Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
A hacker who has planted porn and gay images on more than 250 ISIS Twitter accounts has been threatened with beheading.
[...] Following the Orlando gay nightclub shooting he decided to replace the pro-ISIS imagery on their profiles with pro-LGBT messages and links to gay porn.
But now he's revealed his web hijackings have led to horror death threats.
He told CNN: "I get beheading images... death threats. 'We're going to kill you' and that's good because if they are focusing on me they are not doing anything else.
"We started to take over their accounts with porn and gay pride images basically just to troll them. We thought that putting the naked images would offend them."
In before Twitter apologizes to ISIS.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:06AM (1 child)
How does the First Amendment apply to the case of a pissing contest between a hacker and a bunch of murderous goat-humpers? There are certainly statutory issues of property and moral issues of content at play, but I see no Constitutional point of law here.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:36PM
OP didn't mention the first amendment.
Also, it compared this to Milo's speech, which is as much a First Amendment case as this is. The restrictions of the First don't apply to Twitter and don't apply to angry mobs. So it's a pretty good comparison...