Today's game: don't annoy CPS; why the twitter-bomb-hoax means I can't say much

Well some of you may be pleased to know I can't really talk about much any more. The reason? well, as explained in this excellent article from JackOfKent in his new bad law column the trial (BBC summary) of Paul Chambers is set to close soon. He's being convicted for posting the following on twitter:

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

Now the important part of this is that CPS is not prosecuting him for making a false bomb threat (they admit that there isn't enough evidence that he intended to cause a panic by this) so instead they pressing charges of

"Improper use of public electronic communications network"

Which is an offence for anyone who:

sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; 

As the Bad Law column points  out this law was intended to stop nuisance callers and their ilk; not to mop up people that have mentioned the word bomb but aren't making a threat.

Now why this concerns me is that while the tweet concerned is threatening, it is still obviously a joke (which is why Paul is not being prosecuted for making bomb threats), so at what point does something stop being a joke and start being threatening (or 'menacing' as the law states)? The following statements are all the latter but are here as examples:

"It would be so easy to inject heavy metals into the air conditioning units at Heathrow poisoning everyone"

or:

"Anthrax is a terrorist's dream substance, it looks just like talcum powder"

Now using the CPS's logic if I now go to an airport (or other public place such as the university I'm currently sitting in) this constitutes a threat. These two statements could just as easily be from a security discussion as threats and while they would have to be taken out of their current context to constitute threats I think it is fairly obvious that this is what has already happened Paul's case.

In fact this could have happened to me recently: I had a trip to Hamburg for a meeting, running late in I put on the first t-shirt to hand before leaving, this t-shirt in fact:

for most of the day I had a coat and hoody but during the inevitable security check I had take them both off which of course revealed my horribly inflammatory t-shirt to a security guard who promptly told me off and that I could get in trouble if I wasn't careful. I didn't realise how close to real trouble I had come, given how the CPS have treated this case I doubt they'd struggle to find some law that made my t-shirt wearing chargeable.

This is a sad case, its set to make a criminal of someone who was understandably frustrated and said something stupid. It shouldn't have escalated at all, let alone to the point where they may set new precedent that anything said electronically while near a possible bomb target (ie anywhere public) no matter what the intention behind it can be treated and charged as a threat.

What to expect: Blogs I read and stuff that has made me laugh

As this is a new blog I thought it would be useful to post up a list of some blogs and news feeds I read and like, as there are quite a lot this will be a brief list but it should give you some idea of what it is I will be mainly be writing about.

Here goes, first up the non-standard news (ie not the bbc):
Slashdot.org - Geek news basically
Lifehacker.com - useful stuff of all types (Gadget reviews to how to find north with a watch)
BHA - The British Humanist Association - I am a humanist, skeptic, and atheist I will try not to rant too much about religion (especially those of a dogmatic bent) but I promise nothing
Singularity hub - A website about cutting edge technology that is likely to aid the singularity or to do with transhumanism etc.

Actual Blogs:
Pharyngula - 'Militant' Atheist blogger PZ Myer's home, apparently one of the most read blogs on the net
Blag Hag - a US girl who posts on Athiesm, University life and general life.
Charlie's Diary - Charles Stross's blog - if you haven't read any of his Sci-Fi then go out, buy some and read it now (favourites of mine are 'Accelerando' and 'Halting State')
Jack of Kent - A UK Blogger who covers legal matters very well and is a key figure in the Simon Singh Libel movement
Spoonblog - Blog of artist Paul Duffield who draws Freak Angels as well as drawing an awesome (free) comic he posts up many interesting titbits
Bad Science - Blog of Ben Goldacre, awesome skeptical blog that dissembles various bits of bad science from around the net
Respectful Insolence - Blog of a US cancer researcher and surgeon who goes by the name of Orac - another anti quackary blog

Interestingly enough I don't read many physics blogs, mainly because I've yet to find one: I tend to find blogs via other blogs - if I searched for them I would have far too many too quickly. Also working in physics its something I am not as likely to blog about - tech and science in general but less physics.

Anyway that is a sample of things that I am likely to link to or post from or comment about so enjoy.

it also doubles as a reminder of who I'm following should I lose my feeds...

"its natural" do you say this? punch yourself.

This is a wonderful blog post by one of my favourite bloggers, blag hag.

A simple discussion of what is actually natural when it comes to animal mating habits, and yes there isn't really anything that is natural or 'normal'. This is one of those arguments that really does annoy me on two fronts: first as the post shows there isn't any single mating habit that is natural. Second the naturalness of an action is a rubbish rationale to use with relation to humans, again as the post reports many animals eat their young, or their partners or carrion.

The naturalness of something is a stupid arguement and the sooner we move on from it the better. Either everything is natural (we are after all products of a natural environment) or we are better than that and it doesn't matter anyway. We certainly can't claim that some subset of our actions should be natural (sex etc) and another it doesn't matter (wearing skins of other animals).