The New York Times is reporting today that a New York man has been arrested and charged with “hindering apprehension or prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possession of instruments of crime” after tweeting about police movements during protests at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh.
… the reason for the Jackson Heights raid would not be clear until an affidavit used to secure the search warrant was unsealed. But he said that commentary among agents indicated that it was related to Mr. Madison’s arrest in Pittsburgh, where he participated in the Tin Can Comms Collective, a group of people who collected information and used Twitter to send mass text messages describing protest-related events that they observed on the streets.
There were many such events during the two days of the summit. Demonstrators marched through town on the opening day of the gathering, at times breaking windows and fleeing. And on both nights, police officers fired projectiles and hurled tear gas canisters at students milling near the University of Pittsburgh.
Cases like this raise some serious issues – not only about the First Amendment – but about legal areas where it may not be protected. It also raises the issue of the expectation of privacy on the part of the police. After all, the police were putting down what was apparently an unlawful protest, but they were mobilizing and moving through public spaces. In such circumstances, can and should the police reasonably expect protesters to refrain from communicating with one another?
These are interesting questions, and it’s also interesting to note that the police are catching on to the use of Twitter among other social media. This is news in itself, as the legal system is not generally known for its ability to react quickly to technological changes. Needless to say, we’ll be keeping a close eye on how this story develops, since it often appears that social media technology is out in front of our ability to provide fair and unobtrusive regulations.
What’s your take? Should Twitter be completely unregulated? What are the limits of free speech on social media sites, and at what point is the legal system right to step in? Let us know what you think!
