31 Jul 12 | Uncategorized
The tale of the Twitter abuse of Olympic diver Tom Daley has dominated social media today. Daley, who came a disappointing fourth along with synchronised diving partner Pete Waterfield in their event yesterday, was subjected to abuse, then apologies, then more abuse by a Twitter user. This morning, Dorset police said they had arrested a 17-year-old in a guest house in Weymouth for “malicious communications”.
I genuinely don’t want to get into the arguments on the specifics of this case, as the teenager hasn’t been charged, so I think we need to actually see what transpires before taking a definite position.
The above sentence is 166 characters, and therefore unsuitable for Twitter. But I wonder is the sentiment incompatible too?
It feels incredibly fogeyish to complain about the pace inflicted on us by social media, but I still think it’s a point worth making. The instant nature of the medium seems sometimes to affect how we think: we have to rush to judgment before the story passes us by. We have to offer our approval, show our disdain, and most worryingly, we have to demand action.
The first “Twitter mob” I can remember was the case of Jan Moir’s distasteful Daily Mail article on the circumstances of the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately. Thousands tweeted their disapproval. 25,000 registered complaints with the Press Complaints Commission. The commission refused to censure Moir. Twitter again exploded in outrage.
Two-and-a-half years on, that looks mild. In the past year, we’ve seen examples of people getting arrested for saying stupid, crass, offensive things on social media — Azhar Ahmed insulting soldiers on Facebook, Liam Stacey wishing Fabrice Muamba dead and then descending into racist abuse. In the case of Stacey, hundreds of people reported him to the police, and there was barely contained glee when he was arrested and subsequently jailed.
I worry that this will become the norm: Man says nasty thing on the internet, nice people get upset by nasty thing, nice people demand something be done about nasty thing, police pursue easy conviction (all the evidence is online after all, and there are a million willing witnesses), nasty man gets convicted, and everybody slaps each other on the back for having done their bit. The thrill of active netizenship.
This could end up corrosive: increasingly narrowing the online social sphere so it is eventually only available to the articulate and right-thinking, and fools will suffer real-world punishment.
It doesn’t feel much like free speech. We need to start thinking about better ways of dealing with hurtful, crass speech.
Padraig Reidy is news editor at Index on Censorship
27 Jul 12 | United Kingdom
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.
27 Jul 12 | Index Index, minipost, United Kingdom
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.”
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
