20 Mar 12 | Uncategorized
Another week and another case of a young man getting into trouble over social media postings.
Last week, it was Azhar Ahmed, who angrily ranted about soldiers on his Facebook page, and now faces trial under the Communications Act 2003 (though the initial charge that his posting had been “racially aggravated” has been dropped).
This week, it is Swansea student Liam Stacey. Twenty-one-year-old Stacey today pleaded guilty of a “racially aggravated public order offence” after he tweeted racist remarks about Bolton Wanderers footballer Fabrice Muamba, and then addressed further racist remarks at tweeters who challenged him. (you can view Stacey’s now-deleted timeline here. Very strong language http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE).
The two cases have several common elements. Both involve social networking sites. Both involve young men. Both outbursts were reactions to widespread, communal grief.
And both raise the question: is the law as it stands fit for purpose? The pace at which social media changes the way we communicate is startling, even though the intuitive nature of much of the technology we use makes it seem normal. It is difficult now for many to remember life before Twitter, and almost impossible to think of life before YouTube, just seven years ago. We do not really think of posting a tweet or a Facebook status update as “publishing” or “sending a message” in the same way as printing a leaflet or even sending a text message.
The Twitter Joke Trial rightly upset many people, who saw in the prosecution of Paul Chambers a misunderstanding of both the message and the medium. But the question is, can a law be formulated that will accommodate free expression online? Or, given the changing nature of electronic communication, is any law doomed to obsolescence?
Padreig Reidy is Index on Censorship’s news editor
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.
08 Sep 11 | Index Index, minipost, News and features
The appeal of Paul Chambers in the “twitter joke trial” is to take place on 10 November. The trainee accountant from Doncaster who was convicted for sending threatening messages after he joked on Twitter that he would blow up Robin Hood Airport if his flight was cancelled. The appeal before the divisional courts of the Queen’s Bench comes one year after he lost his crown court appeal. Chambers will be represented by Ben Emmerson QC.
22 Dec 10 | News and features
Trainee accountant Paul Chambers, who was convicted of sending a “menacing communication” after he joked on Twitter that he would blow Doncaster’s Robin Hood Airport “sky high” if his flight was affected by weather, has won the right to appeal the decision, Index on Censorship has learned.
(more…)
