If you don't know what Twitter is. It is basically a social networking site where anyone with Internet access can "tweet" about what they are doing and you can "follow" anyone from Katie Price to Stephen Fry to your mate down the road.
However, the below case is a little bit different than the usual employer fine, slap on the wrist and stern talking too before the comments are removed.
Paul Chambers, from Doncaster, sent a particular tweet on January 6 this year threatening to blow up Robin Hood Airport.
He claims it was sent as a joke in a moment of frustration as the airport was closed due to the snow and he was due to catch a flight in the next couple of days.
But, in May, he was found guilty of sending a menacing electronic communication at Doncaster Magistrates' Court.
From the Press Association report:
A district judge ruled the Tweet was "of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live", finding Chambers guilty under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003...
He tried to clear his name but earlier this month his appeal was rejected by Doncaster Crown Court. So he has decided to appeal to the High Court at a date that has not yet been set.
Moving away from that specific case, it does through up some interesting arguments doesn't it?
How many of us have at some point posted something potentially bordering on the legal line, using either Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Bebo or whatever.
While we don't want to / wouldn't be able to stifle free speech online there has to be a line somewhere doesn't there?
But where that line is, I wouldn't like to say. The Raoul Moat Facebook group that was set up, seemed to cross it for some people but not others and that is the problem. We all have different perceptions of what is "too far" and the comments on this blog show.
How and who judges on what is posted in jest and what is a serious threat as only the person who wrote it will know.
