Thursday, October 29, 2009

The Federal Anti-Riot Law

by Jody Ballew

This links to an online source of the code (18 USC 2101 - Sec. 2101. Riots) used to justify Madison's arrest for twittering. 

Here is an excerpt of that code:

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent - (1) to incite a riot; or (2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or (3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or (4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph - (!1) Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) (!2) and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or foreign commerce.

2 comments:

ReasonableCitizen said...

You know the issue is not the technology but the content of the communication. Coordinating the efforts of rioters is not the same as twittering that you are watching a riot in progress.
And a riot is a riot and not a demonstration.

Jody Ballew said...

RC, Thanks for your comment. You make a valid point. I guess that the "content of the communication" is what this hinges on. But for me, this raises a couple more questions? How is a riot defined? Were the protest actions in Pittsburgh within that definition? Is it possible that the definition of a riot is so flexible that the definition slides to contain more than it should? Your thoughts? Thanks for joining in the conversation.