Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 31 2015, @09:48AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday August 31 2015, @02:12PM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Monday August 31 2015, @02:12PM (#230160) Journal

    you sympathize and empathize with Manning because he's a fucked up, gender confused homosexual.

    Manning did what he did because he's fucked up in the head, not because he had any laudable goals.

    Your arguments would come through more clearly if there weren't uncertainty about whether you're just a bigot. On the one hand, you seem to have a somewhat reasoned argument that Manning is a different case from Assange or Snowden. Then you tear that argument's credibility to shreds by indicating that its foundation is some ridiculous belief that being transgendered or homosexual is a sign of mental illness.

    So I have two questions. Do you believe that being transgendered is a form of homosexuality and that it indicates mental illness? Do you have any evidence that Manning is mentally ill other than her transition?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @02:46PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 31 2015, @02:46PM (#230186) Journal

    The men and women who worked with Manning have very explicity stated that Manning was a discipline problem, and that much of that problem centered on his "gender confusion". That "gender confused" term comes across frequently in every discussion about Manning.

    Gender confusion looks like mental illness to me, yes.

    Manning's actions and motivations are an indication of mental instability. Let us suppose that Manning had uncovered a genuine war crime(s). Let us further suppose that Manning had exposed that war crime(s) and nothing else. In that case, Manning would have my support, just as Snowden does.

    Let us suppose the same scenario, but Manning released much more than the evidence of those war crime(s). Manning would have my support, but less support than in the first scenario.

    In fact, however, Manning stole everything he could get his hands on, and released all of it, in revenge for his perceived "persecution".

    Let me be clear: that video entitled "collateral murder" contains zero evidence of a "war crime". That video is the centerpiece of the claims or war crimes. No person who has ever been even peripherally involved in combat action can see any criminal actions in that video. People who don't understand what they are looking at can be primed to believe it's a crime, but there is no crime. Tragic mistake, yes, crime, no.