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?

[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?

[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?

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.