Slashdot Mirror
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."
How do we know if someone is a terrorist?
They could be just pretending...
Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
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:
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!
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
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.
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.
Isn't Twitter itself providing "material support" to terrorists?
Everybody who ever holds it seems to be a really scary fucker with no concept of what they're supposed to be protecting.
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.
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.
#Murica
Home of the free, land of the Anonymous Cowards.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
"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.
Why is Snark Required?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
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.
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.
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.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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. :)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
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.