Slashdot Mirror
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."
If you say "I'm going to kill you if you do that again" should you go to jail?
Just because it is a bit buried in TFA.
European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory includes the right to free speech.
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.
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Art 11. Freedom of expression and information
Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution
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.
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.
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.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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..
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.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Guy is a complete idiot.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the people who took him seriously...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
Palm trees and 8
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.
Palm trees and 8
"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.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
What have you seen or heard about that would lead you to believe that?
Or "I'm going to kill you if you say 'I'm going to kill you if you do that again' again".
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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!
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.
John
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
It was obvious he shouldn't have limited his opinion to just the airport, but the whole of Doncaster.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine