<h1 class="entry-title"></h1><h1 class="entry-title">To tweet or not to tweet: that is the question</h1>
<p class="headline_meta">by <span class="author vcard"><a href="http://www.medialaws.eu/author/luca-belli/" class="url fn">Luca Belli</a></span> on <abbr class="published" title="2012-02-13">February 13, 2012</abbr></p>
<p>If William Shakespeare were drafting Hamlet’s soliloquy nowadays, he
would probably rejuvenate it in this way. Indeed, the popular and
omnipresent social network has recently been the object of some heated
discussion over its notorious tweets.</p>
<p>The first debate directly concerned Twitter with regard to its new
policy changes, whereas the second involved the unattended juridical
consequences that may follow from a tweet.</p>
<p><strong><em>The Inquisition 2.0?</em></strong></p>
<p>On January 26th, <a href="http://blog.twitter.com/2012/01/tweets-still-must-flow.html">Twitter announced</a>
that thanks to its latest technology improvements, it is now able to
“reactively withhold content from users in a specific country”. This is
the kind of announcement that immediately triggers apprehension and
censorship suspicion: indeed, why should a social network withhold
content if not to restrict one’s freedom of expression?</p>
<p>However, if one keeps on reading Twitter’s statement and further
explores the policy changes, one begins to understand that, in spite of
unavoidable first-impressions, these policy modifications are indeed a
positive improvement.</p>
<p>In fact, as one may read on Twitter’s blog, the removed content will
be kept available in the rest of the world whereas, previously, if a
court ordered to remove a tweet, this would have been removed globally.
Though the new policy is clearly motivated by Twitter’s yearning for
market expansion, it actually enhances freedom of speech instead of
diminishing it.</p>
<p>Indeed, being blocked on a national level, one’s “illegal” expressions will still reach the majority of tweeters (<em>i.e.</em>
in any country where the same content isn’t considered as illegal) that
will keep on “enjoying” the content. Moreover, the withholding
procedure won’t be <em>a priori</em>: instead, it will be put in place only in response to “a valid and applicable legal request”.</p>
<p><strong><em>Those tweets shalt be cursed!</em></strong></p>
<p>As Cain was cursed and marked for murdering his brother Abel, a sign
will be appointed to the banned tweets, so that allowed users may
identify the censored content. Though this option may appear as a form
of balkanization, it will actually represent a great surplus value for
human rights advocates. Indeed, tweets are going to be withheld locally
while visible and marked globally. Therefore, it will be much easier to
demonstrate which contents are arbitrarily censored and do not fit the
International standards provisions such as article 19.3 (b) of the <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter’s new technique will make it more difficult for authoritarian regimes to justify that harmless tweets, such as <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23democracy">#democracy</a>
or open invitations to peacefully gather in order to demonstrate
against oppressive measures, might be removed by virtue of some <em>ordre public</em>
issue. Those who will order to remove innocuous content will have to do
it openly vis-à-vis the internet and international community.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the censored tweets will be taken down or marked
according to the IP address of the users. This kind of measure will
leave the possibility to keep on access the obscured content by simply <a href="https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169220-how-to-change-the-country-setting">changing the Country Setting</a>, therefore weakening the impact of censorship.</p>
<p><strong><em>Mind the tweet!</em></strong></p>
<p>Another interesting episode recently involved Twitter in an indirect
way. Indeed, a bizarre accident shed light on the nature of tweets and
on the limits to freedom of expression that one has to take into
consideration.</p>
<p>The unfortunate event involved a couple of Irish tourists who were <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4095372/Twitter-news-US-bars-friends-over-Twitter-joke.html">stopped and handcuffed</a>
at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) because of their
“suspicious” tweets. Indeed, as many other social networks, Twitter is
monitored by a considerable number of U.S. special agents that were –
probably disproportionately – alerted when they figured out that Mr.
Leigh Van Bryan, an Irishman, was tweeting:</p>
<p>“<em>Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America</em>”</p>
<p>After questioning the couple for some hours, and despite the fact
that the two tourists stressed the euphemistic nature of the tweet,
Homeland Security officials sent them back to Ireland arguing that they
were not allowed into the country.</p>
<p>Though this episode may sound really “peculiar”, it is not a first.
In fact, in January 2010, another traveler had to face the unexpected
consequences of his incautious tweet. This time it was Mr. Paul
Chambers, a British citizen, who, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/24/twitter-joke-trial-bomb-threat">according to the Guardian</a>, “had his computers and phones seized and was subsequently charged and convicted of causing a “menace” under the [U.K.] <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127">Communications Act 2003</a>”.</p>
<p>Mr. Chambers was indeed charged under “improper use of public
electronic communication network” because, while colorfully complaining
about snow problems at Robin Hood Airport, he expressed his
disappointment asserting that were he prevented from reaching his
girlfriend in Dublin, he would have “blow[n] the airport sky-high”.</p>
<p><strong><em>A chilling effect or an Orwellian one? </em></strong></p>
<p>Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, enshrined in
binding and enforceable proscriptions on both sides of the Atlantic (<em>i.e.</em> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text">First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution</a> and both Article 10 of the <a href="http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV.pdf">European Convention on Human Rights</a> and Article 11 of the <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf">Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union</a>).</p>
<p>The aforementioned episodes might seem to signal an
anti-freedom-of-expression trend. However, one has to consider that even
if Human Rights are both a justification and a limitation of power, any
sovereign State has the right to define restrictions on people’s
freedom of expression in order to protect national security or public
order.</p>
<p>What is worth remarking is that tweets are <strong>non</strong>-private
messages. Hence, though one may argue that this kind of network
policing and freedom-of-expression limiting may trigger a chilling
effect, one has to recognize that the public nature of the tweet allows
every individual to “follow” it. And a “follower” may be a naïve
acquaintance or a special – and slightly Orwellian – agent.</p><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Grace L.N. Mutung'u (Bomu)<br>Kenya<br>Skype: gracebomu<br>Twitter: GraceMutung'u (Bomu)<br><br>