morungos

#iamspartacus has gone viral on Twitter (see http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23iamspartacus). This may be one of the first coordinated examples of large-scale civil disobedience to have used this medium.

This wasn't the first act of civil disobedience this week. The NUS/UCU demonstration in London, unfortunately, turned violent and destructive. Sit-ins and occupations have a long track record as student-led protest. I wouldn't encourage anyone to act illegally. However, non-violent occupations are a form of protest that few would consider dangerously objectionable. In this case, the aim is to persuade the government to reverse its policy of substantially privatizing higher education. It is highly unlikely to succeed.

The #iamspartacus trend is very different - this is integrity-based. The law -- the law used to prosecute Paul Chambers -- is simply being used immorally, and that is the reason for resistance to it. If there was a real bomb threat, there is a law that he could have been prosecuted under. The fact that the Crown Prosecution Service chose not to do that -- apparently against their own guidance ("It is more appropriate to charge bomb hoaxes under section 51 of the Criminal Law Act 1977", from http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/). The fact they chose not to do so implies this was not seen as a bomb hoax even by the CPS.

The result is that Section 127 of Communications Act has been used, apparently in a way that can deliver a prosecution whenever a message can be seen, by the judiciary, as menacing. Joking does not appear to matter, nor does the context -- although the full text of the judgement still is not available to analyze. Certainly, it does seem that a message can be taken out of context, and if menace can be seen in another context, that is enough to make this a criminal offence.

In many ways, this is truly scary. If any communication can be deemed menacing out of context, resulting in a criminal record, virtually every citizen could be convicted. This would obviously be unreasonable. The action of #iamspartacus, because it is collective rather than individual, an effective assault against misuse of a law.

Given all that -- what is the outcome for an individual Spartacus? Are they guilty? Most criticism is not of the law, but of the test of menace used. Most people have not seen menace in Paul Chambers' tweet. A few -- a very few -- have. As someone who retweeted the message, I full admit to sending the message, but I do not consider myself guilty of sending a menacing message. The law is not wrong, but a more appropriate test for determination of menace is needed.

#iamspartacus is more in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, or at a more mundane level, the mass non-payment of the poll tax. The poll tax protests ended Margaret Thatcher's prime ministership. This is a power to recognize and take seriously. Mindless adherence to this law will result in its being rendered unenforceable.