Stephen Fry on the techno-cluelessness of English judges

David Weinberger sez, "Stephen Fry explains that when a frustrated traveler tweets something about wanting to bomb an airport where there have been delays, the traveler isn't really announcing that he is about to bomb the airport. Social media, Fry explains, need to be understood as conversations. And then Fry kicked into the fund for the frustrated traveler's legal fees."

Fry really lays into the English judiciary here, and with some justification. They are notoriously aloof from the world of mortal humans. I keep hearing tales of an English judge in the 1980s had to ask a defense lawyer what a t-shirt was, and whether it was something you only wore at tea time, though I can't locate a reference on teh googles, but the prominence of this story (myth?) in English folklore says something about the national perception of the bench.

Unfortunately, the BBC video isn't embeddable because, well, public service, right?

Stephen Fry says British judges don't understand Twitter

(Image: Stephen Fry @ BorderKitchen, a Creative Commons Attribution (2.0) image from raaphorst's photostream)


  1. It’s my (generous) understanding that judges asking questions such as ‘What is Boing Boing?’  then forces its description into the record so that years into the future, when commonplace knowledge is not so commonplace, these references make sense.

    “I refer M’lord to Cory Doctorow, that well known blogger and ballo0nist.”

    1. To each his own: the decline in the quality of BBC output was instrumental in my decision to get rid of my TV.

      Admittedly I didn’t realise that this would result in the Licensing folk pestering me all the bloody time but you live and learn, eh?

      1. I was being sarcastic. Like you I have no TV and am seriously pissed off being treated like a naughty kid for not having a licence. I refuse to let them know I have no TV. It is not yet a criminal offence not to declare to the authorities non-ownership of a TV but they act like it is. Mostly I find BBC output extreme right-wing drivel (I know others disagree).

        1. Eventually after a month or 2 a man came round to me and said “have you got a TV” or some equally penetrating line of enquiry. I said “No, since Top Gear’s last season finished I didn’t renew my licence and haven’t looked back. If I want anything, it’s on iPlayer/skyplayer/NNTP a day or so later”
          “You realise you can’t watch iPlayer live?”
          “Yes, I have seen the popups and don’t watch it live.”
          He went away happy.

          And ever since I haven’t heard anything from them. I do resent having to prove my innocence when we should be innocent until proven guilty. However, confirming my innocence has significantly decreased the volume of threatening letters.

          PS I didn’t really mention NNTP and don’t condone illegal downloads. That was an attempt at humour. Considering the original article subject, I thought I should it clear that I don’t engage in or support or promote illegal activity and if you try and say I do, I’ll blow up your courthouse.

          PPS Joke again!

        2. I didn’t have a TV when at university and got so sick of, not only of the fact they kept sending me letters, but primarily the threatening, patronising tone of the letters.  I sent them back a letter, something to the effect of ‘fuck off’, and I never heard from them again.  Hey ho!

        3. It’s kind of inevitable that a clash between TV Licensing and people who don’t own a TV would occur.

          A device – a TV – that needs a license (to recieve live broadcast TV) but which is used and operated in the privacy of someone’s home. When someone says they have no TV, what are TVL supposed to do? Accept their word? How can that work? People lie, people who don’t want to pay for a license can say they don’t have a TV as easily as someone who genuinely doesn’t. The only way that they’ve come up with to check the truth of such a statement, is to invade the privacy of someone’s home – which is a surefire way to alienate people and acquire accusations of arrogance and create feelings of resentment.

          I’m not accusing anyone here of remotely belonging to the groups of swivel-eyed, frothing at the mouth, extremist anti-TVL people, that frequently dominate such debates (and inevitably undermine their own cause) but NOT ONCE have I seen the proposal of a better, more civilized workable system.

          The only real and lasting way to address the legitimate concerns and grievances of those subjected to harassment by TVL – and it can most certainly be harassment – is to find a better workable solution.

          Becasue the TV License and the BBC are a damn good thing. The alternative – multi-billionaire media moguls who are only interested in selling viewers to advertisers, of furthering their own goals of accumulation of power and wealth, and the lack of integrity with which such goals must be financed, is unconscionable and should be opposed by everyone, including those of us who don’t own or want a TV.

          1. Was mass TV ownership envisaged in the form we have it now when the licensing system was introduced? TV was for the wealthy. There are people in this country for whom even three pounds a week means depriving themselves of some other necessity, they are really not worried about the merits of different forms of funding TV.

        4. My sarcasm detector would appear to be broken D:

          But yes, I’m in much the same boat as yourself. I bin the letters and on the two occassions a chap has been to the house he’s been invited to be on his way.

          I take  bluest_one’s point with regards to people lying about not having a tv.  However, I can’t help thinking that the presumption that they do and are therefore avoiding paying for the license runs rather contrary to the whole “presumed innocent” stance the law is supposed to take.Is there a different solution however? Well, yes. Provide proof – like you’re supposed to when accusing anyone of anything – and take it from there. The fact that this makes life difficult for the licensing people honestly makes my heart bleed for the poor wee lambs.

          1. Couldn’t agree more. It riles me intensely to be asked to prove my innocence. There is some sort of principle here which they have to accept.

      2.  “…the decline in the quality of BBC output was instrumental in my decision to get rid of my TV.”

        It’s still better than what you can see over here in the States.

      3. What if you just have a TV for movies and a game console? 

        I’m trying to look online and I’m amused by the fact they still have b&w licences. 

        1. In that particular example I believe the TV must be untuned – which is to say that if you stick an aerial in it you only get static – not connected to an aerial/have no means of connecting it to an aerial etc and therefore definitely isn’t being used to watch tv.

          Things get tricky if the TV auto-tunes/has a built in aerial.
          I got around this by buying a display panel like the ones you see in airports. No coax connection = no chance of being caught out on a technicality.

      1. I just got a bill for my TV license that comes out to about $550. And I can’t avoid it if I have broadband but no actual TV signal. Not a Brit.

      2. My heating is operated by crumpets, the water by positioning a monocle just so and giving the meter a stern talking to.

      3. I remember when I might have spent 2 -3 hour writing code on my Dragon 32, only for the power to go out and I’d have to put 50p in the meter.  That was when 50p’s were bigger, shops shut at 1Pm on Wednesdays, and there was such a thing as corner shops! And you could drive down the high street if you wanted to. Now the 50p is smaller, shops are 24H and the local corner shop has gone bust, and the high street has been pedestrianised – even the fire brigade cant get down there when a row of shops go up in flames! 

        Those were the days, and the 50p was better! It made good pocket money to a little kid like me!

  2. In “The Real Frank Zappa Book,” Frank mentions an obscenity trial over his lyrics that happened in the early 1970s in which a judge was shown a record album as evidence and asked what it was.

    1. In the seventies if you wanted to be cool you called a music group a ‘band.’ But I didn’t use either term after I heard of a judge asking who The Beatles were…
      The counsel’s reply was ‘A popular beat combo, m’lord.’  

      So now Radiohead are my personal favourite popular beat combo. How cool am I?

  3. I am more worried about the judges’ cluelessness on matters of individual rights and of what actual intent to commit a crime might be, which is necessary for arresting anyone.  
    I am also worried about an humorless doctrine of zero-tolerance, blind respect for authority and security above all else that has overridden said rights as well as common sense and concern for the spiraling costs of litigation; because it seems to be used by these same judges to make decisions. 
     The judges could be briefed on the most important facts about Twitter in  a five minutes. That they don’t understand the most important issue, or go along with the aforesaid doctrine, (which by the way I consider the brand of fascism nowadays fashionable in the Western World), oh well… 
    That surely someone will come out in the comments section to the defense of creeps with badges unduly inconveniencing innocent travelers who have never in their lives possessed means or motives for terrorism over jokes, is also worrying and proof that some people could use a really thorough strip search with generous groping on the side, so as to know what it is like to be on the receiving end.
    In fact, in a world with a shred of common sense, said upstanding citizens inconvenienced or harmed over jokes and private or public comments would be owed an apology and full recovery of damages, financial and personal.

  4. Senior UK judges are notoriously ignorant of the very society and Nation in which they live and pass judgment upon, and it’s a fecken crime folks because these guys are awfully intelligent when it comes to the law – but so lacking in the fairness of their judgments due to being so insular from the majority of society.

    As to –
    “Unfortunately, the BBC video isn’t embeddable because, well, public service, right?”
    lol right!!!

    Just use ANY of these to access ANY site blocked by IP whether UK, USA, Oz, Iran, Afghanistan (or any other fascist régime who hasn’t realised we’re in the 21st century and wish to communicate freely and openly WORLDwide without limiting your profits) –

    MAFIAAfire’s Slash Unblocker! – FREE to d/l & to use

    or see Wikipedia & a search engine for
    * a web proxy (paid is best);
    * a VPN (paid is best); or,
    * a FREE browser proxy.

    Lots of option to watch BBC, Hulu, yada yada yada …

    1. “Senior UK judges are notoriously ignorant of the very society and Nation in which they live  ”

      Might as well change that to:
      Seniors are notoriously ignorant of the very society and Nation in which they live
      Because this isn’t only in the UK and neither it’s only judges… I mean, remember this: ?

      Also, my sis gives social media training to large companies. One of the biggest hurdles she needs to cover is explaining that a facebook-friend isn’t the same as the friend you can lift from his/her bed in the dark of night to ask if you can sleep on the couch due to marital problems… Understandable from one point, but the gap in their understanding is also glaringly obvious..

      1.  not even seniors. was asked where to buy cassette tapes the other week. Customer looked at the CDs with confusion.

      2. Seniors are notoriously ignorant of the very society and Nation in which they live

        Odd, because I’ll be passing the senior mark this year. Don’t really think of myself as ignorant.

  5. I don’t really want to defend the occasionally indefensible, but it is worth considering that ‘ordinary’ High Court and Crown Court  judges seem to be about as aware of modern life as anyone else in their age range (50s/early 60s, not 70s-80s!).

    It’s the more senior judges and Law Lords who are, er, a bit removed from everyday life, by age as much as status.  Unfortunately, they’re the ones presiding over the cases the public become most aware of….

  6. There was a sketch on Not The Nine O’Clock News, a British sketch comedy show where Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) started out. He was playing a judge.

    Counsel: This receipt is for the digital watch.

    Judge: A digital watch? What on earth is a “digital watch”?

    Counsel: Sorry m’lud. A digital watch is a watch worked by microelectronics.

    Judge: Oh! How fascinating. Proceed.

    Counsel: The next receipt is for an automatic video recorder.

    Judge: Automatic video recorder?

    Counsel: Yes, I’m sorry m’lud. It’s a machine that records television programs on special tape.

    Judge: Oh, how fascinating. What will they think of next? Proceed.

    Counsel: Thank you m’lud. And finally, a receipt for a “deluxe model inflatable woman”, whatever that is.

    Judge: The Deluxe is the one with the real hair.

  7. I can’t watch it on the BBC site; it just buffers endlessly. In case anyone else is having the same problem, here’s a YouTube link to same:

  8. There was a particularly fine Punch cartoon from late 1944 showing a high court judge sat in front of a court in chaos, as  lawyers all try to hide under tables asking “And pray tell, what is a doodlebug?” as a V1 rocket approached the window.

  9. In their defence, judges  are known to ask questions that they feel some members of the jury might need answering. They play stupid in order to save the embarrassment of a jury member.

    That probably doesn’t account, however, for the judge who asked if UK 90’s football star Paul Gascoigne was nicknamed ‘Gazza’ after La gazza ladra opera.

    “Mr Gascoigne is a very well-known footballer.”

    “Rugby or Association?” asked the judge.

    When Judge Harman asked, “Do you think Mr Gascoigne is more famous now than the Duke of Wellington was in 1815?”, Mr Silverleaf replied: “I have to say I think it possible.”

    1. I used to go watch my girlfriend when she was doing “mooting”  competitions, sometimes in front of pretty senior judges in the final rounds. One said something to the effect that the only things accepted in her court without question were that the sun rises and the sun sets.

      1. I presume you mean “quite” or “very” for “pretty” there.  It conjured up a rather extraordinary image in my mind…
        But yes, in their defence, judges do need to ask these questions sometimes.  The truly objectionable part of our legal system are the meetings that happen in private when we have no idea what misinformation the judges are being told by either side.

    2. I can confirm that this is a true story, even down to the “rugby or association” thing.  (I used to work with a member of his family; who was not impressed…)

    3.  From my reading of London Labour and the London Poor (available online), I would say they were roughly equal.

  10. Public school and Oxbridge can really skew your sense of reality. I know plenty of people who have never recovered from an Oxbridge education – too much history and historical privilege. In their defence the judiciary is making efforts to broaden its intake.

  11. I was just reading about a judicial decision in New York on the same issue, but interpreted much more sensibly:

    The case concerned a teacher who said something on facebook about hoping her obnoxious students would die. Here’s the relevant passage:

    “Facebook has rapidly evolved from a platform used solely by American college students to a world-wide social and professional network. It is commonly used to advertise businesses, organize parties, debate politics, and air one’s grievances, among myriad other uses. Indeed, with Facebook, as with social media in general, one may express oneself as freely and rapidly as when conversing on the telephone with a friend. Thus, even though petitioner should have known that her postings could become public more easily than if she had uttered them during a telephone call or over dinner, given the illusion that Facebook postings reach only Facebook friends and the fleeting nature of social media, her expectation that only her friends, all of whom are adults, would see the postings is not only apparent, but reasonable. While her reference to a child’s death is repulsive, there is no evidence that her postings are part of a pattern of conduct or anything other than an isolated incident of intemperance.  “

  12. While maybe the judges don’t understand twitter, and the person was probably just saying it in jest, We have to look at the other side of the coin here.  Twitter isn’t some kind of private IM between you and your friends. It’s a broadcast message for anybody who wants to listen.  Not only that, but somebody can retweet your message, and have it go out to all their followers, who may have no context to the original conversation, and may not even know who the original person was.  We’ve all seen how fast those stupid “repost this and you could win an iPad” , “or repost this or you’ll have to start paying for twitter” messages catch fire and have everyone retweeting the same thing, even if it holds no truth.  Talking about bombing an airport on Twitter is probably comparable to talking loudly about bombing the airport in the airport.  It’s not that it’s very likely that you’re actually thinking of doing it, but the fact that somebody could hear you, and misinterpret you as being serious, and then causing all sorts of chaos in the airport as word spreads.  Maybe talk of bombing an airport can be joked about in some places, but with travellers coming from all parts of the globe where maybe suicide bombers aren’t once in a lifetime occurrences, it may be taken more seriously by some.

    1. Yes, but saying the word ‘bomb’ in an airport shouldn’t be an offense either – it’s also not a silly thing to do, it’s completely innocent and reliant entirely on context.  No more than saying ‘heroine’ in the street or ‘camera’ around naked children.

      The whole ‘bomb’ in an airport thing should be comparable to ‘fire’ in a crowded building.  If you’re running around shouting it then you’re causing a problem; mentioning it in passing does not make you a criminal, nor should it make you a cause for concern to the authorities.

    2. ”Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your s*** together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

      There isn’t a reasonable person that could mistake that for a serious threat. That is clearly simple frustration and hyperbole. Excusing the hysterical overreaction causes our sense of reasonableness to recede still further into cowardice.

    3. The other side of the coin is that said person has not the means or motives to perpetrate an act of terror. Thus they should not be inconvenienced in the slightest. Even if said person causes confusion as a consequence, which was not their intention. Misinterpretation happens.

  13. I don’t think you can limit it to UK judges… Maybe to English speaking judges perhaps. I have heard of some pretty bad cases in both the US and Canada. That said, when the demographic of your average judge is 50+ or even 60+ are you really that surprised that most are not up on the current technology?

    1. …your average judge is 50+ or even 60+ are you really that surprised that most are not up on the current technology?

      Hello? 54 here. Being an idiot is a lifestyle choice, not an age-related illness.

      1. If you please, my kind sir, could you change the “Being an idiot is a lifestyle choice,” to being “ignorant” is a lifestyle choice. That is more of what I see these days, willful ignorance. Certainly, being an idiot can follow being ignorant, but I have encountered many well educated idiots in my life. Just saying.

  14. IAAL and Oxbridge.  Although it’s easy to conjure up transcripts which make certain judges appear uninformed or technophobic, I think this misses the point for a few reasons.  Without commenting on the specifics of the Twitter-hoax case:

    (1) First, our judiciary comprises people who are, in the main, incredibly intelligent, hard-working and disciplined people.  They are, of course, human – and sometimes limited by personal inexperience – but for the most part, judges are able to get to grips with new subject matter with impressive speed.  Just look at any Chancery IP judge (many  have higher degrees in organic chemistry or computer science).  Regardless of whether they prefer opera or clubbing in their spare time, these are people who are disciplined enough to recognise their own limits and ask the occasional silly question to correct their understanding of an issue.

    (2) Second, our adversarial system means that judges are only as good the advocates in front of them.  While English advocacy (particularly in appellate courts) is generally of an extremely high standard, occasionally things go awry.  Age has very little to do with it.

    (3) Third, there are important distinctions between judges interpreting statutes (such as section 127 of the Communications Act 2003:, applying objective standards (such as a ‘reasonable person’ test) to the facts and exercising discretion (eg, whether to grant an interlocutory injunction).  In the former case, where the law is clear, there often isn’t much room for the judge to respond to changes in technology.  In the latter case, decisions are temporary, usually made under time-pressure and not finally dispositive of litigants’ rights.  Again, we need to be careful to distinguish between civil and criminal cases, where different rights are in issue.

    (4) Finally, and this is more of an institutional/separation of powers argument — criticising judges for not ‘getting it’ when it comes to social media neglects the bigger issue of how the parliamentary and executive arms of government tend to regulate those technologies.  Quite simply, if we have laws and policies on the book which criminalise behaviour many regard as socially acceptable, it’s time to rethink those laws, not to criticise judges for doing their jobs.

    PS – in the spirit of collating amusing transcripts, one of my personal favourites comes from an Australian drunk-driving case, Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552:

    “CALLINAN J: Mr Jackson, it seems to me that clearly the people at the party, including Ms Joslyn and Mr Berryman, went out with the intention of getting drunk.

    MR D F JACKSON QC: It would be a big night, your Honour, big night.

    CALLINAN J: With the intention of getting drunk and they fulfilled that intention.

    MR JACKSON: Well, your Honour, young people sometimes——

    KIRBY J: I just think “drunk” is a label and I am a little worried about—it is not necessary to put that label. It is just that they were sufficiently affected by alcohol to affect their capacity to drive.

    MR JACKSON: Yes.

    KIRBY J: “A drunk” has all sorts of baggage with it.

    HAYNE J: Perhaps “hammered” is the more modern expression, Mr Jackson, or “well and truly hammered”.

    MR JACKSON: I am indebted to your Honour.

    KIRBY J: I do not know any of these expressions.

    McHUGH J: No, no. Justice Hayne must live a very different life to the sort of life we lead.

    KIRBY J: I have never heard that word “hammered” before, never. Not before this very minute.”

    See further:

    1. “Quite simply, if we have laws and policies on the book which criminalise behaviour many regard as socially acceptable, it’s time to rethink those laws, not to criticise judges for doing their jobs.”

      The job of at least some judges is to  make decisions of this kind. To uphold the higher law of the land. Charters/Bills of Rights for Individuals come to mind. Judges have a duty to uphold these and to decide against any law that contradicts them. In fact if judges do their jobs, criminalisation of innocent behavior (whether socially acceptable or not) would be near impossible, and parliaments and Executives would have to be warier about drafting or enforcing bad laws.

      1.  While the United States has its single Constitution, and Canada has its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I don’t believe the United Kingdom ever created a singular, overarching document that formally codified the inalienable rights of its people. It’s rather a patchwork of unwritten principles and royal edicts assembled over the centuries. Therefore judges in the UK don’t really have any sort of agreed upon constitutional document upon which all laws must adhere to.

  15. I was able to view it, so the BBC must have made an exception so as not to be called out on the ridiculousness of blocking this content.

    Sadly, the old Last Chance To See radio shows with Douglas Adams I was trying to play for my son this morning (he loves the later Stephen Fry version we got on Blu-Ray) *is* blocked.

  16. Yet, at 65, here I am as a subscriber to Boing Boing, et al. One day it will be your demographic that is constantly derided as being out of touch with “today”. This was true with my parents, when I was (shutter) a hippy. It is true for my demographic, although we, along with our forebears, invented virtually everything you do, think, smell, eat or listen to, while you, alas, have only adapted to it. Mostly, my generation views a computer as a tool to do work, as we don’t have the time to play around with this tool, like it is a toy. It was my generation that first used the personal computer, 30 years ago. From your post, I assume that was before your birth. It was also my generation that saw the need to educate children about computers, as young as possible. Why, because we realized that, as computers advanced, it would be much harder to catch-up, without early education.

    Remember, that with luck, one day you will be old, and children will think you are out of touch.
    Enjoy your life

    Edit: Well, the post that I was replying to has vanished. What’s up with that ?

    1. * groan*Another boomer lecturing on how they invented everything. Yet somehow when it comes to economic crises, global warming and the erosion of civil liberties worldwide those things just kinda happened, not like anyone’s responsible.

      1. *groan* another unidentified citizen failing to acknowledge that a large society is made up of a variety of different groups, enough different that the group which invented whatever might indeed be completely unrelated to the group which screwed up something else. Or then again, they might not. 

        Its the same as the idiotic complaint about “all the hippies ended up on wall street”. As if in the late 1960’s america, every young person was a hippies … or as if in the mid-70’s UK, every young person was a punk.

        All that said, the post you’re replying too is just a bit overdone.

      2. Like all global crimes, there is usually a well defined group of  assholes who have perpetrated the crime, not an entire generation. Yes, I know that it is all the rage to blame the preceding generation for whatever global crimes were perpetrated, but very few people from any generation have the knowledge or wherewithal to pull off a crime of such proportions. With virtually every country’s population split down the middle on which corrective approach is the correct cure for the worldwide economic crisis, it may well take at least another generation before economies, worldwide, are stable again. Don’t expect help from politicians or bankers, they are all getting rich from the chaos.
        Look, I don’t have that much time left on Planet Earth, but my son does. I have tried to educate him about this crisis, and he gets it, to a point. The problem is that he is still too young (24) to feel the urgency of the situation. Yes, I was pretty much like him at 24, but I was already aware of how the criminals of the world were in control. Yes, my friends were tired of hearing about this problem, they just wanted to get loaded and listen to the Allman Brothers. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but it can’t be your focus in life. Falling asleep at the wheel is still, falling asleep at the wheel.

        As for generational differences, we would all be better served if we listened to and spoke with each other, in a civil manner. What usually happens is that one group talks AT the other group, as if they are going to educate the others. My generation does it, our parents generation did it, and our children’s generation does it. We all have valuable things to say, but not always. Sometimes, I talk out of my ass, and if you are honest, so do you. This goes back to the beginning of Homo Sapiens, and probably before.

        The *groan* thing just made me chuckle, that goed back to at least Plato.

  17. ” though I can’t locate a reference on teh googles”
    Well I’m glad I don’t waste money on any newspaper you might be a “journalist” for Cory. You try to slag off the British judiciary…but fail to cite any substantial evidence….just a possible myth. I like judges who find twitter, facebook and texting boring and irrelevant – I do to! I like judges to make decisions based on the law and not the passing fancy of current technology that the kidz find so kewl !

    1. Yet, here you are.

      Do you have the names of those,   “judges to make decisions based on the law and not the passing fancy of current technology that the kidz find so kewl !”   I have never heard of any Judge who has based a judgement using the criteria that you implied, whether I agree with the decision, or not. If you can prove that any Judge has used such criteria, then you are in violation of the law, in every state, if you do not present your evidence to the state Attorney General.  The same thing goes for the UK. I find you disingenuous in your post, like a child trying to show-off.

  18. To be fair to the proverbial justice, “T-shirt” is an Americanism, whilst the article of clothing would have been known to the justice as an undershirt or knit cotton tunic.

  19. Public service right? – no, wrong.  The BBC is there for the people that pay for it. And we pay a not at all small fee annually. That’s why the content is so good unlike ‘public service’ community tv with its inherently low production values. PBS couldn’t hold a candle to Auntie.

  20. English judges aloof? Does anyone remember the Birmingham 6, wrongfully imprisoned for 16 years, who had their action for police misconduct denied by soon to be 81 year old Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, on the basis that if their action succeeded it would mean:

    ” that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous … such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.”

  21. This appears to be less of a “judges don´t understand twitter” problem and more of a “judges don´t understand people” problem and therefor an even bigger problem.

Comments are closed.