4 Jun 2010 | Index Index, minipost, Uncategorized
Paul Chambers is to appeal against his conviction for sending a threatening message on the social media site Twitter. The trainee accountant, 26, the tweeted “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!” On 10 May Chambers was convicted in Doncaster Crown Court, prosecutors successfully argued that the message had a “menacing character”. The defendant’s appeal is being coordinated by solicitor Allen Green — better known as the blogger Jack of Kent.
26 May 2010 | Uncategorized
Is a ban on a tattoo parlour opening in California’s Hermosa Beach a form of censorship? Johnny Anderson, who runs “Yer Cheat’n Heart” in Gardena, thinks so. He’s gone to court in Los Angeles claiming that a local zoning law that prevents him from free expression via the medium of his customers’ bodies, and so is contrary to the First Amendment.
Legal discussion of whether tattoos are protected speech and whether the zoning law is illegal is likely to drag on. Hermosa Beach seems to have an effective indirect ban on tattoo-making — at least in a shop. But from across the water this doesn’t look like a serious infringement of free expression for the individual concerned. Tattoos for many people — makers and wearers alike – can be a powerful statement of belief. I’m always amazed when I see someone ready to announce “ACAB” across their knuckles (“All Coppers Are Bastards”), for example. It would be interesting too, to know, whether UK libel laws would treat tattooing as a form of publication — what would have happened if Simon Singh had tattooed his thoughts about chiropractors across his forehead, for example?
But in the US example, Anderson can easily tattoo from his shop in Gardena. And the publicity surrounding this case will probably guarantee him a steady flow of human canvases. He’s not being censored since his works still gets to be seen. Presumably the people he’s tattooed are free to remove their shirts and display his work in Hermosa Beach. He’s just limited in where he locates his studio. And that isn’t quite the same thing as censorship, as any artist who has been censored would be able to explain to him. Surely the important issue should be whether or not the individual gets to express him or herself, not the precise geographical location of where the creative act takes place.
11 May 2010 | Uncategorized
With humour, context is all.
Things tend to be funny either because we entirely understand the context (as with the perrenial injokes of, say, Radio 4’s I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue) or because things are utterly wrenched out of context (the bizarre ramblings of Ross Noble).
Paul Chambers, a trainee accountant, made a joke to his Twitter followers, saying he would blow up Robin Hood airport if closures meant he missed a meet-up with an Irish friend.
Specifically, he wrote:
“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”
Not especially funny, but hardly that offensive either. And not genuinely threatening, is it?
Incredibly, someone reported Chambers’s tweet to the airport.
And then the airport passed it onto the police.
So at what stage does someone think “this was obviously a joke; we should drop this”?
They don’t. The Crown Prosecution Service first attempted to see if it could prosecute under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Having found the case insufficient, it then switched the charge to one under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 — a piece of legislation designed to punish harassment by text message.
Unbelievably, on 10 May, Chambers was yesterday found guilty as charged, and ordered to pay a fine and costs totalling almost £1,000.
The judgment makes unsettling reading for anyone who’s ever made a joke on their Facebook page or Twitter feed: Essentially it implies that since Chambers “published” the joke, he both must have known it to be menacing and meant it to be menacing.
The judgment bases this conclusion on the fact of the “current climate” of Islamist terror attacks on aviation. So once again, fear of a dour, punitive, vindictive, literalist movement has led the powers that be to act in a dour, punitive, vindictive manner.
Jack of Kent has lots more on this
Update: Paul Chambers has blogged about his experience on Liberty Central
21 Apr 2010 | Uncategorized
File this one under “interesting”.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that a ban on videos portraying animal cruelty contravene’s the country’s First Amendment, which guarantees free speech.
Laws were introduced in 1999 to prevent the distribution of “crush” videos, showing small animals being stepped on by stiletto heels (yes, really).
But Supreme Court judges voted 8-1 in declaring the laws on depictions of animal cruelty too broad. While there are laws against animal cruelty itself in place, the Supreme Court was unwilling to draw up a new category of prohibited expression. Campaigners had warned that the law was too broad, and could incriminate depictions of bullfights, and even hunting magazines.
Read more here
