“Imagine you’re a human rights activist working for an NGO in Sri Lanka. After a hard day’s work in a humid office building, you walk into your apartment, fire up your laptop and fire off the following tweet:
’Holding workshop with @LTTE and Sri Lankan govt. about easing roadblocks for medical supplies to be trucked in. Conf. going well, God-willing.’
Congratulations, you’re now a terrorist.”
– “Terror Tweets,” John Winn, OhMyGov!
“Chewing Gum for Terrorists,” David Cole, New York Times
Holder, Attorney General, et al., v. Humanitarian Law Project, et al., Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 08–1498, Supreme Court Decision
“The Supreme Court goes too far in the name of fighting terrorism,” Washington Post editorial
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Short Link: http://wp.me/p6sb6-c8E
Image by Mike Licht. Download a copy here. Creative Commons license; credit Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com
Comments are welcome if they are on-topic, substantive, concise, and not boring or obscene. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
Tags: 18 U. S. C. §2339B, Courts, Elena Kagan, Global War on Terror, GWOT, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, Homeland Security, Humanitarian Law Project, humanitarians, material support, NGOs, nonprofit groups, OhMyGov, social media, terrorism, terrorists, tweets, Twitter, USA PATRIOT Act, War on Terror