The so-called 'Twitter joke trial' has ended badly for a man who tweeted a quip about blowing up an airport. Twitter user Paul Chambers, who tweets as pauljchambers, has failed in his appeal today against his original conviction, with thousands of pounds added to his fine.
The 27-year-old accountant was arrested after tweeting "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your s*** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" in January. Chambers' legal team argued that the context and tone of the post clearly showed it was a joke, but Judge Jacqueline Davies ruled that the tweet contained menace.
Chambers has lost two jobs since his arrest. The offending tweet has earned him a criminal record and £2,000 in costs has today been added to the original £1,000 penalty.
The Twitter joke trial has sparked heated debate here at Crave Towers, and on Twitter. Some believe that even joking about airport security is unacceptable in the current political climate of terror, while others believe free speech is more important.
We can understand that joking about bombs is going to be frowned upon if you're actually in an airport -- there's nothing funny about bombs when you work somewhere terrorists regularly target -- but on the Internet?
The conviction seems to us a massive and thoroughly pointless over-reaction, from the same technophobic and doctrinaire school of thought that banned printer cartridges. Will the police be rounding up all comedians who post videos on YouTube telling jokes about terrorism, or will they kick in the doors of Crave Towers for this article?
Wherever you stand on the moral ambiguities of the case, there are technical reasons why it could be argued the case should never have gone this far. The arresting officers noted at the time that the tweet was a joke, and even worse, the Crown Prosecution Service deliberately avoided using the legislation that specifically targets bomb threats, which requires stronger evidence, and instead charged Chambers with sending a threatening message, contrary to the Communications Act of 2003. That sounds like a calculated and mean-spirited bit of legal chicanery to us.
Where do you stand on the ruling? Was the criminal justice system right to throw the book at Chambers, or is the whole thing a massive waste of judicial time and public money? Will you be watching what you say on Twitter? Let us know in the comments.
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters 
Comments 10
Add your comment
Anonymous 11 November, 2010 18:44
I'm bloody livid. I could murder that judge.
Oh no, hang on, I'm sending this via the internet, so humorous exaggeration is unacceptable. AHHHH! *howls with frustration*
Anonymous 11 November, 2010 19:39
This is an absolute joke! You would have thought that the supposedly pro-civil liberty con/libdem coalition would look to stop this sort of thing and not be as anti-freedom of speech as the last lot...
WarriorCelt 11 November, 2010 19:45
The Judge is clearly a moron, if I tweet my mate saying I'm going to kill him does that mean I can be arrested? Common sense bypass is in full effect methinks!
adamm255 11 November, 2010 20:22
Bloody rubbish. In context, that tweet was not a threat. I thought tweets were protected freedom of speech?
Meh, I will consider stopping tweeting. I cant afford to pay court battles and I do have a tendency to over exaggerate!
How was that tweet menacing?? double exclamation point = IM GOING TO KILL YOU!
I like the Sponsored Links at the bottom, Terrorism, Islam and Terrorism. I think the bot is a racist!
mark2410 11 November, 2010 20:28
to those at crave who think joking about that stuff is unacceptable then what are we fighting the terrorists for if not for the freedom to be able to say whatever we want even if others disapprove?
anonymous 12 November, 2010 09:34
Excellent points, all
Anonymous 12 November, 2010 11:05
It would appear that if you are going to joke about almost anything, then because there are so many stupid people on the planet (including, it seems, judges, governments and other supposedly 'intellingent' people) you should add 'Joke' to the end of your post.
Of course, if you did that, the dimmer than dim might well argue that you put 'Joke' at the end of your post to pretend you were joking and really meant it. Perhaps it's time for the human race to abolish the sense of humour. After all, there is so much legislation making much of Human Nature illegal, why not make it a crime to laugh, or worse, make someone else laugh.
Anonymous 13 November, 2010 03:35
Freedom of speech does not give the right to threaten to kill. It is against the law for good reason and I envy those naive folks who need to have the reasons explained to them. May we all one day live in a world where no one could possible take such a "joke" seriously.
Meantime in the real world, the law can do no more than simply underline what is clearly stated over and over again. Threatening to kill is simply illegal and claiming "it was only a joke" doesn't wash as a defence. If you do it you have to be prepared to face the consequences and if you don't like it, then don't do it.
Anonymous 13 November, 2010 18:51
I'm fairly certain I've said worse things on twitter...
All of which, however, were clearly intended as satire, much like the tweet in question.
I just can't believe that this has happened on account of a remark which is clearly intended to be flippant!
Does nobody recognise the significance of the "!!"? D:
Anonymous 23 November, 2010 02:42
Arctic weather is forecast with snow. Can someone get to the airport and blow up the snowplough tyres? (charge the battery as well because the machine may not have been used since last year)