Egyptian Charged For Threatening Facebook Post

An anonymous reader writes "The Egyptian Military Prosecution has charged 26-year-old activist and blogger Asmaa Mahfouz for allegedly defaming the country's ruling generals and calling for armed operations against the military and the judiciary. Mahfouz, a prominent activist, was accused of using Facebook to call for the assassinations of Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) members and certain judges."

Comments

Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[intellitech]

Freedom of Speech typically does not permit incitement to violence.

Furthermore, inciting harm to powerful leaders, regardless of motivation or full intent, is probably not wise (and especially so in an unstable nation). And, if you follow through and do so, you best make yourself hard to find, and go completely off grid. Otherwise, you'll likely be caught, and you'll find yourself in a very uncomfortable situation, to say the least.

Freedom of Speech does not protect all speech. It only permits speech that can hurt people’s feelings, but it does not permit speech that can cause objective harm to people’s bodies, possessions or liberty.

Source (for more in-depth reading on the subject): http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/02/18/on-freedom-of-speech-and-incitement-to-violence/

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[DuChamp Fitz]

Only he didn't threaten or incite anything.

"If the judiciary doesn’t give us our rights, nobody should be surprised if militant groups appear and conduct a series of assassinations because there is no law and there is no judiciary,” Mahfouz wrote on Facebook, according to the official Middle East News Agency (MENA). Another translation (from Arabic) reads: “If justice is not achieved and the justice system fails us, no-one should feel upset or surprised if armed gangs emerge to carry out assassinations. As long as there is no law and there is no justice, anything can happen, and nobody should be upset.”

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[cheekyjohnson]

Although some may feel you should be able to say whatever you want, you would be wrong.

What? They'd be wrong for having a preference? How does that work?

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[Anonymous Coward]

Although some may feel you should be able to say whatever you want, you would be wrong.

What? They'd be wrong for having a preference? How does that work?

Their opinion is different from mine, hence wrong.

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[metacell]

Have you read the article?

This was what Mahfouz allegedly wrote, translated from Arabic:
“If justice is not achieved and the justice system fails us, no-one should feel upset or surprised if armed gangs emerge to carry out assassinations. As long as there is no law and there is no justice, anything can happen, and nobody should be upset.”

Sounds a little too vague to me to constitute an illegal threat. Or as Mahfouz herself said:
"There is no truth in these accusations, I was only warning the military council that the absence of justice will lead to chaos."

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a little too vague to me to constitute an illegal threat.

Are you basing that on one particular translation or on a sound understanding of the subtle nuances of Arabic?

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[metacell]

On the translation, since it was what the parent was basing his conclusion on. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused.

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[cheekyjohnson]

Which probably is a good thing.

I don't know about that. Letting them make exceptions as they please (instead of creating an amendment or going through the proper procedures) isn't wise, in my opinion.

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[rtb61]

Oddly enough it could only be counted as a threat if, "The Supreme Council of Armed Forces" fully intend not to provide justice. It would seem by this arrest "The Supreme Council of Armed Forces" intend to become the new autocratic power and deny justice to the citizens of Egypt.

This sort of over sensitivity is just a public display of guilt and criminal intent. It all smells of a military junta, conspiring to create a illusory pretend democracy subject to the approval of Israel and the US, so that the Egyptian military leaders in charge can get their turn at the trough. So how much of Mubarak's stolen billions will return to Egypt and how much will disappear into the maws of American and European financial institutions so that a handful of Egyptian Generals can get a percentage.

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[geminidomino]

Yes, but in the U.S. you would go to a normal court, and you would have the right to a trial by jury

Unless, of course, the speaker also happened to be Muslim or had, at some time, walked into the same Starbucks that once employed a known terrorist's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[he-sk]

Every death is a tragedy. 'Nuff said.

As for your eating analogy, you should read up on how addiction works.

Re:Newsflash: Freedom of Speech has limits.

[Shompol]

I am fully proficient in two languages. Every time some important statement is translated (on Slashdot in particular), dozens of skeptics crop up who question what was lost in translation. The answer is: NOTHING OF VALUE. Seriously. Translation, when performed by a human being, is a much more exact science than you seem to believe.
Of course, there are "subtle nuances" that you speak of, but they are just that -- subtle nuances. They do not change the meaning.

The post wasn't a threat

[rebelwarlock]

Since no one is reading the article before throwing in their opinion (and thus being wrong, because they just assumed that being accused is the same as being guilty), here's the translation of the post:

If the judiciary doesn’t give us our rights, nobody should be surprised if militant groups appear and conduct a series of assassinations because there is no law and there is no judiciary

That's mentioning the possibility of violence. It is neither calling for it nor encouraging it. What people seem to be doing is taking a prediction as a threat. That would be like me saying, "No one should be surprised if the price of gas goes up" and everyone responding with, "REBELWARLOCK IS THREATENING TO RAISE GAS PRICES".

Re:The post wasn't a threat

[Derekloffin]

You're right, it was a veiled threat... Sadly I can see that actual verbiage being seen as a threat. Predicting violence is the same kind of thing you hear out of your stereotypical mobster muscling a store owner for protection money. In a place like Egypt, making statements like that on the net is just asking for trouble.

Re:The post wasn't a threat

[adenied]

What's the world come to? If you make a prediction you get arrested. If you don't make a prediction you get arrested (Italian seismologists).

I'll probably get arrested for making this observation.

Re:The post wasn't a threat

[metacell]

Obvious? You don't even know what context it was said in, unless you know Arabic and have checked up the original post.

If I say "If Western society continues to respond to terrorism with military means, we shouldn't be surprised if there are even more bombings", is that also an incitement to violence? Should I be arrested for saying it?

Re:The post wasn't a threat

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

You don't know it's a veiled threat, and the burden of proof is, as always, on the accuser.
Only in English common law, which Egypt might not subscribe to, so quit your cultural imperialism you insensitive clod!

Re:Fascists, or?

[Nick Ives]

Calling for the assassination of unelected generals who are engaged in an opposition purge as part of a revolutionary strategy isn't evil or immoral.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Re:Fascists, or?

[metacell]

And as far as we know, she didn't call for the assassination of anyone; she claims she was only warning against the danger of civil unrest.

Re:This seems legit...

[H0p313ss]

Except that what she said was "with how much our government sucks, don't be surprised or upset if they're killed by militant groups". That only sounds threatening when you say it with a gun in your hand.