Today was a good day for supporters of the Communications Act 2003, or more specifically, s127(1a) of the Communications Act, which makes it an offence, punishable by up to 6 months in prison and a hefty fine, to “send by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” By contrast, today was a bad day for people who believe in freedom of speech.

Firstly, the courts have upheld the verdict against Paul Chambers (@PaulJChambers), who was prosecuted under the act for posting a tweet on twitter saying “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!” as a clearly frustrated, non-serious response to travel disruption. The whole farce has come to be known as #twitterjoketrial and has been heavily criticised by lawyers and laymen alike, and rightly so.

Secondly, earlier today Gareth Compton, a Tory Councillor, was arrested and bailed, also under s127(1a) CA2003, for posting a message on twitter calling, most likely non-seriously, for a woman to be stoned to death. Now, whilst that makes him a major douchebag, that should not make him a criminal. The fact that he was not hit with an Incitement charge suggests the CPS are fully aware that a more well-defined and scrutinised charge just wouldn’t stick, hence relying on the until recently rarely used s127. Regardless of his political affilation, or the crass nature of his joke, Compton should have the full support of liberals, lawyers, and anyone who believes in the right to free speech, just as Paul Chambers has had.

Together, these cases also go some way to suggest a wider issue in our courts than just bad law – the distancing of judges from the perceptions and understandings of modern, common persons. Is it right that a case focused on social media should be judged by a person who has no understanding of  the circumstances surrounding the very heart of the case? Is a generational divide between defendants and judiciary undermining justice by preventing a full understanding of the facts? Perhaps, but that is a discussion for another time.

The real issue here is one of restrictions on free speech. Freedom should obviously extend to the freedom to express frustration or make a twat of yourself. That freedom should not be restricted on some concept of a “climate of terror” dreamt up by those in power. Imagine if you tweeted something like “Argh I’m going to kill my MP for breaking his pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees”, and then the next day the police come knocking at your door. How can the CPS honestly claim prosecuting for something so clearly not serious could even come close to passing the public interest test?

I believe it is time for a full review of the Communications Act, and I will be campaigning for such; as well as looking to see this adopted as policy in the Pirate Party UK manifesto, who already fight against horrendous laws restricting our rights and freedoms.

Now, I don’t know about you, but after all this I could murder a cup of tea… oh shit wait…

Today was a good day for supporters of the Communications Act 2003, or more specifically, s127(1a) of the Communications Act, which makes it an offence, punishable by up to 6...

Today @PaulJChambers was found guilty of a criminal offence contrary to s127 Communications Act 2003, which makes it a strict liability (i.e. you’re guilty if you just did the act of it, regardless of circumstance) offence to make “”indecent, obscene or menacing” messages via a telecommunication network.

Originally he was charged under Criminal Law Act 1977 for a bomb hoax, however the CPS decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence for this, and instead opted for the rarely used s127.

But just what did Paul Chambers do? He tweeted a joke. A crap joke, but a joke all the same.

“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

For this, he now has a criminal record, and faces a £1000 fine.

Just to be clear, here, a British citizen is now a criminal for making a completely non-serious comment on twitter. This is yet another example of the ridiculous restrictions we have on freedom of speech in the UK, joining the growing list of heavy-handed offences such as Incitement, and the infamous Libel law; as well as yet another example of the erosion of our liberties under the authoritarian New Labour party.

Keep checking #twitterjoketrial for updates, and possible link to a whip-round to pay for his fee.

Today @PaulJChambers was found guilty of a criminal offence contrary to s127 Communications Act 2003, which makes it a strict liability (i.e. you’re guilty if you just did the act...