Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Russian Court Sentences Meta Spokesperson To Six Years in Absentia, Calls Meta 'Extremist Organisation' (reuters.com) 115

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
A military court in Moscow on Monday sentenced Meta spokesperson Andy Stone to six years in prison for "publicly defending terrorism," a verdict handed down in absentia, RIA news agency reported. Reuters: Meta itself is designated an extremist organisation in Russia and its Facebook and Instagram social media platforms have been banned in the country since 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine.

[...] Russia's interior ministry opened a criminal investigation into Stone late last year, without disclosing specific charges. RIA cited state investigators as saying Stone had published online comments that defended "aggressive, hostile and violent actions" towards Russian soldiers involved in what Moscow calls its "special military operation" in Ukraine.

Russian Court Sentences Meta Spokesperson To Six Years in Absentia, Calls Meta 'Extremist Organisation' More | Reply

Russian Court Sentences Meta Spokesperson To Six Years in Absentia, Calls Meta 'Extremist Organisation'

Comments Filter:

  • We have always... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Monday April 22, 2024 @11:26AM (#64414326) Journal
    We have always been at war with Oceania.

  • he lied about not wanting to annex Crimea, he lied about the "polite people" aka the "Little Green Men" & the purpose of his bullshit "special military operation"

  • Putin being tried for war crimes at The Hague

    • Re:What about (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sinij ( 911942 ) on Monday April 22, 2024 @11:52AM (#64414384)
      There is almost zero chance of that happening, as attempting to arrest sitting head of state of Russia would likely trigger nuclear exchange. So Hauge for Putin would require a regime change in Russia, and not the violent kind where the losing side gets all killed. As such, Putin will likely end up like Stalin - poisoned and dying on a carpet in his own piss than tried in the international courts.
      • Oh, I thought Stalin died from a stroke. But I like your version better.
      • It doesn't seem like a regime change is going to happen too soon, considering how much votes he got in last election. Even if you take fraud in consideration, it seems that most of population support him, is afraid of him, or just don't care.

        • That election was the most fraudulent in the history of russia.

        • You're assuming that the votes are legitimate or that voters were even given a choice. Ignore the vote count, the numbers are unreliable. And yes, it is likely most of the population supports him (though it's impossible to gauge how many given that it's dangerous to be seen as opposed to Putin), but likely due to the tight media crackdown so that only positive stories of Putin are ever told. At the higher levels though, it's iffy. So many in the higher ranks may owe a lot of Putin (for advancing them in

      • There's still a high likelihood of there being a trial in absentia for Putin. Can't say for sure whether OP was trying to draw a parallel but this Meta trial looks like whataboutism.

      • Bigger chance for them to nuke themself with nuclear bombs that have no maintenance due to no money and corruption

        • They seem to be able to reliably get rockets into space.
          Getting rockets up into space, at suborbital velocities- even easier.

          So no, I'm quite sure their nuclear arsenal is still plenty operational.

          • All components that make up nuclear weapons have expiration dates and most of the money is in the pockets of Putin's collaborators

            • Nuclear weapons aren't more complicated than rockets. In fact, they're far simpler.
              Despite the corruption, they're not having trouble getting rockets into space. I have no doubt their warheads, ICBMs, and RVs are in workable shape.

              • I'm talking about the warhead

                • I know you were. That's why I said that they have working rockets, and nuclear warheads are far simpler devices.
                  Russia has demonstrated current development of advanced technology (including tactically deployed hypersonics), as well as a very cool Gen4 fighter jet.
                  This means it's unlikely that the technology to keep the warheads working (which really comes down to one thing- replacing them once they're past their expiration date) has been lost by them. It's further unlikely that they have let their nuclear
    • Funny, why not also try US heads of state for the war crimes they have committed, oh wait the US itself doesn't acknowledge the tribunal in regard to its own soldiers. But what war crimes has Putin really done? And why would Putin not have diplomatic immunity while an ambassador can get away with about anything, even murder.

  • Everything you don't like is extremist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Press2ToContinue ( 2424598 ) on Monday April 22, 2024 @11:44AM (#64414360)
    Every action you don't like is violent.

    Every group you want to ostracize is terrorist.
  • While we can recognize evil of Putin's regime when it engages in totalitarian crackdowns on free speech, the sad truth is that we are not far behind. For example, Biden's justice department manufacturing novel legal theories [nytimes.com] to imprison non-violent political protesters while ignoring similar cases [reuters.com] elsewhere.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      NYTimes is paywalled.

      The fire alarm accusation is pure mind-reading speculation. People make mistakes with alarms near other levers when in a hurry, and mistake cannot be ruled out. Felonies require "beyond reasonable doubt" and I've seen nothing that strong against Bowman. If you have a BRD argument, bringItOn!...

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Comboman ( 895500 )

      Yes, pulling the fire alarm is exactly the same thing as violently attacking police officers, vandalizing a government building and attempting to hang the vice president.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        Try again, but with less straw...

        For example, Biden's justice department manufacturing novel legal theories [nytimes.com] to imprison non-violent political protesters...

        • For example, Biden's justice department manufacturing novel legal theories [nytimes.com] to imprison non-violent political protesters...

          Unlike Farty Don, who merely wants to shoot them.

        • Those terrorists went to the Capitol to deliberately and knowingly disrupt the official proceeding of Congress. They weren't there on a field trip to look at the sights.

          If you're claiming those people shouldn't be jailed because they were non-violent, then the same applies to all the people at Columbia who did nothing more than exercise their First Amendment right to criticize Israel's deliberate targetting of civilians, medical personnel, and journalists, such as the almost 300 bodies found buried in a ma

          • Those terrorists went to the Capitol to deliberately and knowingly disrupt the official proceeding of Congress. They weren't there on a field trip to look at the sights.

            You're completely right.

            However, I am however inclined to agree with the criticism invoked in the conservative Justices questioning.
            The law is in fact written so broadly, that even a peaceful protest would be subject to this rather harsh penalty. That means the law itself is bullshit. If i were one of the fuckwits being charged with this shit, I'd want to attack it from this angle too.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sinij ( 911942 )
              Do you consider every Jan 6 participant to be a violent terrorist?
              • Of course not.

                There was a diverse group of people there, intention wise.
                Some were there with the intent of forcing a regime change (overturning an election they saw as fraudulent, via extralegal means).
                Some were there merely to disrupt in protest that varies from peaceful, to violent.
                Some were there because it was a mob, and mobs are fun for pieces of shit.

                The punishments should fit the crime, all crimes are based on intent.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by sinij ( 911942 )
                  I am glad we agree on this point.
                  • I find Jan 6 to be a tragedy. It's a sad thing to have happened in this country.

                    I'm particularly annoyed with the President at the time for fomenting it, when he knew it could grow out of control, which it did.
                    That being said, "no harm, no foul" should absolutely apply to those who didn't commit overt acts of violence or arguable overthrow of the government.
                    The people who were there with bad intentions, should be rounded up and assfucked with the law. The rest should be let off, and look at them as an e

      • Yes, pulling the fire alarm is exactly the same thing as violently attacking police officers, vandalizing a government building and attempting to hang the vice president.

        Not in MAGA land. Pulling a fire alarm if you are a D is much worse.

    • While we can recognize evil of Putin's regime when it engages in totalitarian crackdowns on free speech, the sad truth is that we are not far behind. For example, Biden's justice department manufacturing novel legal theories [nytimes.com] to imprison non-violent political protesters while ignoring similar cases [reuters.com] elsewhere.

      Ignoring that prosecutors have broad authority to decide what to charge someone with based on the actions of the person, if the conservative textualist, such as Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, stick to their "the text is what counts and not inferring intent" championed by Scalia they should uphold the use of the law in these cases.

    • Which non-violent political protesters were jailed? Surely you can't be referring to the January 6th rioters, who tresspassed in the capitol building, vandalized it, and assaulted the capitol police? All three acts are clearly illegal under any rational reading of the law.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )

        Which non-violent political protesters were jailed? Surely you can't be referring to the January 6th rioters, who tresspassed in the capitol building, vandalized it, and assaulted the capitol police? All three acts are clearly illegal under any rational reading of the law.

        Every single one of them did all these things?

        • They're not prosecuting every single one of them.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sinij ( 911942 )
            They are prosecuting non-violent protesters that did not vandalize anything and they are trying to use Enron-era law to get 20 year sentences. Which is ridiculous. I wouldn't be complaining if it was limited to a bunch of misdemeanor trespass charges, but Democrats are going for 20 year sentences for anyone who entered Capitol, including reporters.
    • Manufacturing novel legal theories is the idea of absolute Presidential immunity.
      As for the charge of "Obstructing an official proceeding" being used with a rather liberal interpretation, that really stems back to 2019 with several high-profile cases tried by the Trump Justice Department.

      As for the congress-critter, I'm inclined to agree with you.
      However- that one is a bit tricky. Congresscritter says it was an accident.
      Even if it obviously wasn't, the burden of proof is on the Government to prove othe

  • What an honor (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nealric ( 3647765 ) on Monday April 22, 2024 @11:46AM (#64414366)

    I hope that someday I will have the honor of being convicted in absentia by a Russian court. It means you are doing something very right.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      Stick around the West long enough and you'll have a chance to be convicted while present for political crimes, too. It's already happening throughout Europe and the UK for years.

      • Not even remotely the same situation, and such false equivalences are a favorite tactic of Russian trolls.

  • You'd think that if you're making propaganda, you'd try something a little more impressive than an in-absentia criminal conviction you can never enforce against a guy who might not even care enough to even be aware of it.

    Russia can give me consecutive life sentences if it wants, there's no way I'd ever visit it while it still has a government that would care about enforcing that.

    • You had me at "there's no way I'd visit Russia."

      • Not all Russians are awful people, I've known some nice immigrants. We are mostly hearing about people who are trying to get by in an authoritarian state where they are both heavily propagandized and when that doesn't work, aware that speaking up gets them a long prison sentence or a short trip to Ukraine.

        I've always wanted to visit, but it's always been a generation or two behind where I'd feel comfortable, even when the government seemed a bit more relaxed than today's.

  • Reverse (Score:3)

    by Fons_de_spons ( 1311177 ) on Monday April 22, 2024 @12:03PM (#64414424)
    I noticed that you have to reverse everything the Russian government says to get the truth. In this case: Russia is an extremist organisation. It works suprisingly well.

    • Russia is an extremist organisation.

      Many Republicans outwardly support Russia. Many others secretly support Russia. What does that mean for Republicans?

      • They could make things great again by moving to Moscow. Pretty sure we can crowdfund the expenses.

        • Laughing at the Canadian family (they bizarrely have MAGA up there, do they think they're just a US state?) who moved to Russia to get more freedom, then weren't welcomed with open arms, have their freedoms severely restricted, and only have temporary visitors visas and will have to leave soon. Some people act before thinking, or even act before failing to think.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mjwx ( 966435 )

            Laughing at the Canadian family (they bizarrely have MAGA up there, do they think they're just a US state?) who moved to Russia to get more freedom, then weren't welcomed with open arms, have their freedoms severely restricted, and only have temporary visitors visas and will have to leave soon. Some people act before thinking, or even act before failing to think.

            Sadly, then expected the Canadian government to bail them out from their own stupidity.

      • Are these republicans, or merely MAGA? Most Republicans (the traditional kind) are highly opposed to Russia-under-Putin. It's just the conressional freshmen MAGA corps who mysteriously are devoted to that dictator. And the ex-Fox host but he's probably clinically insane and so has an excuse.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      I noticed that you have to reverse everything the Russian government says to get the truth. In this case: Russia is an extremist organisation. It works suprisingly well.

      "It isn't confirmed until the Kremlin denies it" has been a truism for some time.

  • They push Agile and DevOps many kilometers past beyond.

    Go ahead, argue with me. On my side, I suggest you try to use faceplant.

  • A military court in a foreign country has tried, found guilty, and sentenced a person who has not been there for committing a crime there, and that crime is that they are the public-facing person of a multinational corporation that allows people to post their thoughts and opinions.

    Imagine how many things are wrong with that... and then say "Oh but it couldn't happen in the US" except our elected representatives are working hard to make as many holes in CDA's Section 230 (FOSTA, SEXTA, etc.) so that it reall

  • They're not wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Monday April 22, 2024 @12:35PM (#64414546)

    Meta IS an extremist organisation. Their primary objective is advertising. They achieve it by amplifying the most loud and controversial content because that's what sells and attracts attention the most. They use extreme, heated topics for personal gain. They are extremists.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      Both yes and no. Meta doesn't have one specific ideology other than enriching themselves. They don't care if that means America beats up Russia or Russia beats up America; they don't care if Israel beats up Gaza or Gaza beats up Israel. They just want money.

      As such I would say that they are not extremists; they are mercenaries.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

        Incorrect. It's been shown that Meta is extremely partisan, and anyone who's even moderate can plainly see it. They openly banned hundreds of satire and news sites during the last election, largely under the banner of "fake news and disinfo". Was it? Sure, much if not most of it was. Some of it wasn't, though - and it isn't their job to do that. What it was, was a highly partisan purge.

  • Was going to post something silly, like, "Well, as the ruler of my detached single family home, I declare Putin to be a convicted felon, and if he sets foot in my home he'll be arrested.

    But then it occurred to me that one of us has access to polonium, and possesses both the willingness to deploy it, and the people to make it happen in other nations... these circumstances are not equivalent!

    • But then it occurred to me that one of us has access to polonium, and possesses both the willingness to deploy it, and the people to make it happen in other nations... these circumstances are not equivalent!

      Polonium is readily available:
      https://amstat.com/products/an... [amstat.com]

  • context (Score:2)

    by Mozai ( 3547 )

    "A military court in Moscow...

    I had no idea Andy Stone was enlisted in the Russian national military. Does Stone know?

  • Maybe what's needed is not weapons but a thumbs-down button to downvote posts by those killing foreigners?

  • I'd napalm your troops and drone strike your officers.

    Welcome to honest sentiment against the new Soviets.

    Die, Putin, die, you small person.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" -- James Coburn, in the finale of _The_President's_Analyst_

Close