaflets opposing the WW1 draft, in my mind precisely what freedom of speech is meant to protect. As such, laws to lessen the potential to inflict harm via speech must be directly weighed against the potential of the law to suppress unfavorable speech, as both of these are of core importance.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed.

Even though it says 'speech' in the constitution, it means 'expression', and exceptions can obviously be made for 'classified information' without making the freedom partial.

But obviously having some sort of law against threats to blow up airports is absurd, and shows how unfree Europe is, and would never happen in the US.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[zzsmirkzz]

Congress is within its right to pass laws criminalizing such speech.

No, they are not. They are within their right to pass laws criminalizing such attempts at causing harm.. The freedom of the person to speak their mind is absolute but if they do so with intent to cause harm, they can be found liable for the harm they caused, not the words they spoke.

It is not illegal to scream "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. It is illegal to start a panic by falsely screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[Shatrat]

Bradley Manning didn't wear a T-shirt that said 'Send our Troops Home', he published confidential information and violated probably a dozen rules regulations and contracts between himself and the US Military. That's a pretty bad analogy, maybe you should try something involving cars or pizza.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, but there's a lot of people that think Mr. Manning should NOT be in prison.

There are also a lot of people that think 'we can't XXXXXXXX because of national security' is a shitty excuse for things that shouldn't fly.

A lot of people think that some very bad, evil, and morally reprehensible actions have been taken by U.S. government agents and dismissed from the public because it would 'negatively impact the security of the nation'.

The security of a Nation is its People. When are you going to realize this? I, for one, would feel more secure knowing all the bad things that have been done in my nation's name, rather than wondering...

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[tooyoung]

And remember - anything can be deemed classified or sensitive, it doesn't matter if the material should be sensitive.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[shutdown -p now]

Can you show me where it says "freedom of expression" in the First Amendment?

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[shutdown -p now]

You don't get GP's point.

It's not about this particular case. It's about whether free speech is an absolute freedom - i.e. it means that absolutely anything and everything can be freely spoken - or whether there are reasonable limits. Historically, all countries have had such limits. In US, libel and slander laws have existed since the founding of the country, and were put in place by many of the same people who wrote the First Amendment, so clearly by "freedom of speech" they didn't mean just any kind of speech. Similarly, copyright is a fairly obvious limitation on your freedom to speak or otherwise communicate certain things. At this point it becomes a question of degree - what kind of speech, exactly, can be legally limited?

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[Anonymous Coward]

In no way, shape or form does that give or imply a right to distribute and release classified or sensitive information that doesn't belong to you

And here is the interesting part. The information was classified, but not legally so. The military do not have the right to classify information about illegal actions taken by them and all such occurrences must be reported. The information belonged to the American people and the military had no right to hide it.

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! You're PMF! Right?

Re:Free speech has always been partial

[i kan reed]

So you're saying that free speech is NOT an impossible-to-violate core component of society, which is exactly the point you contravened before?

My point from before was that free speech is violated from time to time, and that's part of the natural behavior of the societies we live in, and shouldn't be perceived as being "about to die" because of it. I didn't call it a good thing, just an common thing.

Real criminals are dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

By going after someone for a silly twitter comment, you can put on a big show of pretending to do your job with no personal risk at all.

The problem I see.

[SuricouRaven]

It is very hard for police or prosecution to ever back down. It's embarassing to them. Their culture doesn't allow it, and those on the political side would lose face. Once the legal action has been initiated, it cannot be stopped until a conclusion is reached. This is true in the UK as much as in the US. It's a very good reason to stay away from the police: A single mistake on their part can easily bloom into a years-long life-ruining legal struggle.

Pass the buck

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The saddest part of this story is that it could've been stopped before it began: the manager who discovered the tweet, the airport police, the police, none of them thought there was a credible threat but rather than assume responsibility they decided to pass the buck to someone else effectively pushing the case further and further up the chain.

Re:Pass the buck

[PTBarnum]

So at what point should it have stopped? Who is best qualified to assess threat from a random internet posting? In my opinion, it was reasonable for the airport staff to alert the police. The police should have investigated, and most likely should have determined there was no threat before interviewing the author. However, in the worst case the interview should have cleared up any question of motive.

Re:Pass the buck

[jeffmeden]

The saddest part of this story is that it could've been stopped before it began: the manager who discovered the tweet, the airport police, the police, none of them thought there was a credible threat but rather than assume responsibility they decided to pass the buck to someone else effectively pushing the case further and further up the chain.

Like you would sit at your job and say "hey, some guy threatened to blow up my building, via a tweet... I am so sure this is not credible that I am willing to literally bet my (and many others') life that it isn't credible. I think i will willfully ignore it, and tell everyone that contrary to what THEY might think, there is no threat." Come on.

The saddest part of the story is that some idiot thought it would be funny to joke about blowing up an airport. That is really it in a nutshell. If he had come up with some other joke, ANY other joke, maybe even a funny one, he wouldnt be in this predicament.

Re:Pass the buck

[sjames]

At the very bottom. Failing that, at each and every level above that. Anyone with an IQ above 70 could tell it was a joke. There is no valor in acting like a drooling moron. The lot of them should be beet red with shame and embarrassment. Their pictures should be published on the front page of the newspaper under the heading "Point and laugh at the idiots!".

Frankly, this is a sufficiently moronic act that they should find themselves needled about it from time to time for the rest of their lives.

Re:Pass the buck

[sjames]

Based on the tweet in question, yes. I absolutely would completely discount the possibility that it was a real threat and go on working. For one, he did gicve them a WEEK and a bit to get opened again.

Re:Pass the buck

[RobertLTux]

In the future i would think that access to 1 Lorries 2 a couple hundred kilos of explosives 3 blasting caps 4 the other random widgets should be required to make this a Plausible Threat.

I mean come on its not like this is a Known Northern Irishman and actually COULD do anything to the airport.

Re:Pass the buck

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Like you would sit at your job and say "hey, some guy threatened to blow up my building, via a tweet... I am so sure this is not credible that I am willing to literally bet my (and many others') life that it isn't credible. I think i will willfully ignore it, and tell everyone that contrary to what THEY might think, there is no threat." Come on.

Nobody thought it was a threat until the media got interested and then suddenly nobody dared to let the poor guy go. This despite the fact they were all professionals who should be able to distinguish between a threat and a bad joke. If you're not ready to make those calls you shouldn't be in a job where you have to think at all.

- The airport manager "reported it to his superior, who rated it "non credible" as a threat"
- Airport police then "waited two days before passing on the investigation to their colleagues at Doncaster police station" (bet they were worried, huh ?)
- The police thought it was a joke : "[the case file ] states: "There is no evidence at this stage that this is anything other than a foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends to see.""
- But of course by then the media were interested so : "With Paul Chambers out on bail and "huge public and media interest" (as a further statement put it) no doubt causing jitters higher up the pecking order, South Yorkshire police turned to the CPS for a "decision on disposal""

Once in legal system the guy's goose was cooked.

Re:Pass the buck

[CharlyFoxtrot]

However, in the worst case the interview should have cleared up any question of motive.

That's the bad part: it did.

"But if things weren’t quite clear to the detectives at the start, they certainly were by the time they wrote up the case file. It states: "There is no evidence at this stage that this is anything other than a foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends to see."

But they didn't want to appear to be soft on terrorism or whatever and so rather than make the judgement they knew to be correct they threw an innocent man into the legal system. Gutless.

Re:Pass the buck

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno.. If you work in a public building, you have to take all threats, no matter how stupid, seriously. It's always easy to judge the effect of a threat in retrospect. But if its my job on the line vs some idiot who feels the need to publish every brain vomit to the web - I am going to play it safe and at least report it, via email with a paper trail. This isn't like a private communication here. He published it to the INTERNET using his real name.

Just because society got stupid about posting personal info to the internet, doesn't mean we have to feel sorry for every idiot that says something stupid out there.

Re:Pass the buck

[sjames]

BOO!

I am now picturing you madly seeking a fresh pair of underwear :-)

NO, there is absolutely no call for craven cowardice anywhere, ever. You do NOT have to treat every joke as being serious. You do NOT have to screw someone's life up because you are a coward that some fool granted authority to.

The fact that he DID publish it on the internet using his real name actually suggests that he was NOT serious.

:I am deeply afraid that your panic reactions to basically anything and everything might harm someone. We're going to have to lock you up just to be safe rather than sorry. By your argument, my position is perfectly reasonable so you should have no problem with turning yourself in.

Re:Pass the buck

[Bucky24]

Problem is, no one wants to be the guy who said "aw this is just a joke, he won't bomb the airport", and then it turns out that it wasn't a joke. Yes, you're gonna be right most of the time, but the one time you're wrong.. You're going to be in a lot of trouble.

Re:Pass the buck

[sjames]

Nobody SHOULD want to be the goof that totally screwed up an innocent man's life either. I'll bet if those responsible had to send him their paychecks until he got back on his feet they would suddenly become quite willing to exercise a bit of judgement.

The best approach might have been to just forget they saw the tweet at all.

Re:Pass the buck

[shutdown -p now]

If you keep posting idiotic comments on Slashdot, you'll make me mad enough that I'll rig up your computer to explode in your face. You've been warned.

This is actually a win for free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The final verdict was that not only was he not guilty but that he shouldn't have even been brought to trial.
It sets a precident for future trials, and so is a very good thing.

Of course it's a huge failure for the person involved, but the result did work out well.

Free speech?

[Pigeon451]

I'm all for free speech, but threatening to blow up an airport is definitely a good way to get in trouble. Guy is a complete idiot.

Re:Free speech?

[CanHasDIY]

Guy is a complete idiot.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the people who took him seriously...

Re:Free speech?

[Hentes]

There's a difference between saying something on a public channel and calling up the airport: that would have been a threat. But unless authorities or the facility in question are contacted, they have no business what a person says in his own Twitter.

Re:Free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, you are an idiot. it is painfully obvious that this was not "threatening to blow up an airport"

Re:Free speech?

[betterunixthanunix]

If you think that is a credible threat, you must be an idiot. I could have distinguished that post from a real threat when I was in kindergarten.

Re:Free speech?

[gman003]

Maybe he just wasn't hyperbolic enough?

When I was dealing with some extremely shitty, slow service from Asus, I threatened to destroy their entire country. Didn't get a second glance - they seemed more worried about my "spread bad reviews on them all over the place" threat.

Re:Free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taken in context, the statement is thus:
I need the airport. The airport is broken. If the airport does not open, I'm going to break it.

This almost identical to a phrase we have all heard:
If you do X and die, I'm going to kill you.

While yes, the LAST part of the statement taken out of context is a threat, in context of the whole situation it creates an obvious paradox.
Anyone who does not see that should go back to preschool.

Re:Free speech?

[idontgno]

True. But on one side is an idiot with a Twitter account. On the other side is a crowd of idiots with, ultimately, guns and the power to imprison. How do YOU think this would ever work out?

Re:Free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the article about, how idiotics things could get in jail, smartass. And beeing an idiot is not a crime as far as I know and if it would be punished it shouldn't be the same punishment as being a terrorist.

Re:Free speech?

[citylivin]

If you didn't take him seriously and it was infact a real threat, is it worth risking your job over? Do you want to be the guy who ignored a "bin laden plans to hijack planes" memo?

Let me make it simple here, don't threaten to blow up public infrastructure on a public forum like the internet. Period. What should be common sense to most people seems absent from the always on, speech entitled twitter generation that thinks they have a right to write any garbage they want free and clear.

Just take it into a real life context. If you were responsible for securing a facility and you heard someone just outside the gate joking with his friend about blowing up your facility, are you telling me you wouldn't report that to the police?

Most people are not experts on judging the validity of threats. That's why we have police. Jokes are only jokes until things start blowing up, then its all like "where were the signs!!" and "how come you didn't connect the dots??". People think its all so easy, because they are looking at everything in retrospect. Most people who are actually responsible for things, don't have the luxury of ignoring things like this. Again, if it's my job on the line vs some idiots "joke", I can tell you right now 100% which is more important to me. And its not the idiot.

Re:Free speech?

[citylivin]

" But unless authorities or the facility in question are contacted, they have no business what a person says in his own Twitter."

How does something you post to the internet, on a site made expressly for the purposes of sharing this information with others, become "your own" anything? He didn't write this in his private notebook that some police officer found in an illegal search of his bedroom. Once you post something to the world, you lose your exclusive rights to it. This includes the right to bitch that people are reading and in some cases reacting to it. DUH!!!

Re:Free speech?

[circletimessquare]

if your coworker said his mother just died do you crack jokes about how ugly she was?

if you get in a fender bender on the highway do you start craking jokes about how the other guy's car sucks?

if you go on blind date with a woman, five minutes in do you start making crude jokes about her ethnicity?

you can have an argument about legality of this case all you want, but hands, down, 100%: are a genuine bona fide moron if you think threatening to blow up an airport on a wide open communication channel is funny

Re:Free speech?

[CanHasDIY]

if your coworker said his mother just died do you crack jokes about how ugly she was?

if you get in a fender bender on the highway do you start craking jokes about how the other guy's car sucks?

if you go on blind date with a woman, five minutes in do you start making crude jokes about her ethnicity?

Crude and tasteless, perhaps, but not illegal or threatening. Considering the lack of relevance to the conversation at hand, I have to ask - do any of these anecdotes have a purpose?

you can have an argument about legality of this case all you want, but hands, down, 100%: are a genuine bona fide moron if you think threatening to blow up an airport on a wide open communication channel is funny

In your opinion, with which I disagree on the basis that it is ignorant and childish. I posit that the true "genuine bona fide moron[s]" are the people who thought/think the rantings of a regular person, with no record of terrorism or violent behavior, was worth wasting so much time and resource on prosecuting, especially considering that the judge in the case themselves stated that no such prosecution should have occurred.

I presume, since you're to the point of resorting to ad hominem and pedantics, that you've run out of legitimate arguments, assuming you had any to begin with.

Re:Free speech?

[circletimessquare]

Wow

What a tool

The comment was stupid. Threatening to blow up an airport is stupid

Get over yourself

Re:Free speech?

[cheekyjohnson]

If you didn't take him seriously and it was infact a real threat

Utopias where no one gets hurt do not exist. If we have to resort to overreacting to every potential threat and violating people's freedom because of an insatiable desire for security, I'd rather we just accept the (minuscule) chance that it's real.

Do you want to be the guy who ignored a "bin laden plans to hijack planes" memo?

I don't want to be the guy who overreacts to everything and harasses people who intended no harm, either.

Let me make it simple here, don't threaten to blow up public infrastructure on a public forum like the internet.

Don't overreact to all potential threats. Period. I don't want to end up with another TSA.

Most people are not experts on judging the validity of threats.

They don't need to be! Judging from context alone (and similar events that happen daily but aren't posted on the Internet), I'd say it's pretty easy to tell he meant no harm. But I don't have an insatiable desire for security, so...

That's why we have police.

They don't seem to be doing a very good job.

Jokes are only jokes until things start blowing up

Which doesn't happen often at all, and isn't what happened in this case. The actual message was a joke and remains as such. Just because there's a minuscule chance that someone might be serious doesn't mean that none of them are jokes.

Most people who are actually responsible for things, don't have the luxury of ignoring things like this.

I believe we need to give them the luxury.

I suspect this message seemed completely normal to this guy. He didn't even think about it; he had no ill intentions. He could never have predicted that people overreact to everything because they have some unrealistic expectation to have absolute security.

Re:Free speech?

[CanHasDIY]

Get over yourself

I'm not the one getting their panties in a bunch because someone disagrees with me, now am I?

Re:Free speech?

[robsku]

...and you didn't actually read the article, now did you?

Re:Free speech?

[robsku]

In fact, according to article, everyone else involved distinguished it from a real threat just fine also - but then the case ended up on big media, everything was blown out of proportions and now we have a bunch of tools defending the system for acting like total jackasses and actually claiming that the threat was realistic.

He should have said ...

[Anonymous Coward]

He should have said that he meant he was offering oral sex - you know "blowing".

Don't do that

[fermion]

I agree that this should not have turned into a big case and waste of, I guess, the rate payers money. However, the tale here is not that police are overbearing, but that average people really have no common sense of decency in communicating in public. Sure, it should be perfectly legal for me to, when a baby is crying at the next table in a restaurant, to turn to the parent and tell them that if the baby does not quit crying I will drown the baby, blow up their house, then fly planes into their in laws houses, but I think most of us would agree that that would not be civil. In most cases we take the crying baby and if we complain we make mild comments about the lack of parenting, usually out of earshot.

Now, I know that a horny boy behind a keyboard has trouble differentiating between civilized and uncivilized comments, and I think many of us who have been there would agree, but that is why we have private tweets. Of course for some of u narcissism, horniness, voyeurism, and bravado intersect and we end up in trouble. Like when we try to impress a girl while drunk at a bar and end up hitting a police officer. Not our fault, just bad luck.

The lesson is that tweets that are not semi-private are very public and can be misconstrued. Also, cooperating with the police is often not the best course when one is innocent, while the best way to be proven guilty is to not have a highly competent solicitor/lawyer/abogado.

If someone threatened to blow up my house if I did not fix it I would take that as a serious, though non credible, threat. I do not go through airports threatening to blow them up, even when it was in fashion. I do make fun of the police even though of my friends did. It is not that I did know I the write to do so, it was simply that I had other means of venting and expressing my frustrations.

The tweet

[jonnythan]

Here is his tweet:

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!"

Yeah, that's pretty bad. It will take cases like this for people to realize that anything they say online is instantly public and viewable by the entire world.

Speech has consequences. If you threaten to blow up airports, you will probably be prosecuted.

Re:The tweet

[betterunixthanunix]

Speech has consequences. If you threaten to unseat those in power, you will probably be prosecuted.

ftfy

Re:The tweet

[cheekyjohnson]

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

It is? Probably only if you're paranoid about nonexistent threats. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who agree with this are the type of people who think organizations like the TSA are a good thing.

Although unrelated to this specific case, this is another reason why I feel privacy is so important. The government (or some authority figure) will inevitably take you out of context or misinterpret you and attempt to ruin your life (even if everyone you know would know you didn't intend any harm). Sadly, some people seem to cheer these zero-tolerance policies on.

Though, you're right: you'll probably be prosecuted.

Re:The tweet

[jeffmeden]

Here is his tweet:

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!"

Yeah, that's pretty bad. It will take cases like this for people to realize that anything they say online is instantly public and viewable by the entire world.

Speech has consequences. If you threaten to blow up airports, you will probably be prosecuted.

People comfortable with twitter just presume that nothing on it is to be taken seriously (and they would almost always be correct). However if you are some security manager who doesnt know a tweet from a poke, and someone says to you "hey someone broadcast on the internet that they are going to blow up the airport" you are going to treat it just like a phone call to the same effect, or a guy outside with a megaphone, or any other direct display of a threat. Us internet-savvy know-it-alls can easily discount just about anything we read, but not everyone is as comfortable doing that. I think that's the real lesson to be learned; online actions have very real consequences and unless you are prepared for them, maybe you should keep your "jokes" to yourself.

Do we want to live in a world where it's perfectly acceptable to broadcast threats of mass violence with the expectation of no reprisal at all? Or put another way, the next time some threat is made, and it is summarily ignored but it IS carried out, are we going to be OK with the conclusion that "well there was nothing we could do, who knew the guy who tweeted to tell us he was going to shoot up the place was serious?"

Re:The tweet

[cheekyjohnson]

but not everyone is as comfortable doing that.

Their problem.

online actions have very real consequences and unless you are prepared for them, maybe you should keep your "jokes" to yourself.

Then there is no free speech. This is entirely the fault of people who misinterpret other people's messages or take them out of context.

Perhaps you should have kept your comment to yourself. Someone might misinterpret it completely.

Do we want to live in a world where it's perfectly acceptable to broadcast threats of mass violence with the expectation of no reprisal at all?

Even if you arrest people for credible threats, this doesn't fit that criteria in the least. So, yes. Enough with the paranoia of terrorists.

the next time some threat is made, and it is summarily ignored but it IS carried out

Ah, yes: "But what if it really happens!?" The solution is not to overreact to everything and harass people who intended no harm. There cannot be a utopia where everyone is perfectly safe even if you have a police state (in that case, the government would be a larger threat). People are so scared of a single person dying that they'll willingly allow the government to molest people at airports and violate everyone's rights.

are we going to be OK with the conclusion that "well there was nothing we could do, who knew the guy who tweeted to tell us he was going to shoot up the place was serious?"

I would be. There is no way to prevent all deaths, and sometimes it just isn't worth it. The problem lies with the people who actually commit the murders, not random people who aren't actually serious.

Re:The tweet

[operagost]

I guess you missed the whole point-- the "threat" is not credible. It's only slightly more credible than threatening to blow up the earth with my Uranium Pu-36 explosive space modulator.

Re:The tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? Paranoia about nonexistent threats is their latest trick to grab power! Hell it's not even remotely new.

Re:The tweet

[n5yat]

"Then there is no free speech". Exactly. There is not now, nor has there ever been, such a thing as free speech. Sorta like the old line, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The only place where 'free speech' exists is a place where no one can hear me speak. If I am in a room with a man and say "You are an f'ing a-hole" and as a consequence, he pulls out a gun and kills me, then I'd say I wasn't able to speak freely. As long as my words can have an adverse consequences to me or others, while I may, by LAW be free to speak them, by REALITY I am not. That is the real crux of these 'free speech' debates - some people, when saying 'free speech', mean "legally protected right to speak" while others mean "free to say anything you want". The two are not the same thing.

Re:The tweet

[cheekyjohnson]

If I am in a room with a man and say "You are an f'ing a-hole" and as a consequence, he pulls out a gun and kills me, then I'd say I wasn't able to speak freely.

Freedom of speech is generally meant to mean freedom from being punished by the government for your speech. If something like that happened, I sure hope that guy would be sent to prison.

Under his definition (where you have the ability to say it, but you might get punished by the government), even China has freedom of speech.

by LAW be free to speak them, by REALITY I am not.

Using the definition above, you very much do have freedom of speech in reality. At least if it hasn't been 'interpreted' away by the supreme court.

The two are not the same thing.

Indeed they're not. But I'm always speaking of the former.

Re:The tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike the US, the UK has seen quite a lot of terrorist attacks in the past 40 years or so. Preferred targets used to be train and underground stations, but why not an airport?

In fact, there was a genuine, honest-to-god attempted terrorist attack on Glasgow airport just a few years ago.

What was that about no existent threats?

Re:The tweet

[cheekyjohnson]

Honestly? I don't care at all. There likely cannot be a utopia where no one ever dies, and I'd much rather a few people die than we harass people who intended no harm and/or overreact to everything that may or may not be a threat. But your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are still extremely slim even if you take into account that the UK has more terrorist attacks.

Even if there are a few terrorist attacks here and there, I believe anyone should be able to tell that this guy very likely intended no harm.

Again, this paranoia and ridiculous desire for safety is how the TSA successfully began in the US.

He should be very happy ...

[itsme1234]

...that they didn't shot him 7 times in the head:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Journalist Culpability.

[hilltaker7]

I find this to be more a comment on the media driven nature of government officials then on free speech. This is the story of a man's life ruined by government officials who did not have the common sense nor decency to tell the media that there is no story here and that they should bugger off. Instead these morons put a man on trial for his sense of humor. I have said similar things in the past with no intent of committing any actual act of violence. I have heard or read a great many such comments made (admittedly generally by young men). Any one of my friends could be up on charges right now if a journalist had decided to take interest due to a slow news day, and then applied pressure to get more information. So, who is more guilty; the journalist who ignored his public responsibility to find real news stories and used the power of the press inappropriately, or the officers who knew darn well that this man was not a threat to the public, but charged him anyways due to the pressure applied by bored journalists. You decide. The second to the last sentence is a horrible run-on, but an English major I will never be.

No it doesn't

[bradley13]

"European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory includes the right to free speech."

Article 9 states (bold is mine): "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Public order? Morals? That's a whole set up loopholes you could drive a fleet of trucks through.

Re:No it doesn't

[Mashiki]

Pretty much. The UK only has as much free speech as dictated to you by government. Much like Canada does under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms via S.1.

Re:No it doesn't

[nschubach]

You'll be fine if you just follow my morals.

Re:No it doesn't

[Hatta]

Not that it's any better in the US. They used the same damn excuses to break up OWS.

Re:No it doesn't

[Mashiki]

They're all over the place still, the difference is the average person doesn't care and for good reason. You can only take so many lynching, murdering, arsonists, attempted terrorists in one go.

Re:No it doesn't

[shutdown -p now]

Well, in Canada they at least have to explicitly state that they're violating any of those Charter Rights, and provide an explanation as to why this particular violation is necessary, and why it scope has to be no narrower than it is.

Re:No it doesn't

[rogerz]

This is ridiculous.

The only government action taken against OWS had to do with time, place, and manner restrictions on their _behavior_ (i.e. "occupying" public spaces). There have been zero restrictions on the content of anyone in that movement's speech (and I dare you to provide a cite that proves otherwise).

And, what is more, these time/place/manner restrictions on OWS "gatherings" were imposed with extreme laxness, as compared to such prohibitions implemented against virtually any other protest movement in US history. The Z-park encampment was allowed for at least two months; Philadelphia, 2.5 months; Boston at least 3 months; the list goes on. This is while health, safety and traffic regulations were routinely flouted (not to mention the rampant felony activity, including rape, assault, and theft).

The worst infringements of free speech rights in the U.S. remain as part of "campaign finance" law. The overturning of McCain-Feingold was a step in the right direction there, but there are still many unconscionable restrictions that are supported by both the D's and R's, since they amount to incumbency protection.

Insane

[bogie]

You should really read the full article. I know a whole 5 pages wahhh, but seriously it is well written and a very scary tale of someone being railroaded by the legal system. It was only through the charity of some celebrities and twitterers that he was able to appeal and get it overturned. Most of us would just be screwed and have to live with it. In the end he still had to go through losing his job and the ordeal of being a convicted criminal. Sad.

Whew!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing he didn't tweet that he was going to Legitimately rape anyone!

Britain is a Tyranny of the Politically Correct

[l0ungeb0y]

Great Britain to me has become a regime of politically correct tyranny and is not a country I will ever visit for any reason.
Which is sad, because I've always gotten along quite well with Brits, but their laws and they're willingness to abide by rule of hyper-sensitive sissy boys and have the government be their nanny is quite deplorable.

Lay down and be calm while your wife and children are raped and murdered -- the PC-person willnbevthere shortly.
Do not say anything that might ever hurt the feelings of someone or you'll go to jail
Smile for the camera! Can't have enough surveillance let's add a million more cameras!
Don't say or do anything that might run contrary to American law or American interest, you will be extradited even if your actions are perfectly legal here

Fuck britain

Re:Britain is a Tyranny of the Politically Correct

[admdrew]

Dang, that's a whole lotta vitriol. There are definitely worse places to visit in the world that are way more politically dangerous and have far fewer rights than the UK&I.

But hey, to each their own.

Ha! Ve have always told you zat

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

Ve have always told you zat ze Britisch have no humour! At all! Ha-Ha!

What about the US Marine held for Facebook post?

[witherstaff]

No one seems to have brought up Brandon Ruub. US Vet held for Facebook Post. He posted on facebook and was locked up. The scary part was the judge that gave the release found no grounds for the hold. Glad the US and UK are so in step with trying to lock people up.

Re:"Don't Talk To Police"

[TaoPhoenix]

Naw, it's all about the area you are in.

While that's a great internet meme video, in a lot of areas, it's actually better just to be a "little guy". It's when you get all fancy "upholding your rights" that you'll get in trouble, because so help you if you mess up one line of your "script" the grumpy officer will then go ballistic on you.

This is all made difficult because each town has about three "moods" depending on which set of officers is on shift, times the number of towns in an area. But I've done far better with "Yes Officer, my license is a week expired, but see, this is Route 28, I'm on my way to the DMV 20 miles up that way to go fix it. There's a new section on the form that asks for 'any license number you ever had in the last 10 years' that took me a week to figure out."

That's usually all it takes to get a Warning. If you get all fancy like "I don't have to talk to you", they get pissed, then they unload on you.