Two Mexicans face 30 Years in Jail for a Tweet

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/two-mexicans-face-30-years-for-tweet-131312

by suprgeek • 15 years ago

73 34 15 years ago

tzs• 15 years ago

No, they face jail time for spreading a false story that caused a panic. Twitter just happens to be the mechanism they used. They'd be facing the same consequences if they had used radio, or the telephone, or skywriting.

megablast• 15 years ago

Unlikely they would have been in trouble for using a telephone.

adgar• 15 years ago

If they had called an equal number of people and spread the false rumor, you bet your ass they would.

damncabbage• 15 years ago

The story mentions "re-tweeting". Did they copy a message and stick "RT" on the front, or did they just hit the "Retweet" link?

RobertHubert2• 15 years ago

Its out of control down there! 30 years for a tweet (despite the panic it caused) while drug lords roam around like kings... c'mon people, twitter is not your primary source of news for potential emergencies of this caliber. But yeah the story is a bit fuzzy on some of the details. eh.

robryan2• 15 years ago

I definitely wouldn't go off a single person that I didn't know personally's Tweets, usually on anything of consequence you would look for multiple confirmations on Twitter and some evidence of the event in other places online.

petsos• 15 years ago

What if you couldn't find any confirmation in 2 minutes of frantic googling and your kids were inside the school?

gaius• 15 years ago

Don't fixate on that it was "a tweet". This is the classic shouting fire in a crowded theatre scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_thea...

jrockway3• 15 years ago

Actually, it's more like the classic "broadcasting that aliens are invading New Jersey" scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_dr...

pessimizer3• 15 years ago

That classic scenario originated in an opinion supporting jailing someone for handing out flyers opposing the WWI draft, during a period in American history when jailing people for antiwar speech or speech encouraging Socialism or Communism was frequent. It has been superceeded by law and decisions more in accordance with the First Amendment at least half a dozen times since.

The definition of free speech that that argument was used to defend was the Espionage Act of 1917 which:

o Made it a crime to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies, punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both,

o Made it a crime to convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both,

o Made it a crime to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both,

o Made it a crime to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both, and

o Made it a crime to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.

The Sedition Act of 1918 extended this to:

o Make it a crime to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt, and

o Give the Postmaster General the right to go through mail and refuse to deliver any that did any of these things while the United States was at war.

This resulted in about 1500 prosecutions and 1000 convictions for speech, and the sentences were generally between 5 and 20 years.

Not a good precedent.

eduardoflores• 15 years ago

The problem is, as it's mentioned on the article, that living in an information vacuum Twitter gets to be over-trusted. Journalists are reporting very fragmented and incomplete news as Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries to be a journalist. Almost all the mass media have signed a self-censorship agreement ("Iniciativa México") to limit the impact of the narco messages on the public, thus leaving people to follow unreliable media. Messages are sent by narco through actions: murders as gruesome as the desired impact of the message. Read about "blog del narco" through Google translate (I wouldn't recommend to look for the actual blog del narco) http://translate.google.com.mx/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&#...

Yes, we are living hard times here.

AndrewMoffat• 15 years ago

Crazy stuff...I can see both sides of the argument, and they both seem pretty strong. I wonder what legislation will come from this.

andresmh• 15 years ago

Here is something I wrote about the events: http://socialmediacollective.org/2011/08/31/shouting-fire-in...

robryan2• 15 years ago

I can kind of understand that the original person was somewhat in the wrong (although to a much lesser degree) but not the person relaying the message. Journalists do this kind of thing all the time, report something that later turns out to be wrong.

waitwhat• 15 years ago

He shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_thea...

wnight5• 15 years ago

Which is what you want someone to do if they even think there's a fire. Even if they're only relaying the news without checking.

Imagine if I a guy came rushing out of the bathroom shouting 'Fire' and a bunch of people went in the check before anyone would evacuate. Obviously many more people could die. The downside? One unnecessary evacuation that probably needed practice anyways.

It seems like the world is full of authoritarians though, seeking to punish everyone for everything.

eneveu3• 15 years ago

What about the trampled people who die during the evacuation?

buyx• 15 years ago

A similar thing happened last week in Johannesburg. Our ruling party is conducting a long overdue purge of its Youth League, and there was a rent-a-crowd bussed in by the targeted faction, outside the party HQ in central Johannesburg, that threw some stones at police and reporters. However, on Twitter, I saw a rumour that stones were being thrown on a main road in the rich northern suburbs. The rumour spread on Twitter despite almost immediate denials.

Although panic didn't take hold, because of limited Twitter penetration, and because the idea that the stone throwing jumped 20 km northwards into white suburbia probably set off BS detectors, it could have gotten out of hand fast. In fact, I expect a major social-networking fed panic to happen here soon enough.

When someone says "I confirm", it means that they have personally seen or heard something. I have very little sympathy for the person who created the original tweet. A bit more for the person who retweeted. In both cases 30 years is too harsh, but there do need to be consequences for creating chaos on such a large scale.

pessimizer3• 15 years ago

Mexico doesn't have freedom of speech. According to the constitution, speech can be restricted if it offends good morals, incites crime, disturbs the public order, or disrespects private lives, morals, and the public peace. In the 1930s, laws were added that restricted speech that insulted national symbols, particularly the flag and the national anthem.

(Articulos 6 y 7)

http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Constituci%C3%B3n_Pol%C3%ADtic...

In 2008, a poet was found guilty by the Supreme Court and given a token fine for a poem.

http://banderasnews.com/0805/edat-poetfined.htm

huherto• 15 years ago

This is obviously an attempt to test the constitution. In Mexico the flag is almost considered sacred. This is pretty much the same as burning flags in the U.S. and you have to decide which value is bigger. Freedom of speech of the the flag.

pessimizer3• 15 years ago

The major difference between disrespecting the flag in Mexico and burning the flag in the US is that burning the flag in the US is legal.

epo• 15 years ago

Why exactly is it obvious?

wnight5• 15 years ago

Why, when people are accused of being overly sensitive an icon like the flag or the image of the king, etc, does someone come along and say "The ___ is almost sacred to the ___ people."?

Why do sacred cows get such respect?

Two Mexicans face 30 Years in Jail for a Tweet

Related Stories