Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US

[Traveler]

...Whatever you post on Twitter is public domain, so no warrants are required for that, so unless his name isn't easily linked to his Twitter account, there isn't a problem there.

I guess what I'm asking is, how did they know to look? Did they see him type in the tweet? Or was someone monitoring tweets and flagging certain names? Was there some kind of stalking involved? Was he flagged for something else so they were following him? I don't understand how they made a connection.

[Sweetdeath]

Most words are keyworded and tagged in FBI database, such as America, destroy,, bomb, etc...

[McQ]

So someone can never use slang or joke in tweets ever? This just sounds a lot like punishing someone for practicing harmless free speech or just some people being extremely thick. Any jack ass can see that he was not really intending to destroy America, so even stupid humans should be able to tell.

Nice extreme, there, Davin. I'd like you to show where I said that.   

Of course people can use slang it Twitter. I do. I joke in Twitter, too.

[Sweetdeath]

No one is being 'extreme' except America's new law that says citizens can be detained at any point in time for NO reason.

Yeah, that's pretty extreme.
And they are being fucking ridiculous to turn someone away on such a harmless tweet.

[Tank]

No one is being 'extreme' except America's new law that says citizens can be detained at any point in time for NO reason.

Yeah, that's pretty extreme.
And they are being fucking ridiculous to turn someone away on such a harmless tweet.

Just a thought but would one consider the tweet harmless if it were to come from a guy called Mohamed Islam?

[McQ]

No one is being 'extreme' except America's new law that says citizens can be detained at any point in time for NO reason.

Yeah, that's pretty extreme.
And they are being fucking ridiculous to turn someone away on such a harmless tweet.

Getting a little emotional here, Sweetdeath. Take a step back and read what I wrote. I called Davin's Straw Man at me extreme, because it uses the all or nothing words, "never" and "ever" in reference to using slang or making jokes on Twitter. Neither of which I mentioned. Try to keep from doing the same thing with your posts here. Thanks.

Again, I'm firmly against the lack of common sense all around on this. And again, no one forced this guy to make such an ill-conceived, dumb tweet in the first place.

[Davin]

No one is being 'extreme' except America's new law that says citizens can be detained at any point in time for NO reason.

Yeah, that's pretty extreme.
And they are being fucking ridiculous to turn someone away on such a harmless tweet.

Just a thought but would one consider the tweet harmless if it were to come from a guy called Mohamed Islam?

Not any more than from a guy named Timothy or Ted. I don't see how the guys name matters.

[Davin]

So someone can never use slang or joke in tweets ever? This just sounds a lot like punishing someone for practicing harmless free speech or just some people being extremely thick. Any jack ass can see that he was not really intending to destroy America, so even stupid humans should be able to tell.

Nice extreme, there, Davin. I'd like you to show where I said that.   

It's not an extreme, it's what it would be if one were to follow your advice and not be a dumbass for using a common slang term in tweet or to spout idiocy. You might also have noted that my reply was to Traveler, so this little "say where I said that" doesn't much apply to you now does it? Nope. But here goes anyway:

I still think the guy was a dumbass for his stupid tweet. Don't take that as me being in favor of the TSA. Couldn't be farther from a supporter of them, or big government (Libertarian-minded person).

But just like you don't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you don't joke about bombs on planes or destroying America, unless you are trying to invite trouble. Just avoid doing the dumb shit in the first place. Pretty simple. No one forces you to spout idiocy.

But it is the height of stupidity to make a statement that could be construed as a threat.

And again, no one forced this guy to make such an ill-conceived, dumb tweet in the first place.

The idea that you're both conveying here, is that one should limit their speech including slang terms that some overly sensitive, mentally challenged people might take as a threat. Saying that the guy is being an idiot, or spouting idiocy, or making a ill-conceived, dumb tweet, is enough to construe that your stance is on the abridging of ones speech. After all, why else would you be calling the guy an idiot and that what he said was stupid?

Of course people can use slang it Twitter. I do. I joke in Twitter, too.

Just so long as they don't make certain jokes or use certain slang that you consider as spouting idiocy right?

I called Davin's Straw Man at me extreme, because it uses the all or nothing words, "never" and "ever" in reference to using slang or making jokes on Twitter.

It was not a straw man at you. First of all, if it was a straw man of someone's arguement, it was a straw man of the guy I replied to, which wasn't you. Second, it was a question to get the opinion of Traveler on the subject in order to facilitate a discussion. If I got Traveler's views on the subject then we can move on to which things one should refrain from saying, and then discuss those. You could have also, but instead you assumed something into my question that wasn't there.

Now if you're done flinging unfounded accusations my way, we can have a useful, rational discussion.

[Tank]

No one is being 'extreme' except America's new law that says citizens can be detained at any point in time for NO reason.

Yeah, that's pretty extreme.
And they are being fucking ridiculous to turn someone away on such a harmless tweet.

Just a thought but would one consider the tweet harmless if it were to come from a guy called Mohamed Islam?

Not any more than from a guy named Timothy or Ted. I don't see how the guys name matters.

Quite right! But I bet it does.

[Davin]

No one is being 'extreme' except America's new law that says citizens can be detained at any point in time for NO reason.

Yeah, that's pretty extreme.
And they are being fucking ridiculous to turn someone away on such a harmless tweet.

Just a thought but would one consider the tweet harmless if it were to come from a guy called Mohamed Islam?

Not any more than from a guy named Timothy or Ted. I don't see how the guys name matters.

Quite right! But I bet it does.

I don't doubt it does for some people, but I'd defend it just as well. Aasif Mandvi is one of my favourite comedians, and on more than one occassion has said things far worse than this guy, if he were denied, I'd say the same things.

[Traveler]

...The idea that you're both conveying here, is that one should limit their speech including slang terms that some overly sensitive, mentally challenged people might take as a threat. Saying that the guy is being an idiot, or spouting idiocy, or making a ill-conceived, dumb tweet, is enough to construe that your stance is on the abridging of ones speech. After all, why else would you be calling the guy an idiot and that what he said was stupid?...

Hm. In principle, I agree with freedom of speech. However, when the country is all up in alerts about terrorism, and people are warned when flying that any mention of bombs or guns or such will get you pulled over, its strictly common sense to be a little careful. I believe the laws around freedom of speech do NOT apply to someone crying "fire!" in a crowded room when there's no fire. Now. This guy didn't yell "bomb!" or "destroy America!" with a bomb under his vest. But, seriously, in this day and age, what he said could easily be construed that way. When I said it was idiotic, here is a part of what I meant ... when 9/11  happened, our federal law enforcement agencies were hung out to dry for not catching this threat. And if I remember correctly, there were hints that something like this might happen that were missed. Imagine, if you will, that this fellow really did mean to attack, and they ignored a tweeted threat.

Now, that said, I can see questioning him. I can see searching him fairly carefully. I think if he was found to be clean, and they still wanted to detain him awhile, then they darn well should have refunded his ticket and/or paid to fly him here on the next available flight. I would think that a brief questioning would bring out the truth and that they should have let him fly. But, one rule about law enforcement pretty much stands. Don't joke around with them. If he seriously explained what he meant, in a respectful manner, he should have been ok. Probably someone over-reacted.

I don't know. I'm rambling. I wasn't there. None of us were. So we can't really know exactly what happened. Imagine being the security officer who was alerted to a potentially dangerous tweet ... well, if the guy was reasonable and explained everything, that would be very different than if he got sassy and mouthed off to the officer.

[Whitney]

if he got sassy and mouthed off to the officer.

I think that is probably what happened. 

Not to mention that people working in security may not be aware of the slang usage of "destroy" being basically another way of saying "tear up the dance floor", have lots of fun etc.  I seriously doubt they have a lot of linguists on staff to filter through the nuances of slang speech and I doubt the kind of people who typically go into the national security field (at least on the lower end jobs where they have to sort through flagged messages) are the type to keep up with modern slang.  If your job is to protect America, when in doubt you are going to err towards caution rather than assume someone is harmless...of course, this is even more reason to be concerned about the various laws being passed to take away right to trial etc. 

[McQ]

Nice extreme, there, Davin. I'd like you to show where I said that.  

It's not an extreme, it's what it would be if one were to follow your advice and not be a dumbass for using a common slang term in tweet or to spout idiocy. You might also have noted that my reply was to Traveler, so this little "say where I said that" doesn't much apply to you now does it? Nope. But here goes anyway:

One opinion vs. another. You wrote: "So someone can never use slang or joke in tweets ever?"
Two things, and this time read carefully what I am writing so you don't once again, miscommunicate my intent.
One: You quoted me in your post as well as Traveler. It was unclear which one of us you were addressing. Since I had made the comment about the idiot's posting what could be conceived as a threat by even a reasonable person (unlike your assertion that one would have to be mentally incompetent to assume such), then I could rightfully assume you were addressing me. So lose the snarkiness and try to keep to a rational discussion.

Two: The extreme I referred to, if you'll again read your own words, is that you used the above question as a straw man (since neither I nor anyone else ever said that), to to insinuate that both someone had said such a thing, and that I, or someone else was against being able to post jokes or slang in Twitter. I was clear that I never said that, and that I also use both when using Twitter.

I still think the guy was a dumbass for his stupid tweet. Don't take that as me being in favor of the TSA. Couldn't be farther from a supporter of them, or big government (Libertarian-minded person).

But just like you don't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you don't joke about bombs on planes or destroying America, unless you are trying to invite trouble. Just avoid doing the dumb shit in the first place. Pretty simple. No one forces you to spout idiocy.

But it is the height of stupidity to make a statement that could be construed as a threat.

And again, no one forced this guy to make such an ill-conceived, dumb tweet in the first place.

The idea that you're both conveying here, is that one should limit their speech including slang terms that some overly sensitive, mentally challenged people might take as a threat. Saying that the guy is being an idiot, or spouting idiocy, or making a ill-conceived, dumb tweet, is enough to construe that your stance is on the abridging of ones speech. After all, why else would you be calling the guy an idiot and that what he said was stupid?

Of course people can use slang it Twitter. I do. I joke in Twitter, too.

Just so long as they don't make certain jokes or use certain slang that you consider as spouting idiocy right?

I called Davin's Straw Man at me extreme, because it uses the all or nothing words, "never" and "ever" in reference to using slang or making jokes on Twitter.

It was not a straw man at you. First of all, if it was a straw man of someone's arguement, it was a straw man of the guy I replied to, which wasn't you. Second, it was a question to get the opinion of Traveler on the subject in order to facilitate a discussion. If I got Traveler's views on the subject then we can move on to which things one should refrain from saying, and then discuss those. You could have also, but instead you assumed something into my question that wasn't there.

Now if you're done flinging unfounded accusations my way, we can have a useful, rational discussion.

The rest of this was already addressed. I simply have the opinion that the guy was acting like a complete dumbs for posting something stupid like that. I neither hold to the opinion that one should abridge his speech (as you have accused), nor do I think he should have been restricted entry. What I do believe is that he should have been ready to deal with the consequences of his thoughtless action. Do I think whoever barred him was right? No. That's as asinine as his tweet. It obviously should have been something that should have taken a moment's hesitation and investigation to be declared a non-threat (if it was being looked into in the first place). This all should be a non-issue.

My only opinion is that the guy was really stupid for making that post, when he could have simply not made it in the first place. The rule of Twitter and social media is to think before posting something because once it's out there, it's non-retractable.

And that's as much as I care to continue this. It's a difference of opinion and really, it's just pissing in the wind.

[Davin]

Nice extreme, there, Davin. I'd like you to show where I said that.   

It's not an extreme, it's what it would be if one were to follow your advice and not be a dumbass for using a common slang term in tweet or to spout idiocy. You might also have noted that my reply was to Traveler, so this little "say where I said that" doesn't much apply to you now does it? Nope. But here goes anyway:

One opinion vs. another. You wrote: "So someone can never use slang or joke in tweets ever?"

Notice that it is a question... as can be identified by the "?" at the end.

Two things, and this time read carefully what I am writing so you don't once again, miscommunicate my intent.

I'm having no difficulty reading and understanding what you're typing, but you do seem to have a problem discerning the difference between a question (like what I asked), and misrepresenting someone's argument (which I didn't do). So if anyone here is going to get all snarky about a reading comprehension failure, then you should really be looking at yourself.

One: You quoted me in your post as well as Traveler.

As is common in threads, but if I was responding to you, I would have directly quoted you. Just because I didn't take the time to remove your shit from Traveler's post doesn't mean that I was responding to you. Unless you're also going to assume that I'm responding to myself since I quoted myself here also. Even if I was responding to you, it still doesn't resolve your unfounded accusation that I straw manned your argument when I had not.

It was unclear which one of us you were addressing.

Just look to see which guy is the last guy quoted in the quotes, it's really not that difficult.

Since I had made the comment about the idiot's posting what could be conceived as a threat by even a reasonable person (unlike your assertion that one would have to be mentally incompetent to assume such), then I could rightfully assume you were addressing me.

You can rightfully assume anything you want, but your assumptions in this case are unfounded.

So lose the snarkiness and try to keep to a rational discussion.

How does my behavior differ from yours aside from you accusing me of committing a fallacy?

Two: The extreme I referred to, if you'll again read your own words, is that you used the above question as a straw man (since neither I nor anyone else ever said that), to to insinuate that both someone had said such a thing, and that I, or someone else was against being able to post jokes or slang in Twitter.

I did read my own words, perhaps you need to relook at the little "?" symbol? That signifies that it was a question. I insinuated nothing, you assumed something into a question that I did not put there.

I was clear that I never said that, and that I also use both when using Twitter.

Good for you, but that doesn't mean that I said that you said anything like it nor did I imply so. I asked a question to gain information from Traveler on his/her opinion on the matter.

So here we are:
I was not even responding to you.
I asked a question, not presenting an argument of any kind (let alone misrepresenting).

And you accuse me straw manning you. Seriously dude, I think you need to calm down.

[McQ]

Nice extreme, there, Davin. I'd like you to show where I said that.   

It's not an extreme, it's what it would be if one were to follow your advice and not be a dumbass for using a common slang term in tweet or to spout idiocy. You might also have noted that my reply was to Traveler, so this little "say where I said that" doesn't much apply to you now does it? Nope. But here goes anyway:

One opinion vs. another. You wrote: "So someone can never use slang or joke in tweets ever?"

Notice that it is a question... as can be identified by the "?" at the end.

Two things, and this time read carefully what I am writing so you don't once again, miscommunicate my intent.

I'm having no difficulty reading and understanding what you're typing, but you do seem to have a problem discerning the difference between a question (like what I asked), and misrepresenting someone's argument (which I didn't do). So if anyone here is going to get all snarky about a reading comprehension failure, then you should really be looking at yourself.

One: You quoted me in your post as well as Traveler.

As is common in threads, but if I was responding to you, I would have directly quoted you. Just because I didn't take the time to remove your shit from Traveler's post doesn't mean that I was responding to you. Unless you're also going to assume that I'm responding to myself since I quoted myself here also. Even if I was responding to you, it still doesn't resolve your unfounded accusation that I straw manned your argument when I had not.

It was unclear which one of us you were addressing.

Just look to see which guy is the last guy quoted in the quotes, it's really not that difficult.

Since I had made the comment about the idiot's posting what could be conceived as a threat by even a reasonable person (unlike your assertion that one would have to be mentally incompetent to assume such), then I could rightfully assume you were addressing me.

You can rightfully assume anything you want, but your assumptions in this case are unfounded.

So lose the snarkiness and try to keep to a rational discussion.

How does my behavior differ from yours aside from you accusing me of committing a fallacy?

Two: The extreme I referred to, if you'll again read your own words, is that you used the above question as a straw man (since neither I nor anyone else ever said that), to to insinuate that both someone had said such a thing, and that I, or someone else was against being able to post jokes or slang in Twitter.

I did read my own words, perhaps you need to relook at the little "?" symbol? That signifies that it was a question. I insinuated nothing, you assumed something into a question that I did not put there.

I was clear that I never said that, and that I also use both when using Twitter.

Good for you, but that doesn't mean that I said that you said anything like it nor did I imply so. I asked a question to gain information from Traveler on his/her opinion on the matter.

So here we are:
I was not even responding to you.
I asked a question, not presenting an argument of any kind (let alone misrepresenting).

And you accuse me straw manning you. Seriously dude, I think you need to calm down.

As I said, I'm done with this. If you can't agree to disagree that's your problem. Also, I'm very calm. You would be wise to not go there or to continue misrepresenting me or this issue any further.