[align=center]
Al Murray on the Twitter joke trial: 'Problem is, the law don't do funny'
Al Murray, in court to follow the now notorious Twitter joke trial, calls it 'a Monty Python-does-Kafka brainfart'
Al Murray
The Guardian,
11 February 2012[/align]
This week I went to the Royal Courts of Justice to offer support to someone who is in a lot of trouble because of a not particularly funny joke. As an erstwhile pedlar of some not particularly funny jokes (just ask the Guardian's comedy critic, he doesn't dig what I do at all), this matters to me a great deal.
As you walk into the Royal Courts of Justice, you are supposed to be awed by this Victorian legal cathedral, and I suppose you might be if the reason for you being there were not so ridiculous. Paul Chambers, who completely fits the "regular guy" bill, is in court to appeal against a conviction that stemmed from the law having one of its periodic Monty Python-does-Kafka brainfarts. I've never read any Kafka, by the way; maybe I should, and then I'd be as clever as genuflectee Stewart Lee.
In a fit of frustration at his flight being delayed by snow, Paul tweeted this message – and hold onto your hats, this one's all zinger – "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!!" It's not brilliant, but I'd say it has many hallmarks of the humorous remark – it starts with a mild profanity, leans heavily on exclamation marks, and has a pathetic threat at its heart. Would anyone who was not joking but actually issuing a threat give an airport "a week and a bit"?
This got Paul a conviction for "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003". He lost his job; his life has been pretty much kind of ruined.
Lots of people, including platinum tweeter Stephen Fry, have rallied round to support Paul's right to banter of varying quality. Graham Linehan, writer of Father Ted, The IT Crowd and recent West End smash hit The Ladykillers has been deeply involved, a master absurdist in a state of bewilderment at the real thing – his face in court is a mask of disbelief.
On Wednesday, in my new-found role as court reporter, I heard Paul's QC argue that only a "halfwit" wouldn't see that this was a joke. There was, as they say, laughter in court. But the fundamental problem was that the law don't do funny. Not when there's "menace" around. It does do obscene, and views obscene objectively (though that shifts, obviously, or we'd still be banning a glimpse of ankle rather than browsing endless anal). I did what I could to keep up with the flow of the legal argument and various examples of precedent. Where it seemed to be heading was this: context isn't enough, if you're going to make a joke, make sure that you make it clear that a joke's a joke – if you make it clear that a joke is a joke, then it is a joke. So, when saying something you regard as a joke, in order to avoid loss of job and life ruination, say "joke!".
Now, there are people who do this. We know who they are. They are the people with no sense of humour. There is every chance some of them may be lawyers: joke! But not saying "joke!" is a serious business. This week the Sun told the story of a Labour aide called Matt Zarb-Cousin who had tweeted that the Queen was a "benefits scrounger". A Tory MP who has nothing better to do than be a colossal prick ("joke!") pointed his outrage cannons at Mr Zarb-Cousin, saying: "This is a shameful slur against the Queen." Boom! The trouble is he didn't then say "joke!" himself, because he was being serious. Naming this MP would be unfair, as no one really needs to make a monumental tit of themselves twice in one week ("joke!"), and it would get him in the paper again. Mr Zarb-Cousin took a break from sharpening his guillotine ("joke!") and ended up backing down, buckling under the pressure from one jumped-up arse-clown ("joke!"): "To clarify earlier comments about the Queen: it was a joke & wasn't meant to be taken literally. I didn't mean to cause offence & apologise." For Chrissakes.
It seems that at the centre of this is Twitter, which some people, some of them possibly judges ("joke!"), don't really understand at all. I'm on Twitter, and have tons of followers, and I don't know that I really understand it. I don't understand why people will tweet me, calling me a bald cunt, usually confusing "you're" with "your", and then get all huffy and surprised when I point out it's "you're", and that I'm not bald.
It's probably a joke. I don't find it funny. But that's OK. Because this is the thing about comedy – we can't all have the same sense of humour. But to find out what Twitter is, I asked the people who follow me, and got a wide variety of replies.
Someone calling herself Comtesse Plume said this: "I think the widely used term is 'micro blogging site' personally I'd go for 'verbal diahorroea(sp?) social networking'!" Sheffield Andy answered my question with one of his own: "What is Twitter? Is it a tool whereby you can publicly broadcast serious terror threats? #Twitterjoketrial #Iwillkillagain." (those things with hashes are his way of saying "joke!").
But actually, it isn't about Twitter at all. Twitter and poor Paul Chambers are caught in a crossfire of pisspoor Blairite terror legislation ("not a joke!"), a bureaucratic tendency to timewaste and the speed of technological change brought about by the internet. Add to this a feeble-minded sense of humour failure, a failure to realise that not finding something funny is not the same thing as being offended, and that being offended is not the same thing as having an actual opinion, and that a metaphor born of frustration – "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!!" – is not a terror threat. Even having to point that out is wearying, bewildering, soul-sapping.
I'm off to read Kafka ("joke!").