Okay, so Paul Chamber's has been done for Tweeting that he was going to blow up an airport if it didn't let him fly to Dublin. Fair enough. Actually, no. No, because that means that anything in my Twitter time line could be construed as true, or a real threat. Even if I have no means to be able to do such a thing and, in context, it is a flippant humourous remark. So the conviction is a massive pile of bullshit, the appeal should've have been awarded and, if anything, the UK should take a good look at it's self and realise that somewhere, somehow, someone has gotten something seriously wrong.
When, during the trial, the court had to have explained to them what Twitter actually is, alarm bells should have started ringing. How can anyone judge the legalities of such an object that they don't have any understanding off? Imagine someone being used on a Jury for a trial of murder but didn't understand how death worked? Or, even more realistically, imagine I was on a Jury for a financial case in which embezzlement took place. I have no idea of the intricacies of financial workings so I have no idea how to make a judgement.
I worry for the world when our law makers, Judges, Politicians and representatives don't understand fully the world they live in. Much like people who still believe the Internet is useless, or that computer games are toys, or that Facebook is pointless. These people should not be in positions of power any more. The world is changing faster now than ever and, if the rest of the world doesn't keep up with it, we are heading straight into a massive collision.
Speaking of which, if you want a good example of me being flippant and silly, read my twitter, or my Life Through Twitter post. I can only imagine what fines and convictions I would have on my record if anyone took anything I posted in the same way. Should I be more careful about what I post? Maybe, yes, and I am careful about it - but Paul Chambers' case is absolutely ridiculous and nothing in a long time has made me more angry. Grrr.