A Guatemalan who apparently threatened his country's financial stability by posting a provocative tweet regarding the Banrural bank faces up to three years in jail, Chile's El Mercurio reports. Jean Anléu Fernández last week said: "First concrete action, withdraw cash from Banrural, bring down this corrupt bank." Police cuffed …
Run! The sea is on fire!
Did I just caused a global panic and send everyone fleeing to the hills? If not, then perhaps a people have enough sense not to believe every scare story on the internet.
On the other hand if officials are terrified that a single tweet will lead to a run on the banks, it implies that there is independent evidence that the bank is in trouble that will convince lazy skeptical internet users to get up from their comfy chairs and go out to withdraw cash.
Quick! Lock up the Guatemalan police, the superintendent of banks, and the president for using the Streisand effect to destroy the world's economy.
Don't want to nit pick
Actually, I do.
Do they HAVE a formalised right to free speach in Guatemala?
"First concrete action, withdraw cash from Banrural, bring down this corrupt bank."
This is just stating one's view (that the bank is corrupt). Nothing more. It makes no claims as to the financial stability (or lack thereof) of the bank. Then he states what he had done in response to his view of said bank.
How can this be twisted into something illegal?
A Twitter user
is a "Twit", surely
Guatemala is not a democracy. So why hasn't the United States dismissed its government from office, so that any murders that have taken place within it can be solved?
@Don't want to nit pick
"Do they HAVE a formalised right to free speach in Guatemala?
Or indeed "speech", in the spirit of nit picking
As for soft fruit freedoms, these are equally unclear at time of writing.
@A Twitter user
'is a "Twit", surely'
although "Twat" better conveys the personality type?
"Do they HAVE a formalised right to free speach in Guatemala?"
Mmm Speaches and cream.
You've completely misread it. "Banrural is corrupt, so I withdrew all my money from them" is stating one's view and what one has done in response. He wrote in the imperative, encouraging others to withdraw cash from the bank with the goal of causing it's collapse. Granted, this is not providing "false or inaccurate information", nor does it directly "undermine confidence in a banking institution". Nevertheless, the intention is clearly to cause economic disruption, which is difficult to condone without extreme justification.
> Nevertheless, the intention is clearly to cause economic disruption, which is difficult to condone without extreme justification.
Agreed. The extreme justification appears to be that the government is using the bank for money laundering and to hide other illegal activities while happily assassinating The Good People of the country who are trying to restore a political system worth living under or at least don't want to me made part of their crimes. See e.g. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Aboingboing.net+guatemala+rosenberg+Banrural+&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging