The case of the Twitter Anarchist is actually quite comical. A recent update: all charges brought against Elliot Madison have been dropped by the Allegheny County District Attorney’s office. The District Attorney’s office consulted with other law enforcement agencies and concluded that the current charges were filed prematurely and a more complete investigation must take place before re-charging Mr. Madison. This case is unique because it evaluates Constitutional Rights (freedom of speech) as they apply to technology.
Technology often complicates the law. We see this more and more everyday with things such as myspace stalking and identity fraud. The internet allows anyone access to commit a variety of crimes. As we discussed in class, laws are most reaction-based. That is to say that we create laws when we see a problem in society. This practice makes charging individuals under old laws very difficult. Often the charges do not fit the crime because there is no statue that references the new crime.
The pictures of the evidence seized from his house prove that this guy is crazy. Poison antidotes and the anarchist cookbook are not things that can be found in everyone’s home. Mr. Madison was obviously paranoid about a state of lawlessness that he expected during the G-20 convention in Pittsburgh. Just as the police were expecting riots, so was this guy. He twittered the police’s location to alert protestors of armed officers. This guy obviously had some ill intent. Citizens should not work to fight against police. Even if the charges brought against Mr. Madison were not correct, he still should be charged with some crime as it seems that he had criminal intent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The mitigating circumstances of this man's 'tweeting' surely would imply that he had some kind of criminal intent; his paranoia concerning the impending G-20 convention,and his possession of such incriminating and suspicious publications as the anarchist's cookbook. Additionally, I agree that the ever expanding world of technology is making legal matters increasingly difficult, particularly in the realm of First Amendment rights. Anonymity in the infinite world of the web can make a dangerous combination, as anyone can say virtually whatever they want, no matter how offensive or threatening, and get away with. This can be a nuisance, but nevertheless, outside of 'fighting words', Americans are entitled the freedom of speech under the constitution. The question therefore becomes how, if applicable, can ordinances be placed on speech in the web?
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that this individual seems to be a bit "off," I am a little concerned about the constant references to his "anarchists cookbook." I don't believe that this should be used as evidence to anything at all. If the book can be legally sold, it can be legally owned and should never be considered as incriminating evidence. If the DA's office wants to bring charges it should be based strictly on his actions, not his literary taste.
ReplyDeleteI like your post a lot. I like the idea how there is new technology and that our society needs to form new laws around it. This is because as our technology expands, so does our crime. There is this intriguing way of how criminals can take things and help their gain. The internet opens up this window of opportunity for criminals because it can access to virtually anyone's life. The internet can effect everyone because almost everyone in the US as access to it. The internet is a powerful tool that our forefathers have never seen coming and it is hard to fit our constitution around new technology.
ReplyDelete