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.

 

Occupy Boston activist's Twitter info subpoenaed

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Occupy Boston activist's Twitter info subpoenaed


edition.cnn.com

(CNN) -- A decision by Massachusetts prosecutors to subpoena the Twitter records of an Occupy Boston activist, as well as records linked to two Twitter hashtags, has free speech advocates up in arms, calling the move a violation of the First Amendment.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Suffolk County prosecutors demanded that Twitter hand over information posted on the social media website by user "Guido Fawkes," whose Twitter handle is @p0isAn0N, as well as information from the user behind @OccupyBoston and those who Tweeted #BostonPD or #d0xcak3, according to the document.

The ACLU gave CNN a copy of the subpoena.


I guess people are slowly beginning to realize how important it is to able get on the net and be invisible when one needs to be. I guess everyone already knows that this site has and does get visited from time to time.

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The Subpoena can be found here

www.scribd.com...
edit on 29-12-2011 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
The police should learn how to use the search API for Twitter and quit wasting time.

There is no privacy guaranteed with free social sites.

Why do people think there are?

The internet was a military project.

And here we are.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


I'm sorry but your post is way off.

What do you mean "who do people think they are"???
It's not about who people think they are, it's about who they KNOW they AREN'T.

It's not a matter of "privacy" as much as it is a matter of the government going all into somebody's twitter records for an alleged criminal investigation.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


My post is only off, in your mind, you because I didn't write what you quoted.

To address your comment. The government is not interfering with anything.

If people are dumb enough to write down their subconscious dribble on a social micro-blog site, it is truly their own fault when people read it.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


My post is only off, in your mind, you because I didn't write what you quoted.

To address your comment. The government is not interfering with anything.

If people are dumb enough to write down their subconscious dribble on a social micro-blog site, it is truly their own fault when people read it.


So you're saying that people can be "dumb enough" to exercise their first amendment right? Tell me more...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Many "people" assume an expectation of privacy.

It must be The Romans 13 Syndrome


Romans 13

Submission to Governing Authorities

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
What. Are they saying they did wrong?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
The subpoena is necessary to admit the documents in court by the prosecution, I imagine.

The thing is that people have been using twitter and other social networking sites to organize their demonstrations. Normally, this is not a problem.

However, in the case of Boston - we had quite a few incidents of violence being instigated by demonstrators. Apparently, the prosecution thinks that there is evidence in this guy's twitter feeds that suggest he was attempting to instigate violence and incite others to do the same.

When property and people start getting destroyed, you no longer get to claim your tactical directives as free speech.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Precisely. If you're going to post bad stuff on the internet and bad things happen, the law has every right to take that information to build a case.

Figured that was common sense. I even lost a job at a gas station for being in a bad mood and writing about it on my facebook and sadly mentioning my job's name. :/
so yeah, what you post is online forever for anyone to read.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


My post is only off, in your mind, you because I didn't write what you quoted.

To address your comment. The government is not interfering with anything.

If people are dumb enough to write down their subconscious dribble on a social micro-blog site, it is truly their own fault when people read it.


So you're saying that people can be "dumb enough" to exercise their first amendment right? Tell me more...



Oh I cannot wait to hear how this has ANYTHING to do with the 1st ammendment.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


You mean to tell me freedom of speech doesn't apply to online posts?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


You mean to tell me freedom of speech doesn't apply to online posts?


What do you mean by online?
You mean through a private companies software that you have access to via another private companies hardware?
Please explain where the free speech comes in.

Who has been prevented from expressing themself?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


You mean to tell me freedom of speech doesn't apply to online posts?


What do you mean by online?
You mean through a private companies software that you have access to via another private companies hardware?
Please explain where the free speech comes in.

Who has been prevented from expressing themself?


Whhhhhhhhhhhhat???

So because you're using twitter, you can't speak freely???

I shouldn't have to explain where free speech comes in - it should always be there. You should have to explain the "limitations" on >free< speech.

Also, there are more ways of violating ones right to free speech then preventing them from expression....



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


Tell me something.
If you were to come to my home and steal some of my paint and then use the side of my house to "express" yourself. Would you consider your 1st amendment rights violated when I had you arrested and sued for the expense of covering your message before anyone other than you, me, and the cops saw it?

Would you?
Please explain why or why not.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
That's not what I recall when that specific hash tag came up but I may be wrong.
I seem to remember that the police were using one of the accounts themselves but they were using it to spread misinformation about their position.

It seems like that person was tweeting not to listen to them, to follow and listen to another account instead.
I may be wrong but I remember something like that. So many cities though...seems like the violence broke out LATER.

I wonder if they could be trying to claim that people involved in retweeting or tweeting that hashtag were somehow aiding and abetting criminal activity since the police had told them to disperse. (and the tweets were to help people avoid the police presence.)

It is a direct attack in any event on activists' communication techniques. I don't agree with everything occupy has seemed to be but they do have the right to protest and talk. The continual attack on their communication network and the media coverage and the intimidation that I see of their 1st amendment rights chills me.
edit on 30-12-2011 by hadriana because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine

Whhhhhhhhhhhhat???

So because you're using twitter, you can't speak freely???


Whhhhhhhhhhhhhat??

Who did not get to speak freely? When did that happen?
You do understand twitter is not a right? Don't you? Twitter is a tool SOMEONE else allows you to use. Again, if you use my things to express yourself, you forgo some of your expression as specific owner of said things, I retain full rights as to how they are used.

Why do you think things other people invent, maintain, and run, are now rights you are owed by the state?




I shouldn't have to explain where free speech comes in - it should always be there. You should have to explain the "limitations" on >free< speech.


You have not explained where free speech has been limited.
You can talk about spaghetti all day. You have that right.
You can not talk about spaghetti for more than 5 minutes in any given day in my home. You do not have that right.
Go express yourself with your own things, in your own place.



Also, there are more ways of violating ones right to free speech then preventing them from expression....


And so far you seem unable to list any of them that might apply here.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


Tell me something.
If you were to come to my home and steal some of my paint and then use the side of my house to "express" yourself. Would you consider your 1st amendment rights violated when I had you arrested and sued for the expense of covering your message before anyone other than you, me, and the cops saw it?

Would you?
Please explain why or why not.


This has to be the WORST analogy in the history of debate. This has nothing to do with destruction of property. This also has nothing to do with TWITTER not approving of a statement made. This is the government, telling TWITTER that they want your posts. Twitter don't give a # what you talk about.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


Have you ever thought that people don't sign up for twitter, or facebook, or even ATS and get Miranda Rights read to them? Now all of a sudden it's anything you say can, and will be used against you? Don't express yourself too much, because we might be compelled to build a case against you. And again, twitter is just "the middle man", they never disapproved or anything like that, so your argument about twitter being a privately owned tool fails.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join