12 ms·

Homeland Security sends warning letter due bad tweet language

49 points by atmosx 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xwdv 4y ago
I’m curious if there could be some kind of DDoS where someone creates bots that spout this kind of random bad language at scale and overload cease and desist processes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- justinzollars 4y ago
  Twitter is filled with bots, (or people) spouting angry rhetoric already. I suspect they originate from international adversaries because they play both sides of hot button issues, they tweet nothing about politics all day long, follow/follower counts are roughly equal, their sn's look generated and they have tribal tag lines and images. It doesn't make sense to me that these are real people, and their numbers are huge. Twitter really needs to get on top of this problem
  - snoopy_telex 4y ago
    It's really hard to tell whose a bot and whose not. https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/8whwmo9 https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/8whwmo9 covers a case where they hunted down someone they were sure was a bot and ended up being a real person.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Most astroturfing on the net is cheaper to do with low paid labor in content farms than with high paid developers. People are inclined to presume sloppy posts are automated, but similarly sloppy results happen when low paid ESL workers copy/paste content. The pro move with political astroturfing is: don’t target the people who you want to influence, target people who are already inclined to agree with you. They’ll latch on to ideas that resonate with them and amplify your message out to a broader audience. You end up getting 50 “bots” for the price of one.
- ohCh6zos 4y ago
  Ultimately you're DDoSing your own counter-terrorist forces.
sn0w_crash 4y ago
That’s more than bad language. I don’t like govt spooks making house calls but the tweet could be used later as a claim she invited violence.
- dontbenebby 4y ago
  I've had house calls without a business card, at least they're being authentic.
- pokey00 4y ago
  Are you kidding me? Government law enforcement sent her a cease and desist and threatened to charge her for protected speech. It's not a gray area. The purpose of the letter was to harass and intimidate a citizen for criticizing their government and to create a chilling effect on free speech. I don't know what potential legal remedies she has since the government would have to waive sovereign immunity, but at the very least, this special agent and everyone on his team needs to undergo some civil rights training. At best, public employees like this agent and the chain of command pushing policies like this need to be completely removed from public service.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    In what sense is calling on government buildings to be burned down and the occupants slaughtered "protected speech"? The only way I could see it being protected is if it was clear hyperbole. Which...not in this day and age.
    - drewcoo 4y ago
      The question is not "how is something someone said considered free speech?" The default is that what's said is protected. The question should be "why is this speech not protected?" Does it incite violence if no violence occurred? Was it some kind of targeted threat or just impotent rage?
      - kube-system 4y ago
mindcrime 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chomp 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States is similar to this case. Basically there's 2 modes of thought, one is that a "reasonable person" (whatever that means) has to find it threatening, and the other mode is that a "reasonable person" has to find it threatening, AND the government has to show that the person intended it to be threatening. The fact that it's just a letter and a finger wag implies that the government might know it's not a "true threat".
  - pokeymcsnatch 4y ago
    > The fact that it's just a letter and a finger wag implies that the government might know it's not a "true threat". Which makes this action unconstitutional. I doubt there's any kind of immediate legal recourse, but it doesn't change that fact.
chomp 4y ago
I mean... that's a little more than bad language. I have heard of agents contacting individuals like this, but after someone reports it to the government. It's likely that someone on Twitter sent this as an FBI tip. Not much else to comment on this post.
- wepple 4y ago
  If this person has tweeted this out and then gone on to do a horrible act of violence, law enforcement would be blamed for inactivity against what would be described as an “obvious” threat. They kinda lose if they do, lose if they don’t.
krnlpnc 4y ago
Saying things like this really does open a person up to all sorts of problems. It's easy to "be concerned" about a sentence that is not meant literally and report it, provide it as a crime tip or post an outraged response to it and attempt to cancel or cause other problems for the person who posted it. Best to choose your words carefully and not give people ammunition to use against you.
- analognoise 4y ago
  The chilling effect at play, live.
kube-system 4y ago
Title is editorialized. The warning is not for language, as plainly stated.
ComputerGuru 4y ago
Misleading title. Tweet calls for slaughter and arson; I don’t think the use of “fuck” was the problem.
- ugjka 4y ago
  Remove the "fuck" and it becomes TV friendly
sudden_dystopia 4y ago
The tweet calls for burning down buildings and murder…I would surely hope DHS would look into such things.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
concinds 4y ago
What happened to the "stochastic terrorism" buzzword? Now it's good? BTW, I've seen several previous stories of FBI agents visiting homes for non-criminal tweets (similarly inflammatory to this but again with no actionable call to violence; though those tweets were not viral nor progressive-aligned), so it's surprising that the DHS would merely send a cease and desist instead of the FBI actually interviewing the person at their home. Despite this letter seeming realistic, it might be more prudent to wait until media fact-checking. Searching Google for variations of "DHS cease and desist letter" yields zero results. Notice this person is promoting an Onlyfans on her Twitter (good marketing!)
greyface- 4y ago
The tweet has been deleted. Here is the text of the letter it showed: June 29, 2022, [name redacted by me] [address redacted by OP] Ms. [name], This letter is in reference to your recent post on Twitter. Specifically, on June 4, 2022, you became upset at the Roe Vs Wade decision and stated, "Burn every fucking government building down right the fuck now. Slaughter them all. Fuck you god damn pigs." This letter is to advise you that any further communications containing any real or implied harassment/threats against the personal safety of agencies, employees or contractors towards government facilities are unwarranted and unwelcome. You are advised as of the date of this letter to cease and desist in any conduct deemed harassing/threatening in nature, when communicating to or about the federal government. Failure to comply with this request could result in the filing of criminal charges for violations of 18 United States Code Statue 115. In closing, please refrain from any harassing/threatening language when contacting any government agency. Sincerely, Joshua Henry, Special Agent Threat Management Branch U.S Department of Homeland Security National Protection and Program Directorate Federal Protective Service Region 7 (TX, LA, AR, OK) Notes: - 25 days between tweet and letter issuance - "Roe Vs Wade" instead of "Roe v. Wade", "Statue 115" - Weird grammar around "towards government facilities" suggests standard language was slightly modified for this letter - Mr. Henry forgot to put his signature on the letter I wonder how many of these are going out.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Volundr 4y ago
  I immediately wonder if anyone has bothered to authenticate this. I'm not saying DHS wouldn't do this, but anyone can send a letter...
  - greyface- 4y ago
    > Joshua Henry, a special agent for DHS, confirmed the letter’s authenticity. Robert Sperling, Director of Communication for the Federal Protective Service, confirmed to The Dallas Morning News that the letter posted on Twitter was delivered. > Henry said Walker sharing the letter on Twitter could bring more trouble. > “She’s kind of taking it as a joke,” Henry said. “She’s not remorseful about these statements, so that’ll be presented a United States Attorney and they’ll make a decision on that.” https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2022/07/01/feds-show-up-at-home-of-north-texas-woman-who-posted-angry-tweets-after-roe-decision/ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2022/07/01/feds-show-u...
kar5pt 4y ago
The tweet seems to have been taken down. Did anyone save a screenshot?

49 points by atmosx 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

xwdv 4y ago

I’m curious if there could be some kind of DDoS where someone creates bots that spout this kind of random bad language at scale and overload cease and desist processes.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
justinzollars 4y ago
Twitter is filled with bots, (or people) spouting angry rhetoric already. I suspect they originate from international adversaries because they play both sides of hot button issues, they tweet nothing about politics all day long, follow/follower counts are roughly equal, their sn's look generated and they have tribal tag lines and images. It doesn't make sense to me that these are real people, and their numbers are huge. Twitter really needs to get on top of this problem
- snoopy_telex 4y ago
  It's really hard to tell whose a bot and whose not. https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/8whwmo9 https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/8whwmo9 covers a case where they hunted down someone they were sure was a bot and ended up being a real person.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Most astroturfing on the net is cheaper to do with low paid labor in content farms than with high paid developers. People are inclined to presume sloppy posts are automated, but similarly sloppy results happen when low paid ESL workers copy/paste content. The pro move with political astroturfing is: don’t target the people who you want to influence, target people who are already inclined to agree with you. They’ll latch on to ideas that resonate with them and amplify your message out to a broader audience. You end up getting 50 “bots” for the price of one.
ohCh6zos 4y ago
Ultimately you're DDoSing your own counter-terrorist forces.

sn0w_crash 4y ago

That’s more than bad language. I don’t like govt spooks making house calls but the tweet could be used later as a claim she invited violence.

dontbenebby 4y ago
I've had house calls without a business card, at least they're being authentic.
pokey00 4y ago
Are you kidding me? Government law enforcement sent her a cease and desist and threatened to charge her for protected speech. It's not a gray area. The purpose of the letter was to harass and intimidate a citizen for criticizing their government and to create a chilling effect on free speech. I don't know what potential legal remedies she has since the government would have to waive sovereign immunity, but at the very least, this special agent and everyone on his team needs to undergo some civil rights training. At best, public employees like this agent and the chain of command pushing policies like this need to be completely removed from public service.
- googlryas 4y ago
  In what sense is calling on government buildings to be burned down and the occupants slaughtered "protected speech"? The only way I could see it being protected is if it was clear hyperbole. Which...not in this day and age.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    The question is not "how is something someone said considered free speech?" The default is that what's said is protected. The question should be "why is this speech not protected?" Does it incite violence if no violence occurred? Was it some kind of targeted threat or just impotent rage?
    - kube-system 4y ago

mindcrime 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chomp 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States is similar to this case. Basically there's 2 modes of thought, one is that a "reasonable person" (whatever that means) has to find it threatening, and the other mode is that a "reasonable person" has to find it threatening, AND the government has to show that the person intended it to be threatening. The fact that it's just a letter and a finger wag implies that the government might know it's not a "true threat".
- pokeymcsnatch 4y ago
  > The fact that it's just a letter and a finger wag implies that the government might know it's not a "true threat". Which makes this action unconstitutional. I doubt there's any kind of immediate legal recourse, but it doesn't change that fact.

chomp 4y ago

I mean... that's a little more than bad language. I have heard of agents contacting individuals like this, but after someone reports it to the government. It's likely that someone on Twitter sent this as an FBI tip. Not much else to comment on this post.

wepple 4y ago
If this person has tweeted this out and then gone on to do a horrible act of violence, law enforcement would be blamed for inactivity against what would be described as an “obvious” threat. They kinda lose if they do, lose if they don’t.

krnlpnc 4y ago

Saying things like this really does open a person up to all sorts of problems. It's easy to "be concerned" about a sentence that is not meant literally and report it, provide it as a crime tip or post an outraged response to it and attempt to cancel or cause other problems for the person who posted it. Best to choose your words carefully and not give people ammunition to use against you.

analognoise 4y ago
The chilling effect at play, live.

kube-system 4y ago

Title is editorialized. The warning is not for language, as plainly stated.

ComputerGuru 4y ago

Misleading title. Tweet calls for slaughter and arson; I don’t think the use of “fuck” was the problem.

ugjka 4y ago
Remove the "fuck" and it becomes TV friendly

sudden_dystopia 4y ago

The tweet calls for burning down buildings and murder…I would surely hope DHS would look into such things.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

concinds 4y ago

What happened to the "stochastic terrorism" buzzword? Now it's good? BTW, I've seen several previous stories of FBI agents visiting homes for non-criminal tweets (similarly inflammatory to this but again with no actionable call to violence; though those tweets were not viral nor progressive-aligned), so it's surprising that the DHS would merely send a cease and desist instead of the FBI actually interviewing the person at their home. Despite this letter seeming realistic, it might be more prudent to wait until media fact-checking. Searching Google for variations of "DHS cease and desist letter" yields zero results. Notice this person is promoting an Onlyfans on her Twitter (good marketing!)

greyface- 4y ago

The tweet has been deleted. Here is the text of the letter it showed: June 29, 2022, [name redacted by me] [address redacted by OP] Ms. [name], This letter is in reference to your recent post on Twitter. Specifically, on June 4, 2022, you became upset at the Roe Vs Wade decision and stated, "Burn every fucking government building down right the fuck now. Slaughter them all. Fuck you god damn pigs." This letter is to advise you that any further communications containing any real or implied harassment/threats against the personal safety of agencies, employees or contractors towards government facilities are unwarranted and unwelcome. You are advised as of the date of this letter to cease and desist in any conduct deemed harassing/threatening in nature, when communicating to or about the federal government. Failure to comply with this request could result in the filing of criminal charges for violations of 18 United States Code Statue 115. In closing, please refrain from any harassing/threatening language when contacting any government agency. Sincerely, Joshua Henry, Special Agent Threat Management Branch U.S Department of Homeland Security National Protection and Program Directorate Federal Protective Service Region 7 (TX, LA, AR, OK) Notes: - 25 days between tweet and letter issuance - "Roe Vs Wade" instead of "Roe v. Wade", "Statue 115" - Weird grammar around "towards government facilities" suggests standard language was slightly modified for this letter - Mr. Henry forgot to put his signature on the letter I wonder how many of these are going out.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Volundr 4y ago
I immediately wonder if anyone has bothered to authenticate this. I'm not saying DHS wouldn't do this, but anyone can send a letter...
- greyface- 4y ago
  > Joshua Henry, a special agent for DHS, confirmed the letter’s authenticity. Robert Sperling, Director of Communication for the Federal Protective Service, confirmed to The Dallas Morning News that the letter posted on Twitter was delivered. > Henry said Walker sharing the letter on Twitter could bring more trouble. > “She’s kind of taking it as a joke,” Henry said. “She’s not remorseful about these statements, so that’ll be presented a United States Attorney and they’ll make a decision on that.” https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2022/07/01/feds-show-up-at-home-of-north-texas-woman-who-posted-angry-tweets-after-roe-decision/ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2022/07/01/feds-show-u...

kar5pt 4y ago

The tweet seems to have been taken down. Did anyone save a screenshot?