6 ms·

There isn't an equivalent to the first amendment in Britain. In Britain people have been sent to jail for tweeting or posting facebook statuses. http://www.th

by gscott 9y ago

There isn't an equivalent to the first amendment in Britain. In Britain people have been sent to jail for tweeting or posting facebook statuses. http://www.thedailybeast.com/can-a-tweet-put-you-in-prison-it-certainly-will-in-the-uk http://www.thedailybeast.com/can-a-tweet-put-you-in-prison-i...

jdavis703 9y ago
This has nothing to do with free speech (that's the 1st Amendment). This is a problem of illegal search and seizure (at least in the U.S.). Illegal search is covered under the 4th Amendment.
- sp527 9y ago
  That's no longer true. The Patriot Act enables government behavior that's functionally equivalent to this incident in the U.K.
  - gknoy 9y ago
    As does the fact that we now consider "the border" to include anything within 100 miles of the border.
    - nobodyorother 9y ago
      If you count the US's 98 international airports, doesn't that cover the entire country?
    - KGIII 9y ago
      You may wish to read the third paragraph on this site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        So, I read that paragraph, and the section I think you're highlighting is this: > the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports) but that line cites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer..., which is weird because it says the opposite.
        KGIII 9y ago
        That was at a permanent checkpoint. That would be a functional equivalent, in the eyes of the court - or so I understand. For example, I live on the border - pretty much. I'm just a short drive to Canada. Border Patrol can't actually stop me and search my car, search my house, or anything like that - unless I'm going through the border. If I'm not going through the border, they need a warrant. There are no checkpoints other than at the border, but those would be functionally equivalent (in the eyes of the court). I believe temporary checkpoints also count as functional equivalents but that's a guess - I'm not sure if that's been tested in court yet. Other than those checkpoints and the border, you retain your rights as you would elsewhere. Or so precedent and SCOTUS say - except I speculate that they include temporary checkpoints along with permanent checkpoints.
        shkkmo 9y ago
        > Border Patrol can't actually stop me and search my car, search my house, or anything like that - unless I'm going through the border. The ACLU disagrees and says all the CPB needs is probable cause. >8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) addresses CBP officials’authority to stop and conduct searches on vessels, trains, aircraft, or other vehicles anywhere within “a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” Without further statutory guidance, regulations alone expansively define this “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S., including coastal boundaries, unless an agency official sets a shorter distance.1CBP agentscan also even enter private property without a warrant (excepting dwellings) within 25 miles of any border. In this 100-mile zone, CBP has claimed certain extra-constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol claims the authority tooperate immigration checkpoints. Agents, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, courts have determined that outside of Ports of Entry Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has occurred). In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority, violating the constitutional rights of innocent people. Although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution-free," CBP frequently acts like it is. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border-protections-100-mile-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border...
    - Tyrannosaur 9y ago
      As well as "the border" including any international airports, it is difficult to find a heavily populated area that is not in this zone
    - samfriedman 9y ago
      The ACLU has produced a map to this effect: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-b...
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    That was not my understanding, can you tell me what part of the currently enacted PATRIOT act enables searching a US citizen without probable cause or a warrant from a court (FISA or otherwise) ?
- mkempe 9y ago
  Further evidence that the ideas behind the American Revolution and the Anti-Federalists were important then, and now...
- openasocket 9y ago
  It is a search and seizure issue. But note that the man was stopped in Heathrow airport. In the UK, as in the US and most other countries, you have to submit to searches as a precondition for air travel. It is firmly established that the government can require you to give up certain rights as a precondition of entrance to certain places. Like going through airport security, or having to go through a metal detector before entering a courthouse, etc. Which isn't to say that what happened here is not or could not be an illegal search in the US. It isn't necessarily a constitutional issue, there are/can be laws limiting what law enforcement can do.
- splintercell 9y ago
  Actually this is a case for 5th amendment. Police can confiscate your phone on a judge's order, but no judge can compel you to give up your password if it's protected under 5th amendment (i.e. self-incrimination).
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    I've seen that fall apart in the US too. The defendant tried arguing 4th amendment privacy protections over the information obtained in property that implicated him, but the judge said that didn't apply unless he admitted to owning the property which would equally incriminate him if he did, haha. very narrow protection
    - splintercell 9y ago
      Has any such case ever gone to Supreme Court?
      - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
        Nothing similar to the one I was mentioning. Always evolving protections around computational and digital properties.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    The consensus of the courts is that providing a password is not considered self-incrimination. Self-incrimination means testifying against yourself. It specifically doesn't cover, say, providing a key to police so they can unlock your door and search your house (assuming they have a valid search warrant). If you had a safe that police had a warrant to search, you would have to open it for them, that is not considered self-incrimination. The courts have largely reached the consensus that unlocking or decrypting a device is like providing a lock to open a door, or opening a safe, and is not like providing testimony against yourself.
    - 627467 9y ago
matthewmacleod 9y ago
A tweet is a publication like any other; expecting it to be any different is baffling to me.
contravariant 9y ago
Unless something weird happened the UK should will still be bound to the European Convention of Human Rights. Which (among other things) protects the rights to free speech (with some limitations).
- sampo 9y ago
  In Europe, free speech is understood in a somewhat more narrow context than in the USA.
- jtuente 9y ago
  There are explicit exemptions for national security, etc. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...
vacri 9y ago
> In Britain people have been sent to jail for tweeting or posting facebook statuses. In your link: - the nameless chip shop employee doesn't even get named, let alone do we hear of any punishment given. Instead, we just get a couple of paragraphs about a tweet of his - half a paragraph is spent on someone who got half a year in jail for using one word in a podcast; seems like more context would be valuable here - two twitter users making threats fronted up to court, but we never hear what happened to them. Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to making threats. - the Mandela-joke-maker supports the article's premise, yes - more threats on twitter were responded to, one leading to an arrest The only item that clearly supports the article's premise is the guy who made jokes about Mandela, but the whole article is written in a way that it's clear there's a lot of missing context. The one and only example that actually got jail time is only half a paragraph long and has feeble information available. Independently of whether or not you agree with the point it's making, this is a 'spun' article.
DanBC 9y ago
Your link would be more believable if it linked to the cases or to publicity of the cases. About the first case: he was a Rangers fan. He posted about the Celtic manager. Are you missing the sectarian violence[1] linked to Celtic and Rangers? Several people have been actually really killed and many others injured in stabbing and other violent crime. That context is crucial to understanding his arrest. Also, police weren't just searching for offensive football tweets. They were searching for evidence as part of a case about parcel bombing. Finally, he wasn't convicted. tl;dr I don't think much of your link if it misrepresents the case this badly. EDIT: the second case wasn't just the use of the word "taig", he organised a harassment campaign against a woman http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tv-comic-limmys-brother-jailed-3006790 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tv-comic-lim... EDIT2: Your link totally misrepresents the criado-perez harassment. She was getting hundreds of direct, credible, threats of harm. One man was sending 50 messages an hour for 12 hours. Have a read of the sentencing remarks: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley-judgment/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley-... tl:dr2 your link is shit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_in_Glasgow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_in_Glasgow
thephyber 9y ago
> In Britain people have been sent to jail for tweeting or posting facebook statuses. You can be sent to jail in probably any country for Twitter/Facebook posts. Just ask Martin Shkreli[1]. I worked at a smaller social media company and a girl was pissed off at the politics of the governor of her state; she make a very specific threat (time, place, and action) and my company was required by law (and ethics) to report it to the local police. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/09/13/martin-shkreli-apologizes-for-facebook-post-about-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/09/13/m...

by gscott 9y ago

jdavis703 9y ago

This has nothing to do with free speech (that's the 1st Amendment). This is a problem of illegal search and seizure (at least in the U.S.). Illegal search is covered under the 4th Amendment.

sp527 9y ago
That's no longer true. The Patriot Act enables government behavior that's functionally equivalent to this incident in the U.K.
- gknoy 9y ago
  As does the fact that we now consider "the border" to include anything within 100 miles of the border.
  - nobodyorother 9y ago
    If you count the US's 98 international airports, doesn't that cover the entire country?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    You may wish to read the third paragraph on this site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      So, I read that paragraph, and the section I think you're highlighting is this: > the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports) but that line cites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer..., which is weird because it says the opposite.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        That was at a permanent checkpoint. That would be a functional equivalent, in the eyes of the court - or so I understand. For example, I live on the border - pretty much. I'm just a short drive to Canada. Border Patrol can't actually stop me and search my car, search my house, or anything like that - unless I'm going through the border. If I'm not going through the border, they need a warrant. There are no checkpoints other than at the border, but those would be functionally equivalent (in the eyes of the court). I believe temporary checkpoints also count as functional equivalents but that's a guess - I'm not sure if that's been tested in court yet. Other than those checkpoints and the border, you retain your rights as you would elsewhere. Or so precedent and SCOTUS say - except I speculate that they include temporary checkpoints along with permanent checkpoints.
        shkkmo 9y ago
        > Border Patrol can't actually stop me and search my car, search my house, or anything like that - unless I'm going through the border. The ACLU disagrees and says all the CPB needs is probable cause. >8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) addresses CBP officials’authority to stop and conduct searches on vessels, trains, aircraft, or other vehicles anywhere within “a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” Without further statutory guidance, regulations alone expansively define this “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S., including coastal boundaries, unless an agency official sets a shorter distance.1CBP agentscan also even enter private property without a warrant (excepting dwellings) within 25 miles of any border. In this 100-mile zone, CBP has claimed certain extra-constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol claims the authority tooperate immigration checkpoints. Agents, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, courts have determined that outside of Ports of Entry Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has occurred). In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority, violating the constitutional rights of innocent people. Although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution-free," CBP frequently acts like it is. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border-protections-100-mile-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border...
  - Tyrannosaur 9y ago
    As well as "the border" including any international airports, it is difficult to find a heavily populated area that is not in this zone
  - samfriedman 9y ago
    The ACLU has produced a map to this effect: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-b...
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  That was not my understanding, can you tell me what part of the currently enacted PATRIOT act enables searching a US citizen without probable cause or a warrant from a court (FISA or otherwise) ?
mkempe 9y ago
Further evidence that the ideas behind the American Revolution and the Anti-Federalists were important then, and now...
openasocket 9y ago
It is a search and seizure issue. But note that the man was stopped in Heathrow airport. In the UK, as in the US and most other countries, you have to submit to searches as a precondition for air travel. It is firmly established that the government can require you to give up certain rights as a precondition of entrance to certain places. Like going through airport security, or having to go through a metal detector before entering a courthouse, etc. Which isn't to say that what happened here is not or could not be an illegal search in the US. It isn't necessarily a constitutional issue, there are/can be laws limiting what law enforcement can do.
splintercell 9y ago
Actually this is a case for 5th amendment. Police can confiscate your phone on a judge's order, but no judge can compel you to give up your password if it's protected under 5th amendment (i.e. self-incrimination).
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  I've seen that fall apart in the US too. The defendant tried arguing 4th amendment privacy protections over the information obtained in property that implicated him, but the judge said that didn't apply unless he admitted to owning the property which would equally incriminate him if he did, haha. very narrow protection
  - splintercell 9y ago
    Has any such case ever gone to Supreme Court?
    - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
      Nothing similar to the one I was mentioning. Always evolving protections around computational and digital properties.
- openasocket 9y ago
  The consensus of the courts is that providing a password is not considered self-incrimination. Self-incrimination means testifying against yourself. It specifically doesn't cover, say, providing a key to police so they can unlock your door and search your house (assuming they have a valid search warrant). If you had a safe that police had a warrant to search, you would have to open it for them, that is not considered self-incrimination. The courts have largely reached the consensus that unlocking or decrypting a device is like providing a lock to open a door, or opening a safe, and is not like providing testimony against yourself.
  - 627467 9y ago

matthewmacleod 9y ago

A tweet is a publication like any other; expecting it to be any different is baffling to me.

contravariant 9y ago

Unless something weird happened the UK should will still be bound to the European Convention of Human Rights. Which (among other things) protects the rights to free speech (with some limitations).

sampo 9y ago
In Europe, free speech is understood in a somewhat more narrow context than in the USA.
jtuente 9y ago
There are explicit exemptions for national security, etc. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...

vacri 9y ago

> In Britain people have been sent to jail for tweeting or posting facebook statuses. In your link: - the nameless chip shop employee doesn't even get named, let alone do we hear of any punishment given. Instead, we just get a couple of paragraphs about a tweet of his - half a paragraph is spent on someone who got half a year in jail for using one word in a podcast; seems like more context would be valuable here - two twitter users making threats fronted up to court, but we never hear what happened to them. Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to making threats. - the Mandela-joke-maker supports the article's premise, yes - more threats on twitter were responded to, one leading to an arrest The only item that clearly supports the article's premise is the guy who made jokes about Mandela, but the whole article is written in a way that it's clear there's a lot of missing context. The one and only example that actually got jail time is only half a paragraph long and has feeble information available. Independently of whether or not you agree with the point it's making, this is a 'spun' article.

DanBC 9y ago

Your link would be more believable if it linked to the cases or to publicity of the cases. About the first case: he was a Rangers fan. He posted about the Celtic manager. Are you missing the sectarian violence[1] linked to Celtic and Rangers? Several people have been actually really killed and many others injured in stabbing and other violent crime. That context is crucial to understanding his arrest. Also, police weren't just searching for offensive football tweets. They were searching for evidence as part of a case about parcel bombing. Finally, he wasn't convicted. tl;dr I don't think much of your link if it misrepresents the case this badly. EDIT: the second case wasn't just the use of the word "taig", he organised a harassment campaign against a woman http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tv-comic-limmys-brother-jailed-3006790 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tv-comic-lim... EDIT2: Your link totally misrepresents the criado-perez harassment. She was getting hundreds of direct, credible, threats of harm. One man was sending 50 messages an hour for 12 hours. Have a read of the sentencing remarks: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley-judgment/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley-... tl:dr2 your link is shit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_in_Glasgow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_in_Glasgow

thephyber 9y ago

> In Britain people have been sent to jail for tweeting or posting facebook statuses. You can be sent to jail in probably any country for Twitter/Facebook posts. Just ask Martin Shkreli[1]. I worked at a smaller social media company and a girl was pissed off at the politics of the governor of her state; she make a very specific threat (time, place, and action) and my company was required by law (and ethics) to report it to the local police. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/09/13/martin-shkreli-apologizes-for-facebook-post-about-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/09/13/m...