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

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.

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

[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: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: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.

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.