Comments on: Paul Chambers convicted for Twitter bomb ‘threat’‎ http://www.mixd.co.uk/blog/paul-chambers-convicted-for-twitter-bomb-threat%e2%80%8e Creative design and technical solutions for digital media and print Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:30:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Adam Lappin http://www.mixd.co.uk/blog/paul-chambers-convicted-for-twitter-bomb-threat%e2%80%8e/comment-page-1#comment-339 Adam Lappin Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:49:29 +0000 http://www.mixd.co.uk/?p=2157#comment-339 You missed the two '!!' off the end of the quote. They were given as evidence that the tweet was facetious in nature. I understand this blog is aimed at local businesses who perhaps don't understand Twitter. If you are such a business you should get in touch with Mixd - they do a fantastic job of explaining it! However, I do feel that the comment regarding daring to say “bomb” at an airport misses the point of the trial. The conviction was under an act aimed at nuisance calls to protect "female telephonists at the Post Office" in the 1930s. This is why it's so controversial - any content deemed offensive published online can now potentially result in a criminal conviction. No individual has to be offended, all that needs to happen to result in a conviction is for a judge to believe what is written is offensive. Also, stretching this act to cover social networks like Twitter as they are broadcast on a telecommunication network is massively controversial. This president is worrying and I hope it's appealed and overturned! You missed the two ‘!!’ off the end of the quote. They were given as evidence that the tweet was facetious in nature.

I understand this blog is aimed at local businesses who perhaps don’t understand Twitter. If you are such a business you should get in touch with Mixd – they do a fantastic job of explaining it!

However, I do feel that the comment regarding daring to say “bomb” at an airport misses the point of the trial. The conviction was under an act aimed at nuisance calls to protect “female telephonists at the Post Office” in the 1930s. This is why it’s so controversial – any content deemed offensive published online can now potentially result in a criminal conviction. No individual has to be offended, all that needs to happen to result in a conviction is for a judge to believe what is written is offensive. Also, stretching this act to cover social networks like Twitter as they are broadcast on a telecommunication network is massively controversial.

This president is worrying and I hope it’s appealed and overturned!

]]> By: Bob http://www.mixd.co.uk/blog/paul-chambers-convicted-for-twitter-bomb-threat%e2%80%8e/comment-page-1#comment-206 Bob Thu, 20 May 2010 11:51:44 +0000 http://www.mixd.co.uk/?p=2157#comment-206 Interesting to see that they didn't arrest everyone who Tweeted the same as a mark of protest... Interesting to see that they didn’t arrest everyone who Tweeted the same as a mark of protest…

]]> By: Phil Shackleton http://www.mixd.co.uk/blog/paul-chambers-convicted-for-twitter-bomb-threat%e2%80%8e/comment-page-1#comment-194 Phil Shackleton Mon, 10 May 2010 21:34:40 +0000 http://www.mixd.co.uk/?p=2157#comment-194 I have to say what a ridiculous situation! It's crazy that someone could and has been charged with this! Twitter and other social networks only make free speech issues more of a problem! I have to say what a ridiculous situation! It’s crazy that someone could and has been charged with this! Twitter and other social networks only make free speech issues more of a problem!

]]>