UK High Court Judges Can't Agree On Twitter Joke Issue, Require Rehearing Of The Case
from the a-complete-farce dept
Remember Paul Chambers? He’s the UK accountant who was arrested for tweeting:
“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!!”
Overly serious law enforcement officials saw that as a terrorist threat. It’s worth noting that airport officials didn’t seem to think it was a serious threat, but understood that it was just a frustrated passenger venting. Still, the case went forward and he not only lost but then lost again on appeal. The case seems to get more farcical each level up the chain it goes. The latest is that, when the case got to the UK High Court, it was heard by two judges who couldn’t come to agreement, so the whole appeal needs to be reheard with a three judge panel. Why they didn’t do that the first time around is not explained.
Either way, it seems bizarre that tweeting an obvious joke should not only lead to convictions, but such a long and extended judicial process. Talk about creating chilling effects. The case has taken on lots of publicity in the UK, with a number of celebrities pledging support. The BBC article has a quote from Chambers’ supporter comedian Al Murray, who found the whole situation laughably ridiculous:
“Paul’s tweet has gone the full distance from joke to tragedy to farce via the High Court. We’ve all got our fingers crossed and will carry on fundraising.”
Filed Under: al murray, chilling effects, uk
Companies: uk
Comments on “UK High Court Judges Can't Agree On Twitter Joke Issue, Require Rehearing Of The Case”
Someone needs to introduce the /sarcasm tag to this guy.
There would be a lot less grief if he added /sarcasm at the end of his tweet.
Re: Re:
And with the original post at 129 characters, he’d easily have had room!
roses are red
violets are blue
talk badly about the king
we will arrest you.
Re: Re:
Blah Blah
Black Sheep
Have you anymore…………???
Thats all i got
I believe what the article is saying about the appeal is that the case was tried before a magistrate, appealed to a judge who upheld the magistrate’s decision, and will now go before a three judge panel of the High Court now that two judges who sit on that court have agreed that the appeal should be heard.
Re: Re:
I believe what the article is saying about the appeal is that the case was tried before a magistrate, appealed to a judge who upheld the magistrate’s decision, and will now go before a three judge panel of the High Court now that two judges who sit on that court have agreed that the appeal should be heard.
Not quite. There was an appeal to the High Court already, but a split decision, so it will be reheard by three judges.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/05/twitter-joke-trial-appeal-no-decision
http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2180598/split-decision-rehearing-twitter-joke-trial-appeal
Re: Re: Re:
The new cites fill in the blanks on how to interpret the original article.
Thnx.
Congratulations UK!
You have taken that dirty terrorist off the streets. He had the bomb, he had the chemicals…
Wait, he blew up his Twitter account with words?
He did nothing but vent frustration?
Well damn…
Re: Re:
People be crazy.
Sticks and Stones
will break your bones, once your words are misconstrued as hurtful
*I’m pretty sure thats how they want the saying to go
Next day in the Lancet:
“Saying Obviously Sarcastic Things on Twitter Considered Harmful”
Obviously not a threat, so then…… censorship…..?
Only censorship folks, censorhip by way of intimidation, why actively censor when you can make an example,
Watch what you say folks, choose your views, topics, and words, wisely, dont want the censorship parade, censoring your censorhip
could it be?
“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!!”
mebee he’s one of them thar Homer Sexuals or sumthin..
(Sorry I moved to Texas a few years ago)
It’s only logical to take this as a possible threat, you never know if he’s unstable enough to actually do it if you don’t look into it more than that lone tweet.
Re: Re:
That said i don’t know if they looked into his mental history, so the case may well be a farce.
Re: Re:
If Mr Chambers is an aspiring terrorist then might I suggest that, as a general rule, airports that are actually open should offer better targets for being blown sky high than ones that are closed.
Re: Re:
Yes, it is logical to take it as a “possible” threat. It’s also logical to spend about 30 seconds investigating it and then going back to more important things.
Re: Re:
This isn’t about being a possible threat. The guy was already determined not to be a threat. His post was determined to have been joking or sarcastic. Now it is being debated whether to punish him ANYWAY.
Re: Re:
Do you work in local government? If not, you should apply for a position as you’d make a splendid jobsworth.
Doesn’t sound like a joke to me, and it’s definitely “of menacing character.” Why isn’t the appeal thrown out?
Re: Re:
first thing let’s do, is kill all the Toms…
dog damn ! i hates me all things Anderson ! ! !
if only we could rid ourselves of all the people with initials TA, *then* we’d be safe…
and -of course- i’m weally, weally serious, as you can *obviously* tell, ’cause you are unlike all the other nekkid apes on the planet who are not so sure…
*snicker*
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
so who was the prick that actually started the whole arrest and court procedure? surely, he/she is the one that needs to be prosecuted for wasting court time and costing a fortune? the UK is getting more like the US every day as far as ridiculous happenings, particularly court-wise, is concerned. is Obama working Cameron or what?
Re: Backbone
Correct. This is s standard case of bureaucratic incompetence, using one of the standard tools of incompetent bureaucrats, imaginary threats. That gives them a nice diversion so they do not have to be bothered doing their real jobs.
Alert politicians should be able to recognise this pattern easily and sack the perps promptly. That is why politicians are given power over bureaucrats. Alas, there is usually not the political will. When there is political will, it is just wonderful, malfunctioning bureaucrats lose their jobs straight away and it has a most salutary effect on the other bureaucrats. Unfortunately, the whole thing can then blow up as the opposition tries to make political capital over it. Hence the timidity of politicians. They should grow a backbone.
Re: Re: Backbone
“the whole thing can then b*** up”
You used the B-word. Oh wow, are you in a whole world of hurt now.
If it wasn’t a joke before, it is now.
Don’t say bomb in an airport. If you say bomb in an airport, you’re going to have a bad time.
That’s basically what this comes down to.
Re: Re:
If you say bomb in an airport you’ll have a bad time, then they’ll let you go.
This is them not letting go.
Had this been in the US...
Had this been in the US, the FBI would have shown up at his doorstep will all of the materials required – and then arrest him.
Quoted tweet wrong
Like both the BBC and Grauniad in their original reports you have the tweet wrong. By missing words out the tweet appears more threatening; the complete tweet is *obviously* hyperbolic frustration.
I imagine Mr. Chambers is wishing he had a 1st Amendment right about now. It’s these wonderful moments I think of when someone tells me the Supreme Court should consider other countries’ laws.
He talked about blowing up an airport! He is obviously a terrorist. I’d say – just shoot the bastard!
/uhm, that was a joke. a joke, hear me? /sarcasm /joke
Wait, that was a JOKE I swear! Don’t extradite me to the UK! Please!