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) 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.