26 Jul 12 | Uncategorized
An appeal decision in the Twitter Joke Trial is to be handed down by Lord Chief Justice at the Royal Courts of Justice tomorrow morning [27 July].
Last month Paul Chambers appealed his conviction for having jokingly tweeted in January 2010 that he would blow Nottingham’s Robin Hood airport “sky high” if his planned flight to Northern Ireland to visit his now-fiancee would be affected by the weather.
He was found guilty at Doncaster magistrates court of sending a message via public electronic communications that was “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, contrary to the Communications Act 2003”. Chambers was fined £385, and ordered to pay £600 in costs. He also lost his job.
The trial has become a landmark case for freedom of expression in the UK, highlighting the tension between the legal system and advances in social communication. Chambers has had the support of some leading British comedians, including Graham Linehan, Stephen Fry and Al Murray.
Writing for Index on Censorship in November 2010, comedy writer Graham Linehan said:
This is the kind of case that would make me refuse jury service. It obliterates my confidence in the judicial system. Why should I let people who don’t “get it” have any power over me or anyone else?
We’re trying to evolve here, and the people who don’t get it are slowing us down. If they can’t keep up, they need to get out of the way.
Comedian and broadcaster Paul Sinha added:
The irony is that all over the worldwide web, anonymous internet warriors are only to happy to incite hatred and murder, and surely this is where the appropriate resources should be directed.
David Allen Green provides some useful background to the two-and-a-half year saga here.
Follow the story on Twitter using the hashtag #TwitterJokeTrial
08 Feb 12 | Uncategorized
The “twitter joke trial” reached the appeal court today, with the lawyer for accountant Paul Chambers arguing that his conviction for sending a “menacing” tweet was “a steamroller to crack a very small nut”.
Chambers, 28, is appealing his conviction for sending a joke tweet in early 2010 claiming that he would blow Robin Hood airport “sky high” if his planned trip to Northern Ireland to visit his now-fiancee was affected by weather conditions.
Ben Emmerson QC, acting for Chambers, said that Chambers’s conviction did not make sense either as punishment or deterrent.
Emmerson told the court “A message intended as a joke, in a context where there is no public order threat where those who read it did not see it as a credible threat should not be an offence.”
Robert Smith QC, acting for the Crown Prosecution Service, said that the tweet had not been seen as a joke by airport staff.
He added that the message contained no clue of the circumstances leading to the “menacing” tweet, and that the airport and police could not have known it was a joke until Chambers had been arrested and questioned.
The CPS argued that despite the fact that Chambers was being punished for being foolish, it was nonetheless important that there should be a deterrent to the sending of potentially threatening messages.
The appeal was heard before a capacity audience at the Royal Courts of Justice, including Father Ted and Ladykillers writer Graham Linehan (who has written about the case for Index) and “Pub Landlord” comic Al Murray.
A judgment is expected before Easter.
11 Nov 10 | Uncategorized
UPDATE: Paul Chambers appeal of his twitter conviction has been rejected
The Twitter joke trial is the clearest indication yet that the world is divided into two sorts of people at the moment. The people who “get it”, and the people who don’t.
The people who get it are those who are living in a world that the internet has created. A new world which would have been unimaginable as little as 15 years ago. Few predicted that this place of cat videos and porn would also allow ordinary people to create content, to engage in citizen journalism, to organise peaceful online protests that bring about actual change, or to do any of the other countless, enriching things that it has made possible.
The people who don’t get it are the people in charge. Politicians (for the most part), judges (for the most part), the policemen who came to Paul Chambers’ place of work and arrested him for posting a piece of frustrated, jokey hyperbole on Twitter. These are the people who, more than anyone, need to understand the modern world. And they simply don’t.
From what I understand, much of the Twitter joke trial has involved trying to communicate to judge and prosecution what Twitter actually is. And if they don’t understand it, then how can they be trusted to make proportionate, reasonable or just decisions about it?
This is the kind of case that would make me refuse jury service. It obliterates my confidence in the judicial system. Why should I let people who don’t “get it” have any power over me or anyone else?
We’re trying to evolve here, and the people who don’t get it are slowing us down. If they can’t keep up, they need to get out of the way.
Graham Linehan blogs at whythatsdelightful.wordpress.com, and tweets at @glinner
