What's Illegal About Using Twitter To Organize Protests?
from the someone-please-explain dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in various versions of the story of a guy (described as an "anarchist") who was allegedly arrested for using social media tools like Twitter to organize protesters at the recent G20 Summit in Pittsburgh. The specific charges are for "hindering prosecution," but it seems like there must be some details missing. All around, the whole thing sounds pretty extreme. What's illegal about organizing protesters?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arrested, g20, organizing, protests
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What are you? Some kind of filthy arab? Get in the van!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But seriously, anyone that has actually paid attention to politics in the last few decades will realize that America isn't about freedom, it is about the appearance of freedom. Take our two party system for example. This has become extra crazy recently, but it seems to me that whenever one "party" tries to pass a bill the other side unequivocally opposes it. They don't (usually) give a sound, logical reason to appose the bill beyond it being from the other party.
Neither side as a whole really gives a crap about this country beyond keeping it alive (on life support no less). It is about appearances, lining their pockets, and maintaining the status quo. Yes there are a few good souls in government that are trying their hardest to improve this country, but most are not.
I have become very frustrated and disenfranchised with our government as a voting citizen. I keep trying to believe that someone will come along in politics and make a change, but I have lost faith in that idea.
The truth of the matter is that we have to make the change. We have to stand up and say no more. And no I am not talking about the screaming crazies at town hall meetings that haven't actually researched the legislation they are protesting. I am talking about citizens understanding what they are protesting in detail and then trying to offer a solution while protesting what they disagree with.
I am talking about well-reasoned, logical arguments. Not mindless screaming and yelling. Though that may be too much to ask with the state of our country's education level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are never going to get anywhere relying on the revolving door of control freaks. They say that we can't be trusted to govern ourselves. Why then do we trust others who admit they cannot be trusted to govern us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We, as Americans, have a duty to fix our government if it strays too far from its intended purpose, with our votes, or, is required, a revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. In my opinion, it is the sheer complacency and laziness of Americans that is hurting our country. If enough people would get off their asses and vote, it could once again be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Maybe it wouldn't be one I would agree with 100%, but at least I could take comfort in the fact that people actually cared again and that our gov't was representative of all of America, and not just rich politicians and big corporations. On the other hand, if things continue to deteriorate maybe we'll (eventually) get a revolution of sorts after all. Positive change isn't always easy or painless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. Partly. There must be action, but not participating in voting etc. IS action in itself. If you vote, no matter who you vote for, you are saying that you agree with the system. There are many, many people out there who agree that the system itself is broken. You can't change the system by perpetuating it's existence. It has die before it can be replaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you really sure that would change anything, though? Let's think about that for a second. If more people vote... more people vote. But the amount of people who vote does not change who the candidates for office are going to be. So you would still have the same pool of people who can be elected, with just a variation in who might get elected, possibly.
Therefore, you are saying that the real problem is that the wrong people are being elected. So is it your theory that if different people are elected, our problems are going to be solved? Really? Because if you are, I've got some positively royal clothes to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to remember,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have to remember,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have to remember,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have to remember,
We went to the moon?
(Silence)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Varying levels of 'protest'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Varying levels of 'protest'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Varying levels of 'protest'
The "solution" would be encrypted radio communications for the officers; to go along with all the other military-grade hardware.
But you've gotta admit, the tweet that said "The police are following twitter streams", the circularity has got to make you smile.
The "solution" would be encrypted twitter streams...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Varying levels of 'protest'
Just for another bit of hilarity, a text between protesters also said:
“Scanner just said be advised we’re being monitored by anarchists through scanner.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Varying levels of 'protest'
Same for texting "the cops are at your door, flush the drugs"
Whether it should be or not...that's life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Varying levels of 'protest'
Heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Varying levels of 'protest'
So that may not be your best argument. Also, do you have any links to info about why the police were looking for the protesters? You seem pretty sure that nothing illegal had occurred, but none of the articles I've found have addressed that point.
You're positive there was no vandalism, etc? Can you document? It still wouldn't change the distinction between questioning the police conduct and questioning the legality of interfering with that conduct, even if it was inappropriate. But it would give more context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Varying levels of 'protest'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Varying levels of 'protest'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Varying levels of 'protest'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fields of Athenrye?
Dark times...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questionable
Using Twitter to "organize" is different from evading the police. At the end of it though, I'm with #6.
That said, I'm sure they'll figure out some way to bring in some esoteric anti-mafia law because he was using a radio communications network to organize criminal activity - which would really be a shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Questionable
The person providing legal analysis was a former Federal prosecutor, and he seemed to be on the fence as to whether anything would stick. Obviously there are first ammendment issues, and the way that he put it was that there is a very fine line between between someone saying "there is a police car coming down the street" and someone saying "the police are getting ready to break down your door...hurry up and flush your stash." I'm not convinced that there should be a difference. It seems to me that both should be protected, but there is an argument that can be made that you're abetting a criminal.
Of course, we live in a country that sentenced Dr. Mudd to life in prison for setting a broken leg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Questionable
Make sure you relay your communication through interstate channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dreaming...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relaying police traffic is the problem, not Twitter
In other words you can listen to a scanner, but relaying the messages via Twitter, SMS or smoke signals is against Federal law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Relaying police traffic is the problem, not Twitter
If such things were illegal, then websites like radioreference.com would have been shut down long ago. I was listening to the G20 police communication too, streaming live over the internet. There's absolutely no difference (at least in terms of a law like that) between a machine converting it to an internet stream and sending it out and a person doing the same conversion and transmission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Relaying police traffic is the problem, not Twitter
Even if the protesters had listened themselves, the act also states
"No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained)for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto."
So even if the protesters had brought their own scanners AND used in the comission of offenses, they'd have been out of luck also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Relaying police traffic is the problem, not Twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Relaying police traffic is the problem, not Twitter
I.E. "No person who turned on their store-bought scanner..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the fact of the matter is, it is not illegal to organize a protest. and more importantly, it is not illegal to use twitter to organize a protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pharmaceutical corporations should have price caps on the drugs that they sell since the government grants them patents and they should also be audited by independent agencies to see how much they really spend on research and development and how much they spend on other stuff to ensure that the patents they are granted are justified. This information should be disclosed to the public. But of course pharmaceutical corporations are anarchists, they get to charge whatever they want with the monopolies that the government grants them. At the same time they are tyrants, they have government sanctioned monopolies that restrict competition. They are basically tyrant anarchists: they are anarchists and want no laws to the extent that it helps them and they are tyrants to the extent that it helps them.
Cable companies, broadband services, and those that broadcast on airwaves should have a limit on the amount of commercials they can endorse since it's the government that grants them control over these broadcasting mediums and limits competition. But of course they are anarchists and can put as many commercials they want. They are tyrant anarchists, tyrants in that they control who can and can't use the airwaves and who does and does not have rights of way to build new infrastructure, and anarchists in that they put as many commercials as they want and charge astronomical prices for poor service.
Oh, and cities that put cameras everywhere are anarchists in that they do whatever they want against the will of the public and the government is turning into an anarchist government because they pass laws as they please with no regard for what the people want. The people are under tyranny, but the big corporations and the government are anarchists.
They want to throw the word "anarchist" around but they don't want laws that help the public, they only want laws that help them. They are anarchists to the extent that it helps them and they are tyrants to the extent that it helps them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrest Glen Beck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: #1
From the New York Times:
From CNN
There are many more such examples. Those who criticized #1 (#'s 2, 3, 4, 5, 8), I hope you were being sarcastic. Or else you are just xenophobic, racist haters. Or just plain ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have never been a protester to get that out of the way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
But when you read the story, and the related stories, you've got a guy in a hotel room using police scanners and Twitter for the express purpose of helping people who knew they were wanted by police evade capture.
Now, whether the police should be arresting protesters (my vote is "sometimes"*) is another issue. But given that the police were indeed attempting to arrest some people, how is it not "hindering prosecution" to help them escape?
* Obviously, people shouldn't be arrested for mere protesting, but I'm less ok with illegal activities done in the course of protest (see: property damage, assault, etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
I'm so glad that someone else has actually read the article in question. This is one of the rare moments that I disagree with Mike. I saw this article yesterday, and I felt the same way as most of the other commenters just from the headline, then I read the story.
This guy wasn't using twitter to organize the protest. He was using it to help people that were told to disperse to evade the police and keep doing what they were doing. Doing this any other way would also be illegal. It's called obstruction of justice. It's the same thing as if you saw the police in pursuit of someone on TV and saw that they were coming your way, you then realized that it was your friend driving the car, so you decided that you wanted to help him. So you jump in your car and start following the pursuit and get him on the phone and tell him where to turn and when to turn, eventually helping him to escape.
That may be a bit extreme, but it is what this guy was doing. And he knew it. It wasn't like he didn't know what was going on. He heard the order to dispese, especially since he had the scanners at his disposal, and choose to keep telling his friends how to escape the police.
Not a good thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law is the law sometimes
Things are kind of a gray area for me as to what happened at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, but this does make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law is the law sometimes
This is no different than if he was at the top of a building with a bull-horn and a pair of binoculars.
The police are in the wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The law is the law sometimes
There are two issues here:
1) Should the police have been trying to apprehend the protesters in question?
2) Given that there police *were* trying to apprehend the protesters in question, what are the legal implications of helping them evade arrest?
Lots of people are reacting strongly to (1), with the implication that if the police were in the wrong there, it should be OK to obstruct them in (2). But that's not the way it works in the U.S. We rely on the courts (and sometimes police oversight committees) to determine police wrongdoing. You don't get to say "I'm pretty sure that they didn't commit a crime, but the police are after them, so I'll help them get away." Doesn't matter if it's bull-horn or Twitter then.
Without knowing more about the protest, I've got no opinion on (1) here. Maybe the police were in the wrong in trying to track and/or apprehend the protesters. But that's not the question here. In the actual question, this guy was clearly (and with a lot of effort and expense on his part) interfering with the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But now, let's say the protesters are already at a location, and begin throwing rocks and bottles at police. And then begin rolling dumpsters into traffic and at property. And then when the police move in grab those protesters who are unlawfully destroying property you have someone telling them how to evade police capture -- That's aiding and abetting.
Allegedly the guy who was arrested had in his possession a pound of liquid mercury, tire spikes, and ammunition. http://gothamist.com/2009/10/05/fbi_raids_queens_home_in_g20_protes.php If this is true, then it would be hard to argue that he had a "Peaceful demonstration" in mind.
Just because someone is protesting, that does not give them the right to destroy property, harm anyone, or create a full-on riot. The small percentage of protesters who do engage in these types of activities should face prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it was the latter, then this is a non issue... they had no idea who to arrest or who was involved. If it was the former, then I can see this being an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case, we don't know enough to say what the police were acting on. Mere dislike of protesters? Possibly. A string of broken windows and vandalized cars? Possibly. Who knows?
But regardless, "they shouldn't have been doing that" is never going to be a legal defense for obstructing police efforts. It's a fine rationale for civil disobedience, but CD implies an acceptance of prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the delima of Scylla and Charybdis or a Rock and a Hard Place
Anyone out there have a 'regular' job where you only have to 'work' a 2-4 year term and then you get a guaranteed salary for the rest of your life (equal to what you made while working, with guaranteed increases)? When we let the 'elected' officials govern themselves (by passing laws that impact only their select group), does anyone really have to ask why things are messed up?
I don't have a solution at this time, but I personally feel that anyone WILLING to be in politics, shouldn't be allowed to be in politics, because they are probably there for the wrong reason. I'm not saying that we would get better results with a 'political draft' of qualified candidates who served a limited term and then went back to their regular life, but at least we wouldn't have the dregs of society (ie. those who's only ambition is power and money) running the country.
The Tinfoil must be giving me a headache today...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lost causes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"One of the most noticed cases is the so called information central, which was stormed by Nationella insatsstyrkan during the first day of the summit. A total of eight persons (five men, three women) were sentenced to long prison sentences after having sent out SMS texts urging people to go to Hvitfeldtska gymnasiet in connection with the police shutdown of the school. The case attracted much attention among other things because the prosecutor used circular arguments: activists in other trials were accused for having contact with the criminal information central, while the people of the information central were accused of having contacts with criminals on the outside." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6teborgskravallerna
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's illegal about organizing protesters?
Something must be copyrighted, some patent infringed, a trademark infringed or perhaps someone got bullied a bit. Please save us from hurting ourselves because some heartless #$@ is insulting our sensitivities. We must be losing money too because of this. Help me!
This protest against copyright is copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]