Twitter Joke Trial
R v Paul Chambers (appealed to the High Court as Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions), popularly known as the Twitter Joke Trial, was a United Kingdom legal case centred on the conviction of a man under the Communications Act 2003 for posting a Twitter joke about destroying an airport, a message which police regarded as "menacing". The conviction was widely condemned as a miscarriage of justice, and was appealed three times, the conviction being quashed as a result of the third appeal.
primaryTopic
Twitter Joke Trial
R v Paul Chambers (appealed to the High Court as Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions), popularly known as the Twitter Joke Trial, was a United Kingdom legal case centred on the conviction of a man under the Communications Act 2003 for posting a Twitter joke about destroying an airport, a message which police regarded as "menacing". The conviction was widely condemned as a miscarriage of justice, and was appealed three times, the conviction being quashed as a result of the third appeal.
has abstract
L'affaire Paul Chambers (R v P ...... isième aboutissant finalement.
@fr
R v Paul Chambers (appealed to ...... a result of the third appeal.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
30,047,593
Wikipage revision ID
725,937,926
appealed from
Doncaster Magistrates' Court
citations
date decided
2012-07-27
full name
Paul Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions
italic title
judges
keywords
name
Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions
number of judges
opinions
The message was not objectively menacing; the conviction was therefore quashed.
transcripts
subject
hypernym
comment
L'affaire Paul Chambers (R v P ...... isième aboutissant finalement.
@fr
R v Paul Chambers (appealed to ...... a result of the third appeal.
@en
label
R v Paul Chambers
@fr
Twitter Joke Trial
@en