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: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday August 31 2015, @10:53AM
I would like to jump all over this as a slippery slope and violation of the 1st Amendment protections, but he was also providing material aid and comfort to a designated enemy of the state in the form of money and whatever he did to help a Virginia resident to travel to Syria to join ISIS.
That sort of thing is not covered by the 1st Amendment. I guarantee he isn't getting an 11 year sentence for speech.
So without evidence let's not pretend that he was convicted of using verboten words. Really the only troubling thing is that the court apparently has the power to require that this person, who is currently just 17 so still technically a minor, should have his electronic communications monitored for life. However, I don't believe that sort of condition is actually anything new. At least, not the monitoring or being banned from all electronic communication, although the latter is rapidly coming to be viewed in various nations for consideration as a possible human rights violation. Conviction of all sorts of crimes from wire fraud to pedophilia frequently comes with such conditions. We've given the courts a lot of latitude in the area of sentencing.
Yes, yes, it is quite troubling how all governments continue to want to declare any group they don't like to be "terrorists". But we need a much clearer-cut violation of 1st Amendment rights, or a clear misappropriation of the "terrorist" label for some non-violent group, before we can all march to Washington about it and expect to get any common support. Let me know when the government actually does declare something as nebulous as "environmentalists" a terrorist group.
I'm sure someone will educate me if I'm missing some important aspect of this case.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @11:13AM
Probably the most import aspect is his wealth. Ford and GM supported Hitler: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm [washingtonpost.com] Also IBM: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-black/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Of course, the Company's arguments are that we weren't at war with Hitler when they profited from/supported his regime, but then, we aren't at war with ISIS either as far as I'm aware. Secondly, while ISIS is a crummy shitty group, it can't hold a candle to Hitler. It is interesting that if you are rich enough, you can support even greater evil and instead of punishment, enjoy great profit. Perhaps times have changed, but I suspect not, considering how the executives at USBC who laundered billions for terrorists and drug dealers got some pretty inconsequential punishment:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 [rollingstone.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @02:15PM
Sigh....how much longer is this bullshit gonna be sold to us as truth? The key words with Ford and IBM are German Subsidiaries which just FYI every single business and factory in German territory? Supported the NSDAP war effort whether they liked it or not because that is how fascism works the corps are beholden to and controlled by the state. the Ford plant in Germany had no more say on whether they made engines for the German military than the Czech plants had in cranking out the 38(t) and Hetzer tanks, the same goes for IBM of Germany. In WWII Germany if it could be of some use to the military it was used for the war effort, wants of the company be damned.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by pe1rxq on Monday August 31 2015, @02:45PM
Before the US declared war the german Ford plants were under full control of the Ford Motor Company and were using slave labor.
And Henry Ford was a well known anti-semite.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @03:22PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 31 2015, @09:49PM
Well duh, the war only started in 1939 for the Brits for the USA Germany wasn't an enemy until Dec 08 1941 when Hitler declared war on the USA
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 31 2015, @03:22PM
Secondly, while ISIS is a crummy shitty group, it can't hold a candle to Hitler.
Well, for one thing, they both were/are on a program of genocide. So I don't think the comparison is too far off.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @03:30PM
My post was not meant as a comparison between the groups because they aren't comparable, not even by a longshot. That's Godwin territory.
My point was that at a certain level of wealth and power, you can support whoever the fuck you want and rather than suffer consequences, profit.
My point is that we don't live in a country where all citizens are governed by the rule of law, we live in a country where a small group rules the masses are ruled by law, and use those laws against people in ways they are immune.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 31 2015, @03:32PM
damn, in a hurry:
My point is that we don't live in a country where all citizens are governed by the rule of law, we live in a country where where the masses are ruled by law, by those few who are above the law.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday August 31 2015, @12:06PM
It should also be pointed out that "monitoring" and "censorship" are two different things. Once he gets out of the pokey and is no longer on probation, this individual will no doubt be allowed to exercise his 1st Amendment rights to say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, as long as he doesn't attempt to directly contact or materially support known terrorists again. Which all in all should not be a particularly onerous task. While on probation there will no doubt be additional restrictions in his release conditions, but after that he should be fine as long as he just steers clear of designated terrorist groups.
Meanwhile, we must all continue to watch our government like hawks to make sure they don't inappropriately expand what gets labeled "terrorist". If we do our jobs he'll wind up with plenty of freedom of speech, even though many might argue he won't deserve it.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 31 2015, @03:27PM
this individual will no doubt be allowed to exercise his 1st Amendment rights to say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, as long as he doesn't attempt to directly contact or materially support known terrorists again
but after that he should be fine as long as he just steers clear of designated terrorist groups.
Your post backs down from its own argument. Can he talk about anyone he wants, or must he steer clear of certain groups? Those two things are mutually exclusive.
"No doubt?" Ha. I doubt.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday August 31 2015, @05:44PM
so he can support whomever he wants, just so long as whomever he wants is on a list of people and groups pre-approved by the government? totally not censorship at all.