In a country where we value the Freedom of Speech, we certainly have nothing but contempt for it when other people do. If you are a fellow human being on Earth, you are only entitled to speak as you wish if you are also called "American" by birthright; forget Creator-imbued natural rights.
I don't think risk assessment was tied very well to the language being used. If they had the means, the equipment, and the desire to destroy America, then they are a threat. If they simply stated something with harmless words in a joking manner, I think the reactions went way overboard.
Amid the funny wigs and the undue pomp in the traditional British courtroom, it seems that our distant American cousins fail to share our often-poor taste in humour.
When one teenager tweeted his friend claiming that he was going to “destroy America”, it appears that U.S. authorities took the public message somewhat too seriously.
At least the other teenager did not respond by joking about “diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up”. Oh, wait.
To their surprise, however, when they arrived at L.A. International, they were not only detained and questioned at length by U.S. authorities, but were swiftly — after a night in the cells, naturally — plonked back on a plane back to England, and barred from entering the United States again.
One U.S. Homeland Security agent allegedly told the hapless teenager: “You’ve really f***ed up with that tweet, boy.” At least on this side of the pond, one can bet that Her Majesty’s finest would not be so rude.
The famous quote goes: “England and America are two countries separated by a common language.” In this case, it could not be closer to the truth.
Just as something classified as “sick” can describe both a good, and a rather vomitous situation in English slang, so can the word “destroy”. And “crumpet”, come to think of it.
The two teenagers will not be allowed to return to the United States without prior authorisation from the U.S. Embassy in London.
It’s not the first time a Twitter user has fallen foul of the law, however. In 2010, Paul Chambers fell foul of Section 127 of the UK’s Communications Act 2003, which describes how one tweet was of “indecent, obscene, or menacing character”. He only threatened to blow up an airport in a fit of anger.
But little did the authorities realise was the scale of the reaction by the wider Twitterverse, including some high-profile users. In amidst a hashtag revolution, over 5,000 users had taken to make joke-’threats’ of their own.
When reporters asked whether the local police force would prosecute the lot of them, they reportedly replied with a rather succinct: “No.”
It just goes to show that even seemingly innocent descriptors can be taken wholly out of context. Anyone who has been through the U.S. border will know it is wise not to make any smart cracks, witty remarks, or frankly show any emotion for that matter.
It nevertheless serves as a reminder to think very carefully before you tweet.
Image source: Spencer E. Holtaway/Flickr.
Related:
- Twitter begins censoring content: How this will affect you
- Two-thirds of Brits support Facebook, Twitter shutdown in future riots
- CNET: Twitter airport bomb joker loses appeal, tweeters revolt
- Twitter bomb joker found guilty
- CBS News: London riots: Tech’s role in the thick of it
- Twitter’s censorship plan rouses global furor
