SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the time-to-start-torrenting-on-a-gigabit-connection dept.
PC World reports on the story of an American teenager who has been sentenced to eleven years in jail and who will have his Internet use monitored by the government for the rest of his life.
His crime was to assume that his Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Speech included posting pro-ISIS messages on Twitter and other social media.
"Today's sentencing demonstrates that those who use social media as a tool to provide support and resources to ISIL will be identified and prosecuted with no less vigilance than those who travel to take up arms with ISIL," said U.S. Attorney Dana Boente...
[Ali Shukri Amin] created the Twitter account @AmreekiWitness in 2014, and used it to provide advice and encouragement to ISIS and its supporters, according to court documents. At one point the account had over 4,000 followers. He also helped other ISIS supporters who sought to travel to Syria to join the group, according to the Justice Department.
The question that Soylentils should ask is, "What groups do I belong to that someone in government might decide are 'terrorist', and am I at risk for speaking out?"
The Canadian government for instance has come within a hair of declaring prominent environmental groups to be terrorists.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:49AM
So you're a hypocrite who wants to belong to the crowd that's against censorship. But privately and publicly, you love censorship. You're perfectly happy to equate voicing an opinion with providing support to an enemy. Everyone knows talk is cheap and harmless in itself, but not to you, because you desperately want to silence words that you disagree with.
So to you I say, fuck you, and I look forward to reading more of your shit in the future.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @11:09AM
Your ignorance is overwhelming. I stated, quite clearly, that censorship is bad. Then, I pointed out, just as clearly, that it wasn't just censorship. The dumbass was convicted of crimes far greater than merely posting his opinion that Daesh is great and wonderful, or that he believes the United States to be the Great Satan. Aiding and abetting the enemy is treason. Treason is punishable by death, or such other punishment is deemed appropriate by the court - whether courts civil, or courts martial. Treason. Serious shit, man.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @11:41AM
Somewhere in the all hoopla, I missed the declaration of war.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @01:46PM
According to the POTUS we have been at war with ISIS since Sept of 2014 [nbcnews.com] so there ya go.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @03:11PM
More like a police action, Obama's too chicken to go all out on those assholes otherwise it would already be over. Trump will take care of it, just wait and see.... Big Botta BOOM!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @07:37PM
Yep. As soon as he's done killing those dirty Mexicans.
(Score: 3, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Monday August 31 2015, @03:12PM
According to the POTUS we have been at war with ISIS since Sept of 2014 so there ya go.
But according to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Also, ISIS (ISIL, Islamic State, etc.) is NOT a country. It's group of freedom fighters trained and funded by the CIA.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @03:23PM
Please refer me to that part of the Constitution where the President is authorized to declare war. In the absence of such, this sounds like an Executive branch coup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @04:27PM
Well, the War Powers act allows him to attack someone, and then send it to Congress for approval. And then if Congress doesn't actively say "no", it's considered fine and legal.
It's a neat way to avoid needing to ever cast a vote for war again.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @07:59PM
Let us not forget that Obama set the precedent for ignoring the WPA with Libya, which also smells like an Executive branch coup.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 31 2015, @09:23PM
There was a War On Terror a while back. It think it was declared somewhere between the War On Drugs and the War On Empty Slogans.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Monday August 31 2015, @11:50AM
To be fair, your original post was worded in such a way as to make it easy to interpret it as you hypocritically supporting censorship "in this case". There is only one short, ambiguous sentence that can be interpreted as indicating that you understood that the defendant did something beyond speech.
Be more clear next time and people won't go off half-cocked.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @11:54AM
You're a dumb dumb.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @02:04PM
You may have intended to do that, but accidentally added some stuff about Twitter instead. Unless Twitter has some features that I'm not aware of (and if so, you didn't mention that he'd used any of those), Twitter is all speech.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 31 2015, @06:47PM
If all he does is speak, then all is well. If he took actions that directly harmed others, then that is different. What direct and harmful actions did he take? It looks like he merely spoke.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @06:54PM
He offered instructions for the purpose of manipulating bitcoin among other currencies, for the financial gain of Daesh. That is "aiding and abetting". If Mastercard began processing known Daesh account payments, then Mastercard would be guilty of the same thing. Offering intelligence that aids in bypassing blockades and sanctions amounts to the same thing.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 31 2015, @07:07PM
He offered instructions
That's speech.
That is "aiding and abetting".
Not only is that too broad to be useful (and hopefully not how courts interpret it), but it cannot override the first amendment. So "aiding and abetting" cannot apply to speech.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @07:52PM
Your personal judgement is obviously at odds with the court's judgement. Mine as well. Taking on the role of mentor amounts to a little more than speech. When that mentoring involves accumulating funds for the purpose of killing freinds and allies, it is most definitely more than mere speech.
Consider the crime of conspiracy. That is nothing more than speech, yet a conspiracy generally leads to illegal acts. That speech is punishable, separately from the crimes that result from the conspiracy.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 31 2015, @08:08PM
Taking on the role of mentor amounts to a little more than speech.
Not if you simply speak.
When that mentoring involves accumulating funds for the purpose of killing freinds and allies, it is most definitely more than mere speech.
Not if you simply provide a tutorial that shows others how to do so.
That is nothing more than speech
Then it would be unconstitutional to make it a crime.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @09:03PM
Let's try one more time. Providing intelligence to an enemy is treason. I can meet an agent from any nation on earth, and tell him, verbally, exactly where the Navy has it's ships deployed, including submarines, and I would expect to be executed if/when government found out about it. More so, if we are actively at war with that nation. Just speech - but it would be treason.
The courts long ago recognized that there are legitimate limitations on speech. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater has always been the prime example. There are limitattions. And, in this case, the convict under discussion has gone beyond the limits. Aiding and abetting Daesh crosses the line.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 31 2015, @10:31PM
Providing intelligence to an enemy is treason.
But the first amendment absolutely prohibits laws restricting speech. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else deems the speech "treason".
The courts long ago recognized that there are legitimate limitations on speech.
The courts are incorrect and aren't following the US constitution.
Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater has always been the prime example.
The same case that was used to arrest war protestors. Interesting.
Regardless, the first amendment says no such thing. The courts were incorrect then and they're incorrect now. If the theater owner has a problem with someone shouting on his private property, he/she can kick them off. If other people panic in response to speech, that is their own doing and they're responsible for any damages they cause.