Freedom Of Tweet: What Should Be Off Limits For Twitter?
-
Joe
2 years ago -
863
views
Free speech is a right that anyone living in a fair and democratic society is entitled to. As one of the most diverse and open-minded countries in the World, Britons enjoy freedom to express their views, unbound by government imposed restrictions. Or do they? The rise of online social networking is highlighting an emerging problem that has seen a number of individuals landed in hot water simply for expressing their views on social media sites.
Earlier this month, it came to light that Paul Chambers, a 27 year old financial manager from the East Midlands had been convicted and fined £1, 000 for threatening to blow up Robin Hood air port near Doncaster. Chambers was joking around with one of his followers when he 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!!”
Authorities treated this as a serious threat and Chambers was later arrested. This understandably caused some controversy in cyberspace as Tweeters learned that they were being watched, and perhaps weren’t as free to vent their spleens on contentious issues as they once thought.
The news sparked a backlash on Twitter, thousands of users reproduced Chamber’s original tweet, suffixed with the hashtag #iamspartacus. For the uninitiated this is a famous line from the movie ‘Spartacus’, used to deceive an opposing army leader by keeping the identity of their talismanic warrior, Spartacus, a secret. In the same vein, Twitter users united, repeating the threatening proposal in a campaign for free speech.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u93bhAimFFU[/youtube]
Clearly there is a large collective of social media users that are ferociously protective about their rights, so much so that were willing to risk similar prosecution in order to champion their cause. There will no doubt be some kind of legislative process going on behind the scenes to attempt to prevent further instances occurring in the future.
Meanwhile, others are being penalised for broadcasting their views on more banal topics such as the royal wedding. Last week, C of E Bishop, the Right Reverend Pete Broadbent made his views clear on Facebook that he thought the wedding would last ‘about seven years’ he also criticized the hype surrounding the event, using some harsh words. Broadbent was withdrawn from public ministry immediately in light of his damning comments.
All this demonstrates the reach that social networks have and the ever more pervasive roles they play in our everyday lives. What was once an innocent joke amongst friends and Facebook or Twitter can now spark public outcry, and people must carefully consider exactly what they do and do not broadcast, especially it seems, if it is about terrorism or the royal family!
Do you think social networks should be monitored? What topics, if any do think should be off limits? Discuss and debate below!
To me this just sounds like another waste of government money, let’s watch people’s Tweets, we can catch criminals without even hitting the streets!
If anyone seriously thinks a terrorist is going to be Tweeting to thousands of followers on Twitter they are seriously messed up!
It was obvious this guy was annoyed and was just having a joke!
This is all just a matter of common sense (or lack thereof).
As I understand it, the Chambers case was an instance of an airport employee seeing his tweet and passing it on to his or her superiors, who took action. It’s not a case of “Ooo…our tweets are being monitored!”
If you’re going to make a threat (even jokingly) about blowing up an airport when security is at an all-time high, and public fears are rampant, then you take your chances.
The Spartacus thing was a joke, honestly. Did the thousands of people who tweeted with the #iamspartacus hashtag REALLY think they were living dangerously or helping battle for freedom of speech? Actually, they probably did, as there were many celebrities taking up the cause, and we all know most of them will jump on any bandwagon they can, as long as it doesn’t hurt them, image-wise.
#iamspartacus was a flaccid gesture, at best.
Everyone can tweet what they want, but they have to be willing to deal with the repercussions, should any arise.
Same thing with Broadbent. He’s a public figure, supposed to support the sanctity of marriage, etc etc…whatever.
Anyway this is all old news now, I thought.
Yours truly,
Stefan
Very true but in the current climate where terrorism is a very real and ever present threat I don’t think the authorities can be seen to take any chances…
Stefan, i totally agree that it was a complete oversight on Chambers part to make comments about such topics when terrorsim is so high on the agenda. I think some people feel ‘safe’ on social networks, as if they can say anything but it’s becoming more and more evident that what we do and say on Facebook and Twitter has repercussions just as it would in RL.
I think the #iamspartacus movement was interesting, if inconsequential. People simply wanted to demonstrate that they should be bale to say what they want without being reprimanded, and you’d have to say it worked…
I think the whole Broadbent thing was much more trivial, he was simply broadcasting his views, the fact that he was made to resign was ridiculous. Was what he wrote really harmful to to anyone? I don’t think so.
Old news perhaps, but telling about the increasing gravity and influence that social networks have in our lives, which was really the gist of the post. Will you think twice about what you say on Twitter now?