UK Twitter Users Declare 'I'm Spartacus' 213
An anonymous reader writes "Tweeters have joined forces to support Paul Chambers, the man convicted and fined for a Twitter message threatening to blow up an airport. A so-called 'I'm Spartacus' campaign encouraging users to 're-tweet' his words has also become a huge hit. The hashtag #IAmSpartacus is currently the number one trending topic on Twitter in the UK, with #twitterjoketrial in second place. Chambers is believed to be the first person convicted in the UK for posting an offensive tweet. After the hearing, actor and Twitter fan Stephen Fry tweeted that he would pay Chambers' fine. Comedian Dara O'Briain tweeted that the verdict was 'ludicrous' while Peep Show actor David Mitchell said it was 'punishment for flippancy.'"
I suspect not as many people will re-tweet on behalf of Garreth Compton.
Re:Just goes to show (Score:5, Interesting)
The trial shows that our judiciary are a bit out of touch. And that our institutional sense of political correctness has gone a bit too far.
But expressing solidarity through protest, by repeating the same "crime" - admittedly with a very minor risk of prosecution? That nobility. That's the British spirit. There's a reason that the colloquial phrase for contravention of fair play is "not cricket". It isn't "not baseball", is it?
I view the whole sorry affair as the result of over-exposure to American culture, a culture of flying off the handle, an overinflated sense of entitlement, and above all, an almost complete lack of understanding of the concept of irony. We've lost our ability to cope with the ambiguity and the grey areas in life, instead taking the simpletons viewpoint that right and wrong are black and white, that there is a sharply defined line you must not cross. Deary me. Life is complicated. For those of us who can't cope without a truly rigid set of rules, might I suggest that you go back to kindergarten.
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe not twitter, but people have announced terror acts on the internet before, prior to doing it.
That got ignored to and behold, a school got slaughtered.
Not saying we should act on every little internet post, but there has to be a line somewhere of what you can post.
I have not read said "threat", but a threat to bomb an airport does sound like the kind of thing law enforcement should consider.
I think a slap on the wrist and maybe a small fine is in order.
Just to tell the public "think before posting".
Re:Just goes to show (Score:5, Interesting)
I view the whole sorry affair as the result of over-exposure to American culture,
Are you kidding me? People in the US look at most of the stuff that goes on in the UK... getting arrested for Tweets, getting arrested for flying certain flags, while guys in America get police protection to obscenely picket funerals. We know that this sort of thing would NEVER fly in America, not in spirit nor in the letter of the law. We've got the First Amendment for that.
a culture of flying off the handle, an overinflated sense of entitlement, and above all, an almost complete lack of understanding of the concept of irony.
Yeah, whatever.
Puts law enforcement in a difficult position (Score:5, Interesting)
It is more effective. The judge's ruling was based on the idea that an "ordinary person" would not recognize the joke, take it seriously, and be terrified. The point of this campaign is to demonstrate that that's nonsense.
Not only that, but the campaign potentially puts law enforcement in a quandary. They can either arrest, charge and convict hundreds of people (including several popular celebrities) for posting a line of trivial text that harms precisely nobody, or have Paul Chambers' lawyers demand that they explain why they are applying the law selectively and unfairly.
That's one of the biggest problems with taking speech crime this far: it becomes utterly trivial for an angry population to effectively DDOS the enforcement of it.
no win scenario (Score:3, Interesting)
Scenario 1.) Airport gets bombed and people are angry. "What?! He tweeted about it, why didn't anyone pay attention to him!?!"
Scenario 2.) Man is investigated, found innocent, taxes are raised to pay for it, and people are angry. "What?! Why was this investigated?! Waste of my money!"
Scenario 3.) Man is investigated, found innocent, individually fined to pay for it, and people are angry. "What?! His rights were violated! Defend the tweeter against The Man!!"
Re:Just goes to show (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you kidding me? People in the US look at most of the stuff that goes on in the UK... getting arrested for Tweets... We know that this sort of thing would NEVER fly in America, not in spirit nor in the letter of the law. We've got the First Amendment for that.
You can get six months in a federal jail for posting ridiculous threats posting on 4chan though. It seems to me that the main difference between the US and the UK is that you would get punished much more severely in the US.
Re:no win scenario (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you've missed out a few possible scenarios - how about this one:
Scenario 4) Police receive report of bomb threat on twitter, send a couple of local uniforms to chat with the guy, check his house isn't full of bomb equipment, and let him know his joke was in bad taste and freedom to say what you like in public comes with certain responsibilities. That's vastly different to what they did, and would not be a huge waste of money.
Instead they wasted lots of public money on a trivial event. I can see what they thought they were doing - public threats of death or terrorism are not acceptable even in an open society - but this was just a waste of everyone's time and money.
As to the councillor who made a tasteless joke about stoning (in response to another politician saying we had no right to comment on it, given Iraq), that's a more difficult issue as it is closer to a credible incitement/threat without context. This was obviously a joke.
Re:no win scenario (Score:2, Interesting)
And while the two cops are "investigating" the 'joke' they are not investigating real crime. Have that happen enough and there could be a real issue. How about another scenario.
Scenario 6) Man is investigated, found guilty, individually fined a reasonable amount. Case get publicized. Fewer 'jokes" that need to be investigated get Tweeted. Fewer policemen get sent on wild goose chases. More real crime get investigated.
Re:Just goes to show (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll admit that I was tired when I posted, but the points still stand. First, as for homosexuality, it is wrong, the same as stealing or any other sin, in the new testament as well as the old (Romans, etc). A homosexual man has every right to marry a woman the same as any other man does. Marriage is not about fulfilling sexual lusts. The question is why would somebody who doesn't care about the Bible want to get married. Why not just have a civil union rather than redefine marriage?
Your point does stand, though, that there's plenty of things that people do wrong that are just as damning since breaking one law breaks them all. The point of the law as a school master is to show people what righteousness is and that none of us are good and in need of salvation. Although we should strive to follow it, we are all worthy of death. The gospel is that even people who have done wrong can be forgiven, but that doesn't make the wrong right. Loving a sinner doesn't mean accepting their sin. How much love is it to lie to somebody?
If you will read that passage in Deut 22, you will find that the rape (lay hold on) is not excused, but that the remedy is that the man be forced to marry her. In fact, a few verses earlier in a case where a man raped (force) an engaged woman, the man would be put to death. Yes, I think that we would be better as a nation under the OT law, but since we aren't I don't think that we should legislate morality. I wouldn't support a law prohibiting homosexuals from sin, only I don't want to be legally required to recognise it.
The "bride of Christ" is the church (all born again believers) whether or not thy are married. Marriage is a picture of that divine union which is why it is so important to defend its sanctity.
I'm not aware of any scripture declaring that life begins with a breath. If you know of such, please share it as that would be important. I do know that there are penalties for harming a pregnant woman if harm come to the child.