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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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?
Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
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....
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.