Am I Spartacus?

At the weekend there, in the aftermath of Paul Chambers losing his appeal on the #twitterjoke this, there was a great outpouring of something on Twitter, thousands of people retweeting his original 'menacing' tweet about blowing up Nottingham's Robin Hood airport. It was a great show of solidarity.

But something bugged me, there was something that didn't feel right about tweeting

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!! #IAmSpartacus

Its that bit at the end, appending the hashtag. Its incorrect, just as incorrect as getting the 'may be a joke twibbon'. Its a disclaimer and that's wrong. Twitter shouldn't need such things, the context is inherent to the medium.

Its like if in the original Spartacus scene, the folk joining in stood up and said "I'm Spartacus! Just kidding, I'm not really, you were right the first time". It agrees with the original charge.

If the sentiment you want to express is solidarity then don't undermine it by joking.

The show of solidarity would have been more profound without the #iamspartacus hashtag, and with a wider range of targets being menaced. "I've left a suitcase of explosives in Victoria Station, you have 28 minutes to find it", "A plane will crash in the next seven hours", "I just pushed a man under a train", etc, purposefully tying up so much of the security services' time in investigating 'menacing' messages on twitter, that the authorities would have no choice but to admit they were wrong, that the twitter medium is not to be taken seriously.

I had this similar idea a few months back, the NATO phonetic alphabet thing, Foxtrot, Bravo, November, etc, to do a similar alphabet using terrorist keywords. So, if any authorities are monitoring voice phonecalls, they'd be snowed under with assassinations, bombs, capture, hijackings and so on.

Paul Chambers guilty and the twitter joke trial

Twitter just exploded a little bit.

Some months ago, a chap called Paul J Chambers was feeling frustrated that Robin Hood Airport in Nottingham was closed so he posted on Twitter the following message:-

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

Someone forwarded it to the authorities, who investigated and after some degree of wrangling in the British justice system he's been found guilty and fined £1,000.

Twitter is one of the greatest broadcasting media of the century, it's unwise to piss off the hive mind.

After Jack of Kent blogged, Twitter went crazy, with messages such as this one being retweeted all over the shop.

@caitlinmoran: Christ, if people are being fined £1k for making bad jokes on Twitter, I might as well start wanking tramps for change now #twitterjoketrial

There were rumblings about setting up a donation fund to pay the fine and any other costs incurred by Paul, Old Holborn, the rebellious blogosphere's failed PPC is on the case. But it may not be enough to satisfy the twitterers, they want blood, This message seems to be exploding a wee bit too.

RT @davelength: Retweet this is if you believe Keir Starmer should resign as Director of Public Prosecutions. #twitterjoketrial

Gotta wonder though, if only the jury at the trial had heard of Jury Nullification, then all the fuss could have been missed. Just cos someone broke the law, doesn't mean they're guilty if the law is an ass. Wasn't a jury trial, merely before magistrates.

National Jury Nullification Awareness Day

I have just discovered the concept of 'Jury Nullification' and it sounds wonderful.

Over on BoingBoing, on of the most popular blogs on the web, Cory Doctorow has been covering a case where Peter Watts, a critically acclaimed sci-fi writer friend of his, ran into a bit of trouble returning to Canada from the USA. US border guards stopped his vehicle, started searching it, punched him in the face and ordered him to the ground, as he was in a bit of a daze he was too slow complying with their command, that's a felony offence in the US so he may be going to jail for two years.

Somewhere in comments someone mentioned the concept of Jury Nullification, whereby if the law is an ass, the jury can find the defendant innocent even though he broke the law. Apparently its an ancient legal tradition, on of the ways laws get adjusted and keep up to date with the times, except judges in the US aren't allowed to advise the juries on it's existence and its against the law to mention it.

Not so in the UK, judges just don't mention it as it diminishes their power, so its not in their interest for juries to know about it.

Anyhoo, its starts to appear in the comments section of more blogs in regards to the Peter Watts case, and the subsequent comments just highlight how little known it is.

There has been much talk of appeal, and of jury nullification. My understanding is that appeals are only considered on procedural grounds. I don’t know much about jury nullification, and the conflicting opinions I’ve seen here don’t leave me much the wiser.

From Tdawwg, a BoingBoing commenter

Jury nullification due to morally queasy jurors fills me with terror, honestly. Not nearly as much terror as what the guards did to Watts, but enough: anarchy is a horrible substitute for creeping totalitarianism.

Understandably, the fear being that regional prejudices and the voice of the mob could be bad, as commenter StrangeFriend says:-

I can see your point, though. Southern juries refused to convict white men for killing 'uppity' black men.

Its not perfect, but in the UK where the government are churning out so many new laws and we're slowly approaching living in a totalitarian state, it would be a useful too for the people to have at their disposal.

Blogger Avogadro's Number makes this point neatly

Zero tolerance: applying a law to every possible instance, and applying the maximum amount of force allowed, without regard to circumstances.

Jury nullification: negating the zero tolerance effect by considering circumstances and choosing not to enforce an outrageously applied law.

There is actually a precedence for Jury Nullification in the UK, as wikipedia informs us

In 1982, during the Falklands War, the British Royal Navy sank an Argentine Cruiser – the "ARA General Belgrano". A civil servant (government employee) named Clive Ponting leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to a Member of Parliament (Tam Dalyell) and was subsequently charged with breaching section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The judge in the case directed the jury to convict Ponting as he had clearly contravened the Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defense, that it was in the public interest that this information be made available, was rejected on the grounds that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is", but the jury nevertheless acquitted him, much to the consternation of the Government.

But that was the best part of thirty years ago. I fear there are too few more recent examples of 12 people knocking back a law they find unjust.

If the government and the courts aren't going to make people aware of the concept of Jury Nullification, then its up to the internet.