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”
merthyr_bill
The first guy did nothing wrong. Any police time wasters would be the people that reported him. If I announced on twitter I was committing a diamond heist tomorrow at x o’clock, the police can use their common sense to either use or disregard that information. Generally these things are not announced on twitter an so probably best ignored.
As for the second guy. This is free speech pure and simple. “As for Mr Compton, again, you just do not say things like that.” Why not? Which laws do you want that govern how we as individuals talk to each other? It wasn’t incitement. It was maybe rude or offensive but so what. So is Russell Brand.
Mr. Sensible
‘Merthyr_Bill’, as I said if a threat like that is made, the police cannot afford to take chances. For, if he had gone on to blow it up and the police did nothing there would be as much of an outcry.
And saying you want someone stoned to death isn’t ‘freedom of speach’; it’s, well, I don’t know what. I might not have necesarily agreed with what she was saying, but I would not have wanted her to be killed because of it.
And for the record I think Russell Brand should have been delt with more severely after ‘Phone Gate.’
A Kendal
I’m not sure how Chambers can be regarded as having wasted police time – he didn’t involve them on spurious grounds.
As to Compton, I’m relieved to know I’m not alone in thinking the response has been ridiculous.
Some of the comments here are fascinating: it appears that being stupid is now a criminal offence – and some posters here apparently agree. Indeed, some of the posters here – and this is the root of the issue, I think – seem to believe that they have a right not to be offended, by stupidity or anything else, for that matter.
The point of free speech is not feeling good about allowing anything you agree with with while finding excuses to censor or criminalise everything that you don’t like: ‘free speech’ means understanding that you have to allow things that you don’t like as well. That’s when it appears to get difficult for some people – that’s what some people do not appear to ‘get’.
Boffy mentioned Margaret Thatcher: has nobody ever expressed a sentiment, in the past 30 years or so and within the hearing of others, that someone should get rid of her? Should they have been prosecuted too?
Where do you want to stop? People will say distasteful things when she finally does die. There’ll be celebrations. There’ll be parties. Will that be out of order of order too – or will it only be out of order when someone applauds the eventual death of Nelson Mandela?
Excellent post. And clearly well needed.
merthyr_bill
“And saying you want someone stoned to death isn’t ‘freedom of speach’; it’s, well, I don’t know what.”
– you’ll have to do better than that. either it’s free speech or a crime (threat, slander,libel etc).
what is it? i think it is offensive but legal. it wasn’t a threat and it wasn’t incitement. you can’t just get the law and police to arrest and charge people for saying things you don’t like.
and what would you have done with Russell Brand? Jail time? You think he should have been dealt with “more severely”. By who? In the context of the current discussion I’m assuming you mean the police.
Mr. Sensible, you are a very scary person.
Mr. Sensible
Bill you could actually turn the argument about ‘free speach’ on its head in the Compton case; here was a woman who expressed her opinion on a radio show, and because Compton presumably disagreed with her he said she should be stoned to death. What do you call that?
And BTW I think the BBC were more than a bit lenient with both Brand and Ross in that case.