Bomb joke conviction overturned
Jul 30, 2012 | 5:48 am
#1
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 72,312
Bomb joke conviction overturned
Two major ^^ to the British Crown Court, striking a blow for common sense against the idiocy that permeates the growing fascist security states we live in in.
http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1343435365.html
A British man who joked on Twitter that he would blow up an airport after it closed because of snow has had his conviction for sending a "menacing" message overturned in a landmark ruling for users of social media websites.
Paul Chambers, 28, had sent the message in what he called a moment of frustration at not being able to catch a flight from Doncaster Robin Hood airport.
He had later been arrested and sentenced but the High Court on Friday upheld his appeal against conviction.
Speaking outside the court afterwards, Chambers' lawyer John Cooper, who had argued it was wrong to associate the tweet with terrorism, said it was a milestone ruling.
"It's a very big decision both nationally and internationally for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who use Facebook and Twitter," he told the BBC.
"It means that if you intend to make a joke and if what you do is a joke, however bad a joke that is, you cannot be prosecuted," he added.
The case revolved around a tweet sent by Chambers to a friend in January 2010, which read: "Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your .... together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"
Chambers said he sent the tweet to his 600 followers in a moment of frustration and never imagined it would be taken seriously.
"It was surreal. My world became something else," he said when asked how he felt when he was arrested.
Of Friday's ruling he added: "It's an important decision as far as social networks are concerned and as far as Twitter is concerned.
"It has established that there has to be an action that is menacing and is intended to be menacing."
Chambers' case gained the attention and support of thousands of Twitter users and several high-profile British comedians.
In Friday's High Court ruling, three judges allowed Chambers' appeal against a Crown Court judge's decision upholding the 2010 conviction.
They said: "If the person or persons who receive or read it, (the message) or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character."
Paul Chambers, 28, had sent the message in what he called a moment of frustration at not being able to catch a flight from Doncaster Robin Hood airport.
He had later been arrested and sentenced but the High Court on Friday upheld his appeal against conviction.
Speaking outside the court afterwards, Chambers' lawyer John Cooper, who had argued it was wrong to associate the tweet with terrorism, said it was a milestone ruling.
"It's a very big decision both nationally and internationally for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who use Facebook and Twitter," he told the BBC.
"It means that if you intend to make a joke and if what you do is a joke, however bad a joke that is, you cannot be prosecuted," he added.
The case revolved around a tweet sent by Chambers to a friend in January 2010, which read: "Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your .... together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"
Chambers said he sent the tweet to his 600 followers in a moment of frustration and never imagined it would be taken seriously.
"It was surreal. My world became something else," he said when asked how he felt when he was arrested.
Of Friday's ruling he added: "It's an important decision as far as social networks are concerned and as far as Twitter is concerned.
"It has established that there has to be an action that is menacing and is intended to be menacing."
Chambers' case gained the attention and support of thousands of Twitter users and several high-profile British comedians.
In Friday's High Court ruling, three judges allowed Chambers' appeal against a Crown Court judge's decision upholding the 2010 conviction.
They said: "If the person or persons who receive or read it, (the message) or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character."
Jul 30, 2012 | 7:26 am
#2
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
^ to their Lordships; a moment of sanity amid the security madness.
Background: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...p-airport.html
Background: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...p-airport.html
Jul 30, 2012 | 7:37 am
#3
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
^ to this outcome in the UK.
.... only if there would be more such outcomes, that too in the US. Unfortunately, Americans should not count on the timely disappearance of America's stupid "security" conditioning of responding to non-threats as if a "threat" too. The pro-police and prosecutor mindset rules the American judicial bench too.
.... only if there would be more such outcomes, that too in the US. Unfortunately, Americans should not count on the timely disappearance of America's stupid "security" conditioning of responding to non-threats as if a "threat" too. The pro-police and prosecutor mindset rules the American judicial bench too.
Jul 30, 2012 | 10:05 am
#4
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,430
This whole incident reminds me of a conversation had (strangely) around a dinner table with some friends. One guy was commenting on funny things his young son has said, and one of them happened to be said in a bathroom (loo, or WC for those outside the US). To set up the situation, he mentioned that some guy had gone into one of the stalls and was, "just blowing the place UP!" (meaning, stinking it up pretty badly).
Had he been telling this story in an airport, who knows if he would have gotten to the punch line...
Had he been telling this story in an airport, who knows if he would have gotten to the punch line...
Aug 1, 2012 | 10:30 am
#5
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 200
There are still people who keep talking about how the world will end on 21 December 2012. (yes, less than 5 months away from today 
)
They should also be charged with a crime? I can't think of a bigger terrorist threat than the entire world coming to an end.
Except in this case, I don't know how you would go about arresting/charging God for this. 
Oh, wait... I'm sure didn't talk about this on a plane or at the airport, so problem solved!
)They should also be charged with a crime? I can't think of a bigger terrorist threat than the entire world coming to an end.
Except in this case, I don't know how you would go about arresting/charging God for this. Oh, wait... I'm sure didn't talk about this on a plane or at the airport, so problem solved!
Aug 1, 2012 | 5:53 pm
#6
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA Platinum, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 1,177
Big ups for the UK, but would has anything like this been prosecuted in the US. I am sure some of the bullying on twitter and facebook has been prosecuted, but that was only when a link could be drawn between the menacing speech and a negative outcome for the victim.
Specifically, if I threaten to blow up the airport, but no one who hears that threat feel threatened, is that even a crime. This was the basis of the ruling in the UK, but is threatening even a crime in the US, if no one feels threatened?
This is an honest question that I sure one of our legal scholars can tell us about.
Specifically, if I threaten to blow up the airport, but no one who hears that threat feel threatened, is that even a crime. This was the basis of the ruling in the UK, but is threatening even a crime in the US, if no one feels threatened?
This is an honest question that I sure one of our legal scholars can tell us about.
Aug 1, 2012 | 7:04 pm
#7
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Big ups for the UK, but would has anything like this been prosecuted in the US. I am sure some of the bullying on twitter and facebook has been prosecuted, but that was only when a link could be drawn between the menacing speech and a negative outcome for the victim.
Specifically, if I threaten to blow up the airport, but no one who hears that threat feel threatened, is that even a crime. This was the basis of the ruling in the UK, but is threatening even a crime in the US, if no one feels threatened?
This is an honest question that I sure one of our legal scholars can tell us about.
Specifically, if I threaten to blow up the airport, but no one who hears that threat feel threatened, is that even a crime. This was the basis of the ruling in the UK, but is threatening even a crime in the US, if no one feels threatened?
This is an honest question that I sure one of our legal scholars can tell us about.
I'm sure POTUS rarely fears the threats that all sorts of crackpots make against him. Yet threatening POTUS is a Class D felony, according to Wikipedia.
Of course, that's a terribly unusual situation, and may not be applicable here.
Aug 2, 2012 | 1:10 am
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
I'm certainly not a legal scholar. But there are similar precedents in other areas of the law.
I'm sure POTUS rarely fears the threats that all sorts of crackpots make against him. Yet threatening POTUS is a Class D felony, according to Wikipedia.
Of course, that's a terribly unusual situation, and may not be applicable here.
I'm sure POTUS rarely fears the threats that all sorts of crackpots make against him. Yet threatening POTUS is a Class D felony, according to Wikipedia.
Of course, that's a terribly unusual situation, and may not be applicable here.
Most "threats" against the POTUS do not involve prosecution for anything. More often such involves a "visit" from investigators and then warnings about staying away from events when the POTUS comes to the vicinity of such "threat"-maker. Speaking of "threats" made domestically.
Prosecution is rare relative to the frequency of "threats" tracked, investigated and notified. But it is indeed, as you refer, something that can and does take place.