By: Nathalie Rothschild

The conviction of a Twitter user for posting a joke about a bomb shows how insanely paranoid officialdom has become.
Isn’t the point of Twitter that you get a chance to sound off,
broadcasting to the world what’s on your mind, heart and breakfast
plate?
That is probably what Twitter-user Paul Chambers thought, too, until one
frustration-venting tweet led to him being arrested and questioned for
seven hours before his computers and mobile phone were confiscated. He
later lost his job, was fined £1,000 and given a criminal record that
will prevent him from pursuing a career as an accountant.

So what kind of grotesque revelation did Chambers post on his Twitter
page? Did he admit to having committed some terrible crime perhaps? No,
worried that a snowstorm, which had caused Robin Hood Airport in
Doncaster, England to close down, would prevent him from flying out to
Ireland to visit his girlfriend, Chambers simply 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!’

In other words, he only did what has become de rigueur for so
many in our era of social networking: he vented his feelings in public
while trying to be humorous at the same time. But it appears that our
law-enforcement agencies treat throwaway remarks as a very serious
business, so you had better start watching what you tweet.

Nobody could seriously have thought that Chambers was literally planning
to blow up Robin Hood Airport. His tweet was simply the kind of
hyperbole we all succumb to when angry, stressed or worried. Even if,
for legal reasons, the police officers who arrested Chambers had to
take his statement at face value, it would surely have dawned on them
after questioning him for hours that he was no loose cannon.

It seems that Chambers’ real offence was not any intention to carry out
an act of terrorism as a protest against flight-grounding snowstorms.
Instead, he was convicted for uttering (or typing, in this case) words
that could potentially have offended or frightened others, even though
no one has actually claimed to have been affected by what Chambers
wrote.

According
to reports, none of Chambers’ Twitter followers thought there was
anything particularly remarkable about his tongue-in-cheek tweet, and
neither did the head of security at Robin Hood Airport. He was told
about the cursory, curse-filled message by an off-duty airport manager
who happened to come across it a few days after Chambers posted it in
early January. Nevertheless, the security head, who graded the threat
level of the message as ‘non credible’ and decided not to disrupt
airport operations, was obliged to alert the police.

Chambers was arrested at his workplace for the offence of making a bomb
threat, but was eventually charged, this week, under the Communications
Act 2003 for sending a menacing message. In the name of protecting the
public from brash, ill-considered remarks, law-enforcement agencies took
the liberty of severely disrupting the life and career of a 26-year-old
man just because he posted on the Web what was on his mind.

It is true that the so-called ‘Me Media’, the collective name for sites
where users generate their own content, have given rise to a steady
stream of inanities, with people revealing all sorts of details about
their everyday lives and thoughts. But these are spaces that people use
to keep in touch with friends, to tell various ‘followers’ what they are
thinking and doing, and to post pictures or recommend articles and
videos. On Twitter, users are asked to write brief messages about
‘what’s happening’, while on Facebook the status update box allows you
to share ‘what’s on your mind’. The whole point of social networking
sites is to put into words what would previously have been a private
thought, and to share it with a circle of people.

So there was nothing out of the ordinary about Chambers’ message. He was
simply following social-networking protocol. Yet law-enforcement
agencies are seemingly determined to turn this case into a warning to
anyone who dares formulate spontaneous thoughts. In fact, the real
message being sent here is that we should watch, not only what we say,
but also what we think. Chambers’ concerns after his unpleasant ordeal
are understandable. He
said: ‘Whatever happens now, I remain terrified. Terrified of
speaking my mind, terrified that my life has potentially been ruined.
Most of the authorities could see it for what it was, and yet I find
myself with a conviction because the Crown Prosecution Service decided
it was in the public interest to prosecute.’

The authorities’ impulse to monitor, control and restrict our activities
on the Web ‘for our own good’ should be of concern to us all, whether
you’re a social-networking enthusiast or sceptic. Clampdowns on
‘tweetcrimes’ are no less insidious and authoritarian than attempts to
control offline thoughts, ideas and opinions.

Nathalie Rothschild is commissioning editor of spiked.