Comments on: Paul Chambers responds to DPP announcement on social media prosecutions

By: remove static

remove static — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:51:03 +0000

Wonderful blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News. Do
you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo
News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Many thanks

By: Attacks on journalists and activists must stop

Attacks on journalists and activists must stop — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:52:06 +0000

[...] for saying the “wrong” thing on Facebook and Twitter: Matthew Woods, Azhar Ahmed and Paul Chambers are just some of the people who have found themselves at the sharp end of censorious laws. Abstract [...]

By: Snoopers Charter – MP glad to see bill fail « University of Wales, Newport: Information Security and Privacy

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:35:58 +0000

[...] the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has over-prosecuted free speech cases in the past citing the Paul Chambers Twitter joke trial case: “Aside from the free speech issue, what a waste of [...]

By: McCallion C.

McCallion C. — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:38:27 +0000

Freedom of speech must only be limited and punished in drastic circumstances. For example, I agree with the countries that have blocked the showing of the anti-Islamic video in order to prevent riots and more innocent deaths but I believe this video censorship should only be temporary until these countries decided how they are going to handle this situation. Social media is a platform for the freedom of expression that continues to expand. The DPP needs to realize that freedom of speech must get the highest scrutiny when deciding to limit or punish because such freedom promotes and facilitates a democracy. Also, it would be very difficult to punish every single person for their comments or acts on social media and prosecuting these cases would clog up the court system and waste financial resources.

By: Dinah Greek

Dinah Greek — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 21:16:50 +0000

I agree on many points but we need to see what the consultation brings out and what guidelines are proposed.
Yes there is the spectre that haunts us all that ‘free speech’ is under threat. I apparently can’t use the word twat anymore – it’s vulgar now but I didn’t know the joking aside had been made offensive until I used it at work..
So what is free speech exactly? What this generation makes it and who exactly are you and who tells me what I can or cannot say? And what are the boundaries… what rights do we have balanced against someone else’s rights – I personally feel the muslim reaction to a daft film is so over the top.. but I am not religious..I dont feel their anger.
Paul’s case is simple – he was wrongly convicted..No one in their right mind would consider his comments a threat – any more than my they would have in my youth when I heard my now 95 year old aunt’s ocassional outbursts to her husband when they disagreed – “CHRIST Higgy I could KILL you sometimes”
In my opinion there is currently an hysterical backlash against opposite opinions and off the cuff comments. Twitter is sometimes a forum for vile lynch mobs – no democracy at all there – disagree with me you must be a bigot.
All we can do is monitor the situation. Thomas made an ill judged and stupid offensive remark – that does not make him a troll , Paul made a remark most of us can understand but it was also ill judged in current times – so either we get a bit of a grip or we see more of this stupidity from the courts ,, what is offensive to you may not be to someone else. So I guess the CPS has to judge – although based on current political climate I fear for the best

By: Joe Poulton

Joe Poulton — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:39:20 +0000

I supported you as I think that the tweet in question did not pose a threat to the airport.
What we are witnessing is the demise of free speech. You will find it far easier to establish a police state than to dismantle one.

By: Paul Chambers

Paul Chambers — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:09:57 +0000

Totally agree that it is not a victory as yet while cases like Azhar Ahmed are still ongoing. What I meant was that to get even an admission of sorts from the DPP that they’ve been heavy-handed in the past is at least something. Though it does annoy me that, through that statement, he’s tried to paint himself as some kind of champion. To date, he’s been arrogant and incompetent and continues to be.

By: Padraig Reidy

Padraig Reidy — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:49:58 +0000

Hi Jamie
I agree that there hasn’t been an actual victory yet. It’s vitally important that there’s a real effort put in on the public consultation to show how strongly people feel about these cases

By: Jamie Dowling

Jamie Dowling — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:08:50 +0000

This isn’t a victory yet. Keir Starmer has said there will be a consultation but until we see the consultation document and terms of reference, all we have is hot air from a discredited DPP.

Starmer’s statement, including as it does references to “service providers” suggests that he will look to cop out of as much as he and the CPS can so that he and the CPS can continue on its merry way. Only the consultation document can show whether this will be true or not.

The bottom line is that the CPS and what looks like most of the judiciary are either incompetent, half-witted or both when trying to deal with issues relating to social networking.

Twitter is a great tool for highlighting issues, successes and failures. Bad news always travels faster than good news so failures, cock-ups and incompetence will always get tweeted and retweeted more.

The law and judiciary need to evolve and drag themselves into the 21st century. At the moment they are a laughing stock.

When Starmer’s consultation document is issued it deserves a stern examination and a full, detailed response so that he can see just how far he and other judges have failed in dealing with such cases as yours, Olly C’s and Azhar Ahmed’s.

By: Matt Flaherty

Matt Flaherty — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:54:15 +0000

I am calling upon the Director of Public Prosecutions to request an absolute discharge at the sentencing for Azhar Ahmed on the 9th of October and to explain to the judge that the CPS feels a conviction would no longer be in the public interest.

http://flay.jellybee.co.uk/2012/09/justice-denied-dpps-proposed-public.html