Twitter Jokes: Free Speech On Trial 172
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. (Score:5, Informative)
Just because it is a bit buried in TFA.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't see the issue. Then again, I don't even know how to pronounce a word like "Youâ(TM)ve". Is that like "ewe-eh-TMM-vvv" or "ewe-ah-TMM-vvv"?
Also "Iâ(TM)m". Is that "eye-eh-TMM-mmm" or "eye-ah-TMM-mmm"?
Re: (Score:3)
>>>Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise Iâ(TM)m blowing the airport sky high!!
I'm tempted to post that on my Twitter and Facebook just to see what happens. Maybe like the marine from two weeks ago, I'll find the FBI or DHS dragging me off and jailing me for several days w/o charges. (And then have a judge scold them for being stupid.)
Re: (Score:3)
Also want to add: "Don't Talk to Police" in response to this part of the article. Opening your mouth is a great way to say the wrong thing & give police enough evidence to charge you. You have the right to remain silent. So become a mute.
The Ron Paul volunteer who was detained by the TSA handled it well (though not perfectly). Every time they asked where he got the $4000 in cash, he refused to answer. He didn't want the police to know the dollars were donations, since Missouri had decided to start
Re:"Don't Talk To Police" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had a twitter account, I'd be tempted to post that and then urge everyone else to do the same. It should be a new meme. Perhaps being the butt of a worldwide joke for a while will generate sufficient shame to convince those responsible to be a bit more careful with prosecuting nonsense in the future.
Re:The comment in question. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Free speech has always been partial (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
No it isn't partial. The Supreme Court has ruled that decision again-and-again, including one case where a 70s-era black civil rights protestor said, "I will kill you." The justices ruled that all speech is protected, including speech uttered during the heat of protest. The black man was freed.
And yes you can be sued for libel/slander, but that is a case between two citizens. Or a citizen and a business. The government is not involved. They have not made it illegal to slander/libel (though you might h
Re:Free speech has always been partial (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show me where it says "freedom of expression" in the First Amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
Bradley Manning didn't wear a T-shirt that said 'Send our Troops Home', he published confidential information and violated probably a dozen rules regulations and contracts between himself and the US Military. That's a pretty bad analogy, maybe you should try something involving cars or pizza.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get GP's point.
It's not about this particular case. It's about whether free speech is an absolute freedom - i.e. it means that absolutely anything and everything can be freely spoken - or whether there are reasonable limits. Historically, all countries have had such limits. In US, libel and slander laws have existed since the founding of the country, and were put in place by many of the same people who wrote the First Amendment, so clearly by "freedom of speech" they didn't mean just any kind of s
Re: (Score:2)
All sorts of things that are speech are not legal, and if you...have a youtube channel that promotes terrorism,
As opposed to a Youtube channel that supports military actions by the right government, in which case you are fine.
This is what happens when we compromise on fundamental rights...
Re:Free speech has always been partial (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
It bears mentioning that the "shouting fire in crowded theater" test was used from it's very utterance to convict a man for distributing leaflets opposing the WW1 draft [wikipedia.org], in my mind precisely what freedom of speech is meant to protect. As such, laws to lessen the potential to inflict harm via speech must be directly weighed against the potential of the law to suppress unfavorable speech, as both of these are of core importance.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is within its right to pass laws criminalizing such speech.
No, they are not. They are within their right to pass laws criminalizing such attempts at causing harm.. The freedom of the person to speak their mind is absolute but if they do so with intent to cause harm, they can be found liable for the harm they caused, not the words they spoke.
It is not illegal to scream "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. It is illegal to start a panic by falsely screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Re: (Score:2)
not an impossible-to-violate core component of society.
And this is where you types consistantly miss the point and obviously don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to have to classify "my type" a little more clearly. What exactly do you think makes free speech literally impossible to violate?
Re: (Score:2)
Real criminals are dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pass the buck (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
So at what point should it have stopped? Who is best qualified to assess threat from a random internet posting? In my opinion, it was reasonable for the airport staff to alert the police. The police should have investigated, and most likely should have determined there was no threat before interviewing the author. However, in the worst case the interview should have cleared up any question of motive.
Re:Pass the buck (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody SHOULD want to be the goof that totally screwed up an innocent man's life either. I'll bet if those responsible had to send him their paychecks until he got back on his feet they would suddenly become quite willing to exercise a bit of judgement.
The best approach might have been to just forget they saw the tweet at all.
Re: (Score:2)
However, in the worst case the interview should have cleared up any question of motive.
That's the bad part: it did.
"But if things weren’t quite clear to the detectives at the start, they certainly were by the time they wrote up the case file. It 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 they didn't want to appear to be soft on terrorism or whatever and so rather than make the judgement they knew to be correct they threw an innocent man into the legal system. Gutless.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
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.
The saddest part of the story is that some idiot thought it would be funny to joke about blowing up an airport. That is really it in a nutshell. If he had come
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the tweet in question, yes. I absolutely would completely discount the possibility that it was a real threat and go on working. For one, he did gicve them a WEEK and a bit to get opened again.
Re: (Score:2)
In the future i would think that access to 1 Lorries 2 a couple hundred kilos of explosives 3 blasting caps 4 the other random widgets should be required to make this a Plausible Threat.
I mean come on its not like this is a Known Northern Irishman and actually COULD do anything to the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
BOO!
I am now picturing you madly seeking a fresh pair of underwear :-)
NO, there is absolutely no call for craven cowardice anywhere, ever. You do NOT have to treat every joke as being serious. You do NOT have to screw someone's life up because you are a coward that some fool granted authority to.
The fact that he DID publish it on the internet using his real name actually suggests that he was NOT serious.
:I am deeply afraid that your panic reactions to basically anything and everything might harm someone. We
Re: (Score:2)
If you keep posting idiotic comments on Slashdot, you'll make me mad enough that I'll rig up your computer to explode in your face. You've been warned.
Re:Pass the buck (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Don't do that (Score:2)
He should be very happy ... (Score:2)
...that they didn't shot him 7 times in the head:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes [wikipedia.org]
Insane (Score:2)
You should really read the full article. I know a whole 5 pages wahhh, but seriously it is well written and a very scary tale of someone being railroaded by the legal system. It was only through the charity of some celebrities and twitterers that he was able to appeal and get it overturned. Most of us would just be screwed and have to live with it. In the end he still had to go through losing his job and the ordeal of being a convicted criminal. Sad.
Britain is a Tyranny of the Politically Correct (Score:2)
Great Britain to me has become a regime of politically correct tyranny and is not a country I will ever visit for any reason.
Which is sad, because I've always gotten along quite well with Brits, but their laws and they're willingness to abide by rule of hyper-sensitive sissy boys and have the government be their nanny is quite deplorable.
Lay down and be calm while your wife and children are raped and murdered -- the PC-person willnbevthere shortly.
Do not say anything that might ever hurt the feelings of som
Re: (Score:2)
Dang, that's a whole lotta vitriol. There are definitely worse places to visit in the world that are way more politically dangerous and have far fewer rights than the UK&I.
But hey, to each their own.
Ha! Ve have always told you zat (Score:2)
Re:Fire in a movie theater. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you say "I'm going to kill you if you do that again" should you go to jail?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
As with all crimes, one of the issues in finding guilt AND in sentencing is intent. While uttering threats should be illegal, whether or not a charge is even brought or the extent of the penalty if found guilty is dependent on the context and intent.
Re:Fire in a movie theater. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Or "I'm going to kill you if you say 'I'm going to kill you if you do that again' again".
Re: (Score:2)
What always annoys me about this example is that it ignores the possibility of there actually being a fire. Or the perception of a fire. Or something misheard as "fire". Sure, prosecute the liar, but what about good-faith attempts to save lives?
Re:Fire in a movie theater. (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
The main worry then is who gets to determine what constitutes "intent to cause harm" -- the original case [wikipedia.org] was about handing out an anti-draft flier during World War I. Speaking out against government war policy was an intent to cause harm (to the government's policies). It was later overturned, but still a good cautionary tale regarding censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that people who keep referring to that example keep forgetting is the original context in which it was used. To remind, this was Schenck v. United States [wikipedia.org], a Supreme Court case where they found that it was legal for the government to prosecute people who published propaganda against military draft during WW1. The specific slogans that he was indicted for included "Do not submit to intimidation" and "Assert your rights".
So, whenever someone brings that example up, be sure to check whether it does in
Re:Get a fact checker (Score:5, Informative)
European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory includes the right to free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't stop their Public Order Act of 1986 from banning insults.
Re:Get a fact checker (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Section 2: ...may may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law...
Section 2 ... Of the explantion provided!
That's just like the little annotations to the US constitution that SCOTUS members have in their heads.
It's just that it's out in the open where you can see it!
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution is implemented as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.
There are a multitude of limits to freedom of speech, as there must be. Wikipedia has a good list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions [wikipedia.org]
As an extra data point: in Norway, we have the concept of protected speech, which refers to types of expressions which are covered by the Norwegian constitutional provisions for free speech. Advertisement, for instance, is not considered protected speech - which is
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia has a good list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions [wikipedia.org]
That list demonstrates the slippery slope I believe we're sliding down. While I don't agree with any of them, a few of them seem particularly ridiculous. Obscenity (child pornography seems to fall under this category no matter the arguments against it), fighting words, and offensive speech seem extremely ridiculous and ambiguous. The "reasonable person' nonsense just makes things worse. They just interpret whatever they want into the constitution at this point. Sometimes they interpret it literally (when it
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of your opinion, it is still the law of the land. And the politicians and all members of the military and civilian police forces have taken a sworn oath to uphold it.
No it doesn't (Score:5, Informative)
"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: (Score:3)
Pretty much. The UK only has as much free speech as dictated to you by government. Much like Canada does under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms via S.1.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in Canada they at least have to explicitly state that they're violating any of those Charter Rights, and provide an explanation as to why this particular violation is necessary, and why it scope has to be no narrower than it is.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be fine if you just follow my morals.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it's any better in the US. They used the same damn excuses to break up OWS.
Re: (Score:2)
They're all over the place still, the difference is the average person doesn't care and for good reason. You can only take so many lynching, murdering, arsonists, attempted terrorists in one go.
Re: (Score:2)
This is ridiculous.
The only government action taken against OWS had to do with time, place, and manner restrictions on their _behavior_ (i.e. "occupying" public spaces). There have been zero restrictions on the content of anyone in that movement's speech (and I dare you to provide a cite that proves otherwise).
And, what is more, these time/place/manner restrictions on OWS "gatherings" were imposed with extreme laxness, as compared to such prohibitions implemented against virtually any other protest moveme
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what your definition of "is" is. In all seriousness, does the European Convention interpret what is and what is not speech?
Re:Get a fact checker (Score:4, Informative)
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Art 11. Freedom of expression and information [eucharter.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How much does a Security Council vote from Russia or China cost these days?
I don't think those are for sale, actually. Otherwise Syria would be in ruins by now.
Re: (Score:3)
Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is not guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.
Are you perhaps thinking of the Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment to the constitution?
I'm not even american and I know this.
Check your facts.
Re: (Score:2)
> it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
No it's not. Not even close.
Re:Not free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Outstanding. Very good rant. Lewis Black would be proud. :)
What about the US Marine held for Facebook post? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.
I'd much rather risk someone's death than overreact to everything, take everything out of context, and harass people who intended no harm.
Paranoia is how we get useless organizations like the TSA who violate everyone's rights.
You are clearly very passionate about free speech, which is a good thing.
You don't seem to act like it is.
You are also clearly very naive when it comes to what is required of a civilized society to not break down under the weight of trying to preserve every idiot's right to it.
By no means would society break down by not overreacting to what I believe was clearly not an actual threat. But of course, such a society doesn't have much free speech, anyway.
Re:Not free speech (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
By your test, nothing is a threat unless it is actually carried out (everyone knew the identity of the person tweeting with such confidence? Like accountants can't kill people?) I suggest you look up what the term threat means, since your expectations are very unrealistic. We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.
Uh, no, you're just continuing your original line of jackassery. Ever hear of a little process called 'police work?' it goes like this:
1) person makes potentially threatening statement
2) the authorities do their fucking jobs by investigating the person who made the statement, and determining whether it's a legitimate threat, or if it's just some pissed off citizen venting
3) if, and only if, the evidence supports arrest (i.e., the person who made the statement has a history of violent conduct, or is kno
Re: (Score:3)
By your test, nothing is a threat unless it is actually carried out (everyone knew the identity of the person tweeting with such confidence? Like accountants can't kill people?) I suggest you look up what the term threat means, since your expectations are very unrealistic. We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.
I do have to wonder -- did you read the article? All six pages? This was, in fact, one of the things talked about by the judges who ultimately reversed his conviction. The police themselves did not take his threat seriously, until someone suddenly decided that he needed to be made an example of. The fact that they didn't take the threat seriously indicated to the judges that the threat did not 'menace' anyone, as required by the law he was convicted under -- they stated that in order for there to be 'me
Re: (Score:3)
it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre
Where have I heard that expression before...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guy is a complete idiot.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the people who took him seriously...
Re: (Score:2)
True. But on one side is an idiot with a Twitter account. On the other side is a crowd of idiots with, ultimately, guns and the power to imprison. How do YOU think this would ever work out?
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't take him seriously and it was infact a real threat, is it worth risking your job over? Do you want to be the guy who ignored a "bin laden plans to hijack planes" memo?
Let me make it simple here, don't threaten to blow up public infrastructure on a public forum like the internet. Period. What should be common sense to most people seems absent from the always on, speech entitled twitter generation that thinks they have a right to write any garbage they want free and clear.
Just take it into a rea
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't take him seriously and it was infact a real threat
Utopias where no one gets hurt do not exist. If we have to resort to overreacting to every potential threat and violating people's freedom because of an insatiable desire for security, I'd rather we just accept the (minuscule) chance that it's real.
Do you want to be the guy who ignored a "bin laden plans to hijack planes" memo?
I don't want to be the guy who overreacts to everything and harasses people who intended no harm, either.
Let me make it simple here, don't threaten to blow up public infrastructure on a public forum like the internet.
Don't overreact to all potential threats. Period. I don't want to end up with another TSA.
Most people are not experts on judging the validity of threats.
They don't need to be! Judging from context alone (and similar event
Re: (Score:2)
if your coworker said his mother just died do you crack jokes about how ugly she was?
if you get in a fender bender on the highway do you start craking jokes about how the other guy's car sucks?
if you go on blind date with a woman, five minutes in do you start making crude jokes about her ethnicity?
you can have an argument about legality of this case all you want, but hands, down, 100%: are a genuine bona fide moron if you think threatening to blow up an airport on a wide open communication channel is funny
Re: (Score:2)
if your coworker said his mother just died do you crack jokes about how ugly she was?
if you get in a fender bender on the highway do you start craking jokes about how the other guy's car sucks?
if you go on blind date with a woman, five minutes in do you start making crude jokes about her ethnicity?
Crude and tasteless, perhaps, but not illegal or threatening. Considering the lack of relevance to the conversation at hand, I have to ask - do any of these anecdotes have a purpose?
you can have an argument about legality of this case all you want, but hands, down, 100%: are a genuine bona fide moron if you think threatening to blow up an airport on a wide open communication channel is funny
In your opinion, with which I disagree on the basis that it is ignorant and childish. I posit that the true "genuine bona fide moron[s]" are the people who thought/think the rantings of a regular person, with no record of terrorism or violent behavior, was worth wasting so much time and resource on prosecuting, especially consid
Re: (Score:2)
Wow
What a tool
The comment was stupid. Threatening to blow up an airport is stupid
Get over yourself
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between saying something on a public channel and calling up the airport: that would have been a threat. But unless authorities or the facility in question are contacted, they have no business what a person says in his own Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
How does something you post to the internet, on a site made expressly for the purposes of sharing this information with others, become "your own" anything? He didn't write this in his private notebook that some police officer found in an illegal search of his bedroom. Once you post something to the world, you lose your exclusive rights to it. This includes the right to bitch that
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe he just wasn't hyperbolic enough?
When I was dealing with some extremely shitty, slow service from Asus, I threatened to destroy their entire country. Didn't get a second glance - they seemed more worried about my "spread bad reviews on them all over the place" threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Speech has consequences. If you threaten to unseat those in power, you will probably be prosecuted.
ftfy
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's pretty bad.
It is? Probably only if you're paranoid about nonexistent threats. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who agree with this are the type of people who think organizations like the TSA are a good thing.
Although unrelated to this specific case, this is another reason why I feel privacy is so important. The government (or some authority figure) will inevitably take you out of context or misinterpret you and attempt to ruin your life (even if everyone you know would know you didn't intend any harm). Sadly, som
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly? I don't care at all. There likely cannot be a utopia where no one ever dies, and I'd much rather a few people die than we harass people who intended no harm and/or overreact to everything that may or may not be a threat. But your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are still extremely slim even if you take into account that the UK has more terrorist attacks.
Even if there are a few terrorist attacks here and there, I believe anyone should be able to tell that this guy very likely intended no har
Re: (Score:2)
Here is his tweet:
"Crap! 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!!"
Yeah, that's pretty bad. It will take cases like this for people to realize that anything they say online is instantly public and viewable by the entire world.
Speech has consequences. If you threaten to blow up airports, you will probably be prosecuted.
People comfortable with twitter just presume that nothing on it is to be taken seriously (and they would almost always be correct). However if you are some security manager who doesnt know a tweet from a poke, and someone says to you "hey someone broadcast on the internet that they are going to blow up the airport" you are going to treat it just like a phone call to the same effect, or a guy outside with a megaphone, or any other direct display of a threat. Us internet-savvy know-it-alls can easily discou
Re: (Score:2)
but not everyone is as comfortable doing that.
Their problem.
online actions have very real consequences and unless you are prepared for them, maybe you should keep your "jokes" to yourself.
Then there is no free speech. This is entirely the fault of people who misinterpret other people's messages or take them out of context.
Perhaps you should have kept your comment to yourself. Someone might misinterpret it completely.
Do we want to live in a world where it's perfectly acceptable to broadcast threats of mass violence with the expectation of no reprisal at all?
Even if you arrest people for credible threats, this doesn't fit that criteria in the least. So, yes. Enough with the paranoia of terrorists.
the next time some threat is made, and it is summarily ignored but it IS carried out
Ah, yes: "But what if it really happens!?" The solution is not to overreact to everything and harass people who intended no h
Re: (Score:2)
If I am in a room with a man and say "You are an f'ing a-hole" and as a consequence, he pulls out a gun and kills me, then I'd say I wasn't able to speak freely.
Freedom of speech is generally meant to mean freedom from being punished by the government for your speech. If something like that happened, I sure hope that guy would be sent to prison.
Under his definition (where you have the ability to say it, but you might get punished by the government), even China has freedom of speech.
by LAW be free to speak them, by REALITY I am not.
Using the definition above, you very much do have freedom of speech in reality. At least if it hasn't been 'interpreted' away by the supreme court.
The two are not the same thing.
Indeed they're not. But I'm always spea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)