FBI: Retweeting a Terrorist's Tweet Could Land You In Trouble 112
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
How do we know if someone is a terrorist?
They could be just pretending...
Re:How do we know? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re:How do we know? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [slashdot.org]. But when you actually look into the case, you find this out [slashdot.org].
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:
Oooh, evil FBI - going after a woman just because she hit the retweet button! Except... not exactly [nbcnews.com]
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: (Score:2)
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 le
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Material. You keep using that word. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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 rig
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: How do we know? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the intent of their retweet. At least according to the word smiths at the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Terrorists (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If everybody nukes everyone else from orbit, there soon won't be any problems.
I like the way you think.
Re: (Score:1)
So find their family and ensure everyone is wiped out.
This game of raising the stakes can be played by both sides.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
#Murica
Home of the free, land of the Anonymous Cowards.
Public Service Announcement (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't talk to cops. [youtube.com]
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!
This is free speech issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
"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: (Score:1)
No speech should lead to violence. Mockery is an adequate remedy.
That's a rather silly absolutist position to take.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 sha
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The FBI is sowing the seeds of fear. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Hmmm... (Score:1)
Isn't Twitter itself providing "material support" to terrorists?
Re: (Score:3)
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
What is it about the FBI director job? (Score:2)
Everybody who ever holds it seems to be a really scary fucker with no concept of what they're supposed to be protecting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 ...sowing the seeds of fear"
understand what the job of the FBI really is. Read the post "
above and you will begin to get an understanding of what the FBI really does.
The Terrorists are winning (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Sloppy Law (Score:3)
Thoughtcrime (Score:5, Insightful)
"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: (Score:3)
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 respons
Eye of the beholder (Score:1)
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.
Indicted for "lying to federal officials" (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
intent is easy to determine (Score:2)
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.
Right going around the world (Score:2)
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.
It makes perfect sense (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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.
I think about the revolutionary war + civil war (Score:2)
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-fivi
first amendment (Score:2)
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 iden
Introducing: TWATTER! (Score:2)
SARC: How about jail time for retweet-whores in general? (for background see this article [phys.org] and this original paper [umich.edu])
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*
Overreaction & Counterreaction (Score:2)
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.