It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Facebook rant lands US man in UAE jail

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Helicopter mechanic Ryan Pate wrote the Facebook post while in Florida after arguing with employer Global Aerospace Logistics (Gal) over sick leave.
On returning to Abu Dhabi from Florida, he was arrested for breaking the country's strict cyber-slander laws.


Facebook rant lands US man in UAE jail

Facebook posts about work land Florida man in UAE prison for 5 years

another reason not to use facebook or other social media, or at least your real name.
me i have one but never post, just have for those occasions that something is link to it, and you can't see it unless you sign in.

you know i got no problem with other countries having laws. but if your not in their country when you supposedly break their law, and are in your own country where it's legal, i don't think that you should be arrested and face jail.
edit on 6-3-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I know what you're saying about being in another Country, that's how it should be...

But I don't think there is jurisdiction on the Internet.



I know it's an extreme example, but if I post on Twitter I wanna kill a U.S. politician, if I ever visit the States I'll be guaranteed to get locked up and questioned thoroughly...

Like I said extreme example and not exactly like slandering a Corporation...

But given that Internet jurisdiction is a bit of an untouched subject...
Best not to talk too reckless online, when it comes to names, companies, or threats.
Especially if it's a Gulf State. That's double reckless.



Hopefully they're lenient with him.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

there is some jurisdiction on the Internet. here is just one example.


B. Internationally

There is little dispute that nation-states can prosecute Internet users (or anyone else, for that matter), whatever their location, for revealing national secrets, falsifying official documents, or inciting war. These activities threaten national security, wherever they are committed, and therefore fall under international standards for jurisdiction. Similarly, it is a universal crime to publicly incite torture or genocide. These universal offenses may be prosecuted extraterritorially by any nation, regardless of the citizenship or location of the user.

These are easy cases, however. Nations may also be interested in enforcing non-universal laws extraterritorially; for example, In Germany, it is illegal to import distribute material espousing a Nazi or Neo-Nazi viewpoint. Such material is not difficult to find in USENet or on the World Wide Web. German authorities may be interested not only in interpreting German laws to classify Internet viewing as "importation" of material, but also (in part because of the difficulty of locating those who break an importation statute without leaving their own homes) in prosecuting those who make such material available to Germans via the Internet. If German authorities attempted to prosecute a U.S. citizen r resident for such an offense, however, they would be met with geat opposition by the U.S., which certainly would not enforce any judgment against the U.S. citizen in such a case, because the German statute violates U.S. Constitutional principles. Under U.S. law, because it would be prohibitively difficult to prevent German users from viewing such a site and therefore the result of such a prosecution would be to chill otherwise legal (if unpleasant) speech in the U.S. Under the current system, it is possible to envision that German courts may have jurisdiction over Americans who publish such material, even though the material may not be "purposefully directed" (one interpretation of the American standard ) toward Germany in the way a mailing of flyers would be.


Principles of Jurisdiction Paper Produced by Betsy Rosenblatt

so i guess that the lesson is don't go to a country that you have talked sh@@ about.


edit on 6-3-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
I agree, and say tough luck.
It's easy to ignore UAE human rights abuses when you're in a 'foreigner' gated community earning the tax free wage.
Got a couple of mates over there, they know the potential risks and I'd be as unsympathetic towards them as well.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I see this as another reason to stay the hell out of the Middle East all together.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: hounddoghowlie



Best not to talk too reckless online, when it comes to names, companies, or threats.
Especially if it's a Gulf State. That's double reckless.



Hopefully they're lenient with him.




One needn't go to the Middle East to find examples of Facebook rants landing people in jail.

It happened here in Ontariariario YESTERDAY!

toronto.ctvnews.ca...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

the rant your linking to is a death threat on a police officers, far from calling someone a sh@@bag, and backstabbers. he threatened no one just talked trash and was gonna quit.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie


Similarly, it is a universal crime to publicly incite torture or genocide. These universal offenses may be prosecuted extraterritorially by any nation, regardless of the citizenship or location of the user.



So the people here on ATS who backed up the CIA recently, or have espoused the idea that "we should turn them into glass" are on some countries Most Wanted List...

Interesting.




Edit: Even more interesting is the fact that they're probably on a Most Wanted List, but the politicians who actually engage in genocide/torture are untouchable...

Strange World.
edit on 6-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Psynic

the rant your linking to is a death threat on a police officers, far from calling someone a sh@@bag, and backstabbers. he threatened no one just talked trash and was gonna quit.




Alleged death threat.

I have no idea what he actually said.

Do you?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

from the link i provided above.

Every nation has an obligation to exercise moderation and restraint in invoking jurisdiction over cases that have a foreign element, and they should avoid undue encroachment on the jurisdiction of other States. Although countries are given great discretion in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over conduct in other countries, international law dictates that a country exercising its jurisdiction in an overly self-centered way not only contravenes international law, but can also "disturb the international order and produce political, legal, and economic reprisals."


i could them the arresting him if he said it while being in their country. but he was at home in his country.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

It seems they've used it at "their discretion" then, although in an "overly self-centred way"...


HRW groups might see to it that this is dropped.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

not word for word no. all i have is the source you provided which states that they found "numerous threats on both Facebook and YouTube with details about a male suspect's intentions to kill police officers."

that's what my post was based on.

now for the guy i posted about two sources say that the UAE arrested him for slander, and according to this NPR article he called them ""backstabbers" and Arabs "filthy." "
Florida Man's Facebook Post Against Employer In Emirates Leads To Jail

and according to the Tampa Bay Tribune, where the guy was from and the first to break the story, he said “filthy Arabs,.
Facebook posts from U.S. land Pinellas contractor in Arab jail

that is the info i based my post on.

ETA: plus the man in your link was in his own country, the man in my link was in his own country where freedom of speech regardless of how unpleasant, if it doesn't break the law is legal. not in the UAE when he wrote it.



edit on 6-3-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
If your a civilian working in a foreign country, it is in your best interest to know the laws... He was an idiot and now he is going to pay.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Reply to CharlieSpeirs: I agree. This guy should have had a bit more common sense, considering he was working in that country.

If he really wanted to say something offensive, I guess he should have found an anonymous forum that would allow it! I'm sure they exist!

Stupid is as stupid does.

edit on thpamFri, 06 Mar 2015 07:55:03 -0600k1503America/Chicago0655 by Sparkymedic because: wtf?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

This is undoubtedly a f-ed up law, bit it's intended to control freedom of opinion and criticism of the state, that much is absolutely clear from perhaps the most famous example of when this law was used to try to punish someone who filmed a gov official physically attacking a cab driver. The gov official was going to get a lesser punishment than the person who filmed the attack, until there was outrage across media and the decision was changed.

You also have to wonder about the intellect of the company bringing the charges. If it were not not for that company demanding he be arrested and duping him into returning for that to happen, the world might never have known about this story. This company has made themselves a pariah for doing this, and while they might not lose contracts from other countries over it (come on, people suddenly loosen their morals and ethics when money is involved) they will definitely lose out on talented employees who will now likely be looking to leave to work with a competitor.

Other similar companies can now point to this to steal their most talented people, saying "do you really want to work for a company that would have you imprisoned and silenced if you dare to criticize it using the freedoms you have in your country of origin?"

The problem is that we obviously don't have international laws when it comes to the Internet, and numerous countries are going to have their own authoritarian controls in place, the way to deal with this is through pressure and diplomacy. Awareness of what some countries do regarding freedom of opinion and expression should be kept in mind by most, and when the opportunity is there to influence those decisions we should do it.

For example, if Google, Apple and Microsoft were REALLY so interested in freedom of the Internet and Human Rights, would they be willing to deal so readily with companies and countries which regularly abuse these principles?

I hope this case collapses, and I hope it results in changes to these authoritarian laws. Mostly, I hope that GAL is exposed to global criticism and attack and that this results in massive financial loss and the most talented employees fleeing that company to work with one which doesn't try to attack and imprison people for criticizing it. No corporation should have such power.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: hounddoghowlie



Best not to talk too reckless online, when it comes to names, companies, or threats.
Especially if it's a Gulf State. That's double reckless.



Hopefully they're lenient with him.




One needn't go to the Middle East to find examples of Facebook rants landing people in jail.

It happened here in Ontariariario YESTERDAY!

toronto.ctvnews.ca...


The man made threats to kill, that's not "freedom of speech" that's a direct attack on the lives of others and should result in criminal action.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Psynic

the rant your linking to is a death threat on a police officers, far from calling someone a sh@@bag, and backstabbers. he threatened no one just talked trash and was gonna quit.




Alleged death threat.

I have no idea what he actually said.

Do you?



You do know that charges can only be brought when there is evidence, right?
What, you think they just made it all up to be able to arrest someone? How do they then prove it in front of a judge, if it gets that far?

He either made the threats or he didn't. If they arrested and charged him, they obviously have the evidence that he did do that.

So, logic and reason would suggest that this is a justified arrest of someone who made threats to murder. That is sane and sensible in all our countries. You don't get to make threats to kill and claim it's freedom of speech.

Seriously, what part of this are you not getting? It's baffling.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Think it more a case of why not NOT to visit these Islamic country's.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
And what do we learn from this? Don't be stupid enough to break another countries laws and then be stupid enough to go to that country.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Psynic

the rant your linking to is a death threat on a police officers, far from calling someone a sh@@bag, and backstabbers. he threatened no one just talked trash and was gonna quit.




Alleged death threat.

I have no idea what he actually said.

Do you?



You do know that charges can only be brought when there is evidence, right?
What, you think they just made it all up to be able to arrest someone? How do they then prove it in front of a judge, if it gets that far?

He either made the threats or he didn't. If they arrested and charged him, they obviously have the evidence that he did do that.

So, logic and reason would suggest that this is a justified arrest of someone who made threats to murder. That is sane and sensible in all our countries. You don't get to make threats to kill and claim it's freedom of speech.

Seriously, what part of this are you not getting? It's baffling.


The part about the legitimacy and specifics of the actual threat.

By your reasoning, anyone charged by the police is guilty!

Why bother with trials?




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join