The young man accused of public disorder defended himself in Spain's National Court saying it was a joke.
In the summer of 2022, Aditya V. was about to board a flight to the Spanish island of Menorca at London's Gatwick Airport.
Just before boarding, the young British man decided to send photos of the check-in area to seven of his friends via the social network Snapchat. The pictures included a phrase he had written himself: "On my way to blow up the plane, I'm a member of the Taliban".
British intelligence discovered the message when the plane was already over France and decided to alert Spain, as the flight was due to land on the Spanish island.
The Ministry of Defence sent a Eurofighter to escort the plane, believing the passenger to be a terrorist.
On Monday, the young man defended himself in Spain's National Court, accused of public disorder and facing a lawsuit from the Spanish Ministry of Defence demanding that he pay the €94,782.47 it cost to send the Eurofighter.
"It was a joke", he defended himself before the judge, explaining that he did it because his friends "always made fun of him because of his Pakistani features".
According to El Español, the young man explained that he could see the Eurofighter from the window of the plane, but that he never thought it was there because of the message he sent, thinking it was a training exercise for the war in Ukraine.
With the help of an interpreter, the young man was able to tell his side of the story. He insisted that he never thought the prank would go so far, and that he had only shared the picture with his group of friends.
The problem was that one of his friends was connected to the airport's public Wi-Fi, so the photo ended up with British intelligence.
"The prosecutor asked the young man: "Did you never think that you could cause fear?"
The Spanish Penal Code states that a person who "falsely simulates a situation of danger to the community" that requires assistance from the police or emergency services "shall be punished".
After Monday's testimonies, the trial was scheduled for sentencing.
I'd imagine my answer would be: "Not for a second did I think it would cause fear. It was a private message to my 7 close friends that know that I am not a terrorist. Mr Prosecutor, did you not think for a second that people would call you a pervert because of the pictures you search for on the internet at night? I wouldn't think so because you're not broadcasting that in any public conversation. I wasn't either."
So you believed until you saw this story, that it's safe to plan terror attacks on social platforms as long as you only use personal messages?
Holy slippery slope, batman!
I believe a terrorist using only personal messages to plan an attack shouldn't be convicted of "disrupting public order" only based on private messages. Not only he wasn't a terrorist at all, private messages are incapable of disrupting public order.
That is NOT a slippery slope, how do you imagine secret services should tell the difference between a joke, and real planning to do something?
Private messages are not entirely private. As per our rules that allow some forms of mass surveillance.
That's what he wrote! together with pictures. How are they supposed to tell that is a joke?
Well, according to your logic I've got some bad news. YOU just wrote that now with your name as the poster. Worse, you did it in public!
Are you expecting to be brought into court and charged with terrorist threats? By your logic you should. After all, how can they tell you were just parroting something someone else said? Your logic argues that there's zero effort the secret services should have to do to qualify typed words into an actual threat. Imagine right now the bill in security analysts you're racking up RIGHT NOW as your post goes through expensive servers.
Your logic argues when you receive a bill for thousands of dollars, you should pay it blindly as secret services have no way of knowing you're not an actual threat.
I'm not just now boarding a plane, nor sending pictures of me boarding a plane, and It's very easy to see from context that debating a point.
It's very different from sending pictures from an airport while boarding with a terrorist message, without any indication that it's not meant seriously.
You are making an extremely distorted and false comparison.
Context? So you're admitting that security services need to do SOME work to qualify the threat and not just take it at face value before reacting and billing the innocent person?
What if you're in a thread where you posted the same terrorist threat words and with a picture of an airport....like you are now:
I'm asking you to explain your position testing and the limits of your argument. The elements of your argument are evolving even now with your last post.
The burden of proof is on secret services. Here it looks like secret services did a half-assed job, which in itself isn't a problem, but they're laying the blame (and cost!) of the shoddy work of secret services at the feet of a private citizen.
I can't speak to all nations but in the USA we have the 4th Amendment to our Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Oh boy, USA is even worse in this regard, on terrorism you could go to secret trial at secret court being judged on secret laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_law
Yet the burden of proof would STILL be on the prosecution.
I have no idea what you mean, there is zero doubt in this case about the evidence. Now the court decides whether this was an over reaction or not.
From the sheer stupidity of sending these messages, my guess is that the court will side with authorities. But I may be mistaken.
Exactly. The court will decide if a private citizen communicating in private is responsible for over reaction by government officers.
I certainly hope not. Imagine the consequences on society if you can get a bill for something you said privately that someone misinterpreted. Worse, criminal charges for legal statements that other uninvited parties to the conversation misunderstand. Satire and sarcasm would be come criminal acts.
There will always be borderline situations. Here a politician lost his career as a politician because he said some racist things while he was together with close friends. Except one of the "friends" turned out to be an investigative journalist who disclosed it.
It would not be impossible that this case could have one of the friends report him, because he didn't get the joke, and thought it was serious. Would you still maintain that it would be shoddy police work to react on that? If so, I'm sure I can find examples of police being alerted to very serious crimes and not reacting, and then those crimes were executed unhindered.
When police has the info, it's their duty to react.
Those are social consequences devoid of government surveillance. That has nothing to do with this young man and his plane joke.
React? No problem here. Police going off half cocked and then handing the jokester a bill because of their mistake? Yes, thats a problem.
We're not talking about reaction. We're talking about police due diligence, and when they get it wrong expecting the innocent party to foot the bill.
True.