Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is well remunerated to exercise her opinions every week in her Independent column. Her free expression keeps a roof over her head, so you’d expect her to be forgiving when others exercise their rights. Sadly not. Whilst she didn’t call the police about Cllr Compton, she says she would have done so, and has backed up the CPS position that these tweets are “menacing”.
On Thursday, comedy writer Graham Lineham wrote an excellent piece for Index on Censorship:
“The Twitter joke trial is the clearest indication yet that the world is divided into two sorts of people at the moment. The people who ‘get it’, and the people who don’t.”
Sadly, those who don’t get it include the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary, and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
For a single tweet, Paul Chambers now has a criminal record, is facing a £1,000 fine, plus the costs from his original conviction and after Thursday another £2,600 worth of costs. At 27, he is branded a criminal and has lost his job.
There’s no doubt that what Chambers 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!”
… was stupid. But the response has been absolutely disproportionate.
Originally, Chambers was arrested because the police felt compelled to investigate his “bomb threat”. After his arrest, officers felt that the threat from the tweet had not been credible.
Yet, the CPS subsequently brought charges against Chambers, not for the original arrest charge, which would have needed a high threshold for evidence of a viable bomb plot, but instead he became the first person in the UK to be charged for a tweet under section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003.
As Jack of Kent points out, the CPS regard section 127 as a “strict liability” offence, which in practice means they don’t need to provide any evidence whatsoever of intention before they prosecute. This is significant. No one would suggest that Paul Chambers intended to “menace” people from his tweet (or be grossly offensive, indecent, or obscene).
But for the CPS this is irrelevant. The tweet alone was enough for them to launch their prosecution. Just placing the tweet on a website is enough for them to prosecute.
Even free speech fundamentalists agree with US Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s point that free speech would not protect an idiot who shouted fire in a crowded theatre and caused a panic. Though as one of the most ardent free speech campaigners alive today, Aryeh Neier, points out in Index on Censorship magazine (“Radio Redux”):
“… the stress on circumstances is crucial. If the theatre were empty at the time, there would be no panic and, therefore, in Holmes’s judgement, no basis for punishing the false shout of fire.”
English law now seems to suggest that merely to shout fire is enough to initiate a prosecution – which is utterly chilling for free expression.
It isn’t just the CPS who don’t get it. Judge Jacqueline Davies said Chambers was an “an unimpressive witness”, adding:
“… the words in the message speak for themselves and they were sent at a time when the security threat to this country was substantial… Any ordinary person would have been menaced by the tweet.”
This isn’t a one-off. On Thursday, Tory councillor Gareth Compton was arrested for a “menacing tweet”. Idiotically he tweeted:
“Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a blessing, really.”
Now, I find this offensive and imagine most people do – but there is a huge difference between stupidity and criminal behaviour. With the Chambers case setting the case law, it is likely he could face a huge fine. The Conservatives have suspended him from the party. Again, someone faces a criminal record (and the end of their career: Compton is a barrister) for an idiotic comment on twitter.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is well remunerated to exercise her opinions every week in her Independent column. Her free expression keeps a roof over her head, so you’d expect her to be forgiving when others exercise their rights. Sadly not. Whilst she didn’t call the police about Cllr Compton, she says she would have done so, and has backed up the CPS position that these tweets are “menacing”.
And Labour’s position? Labour backbenches found themselves suddenly exercised by the ghost of Thomas Paine this week as they defended the fundamental right of Phil Woolas to lie on election material / generally be idiotic (see my thoughts on this here), but sadly this free expression zeal doesn’t seem to extend to other political parties.
Steve McCabe, Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, said:
“It is staggering that the Conservative Party allowed Gareth Compton to represent the people of Birmingham in the first place. His despicable comments on Twitter show that he has no place in public office.”
Maybe – I certainly think Cllr Compton’s comments show a lack of judgement – but, what no Labour MP has tackled is whether they think Cllr Compton should be prosecuted. That’s at the heart of this debate, not mere offence, but whether people should be prosecuted for a criminal offence over a single tweet.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
34 Responses to “The CPS, judiciary and Yasmin Alibhai Brown just don’t get Twitter”
IanHPA
A tweet, even a single tweet, is not the same as chatting to your friends. Stupid jokes or gratuitously offensive personal attacks are, in effect being published for the whole world to view when submitted to twitter. The question of what is a proportionate response to such malice or foolishness needs careful consideration, but the boundaries of free speech should not, perhaps, be delineated by fools and insult hurling abusers.
Boffy
For the last 30 years comedy has increasingly gone down a route of being outrageous and offensive. Did anyone really beleive the clown Kenny Everett was being serious when he shouted out “Let’s Bomb Russia”? The Left has not been slow to use offence and outrage to satirise the establishment, and many ordinary people now beleive that what would have been considered unreasonable behaviour, language etc. is now perfectly normal. In fact, in a world where what was once outrageous is now taken as normal you have to be even more shocking to make an impact. This is another aspect of dumbing down, and celebrity culture. What was once an acceptable piece of outrageous satire for an Alexei Sayle to come out with on TV, increasingly people think is ok in everyday life – and to be honest why shouldn’t it be?
When TV is full of people being “funny” by humiliating other people, being rude to other people, and so on, why should we wonder why kids mimic that attitude, and we then call it anti-social behaviour. I have no doubt that when Thatcher pops her clogs there will be many people on the Left who will respond in a less than reverend manner. We shouldn’t complain too much when others adopt similar practices. Its called free speech.
merthyr_bill
And who should delineate the boundaries of free speech? You? The Labour Party? Yasmin Alibayah-Brown?
John Bamber
So what do you think is unacceptable in a tweet? Racist comments or incitemant to racial hatred or violence? Let’s face it the moronic comments of the Brummie barrister are skirting that particular line anyway and if he spouts this garbage in a public forum perhaps he should lose his job. I certainly wouldn’t want to be represented by him, and if this statute forces people like him to keep their nasty little prejudices private, I can’t say that I’m sorry.
StephenH
the Robin Hood bloke should have been cautioned for wasting police time– nothing more. Simply because the police are compelled to check it out such utter nonsense. The CPS have lost the plot here.
The second bloke should simply have been allowed to make a pillock of himself.