Hoodie Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 http://www.npr.org/b...u-s?ft=1&f=1001 Talk about lost in translation: Today's British press is buzzing with a story in the British tabloid The Daily Mail, which reports that two British travelers were denied entry into the U.S., after authorities uncovered two tweets.In one Leigh Van Bryan quipped, "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America." And in another Van Bryan said that he was going to "dig up Marilyn Monroe." Van Bryan told the Daily Mailthat in British English, "destroy America" was meant as in we're going party hard in America. And the Marilyn Monroe tweet was a reference to the TV showFamily Guy. Still, the Department of Homeland Security took the "threats" seriously. The Daily Mail reports what happened next: "After making their way through passport control at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) last Monday afternoon the pair were detained by armed guards. "Federal agents even searched his suitcase looking for spades and shovels, claiming Emily was planning to act as Leigh's 'look out' while he raided Marilyn's tomb. "Bar manager Leigh, from Coventry, and Emily [banting], 24, from Birmingham, were then quizzed for five hours at LAX before they were handcuffed and put into a van with illegal immigrants and locked up overnight. "They spent 12 hours in separate holding cells before being driven back to the airport where they were put on a plane home via Paris." In a document that was handed to Van Bryan, it states that he admitted to posting the the two statements on twitter and that he had been flagged on the government's "One Day Lookout" list, which is created after a government analysis on a passenger list. "I kept saying to them they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet but they just told me 'you've really [messed] up with that tweet boy,'" Van Bryan said. "When I was in the van I was handcuffed and put in a cage. I had a panic attack." Earlier this month, the Department of Justice put out a call for more information on an application that could scrape social media sites to collect "actionable intelligence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 i dont eevn what what? what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneaksta303 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Sooooooo, what if I tweet that Imma destroy obamas ass....? I don't want to hurt him, just sex him up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess freedom of speech means something different now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RadarJammer Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 In a document that was handed to Van Bryan, it states that he admitted to posting the the two statements on twitter and that he had been flagged on the government's "One Day Lookout" list, which is created after a government analysis on a passenger list. I guess that means the Government now uses software that hunts down and crawls through the social media of passenger lists on the fly? That is wild. Its like that saying "you are what you eat" but now it's "you are all the little passing statements that you write on the internet". This is definitely food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess freedom of speech means something different now. That only applies to US citizens when we're talking about US law. I think. Also, I'd wager that "threats" aren't protected under Freedom of Speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 lol america i would leave for a better country, but then if I ever wanted to come back, they'd probably detain me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entorwellian Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 How many terrorists have these ridiculous measures even caught? I remember seeing a graph on the Patriot Act and it's intended use was only applicable in 0.1% of all cases. At this point its almost like Osama won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 How many terrorists have these ridiculous measures even caught? Seriously. There is never going to be a legitimate terrorist with real intent to destroy/kill, that is going to announce it or give ANY hint of it on Twitter. Ever. Fucking ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skotosa Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 How many terrorists have these ridiculous measures even caught? Seriously. There is never going to be a legitimate terrorist with real intent to destroy/kill, that is going to announce it or give ANY hint of it on Twitter. Ever. Fucking ridiculous. But its a dam good excuse to keep those Brits out! The Government is finding new sources of power and they are going to use as much of it as they can, when they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I hate it when people say "The Government" it's not like the whole government is working together to do this shit, all the departments secretly conspiring and making evil plans. It's specific departments of the government that are abusive and horrid, and just need to be flat out abolished. edit: don't get me wrong though, the whole system is corrupt, just some branches were never good in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess freedom of speech means something different now. That only applies to US citizens when we're talking about US law. I think. Also, I'd wager that "threats" aren't protected under Freedom of Speech. Ummm Article 19 of the UN declaration of human rights (of which the US is a signatory) might beg to differ: Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Yeah, it's fucking ironic isn't it, how if the US didn't have the CIA and Homeland Security, there wouldn't even be any of this shit to deal with in the first place. America brings it all upon itself by meddling in everyone else's business, following it's cock (corporations) and not it's brain (the people) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I want to touch America inappropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ranky Redlof Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess freedom of speech means something different now. That only applies to US citizens when we're talking about US law. I think. Also, I'd wager that "threats" aren't protected under Freedom of Speech. Ummm Article 19 of the UN declaration of human rights (of which the US is a signatory) might beg to differ: Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. as if the watmm administration cares about free speech. (BANNED) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soloman Tump Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 If this story is true, us homeland security is the dumbest shit ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess freedom of speech means something different now. That only applies to US citizens when we're talking about US law. I think. Also, I'd wager that "threats" aren't protected under Freedom of Speech. Ummm Article 19 of the UN declaration of human rights (of which the US is a signatory) might beg to differ: Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. as if the watmm administration cares about free speech. (BANNED) Umm not to put too fine a point on it - but if you can't see the difference between a privately run community and the government, well there's not much hope left for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest couch Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I hate LAX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess freedom of speech means something different now. That only applies to US citizens when we're talking about US law. I think. Also, I'd wager that "threats" aren't protected under Freedom of Speech. Ummm Article 19 of the UN declaration of human rights (of which the US is a signatory) might beg to differ: Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. That's cute, you think the United States actually cares about the UN's opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 lol america Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 this isn't news; we knew this shit was coming ten years ago. whoever said Osama won is absolutely right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 didn't he get shot and got dumped into the sea ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 yeah and William Wallace got fucked up and Scotland never gained any sense of national pride. Whats your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess freedom of speech means something different now. That only applies to US citizens when we're talking about US law. I think. Also, I'd wager that "threats" aren't protected under Freedom of Speech. Ummm Article 19 of the UN declaration of human rights (of which the US is a signatory) might beg to differ: Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. That's cute, you think the United States actually cares about the UN's opinion. That's not even remotely close to what I posted, but OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Oh so NOW you agree with me! 2 months ago I was a lunatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.