I couldn’t find any threads about this case. In summary: man posts obviously jokey threat to “blow an airport sky high” if it doesn’t “get its shit together” on Twitter. Is convicted of “menace” and fined. Appeals. Loses.
Has common sense been outlawed and I missed the memorandum? 
Oops, missed the edit window to fix that “qupte” tag. 
I think common sense dictates that you ought not to make jokes about bombing airports.
Due diligence requires an investigation, and investigation costs money. That’s a finin’.
Sure. If you are in the TSA line, or waiting to board a plane. But how about when writing in a blog, messageboard, etc? Is airline safety so sacrosanct that you can’t even whisper your thoughts to your SO in bed?
Yes, that’s my point. Common sense cuts both ways, of course, and nobody is advocating making jokes about bombs while inside the airport. But posting a Tweet, of all things, in such obviously jokey language? I don’t see how anybody could read that and find it threatening, apart from perhaps an autistic person with no understanding of social mores whatsoever.
Let’s just hope the Crown Prosection Service never gets wind of the BBQ Pit 
Who names an airport after Robin Hood? Makes me want to get all asplodey.
Post reported to the TSA.
Where exactly is the obvious line, though? Someone posting “You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!” might just be a lame joke, or it could be a nutjob. I have no doubt that the investigators figured that it was probably not an earnest threat, but I don’t really see a public posting phrased that way with no elaboration as something that you would naturally expect to be shrugged off.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to require a little less ambiguity in public postings. Hell, I’ve posted things here that might be interpreted as threats against public figures, if I weren’t careful to include something indicating that it’s just hyperbole and not an actual threat. That’s just being reasonably circumspect and isn’t an undue burden, what with it being a public forum and all. Even if you’re limited to 140 characters, just allocating two of them to “ha!” can spare you some grief.
The full tweet read: “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”
Three exclamation marks, jovial use of profanity and to top it off a couple of introductory sentences expressing frustration that the airport was shut. Perhaps the internet really is killing the language if people can take that as a serious threat of terrorism. :rolleyes:
Not trying to be argumentative, but I read the same tweet and don’t pick up on any of the jovial nature you’re talking about. I would probably conclude it wasn’t serious, but it’s not a slam dunk, and I could easily imagine it being serious.
You can’t win in these cases. If a nutjob had made the same post and actually did blow up the airport, everyone would be on the FCC’s case about not stopping it when they clearly had a warning that this chick was clearly serious!
Hindsight is 20/20. They HAD to investigate this.
Additionally, tone is NOT communicable through text. And just because something is posted online doesn’t give anyone a free pass to make threats, jocular or otherwise.
SEE, we keep telling all of you that smileys are IMPORTANT!! 
The Anti-Smilie Brigade seems to make two arguments simultaneously, neither of them satisfactory:
One, any competent author can always successfully convey tone through text.
Two, any competent reader can always successfully decode tone conveyed through text.
To them I say, “Get thee to a nunnery!” If Shakespeare had problems with this, and the highly-trained Shakespeare scholars certainly seem to, then it is illogical to expect anyone to get it right all the time.
The message as written is sufficiently ambiguous to classify the writer as incompetent.
Everyone knows you don’t joke about that stuff. Duh! It’s not new.
Yeah. If he had added a 
at the end it would have been much clearer.
Speaking of incompetence; if you think his message’s meaning was ambiguous your reading comprehension could use some improvement.
Well, whatever happened to the common sense, that guy didn’t end up with any. He’s an idiot and deserves what he got, a rather minimal fine.
Thing is, I can see the police investigating something that’s fairly obviously a joke. Five minutes talking to the guy would have made it clear it was just a joke. Not a great joke, obviously, but it was on Twitter, not at a stand-up comedy gig.
Arresting him at his place of work, and then actually proceeding with the case was insane. (On that note, WTF are CPS doing these days? Between the case in the OP and this case, I wonder whether the definition of public interest has changed significantly recently, or something…)
Giving the guy a criminal record, which will likely have knock-on career consequences, for something as ridiculous as this is just madness. I’m amazed it wasn’t over-turned at appeal.
