A social media user from Maine, aged 25, has been found guilty of “transmitting a threatening interstate communication”. The conviction stems from a post made on Twitter back in 2021, where he publicly declared his intention to murder Jewish people using an AR-15.
The threatening statement was initially posted on a Twitter account with only a few followers.
The FBI allegedly began investigating the individual on September 8, 2021, immediately after he posted a tweet stating, “I’m building a pipe bomb.” Following the flagging of this tweet, an FBI Counterterrorism Watch Officer examined Dennison’s account, @Ma1lus, and discovered another alarming post that read, “I’m going to kill Jews with my AR-15 tomorrow.”
The tweet remained accessible for about 40 minutes before Dennison purportedly deleted it. During court proceedings, a social media expert testified that within that timeframe, no more than 10 people would have likely seen the post, with one of them being the FBI agent conducting the investigation.
The day after the threatening tweet, a search warrant was executed at the Twitter users property in Buxton, the address where he resided was an apartment attached to his parents’ house. The FBI appeared to swiftly acquired his information directly from Twitter within hours of launching their investigation.
During the search, approximately 1,700 rounds of ammunition compatible with an AR-15-style rifle were recovered from Dennison’s property. Subsequently, another search the following day led agents to discover an AR-15-style rifle and ammunition concealed in a case hidden in the woods behind the residence.
On September 22, 2021, Dennison was indicted by a grand jury, even though prosecutors acknowledged that they lacked evidence demonstrating Dennison’s intent to carry out a shooting of any kind.
His defense lawyer persistently sought to have the case dismissed, contending that the tweet made by the Twitter user did not constitute “true threat” and should be protected by the First Amendment.
In the motion, the lawyer argued, “Because Mr. Dennison is charged with a pure speech crime, First Amendment protections apply, requiring proof of a ‘true threat.’”
The defense asserted that the alleged Twitter language did not constitute a true threat due to an unconstitutional lack of specificity regarding the target and location of the threatened conduct, rendering an essential element of the crime absent in the indictment.
Citing a 1995 precedent involving a man charged for communicating a threat via email to “sadistically router 14- and 15-year-old girls,” Dennison’s lawyer highlighted the dismissal of the case. The court determined that the lack of a specific location, coupled with the generic nature of the alleged targets, made it impossible to proceed with the indictment.
However, the motion to dismiss was ultimately rejected by the judge, who determined that a jury should decide whether Dennison’s tweet met the standards to be considered a “true threat.”
Following a lengthy trial, on December 7, 2023, the jury found Dennison guilty on one count of transmitting a threatening interstate communication. Currently awaiting sentencing, Dennison faces up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. His sentencing will take place after the completion of a presentence investigation report by the U.S. Probation Office.
Many individuals often underestimate the scrutiny they may face posting nonsensical drivel on social media, thinking, “Well I only have XX followers, why would the feds care about what I say?”
However, governmental organizations operate bureaucratically and will absolutely surveil individuals for nonsensical reasons, justifying their existence even in an age where their relevance is nonexistent.
Whether one’s intentions are benign or not, privacy and anonymity are scarce commodities in the digital age, particularly on social media platforms. Governments seem willing to find any pretext to surveil, silence, and even arrest individuals for online posts, citing reasons such as hate speech or incitement.
This trend is expected to extend beyond explicit threats of violence, potentially encompassing memes, slurs, and “shitposts” as criminal offenses. In Australia, for instance, refusing to unlock a phone for data collection on police “suspicion” of a crime could result in a maximum penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.
Even a simple Nazi salute may lead to fines of up to $23,000 AUD and a year in jail.
Several countries, including Ireland, are tightening hate speech laws. Ireland is considering a law that makes it illegal for individuals to be in possession of “hate speech.“
This means that having offensive memes or images on a mobile phone or personal computer could lead to legal consequences. If the police decide to monitor online engagement and deem it worthy of investigation, individuals could face significant penalties simply for possessing such material.
This authoritarian approach, often associated with government officials holding communist ideologies, seeks to suppress dissenting voices within the population while leniently handling actual criminal activities. Expressing concerns about issues like immigration or criminal behavior can unfairly label individuals as right-wing fascists, contributing to a troubling erosion of free expression.
Governments are enacting and promoting new, invasive laws seemingly designed to protect perpetrators who actively undermine your nation, its values, and culture. Expressing any criticism towards these marginalized groups of individuals is becoming increasingly restricted, and soon, uttering offensive and racist remarks online will lead to legal consequences.
While it’s crucial to differentiate between hate speech and actual threats of violence, the monitoring and persecution of individuals for their social media posts are likely to intensify in the coming years.
