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, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @02:46PM
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.