#Iamspartacus

[Mahone]

This happened in Britain so it's possible a lot of it hasn't made the media over there, but it seems that another twitter campaign has taken off in support of free speech.

Back in January, Paul Chambers posted the following to twitter:

"Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your *expletive* together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

This was intended as a joke, and to express his frustration at missing his flight to see someone he met online (@crazycolours on twitter - whom he now lives with).

It seems however that a manager working for robin hood airport was searched twitter for tweets related to robin hood airport, and found his "threat", which was reported to the police. The police raided his home, and arrested him. The trial has been ongoing for almost a year so far, partly due to the public attention the case has received and the support Paul Chambers has had. Steven Fry even offered to pay his fine.

Unfortunately the public attention and criminal record has caused Paul to lose two jobs since January, and is currently unemployed.

Now the case has taken a difficult twist for the authorities though, with a new hashtag called #Iamspartacus. Named after the film spartacus in which to protect their leader, his followers all claimed they were spartacus, tens of thousands of people are using this hash tag to repeat the words used by Paul Chambers which got him arrested.

The authorities now have a very difficult problem on their hands. They can't arrest thousands of people for stuff posted on twitter which is more the obviously a joke, yet at the same time, how can they prosecute Paul Chambers for something they know thousands of others are doing? To be honest, it's an embarrassment for them, and I agree with the people who say the law needs to catch up with social media trends. I do not believe they should be allowed to ruin someones life to make an example of them, all over a joke.

#IAmSpartacus campaign explodes on Twitter in support of airport joker | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Edited November 14, 2010 by Mahone

[Just_A_Guy]

I dunno. There are some things you just don't do. Making bomb threats is one of them.

Spartacus risked--and ultimately gave--his own life to free others. Chambers made an ill-considered, infantile remark and now demands he be released from any consequences--even social consequences--of his actions. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many people are willing to risk their necks for his.

[Dravin]

This reminds me of people who make jokes to the TSA and are shocked, just shocked, that the TSA doesn't chuckle along with them and pat them on their back for their genius humor but instead single them out for a baggage and person hand search. Conviction does see a touch overkill depending on the resulting sentence.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Dravin

[Mahone]

I dunno. There are some things you just don't do. Making bomb threats is one of them.

Spartacus risked--and ultimately gave--his own life to free others. Chambers made an ill-considered, infantile remark and now demands he be released from any consequences--even social consequences--of his actions. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many people are willing to risk their necks for his.

One of the things the judge said was "context is irrelevant in law". Do you think this should be the case? His whole twitter thread was mostly lighthearted. Anyone who had read the rest of his stuff would have known it was a joke.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Mahone

[Mahone]

Further details about the legal side of things here: Jack of Kent: Why the Paul Chambers case matters

[DigitalShadow]

This reminds me of people who make jokes to the TSA and are shocked, just shocked, that the TSA doesn't chuckle along with them and pat them on their back for their genius humor but instead single them out for a baggage and person hand search. Conviction does see a touch overkill depending on the resulting sentence.

Except this situation is more like making inappropriate jokes to your friends nowhere near an airport, but within earshot of an off duty TSA employee who then writes down your license plate and has you arrested at your place of work even though he knows there was no threat intended.

[Dravin]

Except this situation is more like making inappropriate jokes to your friends nowhere near an airport, but within earshot of an off duty TSA employee who then writes down your license plate and has you arrested at your place of work even though he knows there was no threat intended.

I didn't say they were analogous. I just said it reminded me of it. I for one would be very careful about such comments in a public forum (which is what I understand twitter to be). I'm not saying it's a proportionate response but it doesn't surprise me that someone or someones took it serious.

[Just_A_Guy]

One of the things the judge said was "context is irrelevant in law". Do you think this should be the case? His whole twitter thread was mostly lighthearted. Anyone who had read the rest of his stuff would have known it was a joke.

I googled the phrase in connection with Paul Chambers and came up with nothing; that being the case, I can only quote from the article you linked earlier, where the judge:

called the tweet "menacing in its content and obviously so. It could not be more clear. Any ordinary person reading this would see it in that way and be alarmed".

I suppose one could ask whether the government should be monitoring tweets, or playing "gotcha" using obscure laws to punish behavior that the honest-to-gosh bomb threat laws don't cover.

But my original point didn't reach that far. I'm just a little surprised that so many people are putting their own necks on the line for a clown like Chambers in the face of a government that has already shown itself to be unlikely to treat such antics with leniency.

[Blackmarch]

This happened in Britain so it's possible a lot of it hasn't made the media over there, but it seems that another twitter campaign has taken off in support of free speech.

Back in January, Paul Chambers posted the following to twitter:

This was intended as a joke, and to express his frustration at missing his flight to see someone he met online (@crazycolours on twitter - whom he now lives with).

It seems however that a manager working for robin hood airport was searched twitter for tweets related to robin hood airport, and found his "threat", which was reported to the police. The police raided his home, and arrested him. The trial has been ongoing for almost a year so far, partly due to the public attention the case has received and the support Paul Chambers has had. Steven Fry even offered to pay his fine.

Unfortunately the public attention and criminal record has caused Paul to lose two jobs since January, and is currently unemployed.

Now the case has taken a difficult twist for the authorities though, with a new hashtag called #Iamspartacus. Named after the film spartacus in which to protect their leader, his followers all claimed they were spartacus, tens of thousands of people are using this hash tag to repeat the words used by Paul Chambers which got him arrested.

The authorities now have a very difficult problem on their hands. They can't arrest thousands of people for stuff posted on twitter which is more the obviously a joke, yet at the same time, how can they prosecute Paul Chambers for something they know thousands of others are doing? To be honest, it's an embarrassment for them, and I agree with the people who say the law needs to catch up with social media trends. I do not believe they should be allowed to ruin someones life to make an example of them, all over a joke.

#IAmSpartacus campaign explodes on Twitter in support of airport joker | Technology | guardian.co.uk

I would. Not doing something about that at all is not very smart.

About the only difference between them and me is that I would have had the authorities watch the guy first to see what he buys and does for a while. If he continues in making more of such threats and buys materials that are used in homemade bombs then i'd arrest him.

As for if thousands are doing it... then i'd do what i could with what I have and prioritize.

Generally something that involves many people promoting something violent in that manner usually gets watched by government security organizations.

[rameumptom]

People know the rules about making threats, regardless of towards an airport, politician, or anyone else. The guy deserves what he gets for his stupidity. Clearly he wrote it out of frustration. However, how many of those involved in this tweeting protest might not be the next Unabomber? All it takes is one whacko to act, and many innocent people could die. He needs to be responsible for his actions, even on twitter.

[Mahone]

As for if thousands are doing it... then i'd do what i could with what I have and prioritize.

Generally something that involves many people promoting something violent in that manner usually gets watched by government security organizations.

Surely the hash tag puts a context on it. Why are these people any more guilty than me for quoting it on this forum? They are not promoting anything even remotely violent. They are highlighting a clear injustice in our justice system. They are basically saying, "how can you arrest him, but not us for typing exactly the same thing?"

I googled the phrase in connection with Paul Chambers and came up with nothing; that being the case, I can only quote from the article you linked earlier, where the judge:

I suppose one could ask whether the government should be monitoring tweets, or playing "gotcha" using obscure laws to punish behavior that the honest-to-gosh bomb threat laws don't cover.

But my original point didn't reach that far. I'm just a little surprised that so many people are putting their own necks on the line for a clown like Chambers in the face of a government that has already shown itself to be unlikely to treat such antics with leniency.

Sorry, tiredness is setting in this week. I'm not being very specific at all. For now, I'll just quote this:

The second significant feature of this case is how the law in question was used by the CPS.

It may seem a technical legal point; but the importance of this aspect should not be underestimated. The implications of the CPS position are highly concerning.

The prosecutors of a section 127 offence need to show that an appropriate action occurred (the actus reus, in legal jargon) and that the defendant had a wrongful intention in doing this action (mens rea).

Paul's tweet was not menacing - there is no actus reus. And he had no intention of sending a menacing communication - so there was also no mens rea.

Of course, one could take a different view to mine as to whether actus reus was made out.

But it is misconceived to say that there was any wrongful intention.

However, the CPS regard the section 127 offfence as not needing any intention WHATSOEVER.

The CPS regard section 127 as a "strict liability" offence, which means they do not believe they have to provide any evidence at all of intention before they decide to prosecute someone.

Once the CPS have decided that there is evidence of menacing communication, that is enough for them to launch a prosecution.

And once the CPS prosecutes a strict liability offence then someone gets a criminal record, unless the judge intervenes.

The breadth of what constitutes a communication under section 127 is immense: emails, website content, telephone calls, texts, and so on.

If the CPS decide the content of the communication is "menacing" (or grossly offensive, indecent, or obscene) then you are open to them seeking to give you a criminal record, regardless of your intention.

Just setting out Paul's tweet on a website, as I will do again now, would be enough for them to prosecute:

"Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

It matters not to the CPS that I am quoting this with the intention of discussing a legal issue of public concern; my intention is irrelevant.

The CPS position would be that I am just as guilty as Paul; that I deserve to face prosecution; and that I too deserve a criminal record and my life ruined.

A criminal record is no small thing. Paul has already lost two jobs over his moment of idiocy. It's -very- difficult to get an awful lot of jobs in the UK if there is anything at all on your record, no matter how minor.

Effectively, this guy is the victim of a modern day witch hunt. They will find something - anything - to ruin his life, in order to serve a message to others. He made a mistake, he was an idiot. Doesn't make what they are doing right though, does it? It was obviously not a genuine threat, and everyone knows that.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Mahone

[Blackmarch]

Surely the hash tag puts a context on it. Why are these people any more guilty than me for quoting it on this forum? They are not promoting anything even remotely violent. They are highlighting a clear injustice in our justice system. They are basically saying, "how can you arrest him, but not us for typing exactly the same thing?"

Then they should all be arrested but as you've pointed out there is not the resources to do so... hence what I would have done if I were in the Gov's position. Nor have you indicated that you've taken on the tag.

From what's been said my impression was a guy said "Lets bomb the Airport" (paraphrased) and got arrested for it, and consequently there are lots of people on twitter supporting him and hence supporting "lets bomb the airport".

Last I heard generally bombing people got categorized as terroristic. We used to not pay attention to that sort of stuff because generally such was brushed off as not serious... Then columbine happened, then 9/11 happened and quite a few other local violences along the lines of bombing and/or shooting happened. Guess what? we don't brush off stuff like that anymore as being not serious.

Everything from comments to baby powder is sent in the mail as an anthrax joke is taken very serious.

Effectively, this guy is the victim of a modern day witch hunt. They will find something - anything - to ruin his life, in order to serve a message to others. He made a mistake, he was an idiot.

maybe, maybe not - quite a few times the prevention of bombing threat was tipped off because aquantances tipped off authorities an individual making comments similar to the guy's.

And furthermore behold the price of stupidity... he should get his time just as much as the j-----s who sends babypowder in the mail and calls it anthrax.

hat they are doing right though, does it? It was obviously not a genuine threat, and everyone knows that.

Doing nothing about it is more wrong and sure the gov may have jumped the gun on this one, but no it was definitely a threat. Was it a serious one? unfortunately theres nothing in a comment that says in big bold letters "THIS IS NOT A THREAT" or "THIS IS DEFINITELY A THREAT". And we've learned from past experience that ignorance can be very painful.

[Mahone]

Then they should all be arrested but as you've pointed out there is not the resources to do so... hence what I would have done if I were in the Gov's position. Nor have you indicated that you've taken on the tag.

From what's been said my impression was a guy said "Lets bomb the Airport" (paraphrased) and got arrested for it, and consequently there are lots of people on twitter supporting him and hence supporting "lets bomb the airport".

Last I heard generally bombing people got categorized as terroristic. We used to not pay attention to that sort of stuff because generally such was brushed off as not serious... Then columbine happened, then 9/11 happened and quite a few other local violences along the lines of bombing and/or shooting happened. Guess what? we don't brush off stuff like that anymore as being not serious.

That's a very literal way of looking at things. In that case, why are the people quoting him on twitter any more guilty than me for quoting him on this forum? No-one has actually said "I agree with bombing the airport". The whole concept of that twitter tag is to highlight an injustice... that's well publicised. I don't honestly believe any sane person could mistake them for supporting terrorism.

And furthermore behold the price of stupidity... he should get his time just as much as the j-----s who sends babypowder in the mail and calls it anthrax.

The difference is, he didn't actually intend to cause fear or mayhem. His message was intended for only certain people, people who would know from his past tweets that he had a sense of humour and wouldn't dream of actually doing it. Everyone knows this - the difference between the two is obvious in this case. Should everyone be tarred with the same brush, not taking into account individual circumstances?

Doing nothing about it is more wrong and sure the gov may have jumped the gun on this one, but no it was definitely a threat. Was it a serious one? unfortunately theres nothing in a comment that says in big bold letters "THIS IS NOT A THREAT" or "THIS IS DEFINITELY A THREAT". And we've learned from past experience that ignorance can be very painful.

And they haven't done nothing about it. They have investigated it, it turned out to be a silly and idiotic joke, only intended to be viewed by select people (his twitter followers). That should be enough.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Mahone

[Blackmarch]

That's a very literal way of looking at things. In that case, why are the people quoting him on twitter any more guilty than me for quoting him on this forum? No-one has actually said "I agree with bombing the airport". The whole concept of that twitter tag is to highlight an injustice... that's well publicised. I don't honestly believe any sane person could mistake them for supporting terrorism.

The difference is, he didn't actually intend to cause fear or mayhem. His message was intended for only certain people, people who would know from his past tweets that he had a sense of humour and wouldn't dream of actually doing it. Everyone knows this - the difference between the two is obvious in this case. Should everyone be tarred with the same brush, not taking into account individual circumstances?

same with the missionary who liked to pulll lpranks in the mission I was in that sent baby powder to his zone leader cause he thaught it make for a good laugh (which there was, after he did his jail time). needless to say it didn't go over to well with the folks at the post office.

And they haven't done nothing about it. They have investigated it, it turned out to be a silly and idiotic joke, only intended to be viewed by select people (his twitter followers). That should be enough.

Same with the baby powder. I dont see why i should view the two differently.

[DigitalShadow]

same with the missionary who liked to pulll lpranks in the mission I was in that sent baby powder to his zone leader cause he thaught it make for a good laugh (which there was, after he did his jail time). needless to say it didn't go over to well with the folks at the post office.

The main difference is that the baby powder was directed toward someone with authority with the intention of eliciting a response whereas the tweet in question was meant jokingly between friends and happened to be stumbled upon by authorities. Can you truly not see a significant difference between those scenarios?

Edited November 23, 2010 by DigitalShadow