Index on Censorship welcomes today’s decision in the high court to overturn the conviction of Paul Chambers in what has become known as the Twitter Joke Trial.
“Today’s judgment is an advance in the justice system’s handling of free speech on the web,” said Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “As more and more of us use social media, it is important that the law understands how people communicate online. This ruling is a step in the right direction.”
Chambers was convicted in 2010 for sending a “menacing communication” after joking on Twitter that he would blow Doncaster’s Robin Hood Airport “sky high” if it closed due to weather conditions. He had been due to fly from the airport to Belfast to meet his now-fiancée Sarah Tonner.
Paul Chambers, the man at the centre of the Twitter Joke Trial who was found guilty in 2010 of sending a “menacing” tweet, has won his appeal against his conviction. At the Royal Courts of Justice this morning the appeal was allowed “on the basis that this tweet did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character.” Speaking to Index on Censorship, Chambers said he felt relieved and vindicated by the decision, adding that the case “should never have got this far”. Chambers’s solicitor David Allen Green said: “This shameful prosecution should never have been brought.”
Comic Al Murray, who has been a vocal supporter of Chambers, was part of a large supportive crowd at the handing down of the judgment. Conservative MP Louise Mensch and science writer and free speech campaigner Simon Singh were also in attendance.
Murray told Index he though the judgment was “a victory for common sense and proportion”.
“If terrorism is such a threat, then surely it demands being dealt with coolly, rather than clamping down on mere mentions of it in a joke,” said Murray. “Paul’s tweet was not a credible threat, and the courts’ reaction up until now has made them look incredible.”
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.
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.
Paul Chambers, the man at the centre of the “Twitter Joke Trial”, has had a torrid two-and-a-half-years since he joked that he would blow Robin Hood airport “sky high”. He was back in court on Wednesday. This Al Jazeera report sums up the issue nicely.
Anyway, in spite of his woes, Paul hasn’t lost his sense of humour, as demonstrated on Twitter last night. Former Conservative minister Edwina Currie, discussing the case on Twitter, wrote: “I’m blowing the airport sky high” is not a metaphor. Can be construed as a threat. [Chambers] was a damn fool, paid dearly for it.”
Clear cut then: making what are obviously jokey “threats” on Twitter is the action of a damn fool. But it didn’t take long for damn-fool Chambers to dig up this tweet from Edwina Currie herself: “oh I’d shoot tax exiles! When they need high quality health care they’re back in the UK double quick. Never make connection”.
This is funny, but it does illustrate the whole problem of the Twitter Joke Trial: everyone uses over-the-top language, and we often express our anger, outrage and frustration with words alluding to violence. What’s happening to Paul Chambers could happen to any of us, even Edwina Currie.
Index on Censorship welcomes today’s decision in the high court to overturn the conviction of Paul Chambers in what has become known as the Twitter Joke Trial.