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

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?

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.

[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:Get a fact checker

[sir_eccles]

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

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

[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

[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]

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:Get a fact checker

[MickyTheIdiot]

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

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

[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

[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: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: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:Free speech?

[CanHasDIY]

Guy is a complete idiot.

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

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

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: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: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: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.

[MrDoh!]

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

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.