Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, [Sgt.] Mullins [of the NYPD] says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: ‘If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,’ he says. ‘This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,’ Mullins adds.
Teenagers, social media, and terrorism: a threat level hard to assess | CSMonitor.com (h/t vulgartrader)
“If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it.”
The presumption of innocence is a bit quaint post-Boston isn’t it? Fuck that old-fashioned biz.
BTW, this is a “reasonable way to analyze online threats these days”:
In February, Jessica Winslow and Ti’jeanae Harris, two high school girls in Rapids Parish, La., were arrested and charged with 10 counts of terrorism each after they allegedly e-mailed threats to students and faculty “to see if they could get away with it,” detectives told a local television news station. “We take every threat in our schools as a credible threat, and I am happy to say we have made these arrests,” Sheriff William Earl Hilton told reporters.
Because “zero tolerance” is so reasonable, the good sheriff didn’t have to do a thing to prove “terrorism” either. They just are terrorists. They couldn’t prove they weren’t really going to do anything, after all, and that’s not a job the police should have to do anymore, post-Boston. You want to live in a free society don’t you? Prove it.
Or how about this:
The case of teenager Cameron Dambrosio might serve as an object lesson to young people everywhere about minding what you say online unless you are prepared to be arrested for terrorism.
The Methuen, Mass., high school student was arrested last week after posting online videos that show him rapping an original song that police say contained “disturbing verbiage” and reportedly mentioned the White House and the Boston Marathon bombing. He is charged with communicating terrorist threats, a state felony, and faces a potential 20 years in prison. Bail is set at $1 million.
An inarguably reasonable response.
“[A]nyone with a grudge or curiosity, or both, and an Internet connection” will now be considered a threat. And that’s “the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” post-Boston.