I believe that freedom of speech needs to have some limits, or wise we are giving the public the right to lie, create false alarms and make ”pranks”. A prank like this shouldn’t be left with no consequences. Sarah’s “prank” caused a major panic for this airline which then lead to an immediate FBI inspection. It is also the event that triggered the development of massive amounts of precautions and security that have contemporary been implemented. This event had caused so much terror and despair among the citizens who were directly or indirectly involved/affected by this tragedy. Four of their planes were hijacked by the militant Islamist organization in 9/11 which caused the death of hundred thousands of people. American Airlines is an American company that was unfortunately the victim of an Al Qaida terrorist act in 2001. She directed this tweet towards American Airlines. In her tweet she mentioned the name ‘Ibrahim’ and said that he was from Afghanistan. This girl, Sarah, fabricated a message that was inappropriate beyond belief. It was used in this specific case to prevent significant disorder to American Airlines and its passengers. My opinion is that the offence does not contradict free speech principles. Others might, however, ask whether false or alarming announcements cause enough harm for there to be a justification to restrict free speech. The European Convention on Human Rights, under Article 10(2), also allows restrictions on free speech to prevent “disorder or crime”, amongst other things. His view would probably be, therefore, that an offence of false announcements is perfectly compatible with free speech, properly understood. Secondly, relatedly, is the criminal offence of false or alarming announcements consistent with free speech? Oliver Wendell Holmes famously once said, in Schenck v United States, that falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre does not warrant the protection of free speech. My view is that a wide definition of free speech is appropriate I think the Dutch tweet should be considered a form of speech, and that the meaning of speech must be updated to incorporate conventional forms of expression in our digital world. However, some courts around the world, including the Canadian Supreme Court and in practice the US Supreme Court, have granted free speech protection that corresponds to the value of the particular speech in question: these courts might conclude that the tweet should not be given less free speech protection because it does not contribute to human autonomy or the marketplace of ideas. Supporters of content-neutrality aim to protect all speech, regardless of content: this camp would probably say that the Dutch Twitter prank is a form of free speech. The first question is: what level of free speech protection should online comments such as these receive? Whether one thinks the 14 year-old’s tweet deserves to be counted as free speech turns, at least in part, on whether one thinks free speech protections should be ‘content-neutral’, in the terms of the US Supreme Court. This episode raises a host of free speech issues, though disappointingly the story was not analysed through the lens of free speech when it was reported by the mainstream press in mid-April. However, the girl was released after being questioned by police, and the story received very little press attention after initial fanfare in mid-April, suggesting that no charges were ultimately pressed. Rotterdam police claimed that the girl might face criminal charges, under the offence of posting a false or alarming announcement. But this did not stop a wave of copycat tweets, including one reading: “I have a bomb under the next plane to take off”. She also said: “I always wanted to be famous, but … not Osama bin laden famous”, and “I’m not from Afghanistan”. Most memorably, perhaps, she wrote: “I feel famous omg ”, after she gained over 30,000 followers on Twitter. The American Airlines reply prompted a flurry of tweets from the girl, in which she apologised, requested a lawyer, and initially at least revelled in the attention that her messages had garnered. Your IP address and details will be forwarded to security and the FBI.” American Airlines was one of the airlines whose planes were hijacked on 11 September 2001 indeed, two American Airlines planes were hijacked that day. I’m part of Al Qaida and on June 1st I’m gonna do something really big bye.” Six minutes later, American Airlines replied by saying: “Sarah, we take these threats very seriously. The 14 year-old sent a message to the American Airlines Twitter account reading: “Hello my name’s Ibrahim and I’m from Afghanistan. In April 2014, a 14 year-old Dutch girl, posting under the name ‘Sarah’ and on the Twitter handle caused a global stir with an online prank that went horribly wrong. QueenDemetriax Tweet (Photo used under a Creative Commons License)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |