NYC Anarchist Arrested For Protest Tweets

Welcome to Iran via the Group of 20 protests in Pittsburgh. Looks like an interesting case. Can you use Twitter to point out police movements during a protest? We now know you can be arrested for it.

If it's illegal, will police eventually be able to monitor cell phone traffic in the vicinity of a protest to detect something similar? Someone could cc a pre-arranged list of activists, accomplishing the very same thing. That might be a violation of the law, too, no?

NEW YORK (AP) -- A self-described New York City anarchist has been accused of tweeting the location of police officers to protesters trying to evade them during the Group of 20 economic summit in Pittsburgh.

Pennsylvania State Police arrested Elliot Madison alleging he used Twitter to direct the movement of protesters and inform them about law enforcement actions at last month's summit.

The New York Post reported the arrest in Saturday editions.

Court papers filed by Madison's attorney say FBI agents executed a search warrant at the 41-year-old's Queens home on Thursday. They seized computers, political writings and anarchist literature.

Comments

[Steven Den Beste]

Did the First Amendment get repealed? I didn't get the memo.

[Molon Labe]

Do you have a First Amendment right to aid and abet criminal activity?

[Jeffersonian]

My first reaction was the same as SDB's, but then I thought about it a bit. First of all, Twitter is different from a cell phone call insofar as a Tweet is, by definition, meant to make public some bit of information whereas a cell phone caller is almost assuredly assuming his or her conversation is being heard only by known participants.

Second, if the Tweet writer knows that illegal activity such as vandalism or destruction of property is the intent of the crowd that he's communicating with, is there any substantive difference between him and a lookout accomplice for, say, a robbery, burglary or other crime?

[lunacy]

Were the protesters acting criminally?

[Lisa Graas]

I'm with lunacy, and not because I think it's neat to say that. ;-) I say it because whether or not they were acting criminally is a relevant question.

Having said that, our Bill of Rights was written to intentionally give Americans the capability to overthrow their government should it become corrupt. Questions on issues like this should be in that context.

[Andy]

Without addressing the first amendment aspect directly ... arent laws forbiding the use of CB radio and headlight signals to warn other motorists of police speed-traps somewhat instructive here ?

[Jeffersonian]

It depends on whom one is talking about when one says "protestors." From what I saw, the PGH cops completely overreacted to some people who were assembling peacefully in protest of the G-20. They deserve nothing but censure for that thuggish and unnecessary suppression of dissent. I also saw the usual anarchist goons of the "Black Bloc" smashing windows, setting dumpsters on fire and otherwise vandalizing public and private property. If the Tweets were to abet the latter activity, I don't see much of a First Amendment objection here.

[HMI]

For Madison to be reasonably guilty of aiding/abetting, the prosecution would have to show: that illegal activity was occurring and that Madison was aware that it was illegal, that his messages were directed to those committing crimes and that it was his intention to aid that activity to continue and to help the criminal protesters evade arrest. I myself would not put money on this.

[dad29]

"arent laws forbiding the use of CB radio and headlight signals to warn other motorists of police speed-traps somewhat instructive here ?"

Yes, and they were declared un-Constitutional about 10 years ago. It's a First Amendment issue, plain and simple.

[Belasarius]

Seems to me that guy who sits outside while his buddies are robbing a bank and watches for the cops and warms them about police activity is a criminal. Somebody directing the movement of a mob electronically during a riot is doing pretty much the same thing. Not sure the flashing headlights thing is the same.

[Mr. Biswas]

@Belasarius: How do you know the protesters were his "buddies"? The AP article at the link does not establish that claim. As far as I can tell, Madison was tweeting what he was able to observe to a GENERAL audience, not to some criminal conspirators. If that activity isn't Constitutionally protected, then we have gone far down the road toward losing all our freedoms. Plus, you can tell that the cops are not the least bit sure they have a case when they start piling on charges like "hindering prosecution." This is where the prosecutor randomly throws bogus legal charges against the court wall and hopes some of them stick---or that he gets the defendant to plead to a lesser charge. Based on what little we know from this AP article, this could be a case of police, FBI, and prosecutorial misconduct. If so and if it goes to court, I hope the judge throws the book at the cops and the prosecutor.

[Peter]

I don't know much about what happened up there but I would like to comment about those laws that were passed about CB radios and headlight signals. They were passed by idiot legislators who did not talk to any highway patrol officers or deputy sheriffs or other folks actually trying to keep the roads safe.

I was working those roads during the CB craze. A CBer could broadcast my location from now until lunchtime and I could still write as many tickets as I wanted to, the world is not exactly short on dumbasses. The CB equipped ordinary citizens and truckers, though, would slow down and drive a little more safely. That was a pretty good thing and something we in those patrol cars were strongly in favor of. It didn't take working very many fatal accidents before I became a big fan of road safety.

As for the guy tweeting the location of the LEOs during the protests/riots. That could become as good a thing as the CBers broadcasting the location of a patrol car. Let it happen and the next time just spread the troops out three and four officers per location, the protesters could protest and the idiots who want to riot either get scared off or get a riot stick across the snins or a nice dose of pepper spray. Everybody's happy.

[Gary Maxwell]

He is a self described anachist as the first sentence tells you. What good is a tweet if people aren't already friends and following you. I would say that a couple of you in your lurch to see a 1st amendment violation, are forgetting that leftie anarchists do run together and do come up with elaborate schemes for creating havoc. I will believe in the arrest until something comes up FACTUALLY to cause me to think otherwise.

[ThomasD]

"[O]ur Bill of Rights was written to intentionally give Americans the capability to overthrow their government should it become corrupt."

Um, no.

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, the foundational document of our Federal government, a document which also includes a rather stern section on treason. It is not a severable document - overthrow the government and you've effectively tossed out the entire thing. Which does not mean you cannot later choose to cannibalize portions considered desireable, just that, at that point, it is no longer the same document.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence? A document which certainly does address the right of a people to overthrow an unjust government and establish one more to their liking.

[Earl]

How about a newspaper that obtains and publishes classified information advising our terrorist enemies about the nature of our interrogation strategy, the identity of covert U.S. operatives, and other information that has been formally been categorized as classified?

[Kim du Toit]

It's a First Amendment issue, and it's going to get tossed -- whether immediately, or eventually.

The State has to prove that this guy was knowingly abetting certain specific individuals in a demonstrably-illegal enterprise (the bank lookout example above). Twitter -- which is a broadcast system denies the specificity. Secondly, the State has to prove that this particular demonstration was a de facto illegal activity. If the State has absolute proof that these G20 protestors were intending to firebomb a bank or the G20 meeting place, then it's potentially a "demonstrably-illegal" enterprise. But if they were just going to yell and wave signs, the fuzz can drop dead.

Frankly, this has "epic fail" written all over it, and a judge should smack the collective police pee-pee.

It pains me to be on the side of the anarchists, incidentally, but then again, one doesn't often see the Vienna Boys' Choir in protest marches. It's the jerks who test the laws and principles.

[Jeffersonian]

I think Kim's post above is probably about right. If the Tweets were simply a broadcast meant for a general audience with no knowledge of intended criminal activity, then it's certainly a First Amendment issue, just like flashing your lights or pointing out where a speedtrap is set up. However, if there was a prior understanding that the Tweets would be used to advance the commission of crime, then I don't see how anyone can claim First Amendment protection. The exact analogy is a lookout for a bank robbery.

[Tully]

Kim nails it. No showing of a conspiracy to commit crimes or aid and abet those committing crimes, then no crime...and that's a tough showing to make.

[meisme]

"I would say that a couple of you in your lurch to see a 1st amendment violation, are forgetting that leftie anarchists do run together and do come up with elaborate schemes for creating havoc. I will believe in the arrest until something comes up FACTUALLY to cause me to think otherwise."

This statment is a direct relation to the fact that we are going the wrong way with personal freedom. What happened to innocent till proven gilty?