Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Censorship Crime Facebook Your Rights Online News Politics

Egyptian Charged For Threatening Facebook Post 101

An anonymous reader writes "The Egyptian Military Prosecution has charged 26-year-old activist and blogger Asmaa Mahfouz for allegedly defaming the country's ruling generals and calling for armed operations against the military and the judiciary. Mahfouz, a prominent activist, was accused of using Facebook to call for the assassinations of Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) members and certain judges."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Egyptian Charged For Threatening Facebook Post

Comments Filter:
  • by rebelwarlock ( 1319465 ) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:16AM (#37091622)
    Since no one is reading the article before throwing in their opinion (and thus being wrong, because they just assumed that being accused is the same as being guilty), here's the translation of the post:

    If the judiciary doesn’t give us our rights, nobody should be surprised if militant groups appear and conduct a series of assassinations because there is no law and there is no judiciary

    That's mentioning the possibility of violence. It is neither calling for it nor encouraging it. What people seem to be doing is taking a prediction as a threat. That would be like me saying, "No one should be surprised if the price of gas goes up" and everyone responding with, "REBELWARLOCK IS THREATENING TO RAISE GAS PRICES".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:57AM (#37091728)

    Although some may feel you should be able to say whatever you want, you would be wrong.

    What? They'd be wrong for having a preference? How does that work?

    Their opinion is different from mine, hence wrong.

  • by metacell ( 523607 ) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:58AM (#37091736)

    Have you read the article?

    This was what Mahfouz allegedly wrote, translated from Arabic:
    “If justice is not achieved and the justice system fails us, no-one should feel upset or surprised if armed gangs emerge to carry out assassinations. As long as there is no law and there is no justice, anything can happen, and nobody should be upset.”

    Sounds a little too vague to me to constitute an illegal threat. Or as Mahfouz herself said:
    "There is no truth in these accusations, I was only warning the military council that the absence of justice will lead to chaos."

  • by geminidomino ( 614729 ) on Monday August 15, 2011 @06:02AM (#37092324) Journal

    Yes, but in the U.S. you would go to a normal court, and you would have the right to a trial by jury

    Unless, of course, the speaker also happened to be Muslim or had, at some time, walked into the same Starbucks that once employed a known terrorist's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.