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."

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: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 [eucharter.org]

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.

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: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.