(input please?) G20 Protestor use of Twitter leads to arrest.

I have to say that taking public data (scanner) and relaying it in another form is not a crime. You can teach people how to pick locks, hack computers, build bombs,etc., and you're not responsible for the crimes. The real issue is that the police were using open communications and these guys called their bluff - to their chagrin.

Were all the protesters illegal? Is it illegal for the media to show where the police are at any time? If CNN broadcast the position of the protests live (which they did) - why aren't they arrested? Is Twitter somehow different than TV? What if they watched CNN on their iPhone?

This is a very thin line - to the point where no one should be prosecuted. One man's citizen journalist is another's illegal protester. Unfortunately, the latter man is the one with a gun and gavel.

He is wrong, informing his fellow criminals (Protestors), where, when and how to confront police or commit meaningless crimes, only hurts the small business person(s) and the (message) the protestors think they are getting across only falls on deaf ears.

It is the same as someone telling Richard Poplawski where the Pittsburgh Police are and how they are approaching the house through Twitter so Poplawski could be a more efficient killer.
It would be just as wrong and should be punishable.

This only hinders the efforts of law enforcement to protect and serve.
Protesting has a time and place and is permitted.

The double standard doesn't apply because United States laws are very different than other countries, we try to prevent unlawful activities and maintain a social standard, not promote these activities by putting law enforcement and the public at risk.

My opinion is that this fellow is apparently involved in some illegal stuff according to the post and if he is, that's separate from his Twittering. If he's using Twitter to do something illegal, that's when his right should be taken away. If not, Twitter is about information. Criminals have the right to speak and we all have the right to not listen if we think they're crying wolf. It's the act of putting it out there that is a right under free speech and we need to protect it.

Free speech? Sure. Do that. But using Twitter to help criminals evade the police? That makes him, at the very least, an accessory to the crimes those protesters were alleged to have committed. In this particular case, you may be on the lawbreaker's side, but as your other commenter noted below, using the exact same tools to aid murderers, drug dealers and other offenders doesn't suddenly make the act itself wrong; the act itself is legally wrong to begin with.

Meanwhile, if these protesters were legitimately violent, would we be as supportive of the guy who was helping coordinate their efforts to cause additional property damage?

If someone has an issue with this particular case, maybe s/he needs to act at the political level and work with city council or the state to hammer out a bill that more clearly defines the instances in which social media may or may not be used to aid and abet criminals. Maybe the push should be for decriminalization of specific activities, rather than a broad defense of a vast grey area.

Justin, your comment is well-meaning, but slightly misinformed.

If you look at the Twitter account in question, (@g20pgh), you can see that he wasn't doing anything wrong. The issue is, what's right and what's legal are sometimes different. The law (which is federal, by the way. Good luck following your suggestion in the third paragraph) states that you can listen to police scanner data, and you can repeat what you hear, but if you repeat it with the intention of committing or aiding a crime, it's illegal.

So, this guy was Tweeting data that's freely flowing over the airwaves. It's almost like RTing someone, it just so happens the original statement didn't occur over Twitter. I mean, you yourself told people to follow me to hear the latest G20 news, and I was RTing this guy. Any protester searching for the #g20 tag could have seen you (or me) and gotten to this information just as freely. You (and I) are equally on the hook (morally) as this guy as far as "aiding criminals" goes.

Here's the other rub: his act is only illegal if the acts of others are illegal. Now, yes, again, technically, the protests were illegal. But that's because the laws aren't in line with morality. The constitution says nothing about needing to get a permit to protest. It only says "peaceably", which the protests certainly were, until the cops got violent. So, yes, this guys is technically on the hook. But nobody should think that it's right. Unless you feel that it was right for MLK to get arrested, or anyone else commiting civil disobedience to try and pull the law back towards something that's right.

As someone who thinks we already have too many laws, I would normally agree with you entirely. But I'm still stuck on the Poplawski comparison from earlier. Obviously, in that hypothetical case, anyone helping to coordinate attacks on police would be at least partially guilty for any resulting homicides, correct?

I'll agree that disseminating publicly-available information can't be a crime. But just like there's a difference between owning a gun and using a gun to kill someone, there's a difference between disseminating information and doing so with the intent of aiding criminals. In this specific case, you may be correct that the legality is questionable, but is the next logical step to find out where that grey area becomes black and white or is it to blur the lines further?

I personally don't think that sharing information should ever be a crime, even if it is to aid criminals. If you tell Nick to kill someone, and he does, I believe that Nick is the only one who's done any wrong. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. I acknowledge that this is a fairly extreme position, however.

I'm not sure what the point is of having a law where you can listen to something, but tell nobody about it and not act on it. You have to give in somewhere. I'd rather see Poplawski and this guy go free than see them both in jail. I always lean towards letting some bad guys go to ensure that nobody is wrongfully incarcerated.

Lawyer up!

I was following the protests on Twitter and I saw the tweets about what was being said on the police scanner. It was all of the "Police are coming your way, so don't go there" or "They are using gas over there, avoid" variety. This person was not inciting violence, giving orders, or organizing anything. He was taking publicly available information and relaying it in another legal form. And, you think the cops weren't monitoring Twitter themselves? They sure were. They were heard talking about it.

The fact that people assembling peacefully to have their voices heard are being compared to a mass murderer in the comments above sickens me. Yeah, their protests were declared "illegal" but that was merely a whim of the local government. They could declare the next protest YOU go to illegal, too. Hundreds of people protested, and in the end one or two people were caught vandalizing property. That's it. That's all that happened. Fact of the matter is that you have that same level of damage caused by a few idiots any time the Steelers or the Pens or the Panthers win (or lose) something important. None of that should justify curtailing the free speech rights of anyone.