Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet Censorship Communications Twitter News Your Rights Online

Is Twitter Aiding and Abetting Terrorism? 315

Posted by timothy
from the xerox-is-next-and-then-faber-castell dept.
wiredmikey writes with word (and the following extract from a CNN report) that "Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, sent a letter to Twitter on Thursday asserting that the company is violating U.S. law by allowing groups such as Hezbollah and al Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab to use its popular online network. ... In her letter, Darshan-Leitner noted that Hezbollah and al-Shabaab are officially designated as terrorist organizations under U.S. law. She also cited a 2010 Supreme Court case — Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project — which upheld a key provision of the Patriot Act prohibiting material support to groups designated as terrorist outfits."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Twitter Aiding and Abetting Terrorism?

Comments Filter:
  • Twitter Terrorism (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ly4 (2353328) on Friday December 30, 2011 @11:08PM (#38545656)
    As usual, Glenn Greenwald has covered 'twitter terrorism' and other parts of the never-ending war in all its absurdity: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/the_u_s_government_targets_twitter_terrorism/singleton/ [salon.com]
  • by Rinikusu (28164) on Friday December 30, 2011 @11:36PM (#38545796)

    You aren't looking hard enough. The fundamentalist church I went to growing up required women to wear full length dresses, no make-up was allowed, and generally kept their heads covered with a scarf when in public (but that part wasn't really enforced), amongst other asinine restrictions regarding separation of genders, etc. In some of our "cousin" churches, they "make marriage vows" that explicitly state that they accept that their husbands may beat them into submission, and that they understand that's God's will and the like. Granted, I grew up in rural Tennessee, but this was pretty common through that area amongst the Pentacostal family of churches. When people say "American Taliban", I've seen it first hand.

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Friday December 30, 2011 @11:38PM (#38545802)

    Don't forget that Israeli Jews commonly spit on young girls who aren't dressed "modestly" and call them whores as they walk to school.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/american-girl-8-is-target-of-ultra-orthodox-jews-in-israel/1?csp=obinsite [usatoday.com]

    I fail to see how Jews are any different from Muslims.

    I think you're confusing a fraction of Israel's 10% Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, with the broader community of Jews. As far as I know, the behavior to which you're referring is abhorred by a majority of Israeli Jews.

  • by drwho (4190) on Saturday December 31, 2011 @12:15AM (#38545978) Homepage Journal

    Perhaps what is unclear to many is what comes along with being a common carrier. In the US, Common Carriers get (some) immunity from antitrust law. They are also able to acquire property rights by eminent domain. In exchange, they have an obligation to serve every person. That is not to say that the customers do not have to pay, but rather that the common carrier does not have the freedom to pick which customers it serves, whereas other businesses can (unless their denial of service is due to a reason covered under anti-discrimination law). Rates and policies of a common carrier are heavily regulated by governments. Common carriers are created by legislation, enacted where economic forces of the era require a controlled market in order for the service to be feasible. Common carriers have been in defense, transportation and communication, such as AT&T and USPS. In many countries, these functions become part of the government. In some ways, it can be argued that government itself is a common carrier, and that common carriers are governments.

    ISPs which are not communications companies are not common carriers. Where it gets tricky is situations where a common carrier owns an ISP but claims it is a separate business and therefore not subject to the rules of common carriage. This is plainly not true in many areas where telephone companies are the only broadband available, via DSL. In other cases, there is a duopoly of broadband, through The Phone Company and The Cable Company, which rely on their Common Carrier status in related, but separate niches in order to provide services which compete. In my opinion, these are still the result of their Common Carrier status so they should be treated as such until there is a way to facilitate true competition (again) in the ISP market.

    I am not a lawyer, and don't have a degree in economics or government, but I have studied all three fields at a prestigious university. I do not consider myself an expert, but rather, thoughtful and informed.

  • by davester666 (731373) on Saturday December 31, 2011 @12:21AM (#38546006) Journal

    And corporation have no conscience, therefore they also can have no blame.

  • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Saturday December 31, 2011 @12:43AM (#38546080) Homepage Journal

    I think you're confusing a fraction of Israel's 10% Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, with the broader community of Jews. As far as I know, the behavior to which you're referring is abhorred by a majority of Israeli Jews.

    But its been going on for decades with hardly any action from the government of Israel.

  • by Pseudonym (62607) on Saturday December 31, 2011 @03:19AM (#38546612)

    After all, where's the hue and cry when a non muslim is the target of this tiny minority?

    Just because it's largely unreported by the mainstream media [muhajabah.com] doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We all know that "some person says something perfectly reasonable" is the world's most boring headline.

  • by Neil_Brown (1568845) on Saturday December 31, 2011 @04:23AM (#38546736) Homepage

    I know that if I'm ever suing someone for piracy, I'll be sure to list their ISP as a co-defendant.

    In the US, the ISP would rely on the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, implemented by the DMCA as s512 of Title 17 USC [chillingeffects.org] - in particular, s512(a):

    (a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if -

    (1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;

    (2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;

    (3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;

    (4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and

    (5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

    "Service provider" is defined (s512(k)(1)(A) as:

    As used in subsection (a), the term ''service provider'' means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

    Whether this meets the US definition of "common carrier," I'm afraid I do not know - but a DSL access provider and the like would be aiming to rely on this to exempt them from liability for whatever the user might do.

    In Europe, there is similar legislation - directive 2000/31/EC [europa.eu], Article 12:

    1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:

    (a) does not initiate the transmission;

    (b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and

    (c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

    2. The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph 1 include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.

    3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

    That's not to say that no remedy is possible, though - injunctions are flavour of the month at t

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31, 2011 @05:37AM (#38546898)
    LOL yes and every time, no matter which forum, anything true said about jews that are not directly flattering will be downmodded! Posting AC for obvious reasons :D
  • by russotto (537200) on Saturday December 31, 2011 @10:48AM (#38548314) Journal

    Civil disobedience is getting arrested for refusing to leave the Mayor's office.
    Terrorism is killing the mayor and city council.

    Killing the mayor and city council isn't necessarily terrorism. It could be outright rebellion. Not all violent action is terrorism.

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Working...