Dissent: The Dangerous Words

You say you want a revolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

You tell me that it's evolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

Hello, once again, ATS! Thank you for taking the time to open this thread. As your humble host I will do my utmost to hopefully make you happy that you did so!

With the Presidential election season barreling down on us, here in the US, I have noticed an upswing in the number of posts that might be construed as calls to arms... People, all over the world, are angry at government and at a laundry list or corporations and entities that have truly served to divide us into two distinct categories.

The haves and the have nots.

It is understandable that everyday people would become angry and want to voice their anger. This can be doubly true for our American members, as we are guaranteed Freedom of Speech by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That seems fairly forthright and strongly stated to me. But are there hidden restrictions to our rights to free speech? Actually there are.

Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Source.

And there's the rub that led me to creating this thread. Given some recent events, such as the case of former US Marine Brandon Raub being arrested in the following manner:

CHESTERFIELD, VA— The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a former Marine, 26-year-old Brandon Raub, who was arrested, detained indefinitely in a psych ward and forced to undergo psychological evaluations based solely on the controversial nature of lines from song lyrics, political messages and virtual card games which he posted to his private Facebook page.

Although the FBI and Chesterfield County police have not charged Brandon Raub, a resident of Chesterfield County, Va., with committing any crime, they arrested Raub on Thursday, August 16, 2012, and transported him to John Randolph Medical Center, where he was held against his will due to alleged concerns that his Facebook (FB) posts were controversial and “terrorist in nature.” In a hearing held at the hospital, government officials disregarded Raub’s explanation that the Facebook posts were being interpreted out of context, sentencing him up to 30 days’ further confinement in a VA psych ward. In coming to Raub’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys are challenging Raub’s arrest and forcible detention, as well as the government’s overt Facebook surveillance and violation of Raub’s First Amendment rights...

...Brandon Raub, a former Marine who has served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, was detained by FBI agents and police officers at his home in Chesterfield County based upon the nature of content posted to his Facebook page in recent months. Like many Facebook users, Raub uses his FB page to post songs lyrics and air his political opinions, as well as engage in virtual online games with other users. On Thursday, August 16, police and FBI agents arrived at Raub’s home, asking to speak with him about his Facebook posts. They did not provide Raub with a search warrant. Raub was cooperative and agreed to speak with them.

Without providing any explanation, levying any charges against Raub or reading him his rights, law enforcement officials then handcuffed Raub and transported him first to the police headquarters, then to John Randolph Medical Center, where he was held against his will. Outraged onlookers filmed the arrest and posted the footage to YouTube. Law enforcement officials have stated in press reports that Raub was not arrested. However, as attorney John Whitehead points out, if the police have put handcuffs on you and you’re being held against your will, that qualifies as an arrest.

Most of us are comfortable with the notion that we cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie house ( Though yelling "MOVIE in a crowded firehouse, as I understand it, is actually considered to be a good thing ) and we understand that we can't threaten to rip the eyes out of our neighbors head because his Shih tzu likes to lift his leg on our brand new fencing. We can all relate to the idea that there are simply some things that are so grossly irresponsible as to not qualify as "free speech". But Facebook posts?

At what point did venting become criminal? Is there a single person reading this who has never, in a moment of anger ( or humor ) said "I'll kill" or "So help me God, I'll..." without really meaning it? It is natural for us to voice extreme thoughts. In fact voicing them is much safer and healthy than not voicing them. This is a basic psychological truth that one would imagine a government would be aware of and would understand. So why are we suddenly faced with the prospect of venting and finding ourselves the victims of warrantless, chargeless incarceration and potentially a political prisoner, hidden from our loved ones, jailed, shipped overseas, and tortured - a process called extraordinary rendition.... Just because we gave into our human nature and talked about how we want to take back our own fair share of the dream? Of our inalienable rights as human beings?

Yes... the above does have a tad bit of Orwellian, predictive hyperbole to it. Mr Raub was not extradited, in the middle of the night, by men in black tactical suits and ski masks. My point is that Mr Raub came right up to that fate. He was nearly there. Warrantless arrest? No charges? If online activists hadn't taken up his call... Maybe Mr Raub might have wound up sitting, today, in a Pakistani prison - being interrogated outside of his protections as a Citizen and outside of the scope of human rights groups and treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions. Knowing that even one man has come this close to this nightmare scenario is enough to give one pause.

~Continued...

Oh... and if you think that the United States doesn't have political prisoners... and you choose to ignore the several cases of botched erroneous renditions - and those we might not hear about for years, as the government hasn't, in the past, seemed willing to provide lists, even of the people incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay. How can we really be sure who is actually in custody? There is one well known US political prisoner who comes to mind though...



Leonard Peltier

Peltier's conviction sparked great controversy and has drawn criticism from a number of sources. Numerous appeals have been filed on his behalf; none of the resulting rulings has been made in his favor. Peltier is considered by the AIM to be a political prisoner and has received support from individuals and groups including Nelson Mandela, Rigoberta Menchú, Amnesty International, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, Tenzin Gyatso (the 14th Dalai Lama), the European Parliament, the Belgian Parliament,[20] the Italian Parliament, the Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Rev. Jesse Jackson.

So... Our own government seems to have some record of ignoring the Constitution when it suits the right people. Mr Raub and Mr Peltier are seemingly suggestive of this conclusion. I offer that, while we are not quite yet into the world of thought crime - it appears that we are currently well into the world of word crime.

What Is Sedition

The legal dictionary at dictionary.com tells us:

A revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority, usually in the form of Treason or Defamation against government.

Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. States also maintain laws that punish similar advocacy and conspiracy against the state government...

...Following the September 11th Attacks of 2001, the federal government feared that terrorist networks were very real threats, and that if left unchecked, would lead to further insurrection. As a result, Congress enacted the Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. Among other things, the act increases the president's authority to seize the property of individuals and organizations that the president determines have planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in hostilities or attacks against the United States.

The events of September 11 also led to the conviction of at least one American. In 2001, U.S. officials captured John Philip Walker Lindh, a U.S. citizen who had trained with terrorist organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Lindh, who became known as the "American Taliban," was indicted on ten counts, including conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals. In October 2002, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Source

Take some time and read that again. Read it and compare it to the First Amendment, as shown above. As I was saying... Speech isn't really as free as many of us think it is.

~Continued...

Some more on seditious speech and word crime...

USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2384 - Seditious Conspiracy.

f two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

and

18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government or the Smith Act.

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Want to minimize the target and look at less glaring things than discussion of a revolt? How about simply lying. Surely it can't be illegal to lie. Right?

That almost became reality with The United States V Alvarez, also known as the Stolen Valor Act - signed into law by George W. Bush and later struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States.

How about another close decision about whether or not burning a flag is a crime?

Or offering counsel or protesting within 8 feet of a person entering a healthcare facility.

Even my sworn arch-nemesis Fred Phelps has gotten into the free speech / Supreme court scene.

So. Words can be crimes. And those crimes can carry a very high price.

Who Does the FBI Consider Thought/Speech Criminals

"Domestic terrorism involves groups or individuals who are based and operate entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction, and whose acts are directed at elements of the U.S. government or population. Domestic terrorist groups can represent right-wing, left-wing, or special interest orientations. Their causes generally spring from issues relating to American political and social concerns."

~Continued...

Right-wing terrorism.

Right-wing terrorist groups, as defined by the FBI, are motivated by notions of white racial supremacy, as well as anti-government and anti-regulatory beliefs. They may also include extremist Christian groups such as those that bomb abortion clinics, although these groups are sometimes lumped in with special-interest terrorists. Moreover, many acts of right-wing terrorism, such as racially motivated attacks by "skinhead" gangs, are legally classified as hate crimes rather than domestic terrorism. They thus fall within the realm of the FBI Criminal Division, rather than the Counterterrorism Division.

Anti-government groups. The remainder of right-wing terrorist groups are united by an anti-government stance that may or may not also embrace racism. Such groups emerged on the national scene with a February 13, 1983, attack on law enforcement officers in Medina, North Dakota, by a group named the Sheriff's Posse Comitatus.

Left-Wing and Special Interest Terrorists

Left-wing terrorists, according to the FBI, have a revolutionary socialist agenda, and present themselves as protectors of the populace against the alienating effects of capitalism and U.S. imperialism. Notable early participants in left-wing terrorism were various socialist and anarchist groups from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Leon Czolgocz, who shot President William McKinley in 1901, embraced anarchist beliefs, though no anarchist group would accept him for membership.

Special-interest terrorism in the 1990s.

In the 1990s, special-interest terrorism of the political right included attacks and threats against abortion clinics. Special-interest terrorism on the political left involved motivations that included the environment, animal rights, and opposition to globalization. The FBI paid special note to the left-wing groups in this instance, not because of political bias, but because attacks on abortion clinics are classified as hate crimes, giving them an entirely different legal definition and involving other arms of the national justice system.

The FBI also noted the rise of anti-globalization demonstrations, which are founded in an opposition to the growth and international influence of Western corporations and financial entities. Though officially grouped with left-wing terrorism because of its strongly anarchist undertones, anti-globalization activities might also be considered special-interest in nature. During the World Trade Organization ministerial meetings in Seattle from November 30 to December 3, 1999, anti-globalization demonstrators conducted extensive acts of vandalism.

Size changes and bolded emphasis mine.
Source

And directly from the FBI themselves...

Domestic Terrorism

Focus on Militia Extremism

Who they are. Like many domestic terrorism groups, militia extremists are anti-government. What sets them apart is that they’re often organized into paramilitary groups that follow a military-style rank hierarchy. They tend to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition, trying illegally to get their hands on fully automatic firearms or attempting to convert weapons to fully automatic. They also try to buy or manufacture improvised explosive devices and typically engage in wilderness, survival, or other paramilitary training.

Who and what they target. They usually go after the government itself—including law enforcement personnel, representatives of the courts, and other public officials, along with government buildings. When caught, most militia extremists are charged with weapons, explosives, and/or conspiracy violations.

What they believe in. Many militia extremists view themselves as protecting the U.S. Constitution, other U.S. laws, or their own individual liberties. They believe that the Constitution grants citizens the power to take back the federal government by force or violence if they feel it’s necessary. They oppose gun control efforts and fear the widespread disarming of Americans by the federal government.

Militia extremists often subscribe to various conspiracy theories regarding government. One of their primary theories is that the United Nations—which they refer to as the New World Order, or NWO—has the right to use its military forces anywhere in the world (it doesn’t, of course). The extremists often train and prepare for what they foresee as an inevitable invasion of the U.S. by United Nations forces. Many militia extremists also wrongly believe that the federal government will relocate citizens to camps controlled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or force them to undergo vaccinations.

Source

~Continued...

Domestic Terrorism

The Sovereign Citizen Movement

Domestic terrorism—Americans attacking Americans because of U.S.-based extremist ideologies—comes in many forms in our post 9/11 world.

To help educate the public, we’ve previously outlined two separate domestic terror threats—eco-terrorists/animal rights extremists and lone offenders.

Today, we look at a third threat—the “sovereign citizen” extremist movement. Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.

This causes all kinds of problems—and crimes. For example, many sovereign citizens don’t pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks, and the like at government agencies, banks, and businesses.

That’s just the beginning. Not every action taken in the name of the sovereign citizen ideology is a crime, but the list of illegal actions committed by these groups, cells, and individuals is extensive (and puts them squarely on our radar). In addition to the above, sovereign citizens:
Commit murder and physical assault;
Threaten judges, law enforcement professionals, and government personnel;
Impersonate police officers and diplomats;
Use fake currency, passports, license plates, and driver’s licenses; and
Engineer various white-collar scams, including mortgage fraud and so-called “redemption” schemes.

Sovereign citizens are often confused with extremists from the militia movement. But while sovereign citizens sometimes use or buy illegal weapons, guns are secondary to their anti-government, anti-tax beliefs. On the other hand, guns and paramilitary training are paramount to militia groups.

Now... put all of these pieces together, apply it all with a broad brush ( as government is want to do it seems ) and then take a look around you. Look around ATS. Look around your neighborhood. Look at your own family. How many of the people in your own lives could this broad brush touch? Understand it doesn't have to paint the whole person. Just a Facebook post or two... Just a drunken comment in a bar about the IRS being criminals... Just a text message, sent to a loved one, to vent.

The net is wide and the powerful are waiting for you to make a mistake. We all make these mistakes. Think about it!

Final Thoughts

As I said at the beginning of my OP. I was led to the desire to research the above links and information because I had seen a few posts on ATS ( and elsewhere ) that gave me pause. I may respect you and agree with you, and your opinions... or I might not. But, even so, I wouldn't want a single one of my online community to fall into the trap of saying the wrong thing in righteous anger. It really is US versus THEM. And THEY have all of the tools and gadgets. We have only our wiles.

I think a day is soon approaching when we, the people, will have to learn to set aside our petty differences and protect one another from fascism that is unthinkable - even now - and from armies of government backed, corporate sponsored soldiers and police who will have little to fear, and absolute and total support from their overlords.

We've lost most of the battles thus far. But that does not mean we've lost the war. And, make no mistake, I am not talking about a war of guns and bullets. I am speaking directly of a war of wills and of spirit. The truth of the matter is that I am not an advocate of Civil War. It is the illogical choice. If an uprising begins under the pretense of violence, it will be doomed to failure. Doomed... and it will give our leaders even more cause to further restrict and steal our freedoms. We need unity. We need to speak with our wallets and our voices. We need to let these animals know that we will NOT lose our will to speak - even if jail or death would be the price for doing so. Together we are an immovable force that simply cannot be ignored.

Together. Such an easy word, yet such an impossible goal. Even among ourselves we fight the little battles with ferocity without a care in the world as to the state of the real war.

Be careful what you say and who you say it to. Stay free. Stay safe.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

George Washington



~Heff

Interesting thread.

Technically the "leaders" are the ones who are seditious and treasonous, not the people speaking out for liberty who are technically called patriots.

But hey, semantics.

Oh, and if anyone is afraid to speak out, they need to ask themselves, what is the point of living anyway?
To sit around a slave and never speak for fear of retribution? Say it ain't so, speak up and speak out, it's the only thing that will protect our life and allow us to keep living.

Take the power back? Take the govt back?
Why so it can just continue bossing me around but with a nicer leader?
.
Let's eliminate the power as best as we can.
Limit it, curb it, starve it, reduce it.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Speaking out is definitely needed and justified in our current society. But politics are like playing chess and one doesn't sacrifice a castle or a queen early in the game. Knowing how to phrase dissent will be a very important tool for people in the coming months and years IMO.

We are already in a world where part of the game plan is to use those who exceed the boundaries as an excuse to take away rights from those who don't.

Taking our world and nation back must be done with deliberation and tact.

~Heff

I like that you addressed the likelihood/certainty that armed rebellion would worsen the situation here. That has been something I've pondered for many years now, and distinctly more often now that the whole "If x happens, we'll make use of the 2nd Amendment!" sentiment has found voice in sometimes well-publicized statements made by sometimes well-publicized people. I find it interesting that thinly veiled (or even overt) calls-to-arms like that can slip under the radar so easily in some cases, and result in being Raubed in others. I suppose it depends on who is saying it as to whether or not it is punishable, even unofficially as was done to Raub.

Anyhow, I think that you are correct in your assessment that armed rebellion would almost certainly fail and worsen the situation here, for several reasons. On the subject of the possible rebels: most of them are completely unprepared for the necessities of guerrilla and urban warfare or its practical applications, their numbers and arms are slim compared to those of the US military, and many of them back the very interests that oppress the vast majority to begin with. (Which gives me some small amount of paranoia that an armed rebellion might be staged, and the corporations and other dirty interests might make use of their nigh limitless resources to ensure that it succeeds in the direction of their choosing. But that is left-field paranoia right there. I hope.)

But most importantly, since failure is the most likely outcome of armed rebellion, the backlash from the government on our civil liberties would be so intense that we would be living in a full-on police state for the foreseeable future because of it, and the world outside of the US would probably suffer the same due to our national inability to leave well enough alone.

However, since almost all candidates are already affiliated deeply with corporate and other dirty interests (or don't resist their siren song once elected), voting is mostly an impractical way of causing change. Given the wholesale oppression of the Occupy movement and the establishment infiltration of the Tea Party, our protest groups on both the liberal and conservative sides are mostly ineffective at producing legitimate changes in the power structure. And, of course, the vast majority of people just do not care enough to get up and do anything about what's going on, so long as they still have all of the comforts of modern life at their immediate disposal, which makes voting with our dollars unlikely to occur in numbers large enough to send a message to our corporate and ultra-wealthy overlords. So peaceful options also fail.

We are between a rock and a hard place. There are a dearth of options. We cannot throw them out violently, because it would fail, and even if it didn't, our likely rebels support the very evils that got us here. We cannot throw them out peacefully, because we have no one to replace them with and we're too addicted to comfort to do it anyway.

reply to post by lycosa


I agree with this.

Another note. Thanks to Carnivore ( Echelon ) it is entirely possible that many vocal "patriots" might not even make it to the first round of an uprising. I envision a situation where, once things reach a fever pitch, we have our own American night of the long knives where a whole lot of people simply vanish, due to things they've said or posted.

The wise protector of his people is the invisible one.

~Heff

reply to post by BuckWilder


I am an ATS mod for no other reason than I care about the community and was offered the opportunity to help maintain that community. My position here has nothing to do with my beliefs, positions, or real life identity whatsoever.

The 911 avatars are simply something that some staff members are choosing to do, as a tribute to the lives lost on that date. Any member could start a BTS thread, right now, and say "Who wants to commemorate 9/11 with me?"

My personal choice to use this avatar is just that - a solemn tribute to the fallen and lost. Not a political statement of any kind. A memorial statement.

Oh, and we haven't forgotten the 9/11 forum either. It is one of my forums. And all I can do is assure you that it is not dead, gone, nor forgotten.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

I am an ATS mod for no other reason than I care about the community and was offered the opportunity to help maintain that community. My position here has nothing to do with my beliefs, positions, or real life identity whatsoever.

Then it must be that you simply don't see what is up actually.

I think your views on things, as I have learned from this thread and other contributions, are irreconcilable with that what is up.

reply to post by BuckWilder


I'm intrigued now. I think I've got a pretty good handle on what's up. In fact that's what motivates most of my threads.
I'm left wondering why a thread cautioning people to watch what they say, making them aware that they are being watched, and warning them that the rights they feel are protecting them may not actually be doing so... why would a thread like that provoke a "you don't know what's up" response.

I'm curious to see the answer.

Even more curious to see evidence contrary to the OP.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


It seems that you are somehow representing the very evil that is the cause of the concerns that made you start this thread in the first place. And it seems that if these concerns are genuine and you are sincere, and you have this knowledge I am talking about, that you would not want to be part of it.

Too intruiging?

reply to post by BuckWilder


I'm at a loss as to how I am part of anything. Are you referring to my status as staff on ATS?

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


I didn't expect that it would have to be spelled out to you, but then again, you also don't know "what's up", right?

reply to post by BuckWilder


I know what's up enough to know that if people make vague and accusatory claims, and then find themselves unable to clarify - that it's almost surely either a non-issue or a personal bias and not a real issue.

I also know that in the game of disinformation you attack the player if you can't get the ball.

So, as it stands, bring a ball into the game or be seen for attacking the player. You're going to have to do better.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


I am in no way trying to discredit the message of your thread, or maybe I am, not sure yet.

Be careful what you say and who you say it to. Stay free. Stay safe.

You can interprete this as "if you want to stay free, you'd better not say too much"



And I think I answered your question.

reply to post by BuckWilder


For the sake of all those reading, please spell it out.

Geez. I can't stand cryptic posts. It's like pulling teeth. (I hope it was alright to say that)

reply to post by Hefficide


Sorry for kinda posting off topic above. Remove it if you like, I just can't stand the 'nudge &a wink' thing. It irritates me.

On topic, I think your extensive OP was thorough and enlightening. There's even much more to this topic than you've outlined so far, and I hope others can add to it. Voices are being silenced by a government that cannot abide dissent and the social media is a huge well of information that they can use against individuals.

We're just beginning to see the trend of suits coming into private homes and cross examining citizens for what they may have tweeted, liked and shared.