Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Indicts Saudi Student For Website Contents

Posted by timothy on from the is-it-fire-in-a-crowded-theater dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A student ( studying for his doctorate) has been charged by the U.S. government for setting up a website, moderating a email list listing it as 'material support' for the terrorist. How fine is the line between First Amendment rights and 'material support'?"

5 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. language by Wonda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The nice thing (for governments) is that hardly anyone would know what the messages were about even if we could see them, and anyone translating them differently than the government can just be labeled terrorist.

    How can you ever know the truth with these things?

  2. Freedom/Responsibility by GrendelT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With freedom comes responsibility...
    With Freedom of Speech comes the responsibility of knowing what NOT to say.

    Saying that one wishes death on the president is against the law. So you're not free to say just anything.
    In a time of war if you start propogating sensative information, you will be charged with treason and executed. So you're not free to tell people what you want.

    You are free within limits. Its like, you're free to drive as fast as you want, just not over a certain limit. You're free to go where you want, so long as you do not trespass. You're free to do what you want, so long as you do not infringe on other people's rights and such.

    The whole freedom of speech thing comes becomes paradoxical when you speak out against the US as a whole. I'm all for speaking out against parts of our government, but when you say "The US (as a whole) sucks! and I'm free to say that if I want." Aren't you denouncing the country that gives you such a right? How can it suck then? Sure, you're free to disagree with certain aspects. But when you burn the US flag, aren't you then saying that you reject the US and its rights???
    Oh you aren't? So obviously there is something about this country that you find pleasing...

    The whole thing about freedom comes back to, you're free to do what you want, as long as you dont cross the line. By aiding those who wish harm on the US, that's breaking the law.

    1. Re:Freedom/Responsibility by DreamerFi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are somewhat right, and you make a good point. However, I don't think you go far enough. I mean, we (I'm not american, but dutch right don't really differ all that much where it really counts) can all celibrate how "Free" we all are because we allow others to say things we disagree with, but the real strength of a Free country comes with the resulting discussion. "so you think we suck because of X. How would you do things differen then?" Of course this doesn't work for quite a lot of folks (on both sides of the discussion) because they are too rigidly set in their opinion, but the real freedom lies in the fact that the discussion can take place and make the country as a whole stronger as a result.

      -John

    2. Re:Freedom/Responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Saying that one wishes death on the president is against the law."

      This is just rubbish. I can say I wish death on the president. I can say I wish someone would kill the president. I can even say that I wish I had the guts to kill the president. All perfectly legally, just like I can say all of those things about you.

      What I can't say is "I'm going to kill the president", unless of course you put it in quotes like I just did, because then you are only mentioning the phrase and not using it :)

      The president doesn't have and special priveleges here. I can't say that I plan to kill you, either, without serious repercussions. Of course the speed and effectiveness of the response will be different, but only because there is more money in protecting in the president than there is in protecting you.

  3. Re:First Amendment? I don't think so by xyzzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a point of order, it has only been since 1996 that raising $ for organizations on the FTO list has been illegal. And the "Real IRA" (the runt of the old IRA) is now on that list.

    As to your axe-to-grind regarding the election: people seem to lose sight of the fact that Bush won the election because of our brain-dead electoral college system. The election was completely legal and by the book. The nation fell victim to the fact that one state (Florida) was able to fsck it up it for all of us. Reminding people that "Gore won the popular vote" does nothing to advance anyone's cause: winning the popular vote got nothing to do with it!