I wouldn’t
dream of suggesting that the Court of Appeal judges avidly read this blog.
But it is
encouraging when they agree! In fact it is simple common sense which has
prevailed in the case of Paul Chambers.
You will
recall from a couple of weeks ago that this was the case where he had been
prosecuted and convicted of terrorist related offences after tweeting the words
- "Crap! 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!!"
He was
given a fine and ordered to pay costs.
His appeal
against conviction was supported by Stephen Fry and other celebrities and has been successful.
The Court
of Appeal said that you had to ask yourself how a person would react to the
words –
"If the person or persons who receive or read it, (the
message) or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it
aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous
banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message
of a menacing character."
In reality nobody reading his tweet would have believed for
one minute that he was intending to blow up the airport. If he had said it in
normal conversation it would not have been taken literally. So why should the fact that it is contained in 140 characters make it threatening?
What is alarming is that it has taken him two appeals to
clear his name.
This does not alter the need to be very careful about what you
put in those 140 characters. But it is good to see common sense prevail and to
know that our most senior appeal judges have shown a better understanding than we saw in the earlier courts - and given us all some
clear guidance.
No comments:
Post a Comment