[RobertHubert]

Its out of control down there! 30 years for a tweet (despite the panic it caused) while drug lords roam around like kings... c'mon people, twitter is not your primary source of news for potential emergencies of this caliber. But yeah the story is a bit fuzzy on some of the details. eh.

[gaius]

Don't fixate on that it was "a tweet". This is the classic shouting fire in a crowded theatre scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_thea...

[jrockway]

Actually, it's more like the classic "broadcasting that aliens are invading New Jersey" scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_dr...

[Zak]

I think the difference is that it's more obvious that aliens in NJ are a joke. Armed men kidnapping children from schools in Mexico is an entirely realistic scenario that any reasonable person should expect to cause a panic.

[iaskwhy]

It's almost like that but times have changed. In 1938 it was mainly a broadcast of a message which then wasn't easy to broadcast again by the people. Nowadays you broadcast something and in a couple of minutes it can reach the whole country just because of re-tweets and mobile messages. The end result can be a good number of times worse because of this.

[jrockway]

We had all better stop talking, just in case someone overreacts to something we say. Fiction writers, especially, take note.

[iaskwhy]

Or maybe we should think twice about saying things like "your kids are being killed at school". I am open to suggestions but I have never heard about a book causing mayhem in a couple of minutes.

[jrockway]

The reason why is that people don't expect to trust books. Open a random book at the bookstore, and it's probably a story that the author made up. Twitter is the same way, but people don't realize this yet.

I don't see why authors should be held responsible for their readers' stupidity, though.

[pessimizer]

That classic scenario originated in an opinion supporting jailing someone for handing out flyers opposing the WWI draft, during a period in American history when jailing people for antiwar speech or speech encouraging Socialism or Communism was frequent. It has been superceeded by law and decisions more in accordance with the First Amendment at least half a dozen times since.

The definition of free speech that that argument was used to defend was the Espionage Act of 1917 which:

o Made it a crime to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies, punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both,

o Made it a crime to convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both,

o Made it a crime to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both,

o Made it a crime to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both, and

o Made it a crime to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.

The Sedition Act of 1918 extended this to:

o Make it a crime to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt, and

o Give the Postmaster General the right to go through mail and refuse to deliver any that did any of these things while the United States was at war.

This resulted in about 1500 prosecutions and 1000 convictions for speech, and the sentences were generally between 5 and 20 years.

Not a good precedent.

[eduardoflores]

The problem is, as it's mentioned on the article, that living in an information vacuum Twitter gets to be over-trusted. Journalists are reporting very fragmented and incomplete news as Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries to be a journalist. Almost all the mass media have signed a self-censorship agreement ("Iniciativa México") to limit the impact of the narco messages on the public, thus leaving people to follow unreliable media. Messages are sent by narco through actions: murders as gruesome as the desired impact of the message. Read about "blog del narco" through Google translate (I wouldn't recommend to look for the actual blog del narco) http://translate.google.com.mx/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&#...

Yes, we are living hard times here.

[robryan]

I definitely wouldn't go off a single person that I didn't know personally's Tweets, usually on anything of consequence you would look for multiple confirmations on Twitter and some evidence of the event in other places online.

[petsos]

What if you couldn't find any confirmation in 2 minutes of frantic googling and your kids were inside the school?

[RobertHubert]

Id say call the school, another parent, or any other point of contact you could possible imagine before you go smashing up your car in a panic... I never really understood the lapse of social responsibility in these situations. Not to take away from the complete horror at the thought of your child being shot or kidnapped (I could never come close to knowing how that feels) but these are the inherent dangers that come with new technologies (specifically information tech). I mean really though, what are these parents going to do to protect their kids against armed gunmen? We have witnessed the powerful benefit of twitter and FB, etc in assisting communities and families in the aftermath of disaster, but what have these "instant info systems" done to help people mid disaster or to prevent one all together? It's fast, but its not time travel... Id say just keep your reliable sources on check and close at hand. But then again, I cant say I wouldn't go barreling down the street in a panic to make sure my loved one were ok.

[wnight]

Being a movie superhero I'd jump in the car and race down there, leaping into the fray and killing all the terrorists, including the midget pretending to be the cute little girl. Then I'd get a medal, and a pony.

You though, lacking superpowers, couldn't help if you were there. So I dunno, maybe you should frantically search until you get positive evidence, and an idea of what you could do to help, before you decide what to do.

There are laws to deal with the guy if these was a scheme to profit. If he was deluded there's no reason to take actions, he's no worse than the idiots who ran around because of his rumors. In fact his action was better. By forwarding his news he's inviting conversation and investigation, by running off to the school the terrified parents are actually potentially causing a problem.