Who breaks a Twitterer upon a wheel?

Next Story

NSFW: I'm Some Random Tech Entrepreneur and I Approve This Confusing Message

In recent days Britain has started to resemble an earlier era of intolerance. People are using social networks like Twitter and Facebook to be themselves, but the Police, the judiciary and the Establishment are showing worrying signs of not understanding this shift in society. Two recent cases, the “Twitter Joke Trial” and the “#welovebaskers” case currently exploding on Twitter serve to highlight this. And there is a direct comparison to an earlier era.

In 1968 William Rees-Mogg, as editor of The Times newspaper, quoted Poet Alexander Pope, for an editorial about the “Redlands” court case brought against the Rolling Stones. The Stones had been partying at a house, whereupon they’d been busted by the Police for possessing a small amount of drugs. The case resulted in prison sentences for Rolling Stones members Keith Richards and Mick Jagger.

But Rees-Mogg’s Times editorial came to the Stones defence, concluding “If we are going to make any case a symbol of the conflict between the sound traditional values of Britain and the new hedonism, then we must be sure that the sound traditional values include those of tolerance and equity. It should be the particular quality of British justice to ensure that Mr. Jagger is treated exactly the same as anyone else, no better and no worse. There must remain a suspicion in this case that Mr. Jagger received a more severe sentence than would have been thought proper for any purely anonymous young man.”

Swap out “new hedonism” for “the new social networking” and you find that the public nature of social networks is causing a disconnect in British society which has implications for our freedom of speech.

Indeed, while Prime Minister David Cameron was this week in China talking about freedom of speech, at home, a free-thinking British civil servant in the Department for Transport quietly tweeting about her job is now fearing for her job in row over her tweets which criticise coalition policy, though in the rather casual manner of one who might chat to someone in a cafe. Her account, now gone protected, was marked “personal”, not official.

Yesterday The Daily Mail, a right wing newspaper, attacked Sarah Baskerville for this. Today The Independent on Sunday, supposedly centre, repeated the story, and went even further.

However, this is not a high-ranking civil servant or a publicly elected policitian. Baskerville is a mid-grade CS, who is tweeting within the bounds layed down by civil servant policy, as attested to by the person who wrote the rules.

Paul Clarke, a consultant to government on public data, robustly defends Baskerville here.

To me this case is worrying. It used to be the case that journalist would go after the bosses of the civial servants to ask, exactly why are your staff so worried about cuts? Why are they having to work in their spare time to open up government data to do their job better?

Baskerville’s contribution to the open public data is well known, and easily accessible by any journalist wanting to read her publicly available blog.

The press used to support whistleblowers. Instead, today they seem more intent in going after the Twitterrers.

If the best they can do is come up with is a few grumbling tweets from a civil servant who isn’t accountable for government policy, what future is there for the media?

Instead, taking a leaf out of Joanthan Swift’s book, I propose that we should perhaps simply turn on the journalists who Tweet.

How about starting with Independent on Sunday journalist Matt Chorley, who, like Baskerville, has been tweeting about the X-Factor and pretty girls selling newspapers. Inane stuff like that, but let’s ignore that and go for the jugular shall we? Was he tweeting during working hours? Can any of his tweets be interpretted as supporting one political party or not?

Let’s turn on each-other shall we? Perhaps if we all go “protected” on our twitter account the world will be a more ethical place?

Let’s imagine if Deep Throat had had a Twitter account – admittedly it would have a been anonymous or private if Twitter had been invented in the early 1970s. Would the journalist have gone after the user? Or gone after what they were talking about?

As further evidence of British society gone mad, look at the Twitter Joke Trial.

Paul Chambers, a 27-year-old accountant had an online courtship with another Twitter which led to him off-handidly threaten to blow up an airport if it wasn’t open in time for his flight to visit her.

The judge in the case called the frustrated Tweet “menacing in its content and obviously so. It could not be more clear. Any ordinary person reading this would see it in that way and be alarmed.”

No, any ordinary person would see it as a black humoured joke posted on a social network.

So I ask again.

Who breaks a Twitterer on a wheel?

Update: A further thought occurs to me: the relevancy of this debate to startups and entrepreneurs. Because here is the deal: government is in the process of working out how to save money. Under Labour, and now under the Conservatives, they’ve realised that a great way to do this is to open up public data and let entrepreneurs and other third parties develop services on top of that data, which serve the public interest, often for free. Some of these can be real businesses (e.g. iPhone apps which help you find spare Boris Bikes in London), some just publicly-minded web sites. Sarah Baskerville is one of the civil servants keenly interested in this movement, which requires her to engage online with it. If she has her voice cut off then that has implications for all the other other people in government trying to work with others outside government. And no, just allowing civil servants to use email does not cut it. They have to be on social networks in order to help this process. Right now, all the tech people I know are on Twitter. Enough said.

[ Second Image courtesy @fellowcreative, Some rights reserved ]

  • http://twitter.com/peterc Peter Cooper

    There seems to be an assumption that content on “social networking” sites is less important or more frivolous than that spoken, written, or published in “real life.” This does us Internet-dwelling types a disservice. A threat on Twitter should be taken as seriously as one spoken in public or shared on a phone call. (I agree that the sentence in Chambers’ case was disproportionate and the trial somewhat a farce, but it was quite legitimate that justice be done somehow.)

    These problems are a natural consequence of an ignorant, wider public having access to an easy way to publish and broadcast information far and wide. Sadly, the public aren’t trained journalists or aware of the laws and conventions that should restrain what you’re able to write. We’ve seen this with some of the libel cases that have been raised against supposedly innocent “commenters” on Twitter and on blogs. But ignorance of the law is a poor defense.

    IMHO, the public should be made more aware of their legal obligations when publishing opinions and statements, rather than the law being amended to assume anyone on Twitter or Facebook is a dullard whose words should be taken with a pinch of salt.

    • http://adrianshort.co.uk/ Adrian Short

      @ Peter Cooper,

      So you really think that Paul Chambers’ tweet was a threat directed at the airport itself rather than an intentionally humorous quip directed at his friends?

      I entirely agree that libel and threats should be taken seriously regardless of the medium in which they’re delivered. But the whole point of contention in the #twitterjoketrial was that the tweet was taken out of context. Not only did he not intend to threaten anyone, it is entirely perverse for anyone to consider that he intended to do so.

    • http://www.ge3k.co.uk Matt Auckland

      “trained journalists” you say Peter. Unless I’m very much mistaken these “trained journalists” have a tendency to misquote, or even take a quote out of context in order to suite the subject and leanings of the article and publisher.

      And print isn’t alone, television journalists have the same tendency to edit an interview, or sound bite to suite the political leanings of the station.

      So is there any difference in a court taking the tweet out of context, or a reporter taking a quote out of context, no. The problem is if the reader doesn’t know the context and situation that leads up to it, they can never understand the quote in its truest form. Present the reader with all the information, and allow them to make the decision, instead of the reporter making it for them.

      I’m sure if the judge in the Chambers case was presented with all the evidence, being the tweets leading up to, and after the for mention comment, he would’ve at the very most given him a slap on the wrist.

      • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

        But in this context. Someone broadcast, they didn’t speak of it in private, they broadcasted it. Which a near equivalent example would be painting a large sign and holding it over the highway which read, “If the plane is not ready to take off by the time I get there, I will blow the Airport Up.”

        If the same statements were sent via email to another person, then that example would not be remotely comparible.

        Social Media is a Broadcast Media.

        So I think what might actually be eroding is our concept of privacy. Or what media is, and where it ends up, in general.

    • http://worldremarks.wordpress.com david

      Youv’e go the situation backwards. Social networking is being considered as if ts more “offical” than other communication. If I’m walking down the street talking to my friends I don’t need to be an expert on the law even though anyone else can potentially hear me. This is no different to using twitter: just because anyone can read what you write doesn’t mean that it was intended for them.

      When something is published in a newspaper it is clearly intended for the entire public and hence the justification for laws around what can be said. A comment on twitter is aimed at the people who have chosen to follow you, generally your friends, who can’t take make a legal claim against what you say because they chose to follow you. Just as when I make a comment to my friends in the street they can’t prosecute me.

  • Aiden

    It is… “upon a wheel” rather than “on a wheel”.

    It’s a commonly made mistake made with the quote.

  • http://jetlib.com/news/2010/11/14/who-breaks-a-twitterer-upon-a-wheel/ Who Breaks A Twitterer Upon A Wheel? | JetLib News

    […] Read the rest of this entry » […]

  • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

    Why isn’t the word fascism in this post? In any event, and I am not a lawyer, and I knwo very little about libel suits and such, but this does remind me of this situation happening in Europe.


    I am fairly certain even in America, Skin heads, Baptists, Hate Groups, Rappers and basically everybody has been allowed to hold an opinion.

    I think what people really need to understand is that media is fairly harsh these days. It’s not really Disney so much anymore. The internet should really come with a PG-13 or even a NC-17 warning label.

  • http://www.adambanks.com @adambanksdotcom

    @Peter Cooper: your first sentence breaks your argument. “Spoken, written or published” are three quite separate things and have always been regarded differently in law. Equating Twitter with all of them is nonsensical; it’s more similar to some than others, and ultimately a new thing itself, which may need new thinking and new law. But it’s quite clear that tweeting is most similar to talking: tweets are generally seen only by the tweeter’s followers, who may or may not choose to repeat them to others, just like speech; and tweets are not permanently recorded or “published” for others to read later, but disappear down the timeline within moments, never, without specialist tools, to return.

    To compare a traditional example of the boundary of free speech, Paul Chambers did not shout “Fire”, but murmured a flippant remark about fire to a small crowd of friends, and was not in a theatre at the time.

    Finally, to talk about “ignorance of the law” is itself ignorant. The law in this area is vague, fluid and capricious. Nobody knows what the law may be until a court decides. This is why injustices so easily arise.

  • http://gotosoft.blogspot.com abdille

    good crunch!

  • brindy


    twitter is a form of “micro-blogging”, which in itself is a form of blogging, which in itself is a form of publishing aimed at those less able to afford or technical enough to publish in traditional methods.

    tweets are stored permanently, twitter just doesn’t give you access to them, though they have said from the beginning that they might do one day.

  • JohnHolroyd

    @Peter Cooper
    I’m sorry Peter, I have to disagree.

    Firstly, with ‘spoken word,’ the sort of flippant comment made by Chambers is an everyday common use of language, and very unlikely to be taken seriously by any person of sound or (mildly unsound) mind who has not wilfully set aside the use of their critical faculties.

    Secondly, the ‘Written word,’ “Come friendly bombs” et al, this is free expression, obviously not meant to be taken as a literal instruction to bombs to drop on a particular town. Nor was there even a small chance, based upon his tweet, that Chambers was making a credible threat towards the airport, but in both cases an ironic assault on a perceived wrong.

    That Chambers lacks, in this medium and perhaps others, the savage humour and expressive power of a Betjeman, Clemens or Swift is no excuse for this outrageous juridicial pronouncement that his tweet was ‘clearly menacing … and obviously so’ and the requirement of a criminal conviction. This is putting a definite chill on the free expression of annoyance or of humour relating to all kinds of ‘touchy’ subjects, things I would strongly argue are vital in a functioning democracy.

    I’d argue that far from the responsibility of the individual to self-censor their expression according to political whim, of what may be sensitive this week or another, it is in fact time for the wholesale sweeping away of such dangerously anti-democratic laws.

  • http://trendoloji.com/?p=262 Kim A Wheel Upon A Twitterer Breaks?

    […] Read the rest of this entry » […]

  • http://twitter.com/ehgillett ed


    Your comments on Twitter being akin to conversation are, I fear, somewhat inaccurate. True, a tweet might only be immediately seen by one’s followers but, unless that tweet’s protected (and my guess is that the vast majority of Twitter accounts are public rather than protected) it can potentially be seen by anyone with an internet connection, anywhere in the world. This is evidently not the case with private real-world conversations. Indeed, one of the points of Twitter is that such conversations can expand and migrate through networks and contacts in a manner which isn’t possible with physical conversation.

    Secondly, anything broadcast on the Internet can be retained indefinitely, whether the author intends it to be or not: if someone caches the page offline or takes a screengrab, then they have a record of that output over which neither you nor Twitter would have control. This would only be akin to real-world conversation if you made a habit of recording everything you ever said to anyone.

    I agree that the law is unbalanced in its treatment of Twitter, and think Chambers’ conviction disgraceful.

  • buyer beware

    Do you think that social media will do a better job at holding the rich and powerrful to account than old media? I don’t see it.

    Social media with exceptions seems to be 90% spam, like email is, and heading for 100%.

  • http://danieltenner.com Daniel Tenner

    Great article, Mike.

    The obvious next question is: what can we do about it today, before it’s “too late”, whatever that may be?

    Some leadership from the editor of TechCrunch EU and member of the Digital Advisory Board to the Mayor of London would be most welcome and encouraging! What should we, concerned Londoners and other assorted startup types, do to help derail this slide towards the worse?

    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, after all.

    • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

      Why not tax bloggers? Or in one way or another restrict what is available online?

      Like a big Gong Show, only everyone is still allowed to participate so long as they pay taxes to do it? Instead of free speech censorship, an economic censorship?

      Those offering free venues such as Youtube, or MySpace or Facebook being legally held accountable for all user material. If someone uploads a child rape video, they are prosecuted by the government. Just like the Italians did with that video of the handicapped kid being humilated on Youtube?

      That means more darknets… but so what?

      • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

        In other words. Why are domain names so cheap? And why are venues which offer free subdomains rarely held accountable for what you otherwise never see on public television, radio or news stations?


      • http://danieltenner.com Daniel Tenner


        Absolutely not. Your suggestions are reprehensibly stupid and noxious, sorry to be so blunt.

        The way forward is for society to become more tolerant and intelligent in dealing with subtle forms of humours in public, not for dumb laws to be enacted to try and repress free speech any time there’s a chance it might be misconstrued as something else.

        I sincerely hope you were just trolling me. If not, I feel sorry for all of us, since we have to live in the same world as narrow-minded thought-police types like you.

      • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

        @daniel – How so? Absolutely Why? And how do you plan to make society more tolerant?

        Here is an argument which attempts to pin a poor official registration or low overhead process to get onto the internet as reason as to why .COMs are more dangerous than .CNs


        I can’t see anything wrong with government involvement with domain name registrations. So long as everyone can get one, They should just have to pay a great deal more than a lousy 10.00 a year and perhaps maybe people who are prone to attack government officials with death threats and those who have a criminal history with fraud could be delayed from participating from the internet.

        You want to hold everyone accountable with magic. Why not suggest that people hold each other accountable with real things. Like official government screening processes, taxes, commercial entity responsibility through accountability for the content they publish.

        It is only in the last few years that large social networks have waived all responsibility for the content it’s users upload.

        I think maybe searching people at the door is not such a bad idea.

  • Billy O

    A younger generation that has unlimited access to publishing their thoughts on any topic to a global format must understand that those words have consequences. When you post a picture of a friend in an embarrassing situation that picture is out there forever for all to see. The same goes for statements that can be misused, misinterpreted and literally used against you someday. Along with the ability to publish your thought and ideas comes responsibly and respect for others. Society has got to learn the power of social media and decide what the guidelines are, freedoms that impose damages upon others is not the kind that should be protected.

  • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

    I somewhat strongly disagree with Peter Cooper in most of what he has written and somewhat mildly disagree with my friend Adam Banks in one minor point.

    Peter, you seem to suggest that journalists and professional wordsmiths are the only ones qualified to comment on life. Most people, according to you, lack the linguistic sophistication to avoid the pitfalls. This is highly insulting. Language belongs to us all. The problem is not ignorance of the law, it is ignorance of those applying this particular law.

    Adam, I agree with @brindy that Twitter is micro-blogging and hence a form of publishing. But publishing in the macro often provides a clearer context. Publishing, at any rate, should be excluded from this type of law. Publishing is content. It is not communication in its pure form. It is not in real time and is generally not directed at a particular recipient. The law started out as section 10(2) of the Post Office (Amendment) Act 1935, to protect telephone operators from abuse at the hands of lascivious male callers. Its original intent has been corrupted through various reenactments.

    See http://charlesrussell.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/tweet-in-haste-repent-at-leisure/

    This law must be changed. It simply cannot be allowed to be applied in this way.

  • another ed

    This outrage is witless and the author’s example is mindless. The Times argued that the Richards/Jagger prosecution was motivated by the establishment’s desire to make an example of them because they were infamous. In what way is an example being made of Paul Chambers? Are you suggesting that someone else uttering the same threat would not have been prosecuted so harshly (a fine mind you, not prison time)?

    It is wrong to issue bomb threats just like it is wrong to shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre. The police are obliged to investigate and, yes, a prosecution was appropriate if only to pay the costs of the investigation,

    Paul Chambers is a moron and got what he deserved. And for the Americans, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, consider what would have happened if an American had tweeted about bombing a regional US airport?

    • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

      Dear another ed,

      Go fuck yourself! There. My free speech exercised.

    • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

      I thought better of my earlier reply but seem unable to delete it, so I apologize. But seriously, there is so much nuance to this case that you appear to be unaware of. Please read up on it. There was never any threat. Nobody considered it a threat. Not even the airport. The message was not addressed to the airport. They found it by coincidence. We are all potentially guilty.

  • http://www.ajaxjones.com Ajax Jones

    All this Chambers thing seems a bit of a fuss about nothing. I fully agree with sentencing him and see no point in the judiciary having to start lay downing precedents about what kind of “grade” of threat is acceptable. Then we’d be arguing it was OK to phone up an airport providing you said haha at the end, or threatening to hit someone but fine if you had your fingers crossed behind your back. I think Freddie Starr tried something in court a few years back when he said Fuck off to a police officer for a drink driving offence but said it was said in a joking manner. They banned him anyway.
    So I’m glad he will think about it twice.

    In the US threats towards the POTUS is a class D federal offence with a possible 5 yrs inside, it’s a shame the UK doesnt have something similar.

    • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

      Again, you and some others are missing the point. No threat. Never was any threat. Not directed at anyone. Only intercepted by sheer coincidence. Like talking in a shopping mall food court and being overheard by an airport employee. Not in the airport or at the airport. Airport officials deemed it a non-credible threat (the lowest classification) but passed it along because of a zero-tolerance policy. Interrogating officer dismissed it as a joke for only close friends to see. The judge’s reasoning is extraordinarily flawed. Feel free to read my open letter to the judge, which explains it a bit more:


      I was there at the hearing and I’ve been involved with this case since March.

      • http://twitter.com/mikebutcher Mike Butcher

        Nice catch.

      • http://startupgazette.com TechCrunch except sans AOL

        I dunno. I think that just as with the McLibel case, the British courts are being uppity.

  • http://www.calendargod.com Leon Crutchley

    It should be pointed out intolerance and summary justice seems not only restricted to the mainstream press. Vigilantism conducted by bloggers deciding they are moral arbiters of society such as Guido Fawkes recent attempt to track down the “fire extinguisher throwers” is something I find uncomfortable. And worrying in where it can go..


  • http://annkempster.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/a-history-of-the-defense/ A history of the defense « Random musings

    […] Tech Crunch (Mike Butcher) – Who breaks a Twitterer upon a wheel […]

  • http://pinktape.co.uk/2010/11/blawg-review/ Blawg Review #290 | Pink Tape

    […] Welcome to Blawg Review #290 which hails this week from Blighty, where we offer a warm welcome to the libel tourist and the would-be-wealthy divorcee alike. In a week of exploding aircraft and travel chaos there has been much said on twitter (#twitterjoketrial and #iamspartacus) and across the blawgosphere about the conviction of Paul Chambers for making a joke about exploding airports and travel chaos on twitter. Even ex-poet laureate Betjeman has offered his posthumerous support and no doubt David Allen Green (Chamber’s own solicitor, who has acted pro bono throughout) will add his two penn’orth in due course either via his Jack of Kent blog or whilst wearing his New Statesman hat. Comment on the conviction of Chambers for so-called ‘menacing’ remarks from both blawggers and bloggers (and pupil blawgers and more bloggers) alike has been pretty much universally condemned as a sorry indicator of the corrosive effect of terrorism on our approach to civil liberties. The judge has yet to tweet a response but no doubt it will simply be a matter of time. Other examples of crap jokes gone nuclear, resulting in arrest or legal action and a social media song and dance abound. […]

  • Jonathan

    I can’t hardly believe that a Socialist utopia like Britain could become a big brother Fascist state.

    Oh wait, that’s right, Fascism is a form of Socialism, and Socialism encourages violence by the state in the form of mass restriction of freedom (who doesn’t love to live on CCTV!?!). Europe and America will get what they deserve – big brother’s boot up their ass.

    • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

      Hahaha! Sorry, but here’s what the US has become. You think we have it bad?

  • http://www.aydincanpolatkan.com/blog AydinCan

    I think to get rid of these problems can only be done by using a real identity also in the web. Each person has to be really him/herself while using the web via dunno maybe a Identity card or retina check. This means $ billion $ of investment, sharing of such crucial information by who? governments or companies which are working for the government? intelligence agencies? well it’s also kind a complicated. Since we have internet there is the reality of being fake; fake information; fake profiles; fake people etc. standing even 2010 still. Sooner or later which is going to be taken care of.. In my personal blog there is an article related with this subject, if it may be interesting for you simple google and read the article.

    • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

      @AydinCan – I agree with you in the sense that being able to identify yourself on the web as a real or verifiable human is the only route to take.

      However, forcing people to identify themselves online could be a problem especially in the event that some could fear prosecution as a result of voicing their opinions. Being anonymous to the general public to one degree or another has it’s benefits.

      There are another extremes which you would probably be interested and I cannot verify the sources so you are welcome to come to your own conclusions.

      RFID Chip Implants in Australian Health Care.


      India is doing similar identification methods with its people.


    • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

      Mr Chambers was perfectly identifiable by his Twitter profile. The police had no trouble finding him. He was not hiding anything as he had nothing to hide. Anonymity is not the issue.

      • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

        @matt – anonymity or privacy is an issue, in this particular case privacy or the effects of broadcasting a message are mis-understood. I was just suggesting to @AydinCan that systematically tagging the entire population like cattle is already underway.

        In any event, There are a lot of murderers on Twitter.


      • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

        @james I disagree. I don’t think self-censorship is the solution, because the problem is really that all this commuication is just noise. It is a complete waste of time and effort monitoring it. I cannot find one single documented case where a planned act of terrorism was prevented by this type of surveillance, but it is the one hypothetical act of terrorism that might not have been prevented by ingoring it that justifies this hysteria. The prosecution accept that Paul was not hoaxing and that nobody was alarmed, but under s127 that doesn’t matter. If a communication like Paul’s happens to come into the hands of the security industry then I suppose a preliminary investigation may be necessary. But once it has been established there is no real threat (or intention to create a false belief) then it should end there. The risk is not proportional to the response.

      • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

        @matt – I know you disagree

      • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

        With all due respect, I wish you could or would come up with a better response than “I know you disagree” as this is the crux of the matter. It’s just noise and babble. The existence of Twitter in and of itself does not make us any less safe, so why should it be scrutinized as though it did? I don’t think some undesirable who goes off on one without specifically directing the “threat” is statistically any more likely to carry out the “threat” than someone who keeps his very real intentions to himself. Someone who quietly stews in his juices and fails to be noticed by anyone until he finally snaps. A conviction like this one encourages the security industry to mine our public online communications, which only makes matters worse because it is a complete waste of time.

      • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

        @matt – If Stood outside of an airport with a sign which said, “If the plane doesn’t leave on time, I will blow the airport up”.

        I would probably get hauled away by security.

        The trick is, that it doesn’t really matter what happens on the internet when that particular sort of threat is recognized as one and acted on. They are setting an example. It’s what the police and the courts do. The real criminals will send the lawyers and police after you even when you haven’t done anything wrong.

        There is nothing philosophical about the government and law enforcement.

        No matter how much you wish, or no matter how many people choose the self righteous path, it doesn’t really matter in the end, because they are going to do what ever they want. No matter how much you wish.

        What makes matters worse is that is it a philosophical debate. And that’s basically what the majority of the internet is. It’s not much more than 4chan.

        So if I make mention about wanting some sort of anonymity, whether that be dynamic IP addresses assigned from my ISP, free access to proxy servers, or whether it means ISPs allow traffic through without scrutinizing it’s contents, or whether it means RFID chips are used for cattle and not humans, then that’s all I’m really saying.

        I don’t really care who gets singled out and made an example of. It happens to everybody eventually.

      • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

        I would like to suggest that you have a think about whether you want to be a part of the solution or a part of the problem. This world (this country at any rate, and even the United States) is/are not broken beyond all repair. Government represents the collective will of the people. If we can wake up that will then we can change things one way or another. It starts by forcing people to think.

      • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james

        @matt – I’m basically saying that you are the problem.

      • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

        I see. Well in spite of this I’m still willing to stand up for your rights. You can go live in the woods if you so desire.

      • http://www.sitebyjames.com/ james
      • http://flay.jellybee.co.uk Matt Flaherty

        Thanks. I have replied.

  • Phil

    Britain is already well underway to committing suicide by giving up the country to Islamic culture and Sharia law. Mick Jagger smoking pot in the 1960’s is nothing compared to that kind of transformation. More like giving up every bit of progress made since the Romans established London.

  • http://sarahbookerpress.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/links-for-2010-11-15/ links for 2010-11-15 « Sarah Booker

    […] Who breaks a Twitterer upon a wheel? Be careful because someone will judge you. (tags: journalism law legal media privacy social news socialmedia twitter socialnetworking teaching) […]

  • buyer beware
  • discount monster beats UK

    Chaussures VTT couleurs spécialement con?u pour perdre du poids, seulement à les convertir.mbt shoes Les chaussures sont très populaires à
    l’heure actuelle, la santé et de fitness est de devenir le marché de plus en plus populaire, de
    plus en plus joindre à un gymnase et de la santé descriptif mbt conscious.mbt discountThe chaussures sont plus familiers
    avec la marque, il est facile de voir à cause de la hauteur de sa renommée et un style
    particulier, que le monde élégant et known.Because ils ont un mode,mbt sale de nombreux jeunes à la réputation de
    nombreuses célébrités, la mode,chanel handbags en parlant avec une fans
    adultes de la marque.
    Shoes.co.uk dans le cycle,rayban sunglasses
    nous vous apportons les meilleures solutions disponibles, y compris des remises exclusives et des
    chaussures de vélo leader de détail, des bottes et le cyclisme et le triathlon vélo d’autres
    produits connexes chaussures MBT sam.mbt discount pakistanaises codes contour noir de l’Internet
    contribuent à la réduction chaussures wearer.These poids par le propriétaire de chaque zone de
    tonalité step.Muscle, la posture, en utilisant la force plus grande que la position normale sont
    quelques-unes des zones de cette expérience pour beaucoup de gens portent MBT
    Howe Saba shoess avait qu’un seul weeks.Many court même rapporté une meilleure résistance à la
    cheville et de réduire les douleurs aux pieds,mbt sale même si l’apparition de bandes faibles et les
    pieds que vous avez fait de mieux pour réduire l’achat de chaussures MBT arch.If après, voici
    quelques exercices qui vous aideront à ajuster la position et la position des pieds est la
    différence, l’expérience d’une gamme de step.As titre standard ,chanel handbags
    belle MBT Tembea Chaussures pour simuler ancêtres de l’homme, un grand pas aller pieds nus quand
    ils went.This choc de style de la fonction articulaire et de promouvoir discs.And tout ton corps
    va progressivement augmenter la force et la seule multi-niveau de chaque firmer.The MBT Zapatilla
    est la possibilité, dans un appartement ,rayban sunglasses le gazon artificiel que dure la transformation
    naturelle et n’est actif que les muscles deviennent uneven.As.

blog comments powered by Disqus