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.
Why Spartacus? (Score:4, Informative)
For those wondering, from TFA:
The I'm Spartacus campaign is inspired by the famous scene in the 1960s blockbuster, when slaves stood up one by one to claim "I'm Spartacus" in order to save their fellow gladiator from detection.
Eheh (Score:5, Insightful)
And in the NEXT shot it shows each and everyone of them killed... somehow people always forget this.
Also, is it just me or is there a difference between a man who fought against slavery and a man who made a bomb treath for no reason?
Re:Eheh (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fairly sure that the whole point at issue is that it was clearly absurd and therefore not a bomb threat.
I did a back-of-the envelope calculation last night:
Knowing that the runway is 2.88km long and 60m wide,
assuming that it's 0.5m deep, and has a density about equal to that of concrete,
and assuming 'sky-high' means the cruising altitude of a 747.
You would need the energy equivalaent of nearly 5000 tons of TNT just to overcome gravity in blowing just the runway 'sky-high'.
I doubt even the armed forces could pull that much explosive together in a week, let alone place it under an airport.
In conclusion, the 'threat' is absurd, and therefore isn't actually a threat. Or do we only read it literally and out of context when it's to the advantage of the prosecution?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Or do we only read it literally and out of context when it's to the advantage of the [government]?
Fixed that for you. This is about leaders wanting control over the commoners..... no different than how it was in 1500. Different society of course but still the same root motivation - tyranny.
----- BTW a bomb threat in the US is not a crime. It's protected speech. However if your basement is filled with explosive material, then yes you'd be in jail. Since this Twitter Guy did not have a basem
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Or do we only read it literally and out of context when it's to the advantage of the [government]?
Fixed that for you. This is about leaders wanting control over the commoners..... no different than how it was in 1500. Different society of course but still the same root motivation - tyranny.
It isn't just leaders, it is anyone who wants to "win" an argument, and doesn't care how they do it. Or is lacking logic and reasoning skills, and doesn't realise what they are doing.
We see similar quite frequently on /.: someone will make a statement, and then someone will seemingly take the statement totally out of context. Which is very likely to distract others from the point initially being made, or make the original statement seem incorrect.
It happens in the media very frequently, and even more so in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, is it just me or is there a difference between a man who fought against slavery and a man who made a bomb treath for no reason?
Who made a bomb threat? There's no indication that the tweeter intended his words be treated as a bomb threat, but was just mouthing off to his readers. As for a reason [bbc.co.uk],
Paul Chambers, 26, said he acted in frustration after Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire was closed by snow.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Paul Chambers, 26, said he acted in frustration after Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire was closed by snow.
Unbelievable. He's not a criminal - just a person who was angry. But of course this isn't about Mr.Chambers or protection of other citizens. This is about *setting an example* to demonstrate by the leaders to the commoners that free speech will not be tolerated. They are training us to be sheep! To be submissive and silent and well-behaved "or else you could end up like Paul Chambe
Re: (Score:2)
So you shouldn't stand with someone if you think all of you will be punished?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is rather the point, is it not? If what Chambers did was wrong, then all the re-tweeters should be punished. Somehow I think that might just show up the stupidity of the original prosecution - which was not a bomb threat. It was a stupid joke. A stern talking-to would be one thing: bending the machinery of the state over it is just wrong.
You need to explain that nowadays? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean... I'd somehow understand if it was "I'm Jack the Ripper". But Spartacus?
What would have happened had they referred to... say... "A Tale of Two Cities"? Or "Les Misérables"?
Would The Internet collapse or just the Twitter?
Re: (Score:2)
Get off my lawn. And turn that music down.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Brian, and so's my wife.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, the good old days: when memes came from well-produced blockbuster films, not some annoying teenager with a webcam.
- RG>
The British Way... (Score:2)
It is usually more effective too.
Re:The British Way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Crown Prosecution Service might get the hint that it was "not in the public interest" in the first place, and come to that correct conclusion in the future. That at least would be progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that your post, justifying the action against Chambers, is an attempt to draw attention away from your plan to crash planes by sneaking cheese in to the sandwiches of lactose intolerant airline pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Timothy makes an excellent point about who we . Here's what Mr. Chambers originally said:
"Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"
Here's what Mr. Compton said:
"Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."
Neither one has the ring of a joke, neither one is in good taste, but the former is defended while the latter is fodder for criticism.
What it sounds like is what you have done: misrepresented one quote so as to be able to make them equal.
Mr. Chamber's quote is longer than what you said, and so has more to it.
The point is though, seeing as you have missed it by choice, is that the airport gag was one guy claiming to want to do something that is clearly very difficult, if not impossible, for an individual to do. The second is someone who has not insignificant amounts of power in society requesting that a journalist is stoned (and not in the
Re: (Score:2)
Really, I think it's fairly clear to anyone not in the habit of jumping at the sight of their own shadow that neither of the statements in question were anything more than expressions of frustration. Some might find the expressions to be in bad taste, but that's not supposed to be a criminal offense.
Re: (Score:2)
"Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"
If a complete stranger (and Paul Chambers is a complete stranger for 99.999% of the world) posted the bomb threat on Twitter and you were inside the airport you would probably want to know whether it's a real threat.
Only if it was posted a week ago. Otherwise, SEP field is in full effect.
Re: (Score:2)
? EVERY indication it was a joke. NOBODY involved thought for a moment that it was a real threat.
Posted on what amounts to a popular public forum
"Published" in a message intended for his girlfriend only.
That's not even considering the possibility that Paul really was setting up a secret plot to bomb the airport
Yeah, announcing his "secret plot" on Twitter... You had me going there. Until that line I thought you really were a moron, but that went over the top.
Idiots (Score:2)
Those same idiots will scream even louder when someone really does blow up something and the cops ignored it because of these protests.
Actually, I don't think cops are that dumb... But if they were, that's how it would go.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
think before reacting would be better advice. Applies to both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Probably something that should have been handled by a chat with Chambers, but then the police are going to be pretty busy if they follow-up on such things.
After traveling through Heathrow Terminal 5 I made similar comments, but said that I planned to first buy the terminal. Presumably that'd be okay, since by that point I'd be blowing up my own personal property.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"
It's obvious that it isn't a threat, it's obviously said by an angry person over missing his flight and I honestly am totally stunned by how this thing blew out of proportions.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK? Not twitter, but phone - yes.
The IRA usually warned the police that they are going to blow up something to avoid collateral damage casualties.
If those bombs were happening today I would not be suprised if they were tweeted instead of phoned-in.
IRA however is a strange exemption to the overall "rules" of terrorism. Most of today's terrorists would go for the opposite - to kill as many bystanders as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
So do terrorists generally issue bomb warnings over Twitter?
No, but in the good old days the American funded terrorists from Ireland used to phone up newspapers/samaritans/etc to warn of bombs before they blew kids to bits. They occasionally got the location right too.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a phone call once (at work, at an organisation that does receive these sort of things) from someone who gave me a codeword, but that was it.
Don't be so sure... (Score:4, Informative)
Most Mancunians I've spoken to say it was the best thing to happen to their city center.
Re:Don't be so sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
Note the important part ; the IRA rang the local TV studio, giving a warning and codeword.
IRA codewords were typically established by issuing a prior warning for an act of terrorism in conjunction with the codeword. The same word could then be used to claim responsibility for other acts, either before or after they occurred (although "before" obviously generates more credence).
If it was the modern era, I'd probably sign my communiques using a public key known to be associated with terrorist acts ; much more secure.
All said and done, they probably wouldn't use Twitter, even if GCHQ has a 250,000 strong server farm scraping it, along with all the other social networks. They'd probably send their communiques straight to people that they know can disseminate the information rapidly. But they do announce their atrocities in advance, because it's the only sure way that they will be getting credit for it.
Re: (Score:2)
But they do announce their atrocities in advance, because it's the only sure way that they will be getting credit for it.
The primary reason was PR. Killing innocent folk did not achieve their goals. The Omagh bombing was a notable disaster for the IRA. They could not get a parking spot by the planned target then gave multiple confused warnings. The police then unwittingly ushered people towards the bomb. The resulting atrocity was a major factor in the success of the Peace Process.
Not the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Those same idiots will scream even louder when someone really does blow up something and the cops ignored it because of these protests.
That's not the issue. The complaint is not that the police investigated the tweet; this might well be argued to fall under due diligence. The complaint is that they investigated it, discovered it to be totally harmless, and still brought the full force of the law to bear on the tweeter simply for the hell of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. This is the kind of thing that should have been settled with a chat, or even ignored. The context of the message strongly suggests a frustrated traveler - not some nutter who'll be running a van full of fertiliser through the airport terminal.
Crap! (Score:2)
Such kind of failed appeals makes me want to bom.... %$!%$$*&! CARRIER LOST.
How quaint... (Score:2, Troll)
1943 called.
The Nazis want their laws back.
Re: (Score:2)
As it was pointed out to mindless "rule" followers already, Godwin's quaint bit of social engineering is not only a product of a bygone era when there were no such things as TSA, Homeland Security Department, TARP and the like and when some last vestiges of personal liberties still remained, but also using it today is a mere attempt to squash obvious and valid comparisons to the wide-spread at-the-time in Germany Nazi tactics being outright recycled by today's supposedly "democratic" governments.
So it is y
Seriously though... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Brian, and so's my wife!
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm Spartacus.
Guide to right to free speech in the UK (Score:5, Informative)
The Human Rights Act 1998 [statutelaw.gov.uk] guarantees freedom of expression in article 10.1:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
... and then takes away the protection on the contentious speech that might actually need protecting in 10.2:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Re: (Score:2)
"Territorial integrity"? Does that mean it's illegal for people to protest about getting Scotland's independence while they're in London?
I think the Brits should try adopting something a little easier to remember. Something like "The Parliament shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." We've got a similar sort of thing in the US, and it seems to be doing well.
Re: (Score:2)
Except our lawmakers and courts simply make up the second bit about what doesn't constitute free speech as they go.
Re: (Score:2)
"Territorial integrity"? Does that mean it's illegal for people to protest about getting Scotland's independence while they're in London?
Nope, it means that if you shout too strongly near the white cliffs and a pebble falls off, you get beheaded.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, more mess. Since we won't get a definitive answer (that anyone will believe) as to whether the get-out clause applies until it gets to Strasbourg, all the human rights act does is put 5 or 6 layers of British courts between this chap and that definitive answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that Paul Chambers gets arrested and fined while Abu Hamza gets to say whatever he likes and gets a passport.
In fact Hamza was prosecuted and jailed for three charges of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" and has had a British passport since 1983.
Hamza is undoubtedly an arsehole, but any insinuation that he's been treated softly is wide of the mark.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically true but missing the point that the ECHR was mostly drafted by British lawyers at the instigation of Churchill post-WWII in a never-again spirit. The get outs provided were a quite careful balancing of rights.
Well, of course... (Score:2)
Everyone knows that the first place you look for hints of where terrorists will strike is TWITTER!
Re: (Score:2)
i thought the best place would be facebomb
"I actually feel scared now" (Score:2)
http://i.imgur.com/uPovx.jpg [imgur.com]
So, why did he do it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gosh I am paranoid but somehow I just always keep looking for what is MISSING from a story. So why the bomb threat? Which is by the way illegal. Why did he threathen people who had no way of knowing whether he was serious or not?
Some of the highschool shootings had the criminals making claims they would do something as well. So clearly the police now HAS to act when someone makes a public threath.
Yet many a slashdotter is saying that terrorists wouldn't use twitter to announce it? How small minded, only terrorists use bombs now? Only terrorists carry out attacks? Plenty of nutters do as well AND some of them make announcements about it. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_17_112/ai_n27436671/ [findarticles.com]
If only then people had listened. How is the police to know if someone is just spouting off or making a serious threat? Damned if they do nothing, damned if they do something.
But the law is very clear, you are not allowed to make threats, no not even as a joke. Just try this at an airport "he got a bomb" and see what happens. But I wasn't serious? Tell that to the police dog chewing on your crotch.
Should the police have ignored the threat, like they ignored others that did turn out to be right? Or just put a fullscale alert on the airport just in case and let the taxpayer pay for it?
This story is just more evidence of the sad state of our voting population who just doesn't seem to be aware of the real world and its rules. If you do not like them vote to change them but don't go into some kind of hissy fit when long established laws end up biting you in the ass.
It reminds me of a story years ago when the british press went into sob story mode about a mum whose driving license was taking away and she needed it so badly... yeah... those anti-drunk driving laws sure do suck don't they. Guess what, freedom of speech does not exist in the UK, stop being suprised by it constantly and either change the law (and invite anarchy) or learn to accept that bomb threats are not allowed.
Real story: Asshole who wanted to show off got send to jail for breaking the law. Fellow assholes outraged that breaking the law is not allowed!
Really, this guy wasn't making a political statement, this was just someone wanting to scare others because his penis is to small. And before you get all outraged, answer me this. WHY did he send this message out into the world? When THAT reason gets reported I think his public sympathy outside wanker land will be lost instantly.
Re:So, why did he do it? (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't send this to the world. He sent this to his Twitter followers, who are not stupid enough to think that a hyperbolic joke is actually a real threat . It just happened to be visible to other people if they took the time to look for it. Maybe if you read the details you might realise that the airport saw it, and deemed it not a threat. The police investigated and recognised that this was not a threat. The CPS and the Judges, however, threw the book at him and prosecuted under an antique law that should not even apply.
This tweet was clearly not a real threat, and anyone with half a brain can recognise that, apart from judges. And you.
Re: (Score:2)
prosecuted under an antique law that should not even apply.
A 2003 law is hardly antique. It probably should apply. I just don't think his statement transgressed it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Communications Act 2003 contained parts of a 1930s law aimed at stopping obscene phone calls made to telephone operators. Definitely not aimed at bomb threats, jokes, or any medium other than 1 to 1 telephone calls.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's unreasonable to update an old communications decency law to include new communications mechanisms, or to provide protection to people from excessive harassment.
I think it's not inappropriate to consider whether the law applies to the statement made. Approximately 8 tenths of a second later the policeman involved can focus his efforts on real crimes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The same law also makes it a criminal offence to lie on the internet or over the phone in order to wind someone up, or to be indecent or obscene. I guess all those sex phone lines are illegal. And any crude comments on facebook or twitter.
I'm not making this up, read it for yourself here.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 [legislation.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Who pays for the airport to determine if it is a threat? Who pays for the police to investigate and determine if it is a threat? The taxpayers of the UK. If you utter what could be a threat that costs money to verify that it is not a threat then you deserve to be fined for doing it. Paul Chambers caused the police to waste time and money investigating his stupidity instead of doing productive work.
As another poster stated, would you want to be the security official who ignored the tweet if the airport had b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Airport security did see the tweet, (via a random search by an off duty staff member.) and rated it as "No credible threat"
Re: (Score:2)
In normal circumstances only those followers would see it. For anyone else to see it, they would have to search twitter for some part of it. (Such as the name "Robin Hood Airport" on this occasion.)
As for knowing the difference from your example, the message in questions has many markers of a joke, and if you can't see them then you probably need to have more actual conversations with real people.
Re: (Score:2)
Just try this at an airport "he got a bomb" and see what happens.
This incitement to mass terrorism is much worse than what Chambers wrote. Since you feel so strongly about the law, you should turn yourself in and serve a decade or two in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a joke. Everybody but you and the judge knows it is a joke. And you are both retarded. It would be a pretty prima donna terrorist that would say "I will blow up the airport, but only if my flight is delayed or cancelled this weekend". The district judge Jonathan Bennett has obviously poorly qualified counselors advising him as he really messed things up on this one.
Phillip.
uh (Score:3, Funny)
uh, HE's Spartacus. I'm not. I'm Biggus Dickus.
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: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: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uniforms spend a lot of their time investigating this sort of unimportant crime, it comes with the territory. Personally I'm happy with the tradeoff in time/expense if they simply talk to people like this (after all they may really be a nutcase, in which case it was worth investigating), but not happy with them spending public money taking him before a magistrate when it was simply a tasteless joke. It does seem very unlikely to be a real threat.
I sincerely doubt prosecuting him has made others do anything
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.
FYI (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, see, now I know why he got in trouble. That's not nearly dry enough to pass for British humor. They're just trying to preserve their heritage!
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.
Re:Just goes to show (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sure, you can threaten to kill thousands or ordinary folk, as long as it's not a threat against some politician, which would be covered under section 871 of US code title 18: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html [cornell.edu]
For example, Adam Albrett, who pleaded insanity to get away with it:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Fairfax-man-accused-of-threatening-Obama-pleads-insanity-1008023-100164259.html [washingtonexaminer.com]
I'm not saying UK law isn't stupid, but the US isn't as great as you might think.
Re: (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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with MoonBuggy, "Our system is slightly less broken that yours" is not a bragging right. Both nations can be justifiably proud a system that has had excellent human rights and freedom of speech, both of which have been eroded by the past couple of governments. The time is now to correct the downwards trend.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:2)
I know the GP started it, but this isn't the time for nationalism - things are going to shit on both sides of the Atlantic, and trying to argue that one side is doing better or worse is not productive; they're bad in different ways.
To paraphrase your post "People in the UK look at stuff that goes on in the US... teens being charged as sex offenders for taking pictures of themselves, or strip searched at school for carrying a headache pill...".
In my experience, Britain is more susceptible to allowing 'big brother' style intrusions from the government, while the US is more likely to get caught up in moral panics. Not to say that either country is immune to either problem, of course.
America looks at some of Britain's free speech violations and shakes their head at how the likes of this could never happen with the constitution for protection, while Britain looks back at America and wonders how much more power the fire-and-brimstone Christian minority can seize.
Yeah I'm tempted to draw the same conclusions. But, even if we were make the dubious assumption that media reporting is generally excellent, bear in mind it is logical that there be an inverse relationship between reporting and the actual general position. By nature media reports on things that are unusual or exceptional, so if it was common for UK teenagers to be charged for sexting it'd rarely be covered, while US media might prominently report every one of the very rare instances of it happening there.
T
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For a moment, I had started to write to defend American culture, but then a quick moment of thought revealed that you are correct. That wasn't the way in my grandparents' time (from what I hear), but it certainly is the case these day. In the U.S. we live in a culture of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. On top of that we have a political system where common sense takes a back seat to party squables and a media that looks only for the sensational. That's why political ads here focus on the negative: peo
Re:Just goes to show (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the laws against gay marriage which contravene the equal rights guaranteed by the constitution?
The 'Old Testament' thumper shines through. After all, Jesus never said anything about homosexuals. Leviticus certainly did. Give me 5 minutes to go through your daily habits and I'll show you at least one case for you to be killed by your fellow YHWH worshipers.
Would you also like to go back to the old standard of Deuteronomy 22? You know, the part where raping a virgin is an acceptable precursor to marrying her?
And the "baby killing", that would refer to abortion of a fetus right?
Exodus 21:22 says that a man who causes a miscarriage should receive a fine. That's it.
In Genesis life comes with the first *breath*. So where has it been made legal to kill kids by a judge?
In your sig, why didn't you include "Though shalt not seethe a kid in it's mothers milk"? Is some of the 'Word of God' not up to your standards? Seems like the love thy neighbor stuff that you *did* include went out the window with your griping about homosexual marriage.
Do YOU happen to have a ring on your finger from a Christian wedding ceremony? As that would make you a "bride of Christ", whatever genitalia you might have.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They've "prettied" it up with successive versions.
The KJV:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
The "new" KJV:
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay a
Re: (Score:2)
I guess someone doesn't realize just what sort of despicable garbage we in the U.S. have to defend (as someone mentioned earlier, protesting funerals) just so garbage like what is happening to this guy doesn't happen here (not saying our judicial system is perfect, far from it), but with Free Speech protections, it's a lot harder for the prosecution to win.
Re: (Score:2)
parenthesis fail.
Re: (Score:2)
parenthesis fail.
Man, now I badly want my compilers to say that when I mess up the syntax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
That is not unique to the British. Apparently you've never heard of the Boston tea party, the American revolution, the American feminist movement, the Hippy movement, the Vietnam war deserters, and illegal file sharing.
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.
Sure thing. I view your whole post as a pompous diatribe of bull shit. You have an obvious superiority complex, and its completely unfounded in reality. In America, you could do exactly what this guy did and no one can do anything to you. Its called freedom of speech, and its guaranteed our
Think about it... (Score:2)
That is not unique to the British. Apparently you've never heard of the Boston tea party, the American revolution...
Actually, if you think about it, you are agreeing with the OP. The Boston Tea Party and American Revolution involved British citizens rebelling against the British government which is pretty much what is happening here. It was only after you were successful that you became non-British.
Re: (Score:2)
The Americans were British during the first two - just sayin... Feminist movement, deserters yeah you could be proud of that, but illegal file sharing? phew..
American's were not entirely British. There were Germans, Dutch, French, Mexican, ect. The portion that rebelled was a British Colony, but the people many times where fairly removed from their British roots and they rebelled because they didn't want British rule. For example, half my ancestry stretches back pre-Revolution and is composed of Scottish and French. Doesn't matter if illegal file sharing is right or not, its still done in protest of paying for media and of copyright law.
And it is confined to him and not you in any way, clearly..
It is confined to him. I
Re:Crazy (Score:5, Funny)
(Apologies if you're not British - however your attitude certainly is )
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you up, but I've posted elsewhere in this discussion. Might as well do what I can and make your comment [slashdot.org] appear at 2 (whereas if I +modded it, you'd only get one point).
Words have meaning. Threats have consequences.
Chambers and his supporters seem to live in a fantasy world and do not understand this.
Oh please, get off your damn high horse..
Cluestick no.1
Here am I, basement dweller that I am, in possession of a device, lovingly hand-crafted and constructed entirely out of Lego(tm), Meccano(tm) assorted bits of old stereos and computers, a bit of a TV set, and the crucial bottle of Encona(tm) Hot Pepper Sauce, said device being capable of destroying the universe at the press of a button. I intend to press this button the morrow, at 11:22ish GMT.
This is a threat, not just a bloody airport going kablooey!, but complete universal destruction!
(Paint me green and call me Gazoo.)
Cluestick no.2
I'm a PO'd 'radicalised' Muslim with a van, assorted full gas cylinders (Acetylene, Butane etc) several gallons of petrol and a home-made suicide belt, I'm going to drive to some public 'celebration' of the return of the 'heroes' who have been murdering my Muslim brothers, and blow them all to fuck, dead Infidels, instant Paradise+virgins for me, what's not to like?.
Of course, I'll be tweeting this, putting it on Facebook (changing my status to Shahid), maybe taking an ad out in the local papers..my arse I will. If they're lucky, the
Stasi, sorry, security services, will be looking in my direction at the right time and maybe they'll catch me If I'm bloody stupid enough to communicate the fact I'm going to do this.
See, difference between idiot venting off and credible threat..
Words indeed have meaning, contemplate both the words arsehole and pompous, rearrange them into a meaningful phrase, achieve Satori..
We are *all* currently living in the 'fantasy world' that our masters have created for us, the current bogey being used to justify anything 'they' want to do being Islamic terrorists, prior bogeys being The Soviets/The West(depending on which side you controlled your country), Irish [terrorists(UK)|Freedomfighters(USA)] etc etc.
Remind me again, what was it? WMD in Iraq?, OBL in Afghanistan?, Anarchists in Whitechapel?(sorry, wrong century).
Tricksy things words, when our masters use them to lie to us, use them to justify the deaths of civilians and soldiers, ('casualties of war' - wonderful phrase, covers a multitude of sins) all is fine and well, (hell, one of the main criminals involved gets to change his religion to one where he thinks he gets a 'get out of hell free' card if he says enough 'Our fathers and Hail bloody Mary's' ). We plebs, when we use the 'wrong' words to vent spleen, fuck me, we're arrested charged and convicted.
If you aren't trolling, and can't/refuse to spot why this prosecution is flawed, then all I can say is, nothing, actually, as you'd ignore it as it doesn't accord with the world view you've been fed and seem happy with.
I'm AC'ing this as I've no wish to be banished to a painfully unfunny 60's cartoon reality as a minor comic relief character for being in the possession of a doomsday machine and threatening to use it..I've stated above, in words, I'm Gazoo, on teh internets, so it must be true (seeing as words have meaning and all that).
That and the fact that I think I saw one of your damn Predator thingies flying overhead t'other day, fuck the black helicopters...