In the ruling, Lord Judge said the 2003 Act, which came into force before Twitter was invented, did not create 'some newly-minted interference with the first of President Roosevelt’s essential freedoms - freedom of speech and expression.
'Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by this legislation.
'Given the submissions by Mr Cooper, we should perhaps add that for those who have the inclination to use Twitter for the purpose, Shakespeare can be quoted unbowdlerised, and with Edgar, at the end of King Lear, they are free to speak not what they ought to say, but what they feel.'
'The more one reflected on it,' he added, 'the clearer it became that the message did not represent a terrorist threat, or any other form of threat, but was a 'conversation piece' for Mr Chambers’ followers.
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179782/Twitter-joke-trial-Paul-Chambers-wins-appeal-conviction-airport-bomb-Tweet.html