There isn't an equivalent to the first amendment in Britain.
In Britain people have been sent to jail for tweeting or posting facebook statuses.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/can-a-tweet-put-you-in-prison-i...
In Britain people have been sent to jail for tweeting or posting facebook statuses.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/can-a-tweet-put-you-in-prison-i...
> the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports)
but that line cites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer..., which is weird because it says the opposite.
For example, I live on the border - pretty much. I'm just a short drive to Canada. Border Patrol can't actually stop me and search my car, search my house, or anything like that - unless I'm going through the border.
If I'm not going through the border, they need a warrant. There are no checkpoints other than at the border, but those would be functionally equivalent (in the eyes of the court). I believe temporary checkpoints also count as functional equivalents but that's a guess - I'm not sure if that's been tested in court yet.
Other than those checkpoints and the border, you retain your rights as you would elsewhere. Or so precedent and SCOTUS say - except I speculate that they include temporary checkpoints along with permanent checkpoints.
The ACLU disagrees and says all the CPB needs is probable cause.
>8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) addresses CBP officials’authority to stop and conduct searches on vessels, trains, aircraft, or other vehicles anywhere within “a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” Without further statutory guidance, regulations alone expansively define this “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S., including coastal boundaries, unless an agency official sets a shorter distance.1CBP agentscan also even enter private property without a warrant (excepting dwellings) within 25 miles of any border. In this 100-mile zone, CBP has claimed certain extra-constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol claims the authority tooperate immigration checkpoints. Agents, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, courts have determined that outside of Ports of Entry Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has occurred). In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority, violating the constitutional rights of innocent people. Although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution-free," CBP frequently acts like it is.
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border...
Generally, the Fifth Amendment provides protections against producing documents only if the very act of producing them would be incriminating. The relevant term is the foregone conclusion doctrine. The government has to show evidence that the documents they want you to produce exist and that you are able to produce them. For more information, see http://federalevidence.com/blog/2013/january/applying-forego...
The interpretation in favor of allowing the government to compell encryption under this doctrine would be that the government simply has to prove that the encrypted data exists and that you are able to unlock it, and they have to limit the scope of their search to specific documents.
The defendant tried arguing 4th amendment privacy protections over the information obtained in property that implicated him, but the judge said that didn't apply unless he admitted to owning the property which would equally incriminate him if he did, haha.
very narrow protection
In your link:
- the nameless chip shop employee doesn't even get named, let alone do we hear of any punishment given. Instead, we just get a couple of paragraphs about a tweet of his
- half a paragraph is spent on someone who got half a year in jail for using one word in a podcast; seems like more context would be valuable here
- two twitter users making threats fronted up to court, but we never hear what happened to them. Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to making threats.
- the Mandela-joke-maker supports the article's premise, yes
- more threats on twitter were responded to, one leading to an arrest
The only item that clearly supports the article's premise is the guy who made jokes about Mandela, but the whole article is written in a way that it's clear there's a lot of missing context. The one and only example that actually got jail time is only half a paragraph long and has feeble information available. Independently of whether or not you agree with the point it's making, this is a 'spun' article.
About the first case: he was a Rangers fan. He posted about the Celtic manager. Are you missing the sectarian violence[1] linked to Celtic and Rangers? Several people have been actually really killed and many others injured in stabbing and other violent crime.
That context is crucial to understanding his arrest.
Also, police weren't just searching for offensive football tweets. They were searching for evidence as part of a case about parcel bombing.
Finally, he wasn't convicted.
tl;dr I don't think much of your link if it misrepresents the case this badly.
EDIT: the second case wasn't just the use of the word "taig", he organised a harassment campaign against a woman
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tv-comic-lim...
EDIT2: Your link totally misrepresents the criado-perez harassment. She was getting hundreds of direct, credible, threats of harm. One man was sending 50 messages an hour for 12 hours. Have a read of the sentencing remarks: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley-...
tl:dr2 your link is shit.
You can be sent to jail in probably any country for Twitter/Facebook posts. Just ask Martin Shkreli[1]. I worked at a smaller social media company and a girl was pissed off at the politics of the governor of her state; she make a very specific threat (time, place, and action) and my company was required by law (and ethics) to report it to the local police.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/09/13/m...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...