FBI: Retweeting a Terrorist's Tweet Could Land You In Trouble

An anonymous reader writes: Twitter has become a valuable tool for U.S. law enforcement agencies in their fight against terrorism. It's been used as evidence in trials, it's provided useful intelligence, and it has helped them figure out who is involved with these groups. But ACLU lawyer Lee Rowland is trying to make sure they don't take it too far. In April, a 30-year-old man was charged with providing "material support" to the Islamic State. The FBI's probably cause? He retweeted some of the group's tweets. FBI director James Comey says a person's intent is the heart of the issue: "Knowing it was wrong, you provided material support for a terrorist organization or some other offense. That is the bulwark against prosecuting someone for having an idea or having an interest. You have to manifest a criminal intent to further the aims prohibited by the statute." Rowland points out the obvious First Amendment concerns. He adds, "... there's also the question of intent there: repeating speech is not automatically an endorsement. ... So a RT alone is certainly not an endorsement and in many situations may be a criticism of the original speaker, and that's particularly true with terrorism, because I believe many people may believe terrorism is self-evidently immoral."

Comments

How do we know?

[rossdee]

How do we know if someone is a terrorist?

They could be just pretending...

Re:How do we know?

[Mr D from 63]

How do we know if someone is a terrorist?

They could be just pretending...

If one pretends to be a terrorist, then they may see the consequences of being utterly stupid.

Re:How do we know?

[invictusvoyd]

And also, there's this whole documentary about 9/11 wherein the US government pretends to be terrorist . So, does re-tweeting FBI tweets make you a terrorist?

Re:How do we know?

[caseih]

Maybe but we're slipping into a very real Orwellian thoughtcrime mentality in recent years. Meanwhile the word has even lost all meaning, simultaneously defined narrowly (Islam only) and broadly (re-tweating is material support? Really?). So what does pretending to be a terrorist even mean? Make a sick joke about being an Islamic extremist and you're off to jail. On the other hand I've seen people make public statements about how certain political candidates should just be assassinated (Hillary Clinton seems to be a common target for this sort of red-neck speech) and it's just free speech during the election cycle.

Re:How do we know?

[Anonymous Coward]

But your retweet was due to you understanding their tweet literally,
Therefore you are supporting what they wrote, and so you deserve punishment.

Re: How do we know?

[blast0id]

I think the #FBI can retweet my terroristic nuts down their terrorist creating throats, gargle you flambastic federal fuck wads! I am a meat popsicle!

Re:How do we know?

[NatasRevol]

It depends on the intent of their retweet. At least according to the word smiths at the FBI.

Re:How do we know?

[squiggleslash]

I'm not sure how you'd "pretend" to be a terrorist, outside of a context where people know you're not (for example, acting in a movie.) You might pretend you support a cause you don't, but you're either causing fear in support of a political cause by threatening death or you're not.

If I tweet "The infidel Brits will soon know the error of their ways! On September 6th, stay away from the Empire Trade Tower if you want to live! #irishislamicrepublic" then (assuming Irish Islamic Republicanism is a real movement, and the Empire Trade Tower is a thing, the blowing up of which is considered serious) I'm obviously contributing a little to fear of, uh, IRIS/IRIL regardless of whether I'm doing it hunched over in a Internet Mosque Cafe in Londonderry fuming about Brits, or have just finished reading a 4chan thread and think it'd make great lulz.

Terrorism is terrorism. Death threats for a political cause are terrorism regardless of whether your intent is to go through with them.

Re:How do we know?

[siddesu]

And what should be the 'consequences' of 'being utterly stupid' while retweeting someone's tweet, as often happens? The electric chair? Lobotomy? Castration? 'Material support' implies one provides materials to the terrorists. Tweets are still speech and not really 'material', precious little there to justify prosecution.

Re:How do we know?

[TWX]

re-tweating is material support? Really?

Yeah, I was under the impression that material support meant providing money or physical assets. I was also under the impression that encouraging others to join would be acting as an agent. I'd bet that this material support threat stems from there simply not being enough to charge someone with being an enemy agent but there being no law covering this kind of speech, which means that attempting to silence people doing this might not even be legal.

On the other hand I've seen people make public statements about how certain political candidates should just be assassinated (Hillary Clinton seems to be a common target for this sort of red-neck speech) and it's just free speech during the election cycle.

There was a fad around here for awhile for bumper stickers that said "pray for Obama" and had a biblical passage number on them; it was something about someone dying or being killed in the passage. I don't think that Christ would have liked these Christians.

Re: How do we know?

[TWX]

Most guys do want others to want their nuts, but they don't usually take it this extreme...

Re:How do we know?

[just_a_monkey]

So now we wait for some court to declare that "immaterial support" is material support. I mean, they did conclude that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" means that congress can make laws abridging the freedom of speech.

Re:How do we know?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

If they're retweeting stuff, then obviously they're a terrorist. I recommend a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence for anyone retweeting anything, ever.

Re:How do we know?

[siddesu]

I don't know if retweeting even qualifies as 'immaterial' support. What if the fucking terrorist uses one of those fake Paulo Coelho quotes every other time they tweet? They'll get a following of imbeciles in no time, yet I bet there is an overzealous prosecutor who'll try to go ahead with finding some 'terrorist support' even in retweets like these. The damned Russian Federation was better than not 10 years ago. People who retweet out of stupidity need help and education, not prosecution.

Re:How do we know?

[circletimessquare]

threatening anyone's life specifically is not protected free speech. like child porn or the proverbial shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, there are some expressions which directly impinges on someone else's freedom, and is therefore not free speech

all freedoms exist in natural tension with one another. my right to get a good night's sleep, your right to listen to music at 2 AM. my right to piss when my bladder is full, your right to grow petunias in your garden. my right to speed on the highway, your right to live. etc. most violations of freedom in your life is not by the cartoonish big bad government out to destroy your freedoms for shits and giggles (violations of your freedoms by the government does exist, i'm not denying that, i'm simply saying it's rarer), but mostly by regular people around you every day who don't care or don't know how they violate your freedoms

so if an action you take hurts someone else's natural freedoms, your action by definition is not free. an act can't hurt anyone else and still be called a free act. doing whatever the hell you want, damn the consequences, is not an actually logically coherent understanding of what freedom means. doing whatever he hell you want, as long as it doesn't hurt the freedom of someone else, is the logically valid understanding of natural freedom

therefore, those people who are threatening a specific person's life should be identified and punished. in the name of freedom: the freedom of someone to live

meanwhile, terroristic hate speech that says for example "all christians should die" is free, because it is not specific. terrorist speech which delves into this area of generalized hate can be watched, but is not punishable. then if some moron wades into this kind of speech and goes "yeah, you're right, i'm going to blow up that church on 14th street tomorrow": boom, you've got an actual natural freedom violation and actionable content that demands your identification, capture, and trial, because you made a specific threat

so there's no real thought crime here. there's "free" terrorist speech, and the government simply watching those who indulge in such hate. which is fine, and expected, and normal. then if you commit a "thoughtcrime" by wading into that speech and stupidly making a specific threat, that really is a logical violation of someone else's natural freedom, and so you are fair game for punishment, and you should be punished

Re:How do we know?

[Rei]

First off, whenever anyone posts an article like this, everyone jumps all over it as some sort of evil abuse of government power. Here's people's reactions on Slashdot the last time. But when you actually look into the case, you find this out.

We see the same thing here again - everyone just automatically assuming that this is some sort of huge government overreach of power... because tech... and free speech... and... stuff. Should we even bother to look up the details of the case? First, here's what the article says:

Keonna Thomas, a 30-year-old from Philadelphia who went by @YoungLioness on Twitter, was charged in April with attempting to provide material support for the Islamic State. In an affidavit in support of probable cause, an FBI agent pointed to tweets that Thomas "re-posted on Twitter" supporting the militant group.

Oooh, evil FBI - going after a woman just because she hit the retweet button! Except... not exactly

A Philadelphia mom has been charged with planning to go overseas to join ISIS and martyr herself — going so far as to buy plane tickets.

"That would be amazing... A girl can only wish," Keonna Thomas allegedly told an ISIS fighter in Syria who asked over the Internet if she would be involved in a suicide mission.

"I can make that wish come true," the unnamed fighter allegedly replied.

The government says Thomas, 30, researched travel routes to Turkey and bought a plane tickets in late March.

Thomas, who also went by the nickname YoungLioness, allegedly posted support for ISIS on Twitter, writing, "If we truly knew the realities ... we all would be rushing to join our brothers in the front lines pray ALLAH accept us as shuhada [martyrs]."

Court documents say that after applying for a passport, she told a friend that she would deactivate her Twitter account "till i leave for sham [greater Syria] ... don't want to draw attention of the kuffar [non-believers]."

In one exchange of messages with the overseas ISIS fighter, he talked about how he would shoot or behead his wife if she turned out to be a spy and betrayed him.

"Cutting head is more personal," Thomas responded, according to the criminal complaint.

Ooooh, evil FBI, damning an innocent woman because she hit a retweet button, right?

Do people ever check into these things before they rush to damn the FBI for overreach of power?

Re:How do we know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the FBI has nothing better to do than to harass someone for using their first amendment rights in a way they don't approve of?

The FBI wins both ways; they file lots of stupid lawsuits to show "hey we're fighting crime really! We need more Money boogah boogah!" and then if they happen to win any of them, they hire more people to do more stupid !@$!@#it that violates the concept of having even basic human decency, much less the constitution, or common law. See: The NSA. "Our Wiretapping is totally Legal! (COINTELPRO)" Twenty years later and hundreds of billions of dollars later the tea party organizers are mysteriously being targeted for Tax Audits...

Now what REAL geeks and OldSchool Slashdot would do is they'd go find ISIS's webpage, then re-tweet "ISIS GET OFF MY LAWN, FBI PLEASE ARREST ME LOL!".

If we did this in the millions, not only would it really tick off the rag heads, but we'd shame and possibly get the lawyers who come up with this tripe disbarred or at least shamed badly enough they'd be doing traffic court for the rest of their careers.

Re:How do we know?

[DNS-and-BIND]

"Red-neck speech"? I trust you were not alive during the previous Administration. Calls for the death of the President were common and daily occurrences. Books were written about fantasy coup scenarios. He was compared, un-ironically, to Adolf Hitler. Is this one of those things where it's only wrong when the other side does it?

Re:How do we know?

[alvinrod]

there are some expressions which directly impinges on someone else's freedom, and is therefore not free speech

I dislike that line of reasoning because it's utterly vague and open to abuse. For example, if I feel that your speech has threatened me, should you no longer be able to express your thoughts? What if you feel that my feelings are irrational? There's far too much uncertainty to try to enforce those kinds of rules and they invariably end up being used wrongly.

I'd rather look at this matter in terms of responsibility. All speech is free speech, but all persons are also held responsible for the consequences of their own speech. Cry fire in a crowded theater all you want, but if it causes a panic and results in injury, then you should be held financially responsible. Slander or libel someone and you're responsible for any damages to their reputation. The same goes for goes for threats and the like. Call for the death of some politician as much as you like, but if you start a riot or a lynch mob, then you're also criminally responsible for your part in what happened.

Even specific threats are murky water as the degree to which an arbitrary individual would consider it serious depends heavily on context. If it's some AC on the internet yelling about killing you, most would just brush it off as a random troll and not worth their time, but if it were your neighbor, most would take it more seriously. Then there's further ambiguities at play. Consider the difference between "I will kill you" and "I ought to kill you" and consider that in the heat of the moment one might be said instead of the other or a person might misconstrue one for the other and report an incorrect recollection of events to the police.

The best counter to terrorists broadcasting their message is to use free speech to show everyone how wrong and small-minded they are. Trying to suppress it through government power only serves to help their cause. If you don't like someone's message, use your own free speech to point out why it is wrong. Letting some third party arbitrate what can and cannot be said is just asking for trouble in the long run.

Re:How do we know?

[cfalcon]

The word "material" is there precisely to prevent overreach like this. The vague "support" would allow for ideological supporters to be put behind bars, hence it is qualified. If this doesn't get shut down, it becomes a law that means "fuck the people because we say so".

Re:How do we know?

[cellocgw]

I trust you were not alive during the previous Administration. Calls for the death of the President were common and daily occurrences. Books were written about fantasy coup scenarios. He was compared, un-ironically, to Adolf Hitler. Is this one of those things where it's only wrong when the other side does it?

[citation needed}

Re:How do we know?

[TWX]

If she bought tickets for herself and has been documented as joining ISIS, she should be charged for being an agent, not for contributing material support.

This then begs the question, at what point can one call the individual in question a member? Does the act of buying the tickets make her an agent? Does her commencing her travel make her a member? Does her changing planes or arriving at her final airport make her a member? Does she actually have to meet with other members, or does she have to at least receive orders?

Because, up until she actually conspires with them to take an actual action or follows instructions from them she could decide not to go through with whatever her original intentions were. Hell, if you want a more down-to-earth example of it, watch one of those "bait car" tv shows; they don't make a bust until the perpetrators put the car in-gear and move it. They can get into the car, they can rummage around the car, they can start the car, they can shut the car off, but until it moves they don't swoop-in to arrest anyone, excepting situations where the perpetrators start vandalizing or disassembling the car in-place, which are other crimes in of themselves. If the people that get all up in the bait car close the doors walk away without moving the car or stealing anything from the car then the police do not bust them.

It's probably unrealistic to define the point of the crime of joining a terror group as being when they arrive to the group or when the attempt to take a specifically overt action, but I don't think that it's unrealistic to require commencing travel after agreeing to join as the bare-minimum threshold.

Re:How do we know?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience. Hateful people aren't going to do a whole lot to hide it. And even when they do it's still pretty damn easy to see right through the act.

Re:How do we know?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's not killing people, then he still hasn't technically broken the law. So we should wait for him to make the attempt, and then catch him.

Re:How do we know?

[KGIII]

I have not examined these laws but you may notice that the charge is attempting. At least that is what the GP quoted as the charge. Attempting can be pretty lax as far as evidence is concerned and is generally seen as better than waiting for the outcome. Just planning, actively acting on those plans, is attempted murder even if you never get to the nefarious part of poisoning them.

Re:How do we know?

[shutdown -p now]

The reason why people stopped bothering to check is that there were enough very damning exposures about real, undeniable and unambiguous government overreaches of power in this territory that we're basically operating on the presumption of guilt now: any time any government official says anything about "national security" and "terrorism" in one sentence, I automatically assume that they're trying to rob me of yet another individual right or freedom that I still possess. Yes, I may occasionally be wrong, but I'm still right more often than I'm wrong. And if the govt wants things to change in this court of public opinion, they should start by cleaning up their act, admitting their past mistakes, and acknowledging that they were wrong, and that the whole "omg terrorism" rhetoric caused more harm than the terrorism that it was supposed to deal with in the past 15 years.

Re:How do we know?

[MrKaos]

threatening anyone's life specifically is not protected free speech. there are some expressions which directly impinges on someone else's freedom, and is therefore not free speech

I heard it once put Your freedom ends where mine begins

Re:How do we know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they? While our own government supplies ISIS with weapons and backs away from rescuing its own diplomats in order to cover it up? When our own CIA got the passports for the 9/11 hijackers and our last administration was heavily involved with the supporters who funded the networks? Why should we submit to thought police when they've done enough to deserve death thousands of times over?

Terrorists

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Re:Terrorists

[TWX]

Until their friends or family or religious brethren in another part of the world, that so far have not been involved, decide to get involved because of what you have done.

IE, a certain young man from a rich Saudi construction conglomerate travelling more than a thousand miles to take-up war against an invading aggressor, being armed and trained by third-parties, and then years later staging attacks against those very third-parties that previously helped him...

Re:Terrorists

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

If everybody nukes everyone else from orbit, there soon won't be any problems.

Re:Terrorists

[Opportunist]

So find their family and ensure everyone is wiped out.

This game of raising the stakes can be played by both sides.

Re: Terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike certain of our allies(cough, Israel, cough), the U.S. at least tries to adhere to the basic international law principle that targeting civilian family members of enemies is a war crime.

Re:Terrorists

[dbIII]

Quite ironic since the above poster was referring to Osama Bin Laden - his family has very close connections with the Bush family, among many others in the oil and several other industries. The "wipe out the family" is clearly an utterly stupid idea with the biggest name in terrorism so why would it work elsewhere? When two degrees of separation is the President of the United States how do you go about wiping out his business associates that were not involved with the terrorist act at all apart from being related to the terrorist?
Why does the barbaric stupidity need to be pointed out at all?

Re:Terrorists

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

If everybody nukes everyone else from orbit, there soon won't be any problems.

I like the way you think.

Re:Terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.

It'll be lonely here one all of you are gone, assuming my anti-radiation cave is deep enough.

Retweet = support

[Anonymous Coward]

If you retweet, then you support something.
So in this case your place is in jail or two meters underground.

Re:Retweet = support

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. People are allowed to voice "support" for anything they want.

This is America, punk. If you don't like the way we do things, move to Pakistan.

Re:Retweet = support

[NatasRevol]

#Murica

Home of the free, land of the Anonymous Cowards.

Re: Retweet = support

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon they won't have to move to be in a place like pakistan

Re:Retweet = support

[Anonymous Coward]

@Retweet #ThisIsTerrible.
    Oh sorry, you're supporting them. Off with your head.

FBI Retweet Deez Nutz

[Anonymous Coward]

You're gonna love my nuts.

Public Service Announcement

[mariox19]

Don't talk to cops.

Seriously, the scary thing here is that you could quite innocently find yourself the subject of an investigation, and have your whole life spiral out of control from there. The FBI has manufactured "terrorists" by leveraging their criminal informants, and innocent people have gotten caught up in the agency's overzealous and amoral crusade to "catch bad guys."

But, don't take my word for it:

• http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515
• http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/fbi-terrorist-informants
• http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/the-convert

What I would like to see is someone give it the old college try and write up a "compare and contrast" essay: The FBI vs. the Stasi, KGB, et cetera. I worry things are getting that bad in this country. Now we have to worry about what we might re-tweet!

This is free speech issue

[sinij]

I should be able to stand on the corner and proclaim support for ISIS all day long without having to face government prosecution. This is how free speech works in US. As such, this is "with computers" type of a case.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

If you made it a whole day without private citizens kicking your ass, I'd be really surprised.
But as for the government's reaction, and I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion you could reasonably be charged with hate speech based on country of origin.

Re:This is free speech issue

[sinij]

"If you made it a whole day without private citizens [heckling] your ass"

That would be social consequence of speech. At no point I am stating that speech should be without consequences, it is that consequences should never be in a form of government prosecution.

Re:This is free speech issue

[drinkypoo]

"If you made it a whole day without private citizens [heckling] your ass"

That would be social consequence of speech. At no point I am stating that speech should be without consequences,

I know we learned in school that violence was an acceptable answer to free expression, but in the real world if you do that shit you're just fucking fascist scum who deserves to go up against the wall.

No speech should lead to violence. Mockery is an adequate remedy.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

No speech should lead to violence. Mockery is an adequate remedy.

That's a rather silly absolutist position to take.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I should be able to stand on the corner and proclaim support for ISIS all day long without having to face government prosecution.

I agree. But that's not what this kid did. He re-tweeted about how to support ISIS/ISIL through bitcoin transactions. That's not really simply speech at that point, but support.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

especially in response to a post that advocates mockery of speech you don't agree with. Unless there is some other definition of "heckle" that I am unaware of.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

not really. fuck you.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

How about instead or kicking ass,heckling or mocking, we could all just express our disagreements reasonably or even have a debate.

Re:This is free speech issue

[drinkypoo]

No speech should lead to violence. Mockery is an adequate remedy.

That's a rather silly absolutist position to take.

Either you believe in free speech, or you don't. There's no third way.

As people who live in a country with free speech, we have a responsibility to treat it with respect. And that means (among other things) not attacking people physically for expressing ideas, no matter how wrong those ideas are.

If you disagree, then you are opposed to free speech. It's really that simple. There's no other way. Maybe that's rational; we could argue about that. We could argue about the basis of intent; if your goal is to share your views because they are important to you, then that's free expression. If your goal is to hurt someone because they are repugnant to you, is that free expression? But the answer is still not to harm people. Violence begets violence. When you use violence to solve problems, you legitimize it as a problem-solving strategy.

Re:This is free speech issue

[chipschap]

How about instead or kicking ass,heckling or mocking, we could all just express our disagreements reasonably or even have a debate.

Entirely too civilized and reasonable. This is Slashdot, after all.

Re: This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be attacking a straw man. I don't see where the poster indicated support for attacking people over speech.

He simply stated that there can be social consequences and sometimes are.

For example, a fast food chain owner proclaims his opposition to Gay marriage. He should be able to do that all day long without government consequences. He should be able to say whatever he wants short of a direct threat.

But while the government should not get involved, people can boycott his store. That is a social consequence, and something I fully support.

Now someone proclaiming support for ISIS in the streets would probably expire pretty quickly. That is social justice I would not support.

See the difference?

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you believe in free speech, or you don't. There's no third way.

Nice strawman, there. Did you make it yourself?

BTW, what do you do if you live in a society where mockery of your rulers can lead to a long prison term, or even death? I don't think snark is going to be all that effective in combating tyranny.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Even hate speech is protected speech in the United States.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Snark for freedom! Ironic posers against oppression!

Re:This is free speech issue

[nicoleb_x]

If you come up to me and ask for money and say you are going to "put me in the hospital" if I don't give it to you then I have the right to kick you in the balls (among other things). There are certainly times when speech can and should result in violence.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberty or Death

...I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted?

  [If only a colonialist Jon Stewart existed back then! No doubt the Crown would have caved from his relentless ridicule just like modern day government leaders and ideologues and such have done for the last 16 years.]

Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned - we have remonstrated - we have supplicated - we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne.

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

Re:This is free speech issue

[shutdown -p now]

BTW, what do you do if you live in a society where mockery of your rulers can lead to a long prison term, or even death? I don't think snark is going to be all that effective in combating tyranny.

That's when you get a gun, make a few bombs, and go do a revolution.

Re:This is free speech issue

[shutdown -p now]

t in my opinion you could reasonably be charged with hate speech based on country of origin.

In US? No, you cannot. Look up "imminent lawless action" for the current standard. It's a very high bar; high enough that open hate speech on a KKK rally didn't meet it.

Re:This is free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. You make a rousing speech, a call to arms, and go fight a violent war. You don't just make some insipid mocking speech and assume that's going to be adequate to bring about change.

Re:This is free speech issue

[david_thornley]

You have the right to react violently to a violent threat. Saying I'm going to "put you in the hospital" is not necessarily a violent threat. If your assailant does anything to carry out his threat, that is a violent threat.

The FBI is sowing the seeds of fear.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not substantively different from the behavior of the STASI in the DDR ( East Germany ) or
the ruling party in 1930s Germany. The idea is to scare the general public such that they all fall into
line and quit even questioning authority.

The FBI is not the friend of the average citizen in the US. The FBI serves its masters, who are those
who have power and / or lots of money. If you are a member of the small minority which has the
money and power, that's nice for you, but 99% of the US is merely a bunch of chattel and is along for the ride.

The FBI is not an honest organization. It has perpetrated many awful things in order to ensure that those in power
remained in power. If you believe otherwise you need to do some research on the history of the FBI. No, I'm not going to
provide you with a link, if you are too lazy to do your own search then you are too lazy to think in the first place.

Re:The FBI is sowing the seeds of fear.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the same pattern in the NSA bashing. You guys should blame your executive branch less and instead put the blame where it's due, onto the lawmakers, and vote accordingly.

Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Twitter itself providing "material support" to terrorists?

Re:Hmmm...

[jafiwam]

Isn't Twitter itself providing "material support" to terrorists?

Twitter has a long track record of allowing or encouraging violence, threats, predictions of terrorism, etc. of all kinds, but seems to have a pretty strong anti-western and anti-lawful establishment to it.

It's not OK to say "n@@@er" at all, but somehow spike lee and thousands of re-tweeters can post direct threats and addresses people supposedly George Zimmerman's relatives all over twitter.

As "do no evil" goes, twitter completely fails. The government shouldn't NEED to be involved because Twitter is taking care of it.

Hint hint, Feds, just shut ALL of twitter down until they can behave.

What is it about the FBI director job?

[Hizonner]

Everybody who ever holds it seems to be a really scary fucker with no concept of what they're supposed to be protecting.

Re:What is it about the FBI director job?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody who ever holds it seems to be a really scary fucker with no concept of what they're supposed to be protecting.

Actually it is YOU who is confused. The FBI director has a very clear understanding of
his duties.

The FBI knows exactly what it is supposed to protect. Your problem is that you don't
understand what the job of the FBI really is. Read the post " ...sowing the seeds of fear"
above and you will begin to get an understanding of what the FBI really does.

The Terrorists are winning

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to admit it, but the more we as citizens begin to fear our own guardians, the more they have won. It's disgusting to say the least, but Eden didn't last forever either.

Jail for tweets but not sending money for bombs

[dbIII]

Isn't it funny how "material support" applies here but not for Senator King who helped out with funding when a terrorist group needed some money to explode some bombs in England.

Re:Jail for tweets but not sending money for bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it funny how "material support" applies here but not for Senator King who helped out with funding when a terrorist group needed some money to explode some bombs in England.

Quite obvious. Money stopped being material long time ago. Now it's just created out of vacuum, and holds no material resemblance.

Re:Jail for tweets but not sending money for bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

I hadn't even heard of this asshole.

Thanks for the daily dose of enlightenment.

Seems like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thoughtcrime much?

Re:Seems like...

[TWX]

No. Thoughtcrime literally only exists within the head of the individual. It becomes a different form of crime once it is expressed or otherwise shared.

The trick with thoughtcrime is to make the very idea of feeling it or thinking it so abhorrent that those that do think it must report themselves for it.

Re: Seems like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or change the language so that thoughtcrime becomes completely impossible altogether.

Sloppy Law

[JimSadler]

Poorly crafted laws create nightmares as they can easily be misused and sometimes are deliberately misused. The same is true for sloppy enforcement. for example cops often find it easier to write traffic tickets late at night. There is little if any traffic to deal with and pulling someone over is easier. Also it is easier to get back up so we often see two or three squad cars dedicated to a simple traffic stop. But here is the catch. The traffic stop is easy to abuse as it is really an attempt to catch people who are doing worse things than driving infractions. The end result is that a driver may get a ticket for no reason at all simply because the cops want to know who is out late and why they are out late. We see cops inserting themselves into situations when the real intention may be to investigate and the people being interfered with are not always a direct path to the target. It is sort of like a guy who wants to date a pretty girl who hits on her dumpy looking roomie in order to be around the pretty girl a bit more and have a chance at getting to know her. Another similar tactic is for a cop to get friendly with your mail man so he can find out what bills come your way and perhaps just how you pay those bills.

FUCK YOU.

[zenlessyank]

I will say whatever the fuck I want to say. If you don't like it, you can go kill yourself. Just another fucking group of assholes who think they know better than everyone else.

Thoughtcrime

[Required Snark]

Thought Police

The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the fictional superstate, Oceania, in George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Orwell's Thought Police are charged with uncovering and punishing "thoughtcrime" and thought-criminals. They use psychological methods and omnipresent surveillance (such as telescreens) to search, find, monitor, and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge authority and the status quo -- even if only by thought -- hence the name Thought Police. They use terror and torture to achieve their ends.

"You have to manifest a criminal intent to further the aims prohibited by the statute."

So the authorities decide if you are thinking correctly: "... there's also the question of intent there: repeating speech is not automatically an endorsement. ..." and "... I believe many people may believe terrorism is self-evidently immoral."

So as soon as an authority figure accuses you of having "intent" you are guilty because it is "self-evidently immoral."

Now consider how the TSA operates. We obviously have nothing to fear from a gang of unaccountable self selected guardians who need to prove that they are doing something to justify their existence. And the FBI has never engaged in illegal activity by spying on legitimate political activity (MLK), tried to blackmail leaders to influence their activities (MLK), engaged in black ops including violence in order to discredit political movements and individuals (COINTELPRO) or conspired with criminals (Whitey Bulger) and then covered up illegal acts, including drug dealing and murder.

We have nothing to fear. They never lie and they are always right.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[dgatwood]

To me, the only things that can really be justified in response to terrorism are actions that actually make terrorism harder. Right now, there's nothing stopping them from renting a private plane, advertising cheap airfare to some popular destination on some particularly busy day, and crashing a plane filled with people into a building, so if preventing that is your goal, then we've failed miserably.

And really, except for the hardened cockpit doors, little to none of what our government has done in response to 9/11 has plausibly made terrorism significantly harder. At least I can use my terrorist-repelling rock to hit a terrorist on the head in the event of an emergency, which makes it better at preventing terrorism than, for example, the full-body scanners. After all, terrorists had already made a couple of failed attempts that clearly demonstrated that the sorts of bombs that don't involve any metal are impractical. That means the metal detectors, by themselves, were enough to keep us reasonably safe, making those new privacy-invading scanners completely superfluous expenses that do little or nothing to improve actual security.

Eye of the beholder

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe I consider the 'United States of America/USA' to enact, enable and sponsor terror and/or terroism, so I think at the very least one would view the problem and meaning of "terrorism" as such as something belonging to the eye of the beholder. Like a lot of other way for conceptual understanding, 'terror' or 'terrorism' isn't really a phenomenon, as if it was some 'thing' as concrete as the things we believe we see around us.

Re:Eye of the beholder

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even make sense. They only bring the wrath of large countries on themselves. Peaceful opposition and reasonable discussion. The us is becoming less reasonable though. I Believe these comments should indicate to the FBI that their opposition is quite large. I also want to say that I myself may have been a target of the FBI or other agency so repeating this comment might get you in trouble.

Don't forget to quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time tweeting in a twitter like a twit, remember to quote these copyright protected tweets of others. Wait, what was the issue again?

Indicted for "lying to federal officials"

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop talking to federal officials. Don't say a word to them. Remain silent. Communicate in writing if it's required. Talking to the federal government is a one-way-street where they lie with impunity, and you get prosecuted for making even a minor factual error. The only way to win is to not play.

Re:Indicted for "lying to federal officials"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there are four words to say.

"I want a lawyer."

Repeat indefinitely.

intent is easy to determine

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

FBI director James Comey says a person's intent is the heart of the issue

If you're supporting the current administration's party, your intent must have been good whatever you say/do.

If you are critical of the current administration, you intent must have been terrorism.

Works for the IRS.

They Hate Us for Our Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the FBI is just continuing to implement Bush's program for protecting us from terrorists. On Sept 20th, 2001 he informed us that they hate our freedoms, especially our freedom of speech.

So it is only logical that if we eliminate freedom, the terrorists will no longer have a motive to attack us. Or even their neighbors halfway across the planet.

Bunch of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete and utter bullshit.

ignorance as a defense

[Anonymous Coward]

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2014/09/18/mccain-syria-rebels.jpg
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/reaganandmujahideen1.jpg

Who could have known?

Right going around the world

[future assassin]

and empowering people to become terrorists is ok but if you make "terrorist" activities known to the general public we'll throw you into jail. Sorry but this is straight out of something you would see in the movies or back in history in the Communist Block.

Re:Right going around the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Block.

Bloc.

Why no arrests for Twitter employees

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone is providing "material support" for terrorists, it surely would be the company itself, right? Twitter is providing a speech platform for these terrorists to get their propaganda and threats out to the rest of the world. Twitter is a haven for terrorist speech, and yet no investigation by the DOJ is forthcoming. Why?

It makes perfect sense

[Lord Bitman]

Almost all popular social media these days label a button which has the effect of "I think more people should see this" as "I like / approve of this"

So of course it makes sense that people would start treating "I think more people should see this" as a synonym for general endorsement.

On the other hand, there's that word "material", and speech is never material. That's the *ONLY* fucking point.

It's perfectly simple

[rbrander]

If you provide actual money - a generic value source that can be converted into anything, not just TV ads - to a politician, THAT is "free speech".
But if you pass along information provided by those designated by the executive alone (other two branches not req'd) as a "terrorist", and the information transmission involves any effort or the smallest sum of money changing hands somewhere, then THAT is "material support".
There was this guy in Brooklyn selling cable packages, mostly ethnically-based, TV from other-language nations. One channel in the package is partially-owned by Hamas, who undoubtedly got nearly a dollar per month from every package purchase. Cable guy convicted of "material support", now in jail.

So: Passing along info from bad people = material,
            Passing $100M to "good people" = speech.

Just keep clear on that, and you'll be fine.

Re:It's perfectly simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely disgusting. It always sickens me to learn what our leaders are doing in our name. Please continue doing your job as a citizen to learn history and fight for freedom in the hope that we can convince others to help us do something about our leaders.

Retweet

[Anonymous Coward]

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

I think about the revolutionary war + civil war

[BlueCoder]

The whole point of the bill of rights is that was designed to allow people to overthrow the government but also to prevent the government from shooting it's own feet off by not listening to it's own people. Government by it's very nature is very corruptible and will decay.

Every country starts out from "terrorism". How do you balance keeping a nation strong and unified and still allow discussion of a replacement/reformed government.

Tweeting is speech pure and simple. You going to put me in jail for high-fiving a descendent of the Boston tea party. You can just as easily show that I am encouraging terrorism with my symbolic speech.

what the fuck is the tweet?

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone on twitter should be arrested if not killed for being dumb ducks in the first place

Material. You keep using that word.

[billstewart]

I don't think it means what the FBI is claiming it means, and I think they know it doesn't mean that either. Leaving aside whether quoting somebody is support or opposition, it's clearly speech, not material support. You're not paying money for that Tweet, and there aren't any new electrons created to propagate it. If anything, the FBI ought to be charged for obstructing justice in this case.

first amendment

[Karmashock]

How is retweeting "material" support... How is that even defined... lets look that up...

From definitions. net... no idea how valid this is:
""
Wiktionary(0.00 / 0 votes)Rate this definition:

        material support(Noun)

        (in the context of support for terrorism) Any property, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, and transportation, except medicine or religious materials

""

retweeting would not fall under that.

from wikipedia:
""In American law, providing material support for terrorism is a crime prohibited by the USA PATRIOT Act and codified in title 18 of the United States Code, sections 2339A and 2339B. It applies primarily to groups designated as terrorists by the State Department. The four types of support described are âoetraining,â âoeexpert advice or assistance,â âoeservice,â and âoepersonnel.â In June 2010, the United States Supreme Court upheld the law in an as-applied challenge in the case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, but also left open the door for other as-applied challenges.[1] The plaintiffs in the case ha""

so... we're saying that because the retweeter provided a retweet SERVICE that he's guilty of this?

I'm going to call bullshit again.

Look... fuck the terrorists. I'd pull their intestines out with a pair tongues whistling. No really. I'd wear an apron... don't want to get their goo on my shirt and pants. But... yeah. Fuck em.
I don't care about those fucks. My issue is with an out of control government that could start targeting someone else. Me for example. And on that point we start running into problems.

My contention is that the terrorists tend to be morons and so can easily be charged under less expansive and more specific charges. This "service" charge can be applied to anything.

And cue the hordes of people saying "but people that crucify children have rights tooo!"... I'm sure they do. We all do. And one of my rights is to not have to deal with these people. If they want to cut their mother's throats in whatever-istan then go to town. I really don't care. But you start doing that in Mayberry (name of an idyllic american town from a tv show)... then everything changes. Its where we live. If you don't want the angry americans putting your heads on spikes... then just live somewhere else. Go bother the Canadians. I suspect if you push them hard enough they'll cover you in maple syrup and let the ants eat you alive... or something equally patriotic... possibly Canadian polar bears. :)

Re:first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

"In American law, providing material support for terrorism is a crime prohibited by the USA PATRIOT Act and codified in title 18 of the United States Code, sections 2339A and 2339B. It applies primarily to groups designated as terrorists by the State Department. The four types of support described are Ãoetraining,Ã Ãoeexpert advice or assistance,Ã Ãoeservice,Ã and Ãoepersonnel.Ã

Devil's Advocate: "Personnel." If the feds can demonstrate that the retweet was done with the intent to aid recruitment, they might actually have a case here.

Personally, I still find the case repugnant as hell, but I think that's Comey's argument here. What worries me is that when Comey decides he wants to ban encryption in favor of a back door, will donating to the EFF become providing material support for Organizations That Piss Off The Feds? (Today, no, because the EFF isn't on The List, but supposing a law is passed that bans crypto, and an organization springs up that encourages people to break that law...)

Obama bombing Yemen for Saudi Arabia

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one can deny Saudi Arabia is the most vile, evil, sick and twisted nation on the Earth (or that Israel is the active partner of Saudi Arabia, and shares equal influence in Washington). No-one can deny Islamic State is a Saudi terror front moving Saudi influence across the Sunni world and laying down conditions for greater was against Shiite and Kurdish Muslims. No-one can deny that Tony Blair led the illegal invasion of Iraq to CREATE Islamic State (the SECULAR Sunni forces of Iraq were targeted by the US War Machine in order to re-purpose them as the ultimate END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS Sunni fighting force bumping heads initially with the Iranian backed, West backed Kurd/Shiite Muslims that took control in Iraq after the invasion.

REAL terror is the officially political policy of Obama (and his predecessors and successors). Like how the US War Machine took control of West Germany and Japan, and immediately turned 'enemy' fascist forces into a anti-communist fighting force working for the West.

Today, American and Israeli Jewish pilots are flying under Saudi Colours, bombing into extinction the popular anti-Islamic-State movement in Yemen. Jewish and Saudi terror, directed by the USA, is converting Yemen into yet another failed Muslim state controlled by Islamic State forces. Israel and Saudi Arabia want to see Islamic State terror convert most of the Muslim world into Greater Saudi Arabia. The Kurds and the Shiites must be EXTERMINATED. Iran represents the greatest Shiite bulwark against Saudi Arabia, which is why the US Congress, and each candidate to replace Obama, has promised US war against Iran. Turkey is the main American means to destroy the Kurds, and Obama has recently authorised Turkish terror attacks against Kurds all across the region.

IS leaders are recruited by the UK and USA, trained at American and British facilities in places like Jordan and Qatar, and given weapons and logistical support. Saudi Arabia provides the money, propaganda, and religious fanatics that fill the upper ranks. Saudi Arabia also provides the JUDGES that operate in all Saudi Arabia controlled nations and regions.

The 'legal' actions of Islamic State in regions they control are an EXACT MATCH for the official 'legal' system in Saudi Arabia, including the forms of execution and torture, and the 'reasons' people are arrested and convicted to torture and execution. IS and Saudi Arabia have both condemned people to death for 'WITCHCRAFT' this year, for instance. This certainly NEVER happens under official law in Iran, for instance.

And remember, RAPE SLAVES were LEGAL in Saudi Arabia in NINETEEN-62 (1962), well after the USA officially supported the nation and its House of Saud rulers. Indeed, until 1962, the US Congress allowed visiting Saudi dignitaries to travel with their RAPE SLAVES, and ensured said rape slaves were not allowed to seek their freedom while in the USA itself. After Saudi Arabia officially banned the ownership of RAPE SLAVES in 1962, leading members of the nation continued to own and RAPE their rape slaves until well into the 1970s. Today, covertly, thousands of RAPE SLAVES are still held prisoner in various Saudi compounds, although most Saudis settle with raping the DOMESTIC SERVANTS that flood into the Kingdom each year (and lose all their Human Rights once they enter).

Thanks NDAA 2012.

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember there being a section in the NDAA 2012 , SEC 1032 I believe that covered this. Chris Hedges and some other journos sued the Obama administration over it. Basically it's so open ended that " material support " is whatever a prosecuting body wants it to mean. The drift could and would be towards implicating journalism critical of foriegn policy or airing the concerns of those opposed to US actions as material support.

Of course in the case of a retweet, the simplest isolation from FBI idiocy in this case would be to append the very popular phrase "RTs do not equal endorsements" to your profile and any case would have zero merit. Crazy fucking world.

Major Problem for Apple Inc.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Top Echelon of Apple Inc. is composed of a Gay (Cook and Ivey) , a Transvestite, a Transgender, a Pervert and a Bisexual.

Why has Apple Inc. made the categories, Gay, Transvestite, Transgender, Pervert and Bisexual the "advancement grade" action items for employment?

I.e. if you are not Gay, Transvestite, Transgender, Pervert and Bisexual, then you will not be promoted in your employment class!

You know, back in the day of the '70s and '80s Apple Computer was in a funk, financially. But, during those years, Apple had some of the best talent of engineers, programmers, even a few scientists, technicians and hippies (Jobs) around the south bay.

Today, all that, and those, are gone.

Today, Apple Inc. has an Echelon of Gays, Transvestites, Transgenders, Perverts and Bisexuals all draining the bank accounts and giving nothing back to Apple Inc. in the way of innovation.

  Psst. "Innovation" is a very dirty word within Apple Inc. and if uttered from your mouth will incur an emendate firing and loss of protected status (of one of the 'colonies' mentioned above).

Ha ja

P.S. Little pimple Timmy [Confederate Flag in the closet] Cook -- I SEE you! :-)

what about links?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that if a retweet can be considered "material support", then merely providing a link to an islamist/jihadist website must also fall under that category. How is it any different? In both cases you're simply making it easier for people to access the words and ideas of some other person or group

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to live in a society that makes it illegal to simply post a link - to anywhere, regardless of how reprehensible the site.

Introducing: TWATTER!

[TheRealHocusLocus]

SARC: How about jail time for retweet-whores in general? (for background see this article and this original paper)

You know those folks who hear something astounding and re-tweet or re-mail or 'LIKE' or post it right away --- without taking even a MOMENT to attempt to verify or corroborate the story? A week after the Boston marathon bombing, hackers sent a bogus tweet from the official Twitter handle of the Associated Press. It read: "*Breaking: Two Explosions in the White House and Barack Obama is injured*." Before the AP and White House could correct the record, the stock market responded, dropping more than 140 points in a matter of minutes (almost completely recovered after).

Apr 23, 2013 1:07 pm - AP Twitter account hacked, Bogus Tweet appears.
Apr 23, 2013 1:08 pm - DOW stock average drops 150 points
Apr 23, 2013 1:10 pm - AP employee tweets, ignore message, we've been hacked
Apr 23, 2013 1:13 pm - AP tweets retraction message, suspends account

Here's how it looked ONE MINUTE LATER. Red dots are folks just sending it along. Blue are those inquiring back to the source about its veracity, and yellow are those directly expressing doubt.

THREE MINUTES AFTER it looked like this. The clumpy red crescent in the image below represents the first wave re-tweeters portrayed above, with a continually branching network of successive waves.

Note the successive chains of red dots and whole regions without blue or yellow. This is a map of just Twitter. For hours copies of the item were still expanding on all major social networks without markup or even direct questioning. Who are these people?

1. Those who knew (by then) it was a hoax and were spreading it anyway (few if any). Heh heh.
2. Those who honestly thought the single message, though astounding, was properly 'sourced'.
3. Mostly, these are the people who repeatedly send you un-researched chain letter hoaxes.

Some form of digital castration may be necessary. There has been concern of late that some day there may be robots who act like people. We should also strive not to act like robots. /SARC So... what if the re-tweeters of jihad junk simply mean, "This is surprising. I am flabbergasted and twitterpated. Have a look." I've argued for a Facebook HATE button so people can call attention to things they do not like to slap a gritty edge on the touchy-feely romper room that it has become. This would be especially valuable to the FBI who would then know for absolute sure that a person is not a terrorist. Twitter should have a TWAT button... so you could TWIT a low-carb miracle diet, or TWAT Hitler's Final Solution.

Overreaction & Counterreaction

[MarkvW]

The FBI can't help itself. It will push a law and push a law, until finally the law gets constrained and a valuable law enforcement tool is watered down or eliminated. They should hire more grown ups.

The founding fathers of the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

would all have been tried for treason and left to rot in Guantanamo Bay. They were terrorists against the established people in control.