I’m sure most of you have seen this. What’s curious is that Chambers wasn’t convicted of making terroristic threats; he wasn’t even charged with that. Instead he’s a “menace”, convicted for roughly the equivalent of making prank telephone calls. I’m not quite sure how that works, largely because he didn’t send the tweet to the airline. It looks like that first they overreacted to a tweet and then they punished him for causing their overreaction. Stephen Fry has offered to pay the man’s legal bills, but the mark on his record is standing for now.
Anyone know anything about British law and why this conviction isn’t obviously insane?
The Edge of the American West 
26 comments
November 13, 2010 at 8:42 am
mrearl
Over here, we look for “true threat.” Over there they break the butterfly upon the wheel. There’ll always be an England.
November 13, 2010 at 11:42 am
ben
I think factivity means that no one can know anything about why this conviction isn’t obviously insane.
November 13, 2010 at 12:14 pm
David
The use of a twitter public forum to make jesting threats doesn’t seem completely OK to me. If I tweet “Fire! Fire!” and the theatergoers rush to the exits in a panic, is it different than shouting it out? If I tweet “I’m going to bomb the airport!” how is it functionally different (for the police) than a telephone bomb threat?
Chambers apparently had no ill intent and nothing bad seems to have happened–except distraction of the police. The consequences to Chambers for distracting the police seem disproportionate (losing his job, etc) but what he did do isn’t generally acceptable to me. It seems that he could deserve a fat ticket (say $1000) for wasting police time but losing his job, etc seems insane.
From the point-of-view of the police the “I am Spartacus” campaign is probably just another distraction. In the movie, the “police” just crucified all the Spartacos when they couldn’t find the real one.
November 13, 2010 at 12:22 pm
ben
If I tweet “Fire! Fire!” and the theatergoers rush to the exits in a panic, is it different than shouting it out?
So the idea here is that a significant portion of the theater follows you on twitter and they’re checking twitter while in the theater?
November 13, 2010 at 1:15 pm
nick
Is shouting “fire” in a theater illegal? Can you point to a specific portion of the law that covers this? I’m just curious, because I always see this brought up as an example of how the first amendment doesn’t cover all speech as protected, but I’ve heard this since I was a child and have never seen any proof – not that it doesn’t exist, mind you, just that a lot of stuff “i heard as a kid” isn’t really true. So I’m curious.
Also, there’s the issue of first amendment rights being Only Applied To The Government. And keep in mind our first amendment doesn’t apply to England so questions of freedom of speech/press must be different there.
I’m pretty sure most of this is just the government needing to appear hard so as to show to the populace that they’re still up and on this terrorism thing.
Also…. blowing up an airport? I mean, c’mon. How damn tiny are airports in England, that a single man working alone to get some holiday poon could be thought a credible threat. Couldn’t they just search amongst his followers’ tweets and what not and see if there was any actual conspiring going on?
Shit man, when I was growing up my grandpa often jokingly declared that if a stoplight didn’t turn green that instant that he’d blow up the entire city. Now, if he said that on twitter, he’d wind up in jail.
The terrorists are winning if they’ve made our governments incapable of telling a joke from a threat.
November 13, 2010 at 1:16 pm
dana
What’s interesting is that if you follow the timeline, days after Chambers blew off steam, an employee working at home discovered the tweet while reviewing Twitter for customer-service-like complaints; he forwarded it to a supervisor who recognized that it wasn’t a threat, but followed procedure and passed it on up; no one’s charged him with a bomb hoax or inciting a panic. No one at the airport was freaked out by his Twitter feed.
Thus, it seems that the standard here is that if the police have to investigate you even just to cover all the bases (which we might agree is wise), it’s somehow your fault if they turn out to be wrong. That’s… disconcerting.
So I think for the cases to be parallel, you’d have to tweet “Fire, Fire!” while in a theater, and then about a week later have someone show up at your door. I’m not an expert on incitement kinds of speech, but from what I recall there has to be some kind of immediacy to the action.
November 13, 2010 at 1:30 pm
David
So the idea here is that a significant portion of the theater
A very low probability event, of course, particularly for me. But low probability of being noticed still doesn’t persuade me that it is completely ok to make public threats. But, my personality is such that I don’t play with matches even when there doesn’t seem to be anything to burn. Somebody did notice Chambers’ tweet, after all.
Lets see: In 2010 there are 83,000,000 registered twitter users. If there is one chance in a million that saying something stupidly threatening could be misconstrued to require a police response, then if each user says something stupid once a year (83,000,000 stupid statements on twitter–seems reasonable) then there could be 83 times a year that the police are called. The _chance_ of a problem from any particular stupid statement is low (1/1000000)but because there are so many interactions, there will always be police calls. The Chambers case looks like a mistake–that is, one of the statements that is brought to the notice of the police because the reader is overly concerned. The best way to deal with this kind of “accidental” event is to charge the participants for the police time (a fine) so as to discourage the person playing with matches (Chambers) to stop.
So, yes the court case is insane, the punishment absurd–but Chambers accidentally dropped his threatening “match” on a flammable twitter reader and lit a fire.
November 13, 2010 at 1:49 pm
kevin
Is shouting “fire” in a theater illegal? Can you point to a specific portion of the law that covers this? I’m just curious, because I always see this brought up as an example of how the first amendment doesn’t cover all speech as protected, but I’ve heard this since I was a child and have never seen any proof – not that it doesn’t exist, mind you, just that a lot of stuff “i heard as a kid” isn’t really true.
Is shouting fire in a crowded theater illegal? Depends on your local fire code, I suppose.
Can shouting fire in a crowded theater be considered constitutionally-protected free speech? Not according to the Supreme Court in Schenck v. US.
Sorry, but Oliver Wendell Holmes is not a figment of your childhood imagination.
November 13, 2010 at 1:56 pm
ben
Thus, it seems that the standard here is that if the police have to investigate you even just to cover all the bases (which we might agree is wise), it’s somehow your fault if they turn out to be wrong. That’s… disconcerting.
Yeah. It’s as if coming to the attention of the authorities is itself a trespass.
(On metafilter: “That’s the same Crown Prosecution Service that made a decision not to prosecute the policeman seen by millions beating Ian Tomlinson to the ground, only for him to die minutes later.
I think they toss a coin. Heads we take you to trial, tails you’re a member of the Met.”)
November 13, 2010 at 2:27 pm
David
Ben–also from MetaFilter:
When I talk about what sort of explosives would best bring down the building in which I work nobody takes it seriously because it’s so obviously a joke about how much work sucks. When I talk about stalking through Meadowhall shopping centre with an AK-47 and a bag of ammo none of my colleagues, friends or even passers-by are going to report me to police because a) I’m not obviously Islamic and b) that’s just silly. People understand that I am merely complaining about Meadowhell and it’s general awfulness.
If this is normal speech in the UK then I really do wonder what Chambers did to get into trouble? His “threat” is less crazy than this–but I look at the issue from the POV of the US where buying an AK47 and shooting up the mall is relatively more common.
November 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm
onymous
In related news, “Childish pranks just don’t have a place anymore…. What may have been seen as cute and clever years ago really doesn’t get that kind of reaction today.”
Sigh.
November 13, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Matthew Ernest
“It’s as if coming to the attention of the authorities is itself a trespass.”
I submit it would be difficult for the authorities to pursue the case if it did not come to their attention.
November 13, 2010 at 5:00 pm
ben
I submit it would be difficult for the authorities to pursue the case if it did not come to their attention.
I submit that you should learn how to read.
November 13, 2010 at 6:24 pm
politicalfootball
If I tweet “Fire! Fire!” and the theatergoers rush to the exits in a panic, is it different than shouting it out?
I was going to suggest that this is a foolish analogy, but on reflection, I actually think it’s pretty good.
So to answer your question, yes, it is different tweeting “Fire” in a crowded theater and shouting the same thing. Just as complaining about the weather on Tweet isn’t the same thing as threatening an airport.
Your hypothetical theater-goers, and the judge in this case, are idiots, and have no business blaming other people for their stupidity.
November 13, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Mr Punch
This British court ruling is totally bogus. (oh no no sorry I didn’t mean that!)
November 14, 2010 at 3:44 am
chris y
I am not a British lawyer, but this guy is. He hasn’t commented directly on the decision because he’s too close to the case, but the decision is clearly nuts.
November 14, 2010 at 6:01 am
Erik Lund
Calm down, everyone!
Let’s look at the facts here:
i) This Chambers guy tweets a lot. Ha! “Tweet” is a funny word. It’s almost like “twit.” Look at me, I’m giggly!
ii) Not only is he living in sin (I know, I’m shocked, too), but his girlfriend is apparently named #crazylegs or some such. The name says it all, but in case it doesn’t, just because a character is on your keyboard, doesn’t mean it can be in your name. At least Prince did us the courtesy of inventing a character.
iii) He’s lost his job twice. Clearly a nogoodnik.
iv) The judge found him an “unimpressive witness.” Knowing what we know, are we surprised? Still, the conclusion–
He’s a loser. And being a loser in Britain now carries a thousand pound fine, a highly welcome precedent that I hope is soon extended more widely. Rowlings? The last book was too long: pay up! Cleese? Why hasn’t there ever been a _Fawlty Towers_ reunion? ‘Ere’s your bill. Chris Tolkien? Just stop.
November 14, 2010 at 7:07 am
dana
From the link (and I’d read this elsewhere), Chambers’ twitter feed was set to followers only. I can’t see how this amounts to him wasting police resources, unless we want to say that doing anything that could conceivably in a roundabout manner such as this that makes them have to do something is a crime. It seems like it makes more sense to say that investigating things is their job, and sometimes investigations turn out to be nothing, especially when everyone along the way agreed that it was nothing.
Plus, what else might make nelly nervous? Praying in an airport? Writing “Flight is on time! Praise Allah!” on Twitter? Arguing that the APA should be destroyed? Even the British statute requires wrongful intent.
November 14, 2010 at 9:26 am
jim
This case reminds me of the classic case, Rex v. Haddock, reported in Punch by A. P. Herbert.
Haddock had jumped off Hammersmith Bridge into the Thames on a bet. He was rescued, though he didn’t want to be, by the police and charged with a number of offences, eventually being fined two pounds. He appealed. Lord Light, L.C.J., summarized the case and Haddock’s various defences, then proceeded:
This is more than three-quarters of a century ago, and had Lord Chief Justice Light known of Twitter, he’d have undoubtedly included in his litany of things Londoners may not do, “tweet as they like.”
Herbert wrote satire, and, for Punch, gentle satire. But here he captures the essence of authority.
November 14, 2010 at 3:07 pm
David
@politicalfootball
I agree that running to the theater exit after a tweet would be stupid, but probably almost all the runners would be following the one person who read the tweet and started running and shouting “Fire!” Still your fault–even if they’re stupid.
That’s pretty much what happened to Chambers–airport guy reads tweet, decides to “follow protocol” and then the legal machine started grinding away.
You make a good point–people are stupid. As a result, even _whispering_ fire (read “tweeting” fire) in a theater or _whispering_, “I’ve got a bomb” in an airport is a potential disaster if you’re overheard by the right (i.e., wrong) panicky person who calls the cops.
November 14, 2010 at 3:21 pm
David
The lawyer referred to by chris y above makes the key point–the case was apparently decided on the basis of strict liability. I think that’s a good name for what I was thinking in my discussion: If somebody stupid decides to call the cops because you say you’re going to kill/blow them up–that’s on you, not on the stupid person.
November 14, 2010 at 4:42 pm
politicalfootball
Plus, what else might make nelly nervous?
Muslim garb.
November 14, 2010 at 11:28 pm
ben
The lawyer referred to by chris y above makes the key point–the case was apparently decided on the basis of strict liability.
Was it? The judge makes reference to what the guy should have known, doesn’t she? That would be completely irrelevant in a strict liability context.
November 15, 2010 at 5:12 am
Dave
Anyone here actually an English lawyer?
November 15, 2010 at 5:24 am
ajay
Over here, we look for “true threat.” Over there they break the butterfly upon the wheel. There’ll always be an England.
Yes, over in Britain we’ve always admired and envied the calm, unflustered way in which Americans seem to handle terrorist threats.
November 16, 2010 at 5:10 am
Matt Lister
The judge makes reference to what the guy should have known, doesn’t she? That would be completely irrelevant in a strict liability context.
Not necessarily. Knowledge can still be an element of a crime in a strict liability case. What’s irrelevant is intent, and in the law knowledge and intent are importantly different elements. Doug Husak, in his recent book Overcriminalization, mentions the very large growth of strict liability crimes in England as a major danger to freedom there. This seems like a pretty good example.