British man convicted for a twitter joke (7 Viewers)

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
#21
The words you read next will be your last

Because I'm going to strangle every single one of you ...


* Charlie Brooker


The moment I've finished typing this, I'm going to walk out the door and set about strangling every single person on the planet. Starting with you, dear reader. I'm sorry, but it has to be done, for reasons that will become clear in a moment.

And for the sake of transparency, in case the powers-that-be are reading: this is categorically not a joke. I am 100% serious. Even though I don't know who you are or where you live, I am going to strangle you, your family, your pets, your friends, your imaginary friends, and any lifelike human dummies with haunted stares and wipe-clean vinyl orifices you've got knocking around, perhaps in a secret compartment under the stairs. The only people who might escape my wrath are the staff and passengers at Nottingham's Robin Hood airport, because they've been granted immunity by the state.

Last week 27-year-old accountant Paul Chambers lost an appeal against his conviction for comments he made back in January via the social networking hoojamflip Twitter, venting his frustration when heavy snow closed the airport, leaving him unable to visit his girlfriend.

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

Anti-terror experts intercepted this message and spent hours deciphering it, eventually uncovering a stark coded warning within, cunningly disguised as a series of flippant words.

Chambers' use of multiple exclamation marks is particularly chilling. He almost seems to find the whole thing rather funny. The violent destruction of an entire airport – hundreds of passengers and staff being blasted to shrieking ribbons by tonnes of explosive, all because one man's dirty weekend has been postponed – yet all this senseless carnage is little more than an absurdist joke in the warped mind of Paul Chambers.

Funny is it, Mr Chambers? A big old laugh? Tell that to the theoretical victims of your hypothetical atrocity. Go on. Dig them out of the imaginary rubble. Listen to their anguished, notional screams. Ask how loudly they laughed as you hit the make-believe detonator. Go on. Ask them.

If you dare.

At least when Osama bin Laden broadcasts a warning to the west, his intentions form part of an extremist ideology informed by decades of resentment. Chambers issues bloodcurdling threats at the drop of a snowflake. This makes him the very worst kind of terrorist there is – the kind prepared to slaughter thousands in the name of inclement weather conditions.

Mercifully, in this case, before any innocent blood could be shed, Chambers was arrested, held in a police cell, and convicted of sending a "menacing electronic communication". His appeal was rejected last week by Judge Jacqueline Davies who described his original tweet as "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."

Quite right too. In fact, throughout this case, the authorities have behaved impeccably – which is why it's such a crying shame I'm going to have to strangle all of them too. But strangle them I must.

Why? Because many of his fellow tweeters, outraged by Judge Davies' ruling, have retweeted Chambers' original message in a misguided show of solidarity. Thousands of people, all threatening to blow Robin Hood airport "sky high". Clearly they have to be stopped – but infuriatingly, many of them hide behind anonymous usernames. The only way to ensure they all taste justice is to punish everyone equally, just to be sure. Hence the strangling, which doesn't feel like too much of an overreaction under the circumstances. I'm just following the authorities' lead. They ought to give me a medal. From beyond the grave. After I've strangled them.

Still, loath as I am to strangle every man, woman, and child on the planet, it won't be an entirely thankless task. Clearly I will feel no remorse while strangling Chambers. He is a dangerous madman, and I look forward to sliding my hands around his neck and slowly choking the life out of him.

I also relish the prospect of strangling another tweeter-in-crime: Gareth Compton, the Tory councillor who ran afoul of the authorities last week for tweeting the words "can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."

He later apologised for what he claimed – outlandishly – was "an ill-conceived attempt at humour", even though I'm sure Judge Jacqueline Davies would agree that it was menacing in its content and obviously so, and in fact could not be more clear, and that any ordinary person reading it would see it in that way and be alarmed.

Reassuringly, the bloodthirsty maniac Compton was arrested hours later, presumably after being cornered in his lair by a Swat team. I'd like to shake every member of that team by the hand, which sadly won't be possible while I'm strangling them.

Anyway, I'm writing this on Friday, so by the time you read this on Monday my strangling rampage will have begun – unless the authorities have intercepted these words and arrested me in the interim, in which case I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I intend to strangle everyone in the prison before turning my hands on myself. Attention home secretary: you've got three days and a bit to get your shit together. Otherwise I'm strangling this planet sky-high.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/15/charlie-brooker-twitter-terror-conviction
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Sadomin

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2005
7,327
#23
Silly conviction, but stupid to post such a thing in first place in these times.

JBF's intentions with this thread are quite funny however. While the concept of free speech in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter) may not be perfect, you can hardly compare a fine for a possible bomb threat towards an airport, to say, execution for making fun of religion.
 
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
#25
The words you read next will be your last

Because I'm going to strangle every single one of you ...


* Charlie Brooker


The moment I've finished typing this, I'm going to walk out the door and set about strangling every single person on the planet. Starting with you, dear reader. I'm sorry, but it has to be done, for reasons that will become clear in a moment.

And for the sake of transparency, in case the powers-that-be are reading: this is categorically not a joke. I am 100% serious. Even though I don't know who you are or where you live, I am going to strangle you, your family, your pets, your friends, your imaginary friends, and any lifelike human dummies with haunted stares and wipe-clean vinyl orifices you've got knocking around, perhaps in a secret compartment under the stairs. The only people who might escape my wrath are the staff and passengers at Nottingham's Robin Hood airport, because they've been granted immunity by the state.

Last week 27-year-old accountant Paul Chambers lost an appeal against his conviction for comments he made back in January via the social networking hoojamflip Twitter, venting his frustration when heavy snow closed the airport, leaving him unable to visit his girlfriend.

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

Anti-terror experts intercepted this message and spent hours deciphering it, eventually uncovering a stark coded warning within, cunningly disguised as a series of flippant words.

Chambers' use of multiple exclamation marks is particularly chilling. He almost seems to find the whole thing rather funny. The violent destruction of an entire airport – hundreds of passengers and staff being blasted to shrieking ribbons by tonnes of explosive, all because one man's dirty weekend has been postponed – yet all this senseless carnage is little more than an absurdist joke in the warped mind of Paul Chambers.

Funny is it, Mr Chambers? A big old laugh? Tell that to the theoretical victims of your hypothetical atrocity. Go on. Dig them out of the imaginary rubble. Listen to their anguished, notional screams. Ask how loudly they laughed as you hit the make-believe detonator. Go on. Ask them.

If you dare.

At least when Osama bin Laden broadcasts a warning to the west, his intentions form part of an extremist ideology informed by decades of resentment. Chambers issues bloodcurdling threats at the drop of a snowflake. This makes him the very worst kind of terrorist there is – the kind prepared to slaughter thousands in the name of inclement weather conditions.

Mercifully, in this case, before any innocent blood could be shed, Chambers was arrested, held in a police cell, and convicted of sending a "menacing electronic communication". His appeal was rejected last week by Judge Jacqueline Davies who described his original tweet as "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."

Quite right too. In fact, throughout this case, the authorities have behaved impeccably – which is why it's such a crying shame I'm going to have to strangle all of them too. But strangle them I must.

Why? Because many of his fellow tweeters, outraged by Judge Davies' ruling, have retweeted Chambers' original message in a misguided show of solidarity. Thousands of people, all threatening to blow Robin Hood airport "sky high". Clearly they have to be stopped – but infuriatingly, many of them hide behind anonymous usernames. The only way to ensure they all taste justice is to punish everyone equally, just to be sure. Hence the strangling, which doesn't feel like too much of an overreaction under the circumstances. I'm just following the authorities' lead. They ought to give me a medal. From beyond the grave. After I've strangled them.

Still, loath as I am to strangle every man, woman, and child on the planet, it won't be an entirely thankless task. Clearly I will feel no remorse while strangling Chambers. He is a dangerous madman, and I look forward to sliding my hands around his neck and slowly choking the life out of him.

I also relish the prospect of strangling another tweeter-in-crime: Gareth Compton, the Tory councillor who ran afoul of the authorities last week for tweeting the words "can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."

He later apologised for what he claimed – outlandishly – was "an ill-conceived attempt at humour", even though I'm sure Judge Jacqueline Davies would agree that it was menacing in its content and obviously so, and in fact could not be more clear, and that any ordinary person reading it would see it in that way and be alarmed.

Reassuringly, the bloodthirsty maniac Compton was arrested hours later, presumably after being cornered in his lair by a Swat team. I'd like to shake every member of that team by the hand, which sadly won't be possible while I'm strangling them.

Anyway, I'm writing this on Friday, so by the time you read this on Monday my strangling rampage will have begun – unless the authorities have intercepted these words and arrested me in the interim, in which case I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I intend to strangle everyone in the prison before turning my hands on myself. Attention home secretary: you've got three days and a bit to get your shit together. Otherwise I'm strangling this planet sky-high.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/15/charlie-brooker-twitter-terror-conviction
One of the best written articles I've seen in a long time.

Well done.
 
OP
JBF

JBF

اختك يا زمن
Aug 5, 2006
18,451
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #26
    Silly conviction, but stupid to post such a thing in first place in these times.

    JBF's intentions with this thread are quite funny however. While the concept of free speech in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter) may not be perfect, you can hardly compare a fine for a possible bomb threat towards an airport, to say, execution for making fun of religion.
    It's even funnier that you just made an outstanding speculation about me and my concept of free speech and imagined I posted this article for support.

    The only intention I had when posting this article was how free speech isn't exactly the most scarred legislation in the constitution of countries that for so long bragged about it and that in fact, there's double standards in dealing with such cases.
     
    Apr 12, 2004
    77,165
    #27
    It's even funnier that you just made an outstanding speculation about me and my concept of free speech and imagined I posted this article for support.

    The only intention I had when posting this article was how free speech isn't exactly the most scarred legislation in the constitution of countries that for so long bragged about it and that in fact, there's double standards in dealing with such cases.
    What?

    This makes no sense.

    The problem here is that this is an open discussion of what should and should not be done. Noting, the best thing is that it is openly discussed. In many countries, yours included, it would not. It would be broadly accepted as the right thing to do.
     

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
    #29
    This is a rather odd judgement.

    Hopefully the guy will appeal and get the ruling overturned, because it sets a rather dangerous precedent if the judges can't tell the difference between a serious threat and a throw-away remark.
     

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
    #30
    It's even funnier that you just made an outstanding speculation about me and my concept of free speech and imagined I posted this article for support.
    Why wouldn't Burke assume that was why you posted it?

    It's not the first time you've posted such an article to try to make that point.

    The only intention I had when posting this article was how free speech isn't exactly the most scarred legislation in the constitution of countries that for so long bragged about it and that in fact, there's double standards in dealing with such cases.
    No double standards.

    Saying things that are deemed a threat to public security (threatening or inciting violence) is not allowed.

    You can do anything else, including calling any religion stupid and calling the Government a bunch of clueless fuckwits.

    I'm sure you are free to do that in countries that you feel Britain shouldn't be lecturing about free speech, though.
     
    OP
    JBF

    JBF

    اختك يا زمن
    Aug 5, 2006
    18,451
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #31
    ßöмßäяðîëя;2766061 said:
    What?

    This makes no sense.

    The problem here is that this is an open discussion of what should and should not be done. Noting, the best thing is that it is openly discussed. In many countries, yours included, it would not. It would be broadly accepted as the right thing to do.
    If you're talking about a supposed Jordanian guy doing the same thing as this British one did, then you're wrong. He'll get away with it unnoticed unless he has a record in such matters or being followed etc... Otherwise that shit is always joked upon here with no such thing as prosecuting them. However, had the guy said anything about the king or the royal family then he would have had his share of those plus many extras. But then ofcourse in many democratic countries with Royal blood still running in them, that's the case as well but with a more legal approach ofcourse.

    Why wouldn't Burke assume that was why you posted it?

    It's not the first time you've posted such an article to try to make that point.
    You mean Sadomin I suppose?

    The point that our regime and an Islamic one is better than the one followed by most liberal countries nowadays? I can safely say I've never presented such a thought and I don't believe that's the case. Since clearly it doesn't take an insightful watcher to notice the difference in civil rights between here and there let alone a man living in that atmosphere for 20 years now.

    No double standards.

    Saying things that are deemed a threat to public security (threatening or inciting violence) is not allowed.

    You can do anything else, including calling any religion stupid and calling the Government a bunch of clueless fuckwits.

    I'm sure you are free to do that in countries that you feel Britain shouldn't be lecturing about free speech, though.
    Wasn't it put upon than Baptist priest that burning the Qur'an would be just what you categorized as a violence bringing act that would put lives of American soldiers and civilians in danger? Why wasn't he prosecuted and this poor guy is over a joke? forget prosecuting him, why wasn't he banned from such an act that would threaten lives too instead of trying, wastefully, to lure him into a deal?
     

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
    #32
    You mean Sadomin I suppose?
    That's the fellow.

    The point that our regime and an Islamic one is better than the one followed by most liberal countries nowadays?
    No, the trying to have a dig at Britain or America at every opportunity, whether they have acted unreasonably or not.

    Wasn't it put upon than Baptist priest that burning the Qur'an would be just what you categorized as a violence bringing act that would put lives of American soldiers and civilians in danger? Why wasn't he prosecuted and this poor guy is over a joke? forget prosecuting him, why wasn't he banned from such an act that would threaten lives too instead of trying, wastefully, to lure him into a deal?
    You may not have noticed this, but Britain and America are not the same country.
     

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,661
    #33
    Wasn't it put upon than Baptist priest that burning the Qur'an would be just what you categorized as a violence bringing act that would put lives of American soldiers and civilians in danger? Why wasn't he prosecuted and this poor guy is over a joke? forget prosecuting him, why wasn't he banned from such an act that would threaten lives too instead of trying, wastefully, to lure him into a deal?

    You seem to have this notion that freedom of speech equates to a perfect government. That's just not true. All governments have faults and do make mistakes. Freedom of speech is a tool that allows people to expose and criticize these mistakes.

    The minister had the freedom to burn the Koran and chose not to, the reaction of the American public was enough to stem his actions. It's a simple as that.

    The British fellow had the choice to make a joke about blowing up an airport and he decided to do so. In a post-911 age, we all know or should know that sort of stuff isn't taken lightly. Now people are discussing in public how dumb a decision the government made and are openly criticizing the courts. On television.

    That's freedom of speech at it's finest.
     
    OP
    JBF

    JBF

    اختك يا زمن
    Aug 5, 2006
    18,451
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #34
    No, the trying to have a dig at Britain or America at every opportunity, whether they have acted unreasonably or not.
    What may be reasonable to you may not be to me and vise versa, hence the confusion.

    I only have a dig at them when it's an unjustified act they're making, I've no problem what so ever with your country and the constitution. It's just the working of the laws on the ground is what I've sometimes a problem with.

    You may not have noticed this, but Britain and America are not the same country.
    No shit.


    I only mentioned that incident since Britain reacted the same way America did with the Qura'n burning madness that erupted a couple of months ago, by defending people's freedom of speech and claiming that was categorized under it but at the same time warning of the sequences of such an act and condemning such an action if it actually happens.

    It only after the Baptist priest backed down that Britain took action for a couple of guys who video taped their own version of burning the Qur'an.
     
    OP
    JBF

    JBF

    اختك يا زمن
    Aug 5, 2006
    18,451
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #35
    You seem to have this notion that freedom of speech equates to a perfect government. That's just not true. All governments have faults and do make mistakes. Freedom of speech is a tool that allows people to expose and criticize these mistakes.

    The minister had the freedom to burn the Koran and chose not to, the reaction of the American public was enough to stem his actions. It's a simple as that.

    The British fellow had the choice to make a joke about blowing up an airport and he decided to do so. In a post-911 age, we all know or should know that sort of stuff isn't taken lightly. Now people are discussing in public how dumb a decision the government made and are openly criticizing the courts. On television.

    That's freedom of speech at it's finest.
    Im not calling for a perfect government but for a more transparent practice of the "freedom of speech limitations" if I can call them such. If a guy is prosecuted now for joking about an action of violence then so should have been the minister's ( I forgot about your priest/minister last lecture :D) fate. It's not like the two incidents have a that big of a time gap, we're talking about a 2-3 months here. The laws haven't changed have they? It's only the interpretation/practice of those that makes all this fuzz IMO.
     

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,661
    #36
    Im not calling for a perfect government but for a more transparent practice of the "freedom of speech limitations" if I can call them such. If a guy is prosecuted now for joking about an action of violence then so should have been the minister's ( I forgot about your priest/minister last lecture :D) fate. It's not like the two incidents have a that big of a time gap, we're talking about a 2-3 months here. The laws haven't changed have they? It's only the interpretation/practice of those that makes all this fuzz IMO.
    Well to be fair. The minister is from America and the bomb man is from Britain. They are two different nations with different laws. I really don't know the laws concerning threats in Britain.

    All I can really discuss is the United States.

    The minister would technically break no law by burning the Koran. However, the majority of the country was against him including members of the military and government officials. Because they could not officially charge him, it was left to the public to shut him down.

    Let's be realistic, in a post-911 world people will take the shit you write on the internet seriously until they find out you're not.
     

    X Æ A-12

    Senior Member
    Contributor
    Sep 4, 2006
    87,934
    #37
    Im not calling for a perfect government but for a more transparent practice of the "freedom of speech limitations" if I can call them such. If a guy is prosecuted now for joking about an action of violence then so should have been the minister's ( I forgot about your priest/minister last lecture :D) fate. It's not like the two incidents have a that big of a time gap, we're talking about a 2-3 months here. The laws haven't changed have they? It's only the interpretation/practice of those that makes all this fuzz IMO.
    But you are comparing what the government views as a serious threat to some idiot preacher and his nut congregation from the South. That guy from Florida just wanted attention, got it, then didn't pull through.
     
    OP
    JBF

    JBF

    اختك يا زمن
    Aug 5, 2006
    18,451
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #38
    That guy from Florida just wanted attention, got it, then didn't pull through.
    The same could be said about this British guy, on a much smaller scale ofcourse.


    I know what your point is Kyle but I just feel the grey area, by which I mean action that aren't categorized as part of the freedom right or threats/violence disturbing actions, is disturbingly big which is resulting in all this confusion. They should make it much clearer and at the same time take every case separately instead of going through them literally by the book.
     

    X Æ A-12

    Senior Member
    Contributor
    Sep 4, 2006
    87,934
    #40
    The same could be said about this British guy, on a much smaller scale ofcourse.
    I don't agree, its a totally different situation.

    I know what your point is Kyle but I just feel the grey area, by which I mean action that aren't categorized as part of the freedom right or threats/violence disturbing actions, is disturbingly big which is resulting in all this confusion. They should make it much clearer and at the same time take every case separately instead of going through them literally by the book.
    I think its clear enough. I agree of course that the British man should never have been prosecuted, but most people know that you shouldn't make terrorist threats over the internet. The preacher knew he had every right to say what he said just as millions of others can condemn him for it. I think this incident says more about the problems with organized religion than it does about freedom of speech. Personally I blame the media for responding to shitheads like this and giving them exactly what they want.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 7)