The realisation that I had not updated my blog in such a long time only dawned on me yesterday amid the furore surrounding the tweets sent to Olympic Diver Tom Daley by some 17 year old boy who clearly had nothing better to do with his time than to hurl insults to someone who has clearly achieved more in his youth than this particular individual has or will ever do.
However, let us rewind a few days where Twitter was once again under the scrutiny of the lawyers following the Lord Chief Justice's Judgment in the case of Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157. In that case, the Crown Prosecution Service considered it prudent to charge Mr Chambers with an offence under s.127 of the the Communications Act 2003 after he had tweeted the following message to his girlfriend:
"Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!!"
Remarkably, not only was Mr Chambers charged, he was also convicted by the Magistrates' Court (a District Judge no less) and his appeal to the Crown Court was unsuccessful. Thankfully, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting in the Divisional Court, quashed the conviction. Quite apart from making the obvious observations that the tweet in question was (a) as far as Mr Chambers was concerned clearly meant as 'a joke' to his other half , (b) was not in any event sent directly to the airport, and (c) once brought to the attention of airport security had been deemed as 'non-credible', the LCJ observed at para 30 that:
"...After all a message which cannot or is unlikely to be implemented may nevertheless create a sense of apprehension or fear in the person who receives or reads it. However unless it does so, it is difficult to see how it can sensibly be described as a message of a menacing character. So, if the person or persons who receive or read it, 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 short, a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably expected to see it, falls outside this provision, for the very simple reason that the message lacks menace."
The Judgment was undoubtedly a victory not only for Mr Chambers, but also for common sense. Earlier in the Judgment, the LCJ observed, at paragraph 28, that:
"The 2003 Act did not create some newly minted interference with the first of President Roosevelt’s essential freedoms – freedom of speech and expression. Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by this legislation."
Fast forward a couple of days where, three days into the Olympics, Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield come fourth in the synchronised diving. Tom tweets as follows:
"After giving it my all...you get idiot's sending me this...RT @Rileyy_69: @TomDaley1994 you let your dad down i hope you know that."
Tom's dad having died of cancer, this comment was undoubtedly intended to be hurtful. Unsurprisingly, Tom's fans (as well as those who were just appalled by what had been said) rallied to his defence and a Twitter campaign that @Rileyy_69 be banned from Twitter ensued. Undeterred, @Rileyy_69 continued with abuse such as "hope your crying now you should be why can't you even produce for your country your just a diver anyway a over hyped prick" and "sit you ass back down tommy and don't get on a diving board again my little brother could do better absolute waste of space."
However, once Tom's fans rallied together and a Twitter war was waged, @Rileyy_69 changed his tune:
"I'm really sorry :("
"Please I don't want to be hated I'm just sorry you didn't win I was rooting for you pal to do britain all proud just so upset."
The next day, the BBC reports that:
In the meantime, various people (including lawyers) were expressing their views on Twitter and through writing blogs about what had happened. A number of lawyers expressed the view that they were 'surprised' how the attitudes of people change in so short a space of time, i.e, how the public had only days earlier welcomed the Judgment of the LCJ in Chambers but were now horrified by what had been said by @Rileyy_69.
To be honest, lawyers should know better. The two cases are hardly comparable. Yes, they both involved the medium of Twitter but the similarities end there. In Chambers, the 'non-credible' threat had been aimed at Mr Chambers' partner, not the airport and was, on any sensible reading, a joke. @Rileyy_69 on the other hand chose to fling abuse at Tom directly. There was nothing funny about the content. There was no joke. He was simply being abusive. I've read two legal blogs so far which suggest that these comments were likely to be no more than a 17 year old venting frustration at the fact that Tom missed out on securing an olympic medal and who clearly regretted his actions as demonstrated by his public apology. That explanation does not, I'm afraid, stand up to scrutiny. First, a lot of people may have been upset that Tom didn't secure a medal but they certainly did not decide to tell him so in such a manner through the public medium of Twitter. Second, if one cared to look at @Rileyy_69's other, unrelated tweets, (as I did) it would have been immediately obvious that this particular Twitter user thinks nothing of using Twitter as a means to hurl insults and threaten violence to others. In fact the comments made to Tom were mild compared to other things @Rileyy_69 had said. Third, the idea that the apology amounted to anything more than an attempt to avoid getting into trouble is laughable. This is because (a) @Rileyy_69 had an established history of using vile and offensive language and (b) the apology only came after people had rallied in support of Tom and were trying to get @Rileyy_69 banned.
Whether this whole affair results in a court appearance nobody yet knows. Certainly if Mr Chambers warranted being charged, this particular Twitter user does. However, the police and the CPS will no doubt have the Lord Chief Justice's Judgment firm in their minds and will wish to carefully reflect upon it before they rush to make a charging decision.
Anyhow, it will be interesting to see what happens.
I will also make more of an effort to update my blog whilst I'm out here!
