http://news.yahoo.com/flash-mobs-splash-mob-uk-man-arrested-planning-205428274.html

The problem here is that there is a fine line between thought crime, criminal conspiracy and actual criminal offense to incitement to commit crime, much of it is subjective and due to the nature of the language used i.e. semantics such as the infamous 'let him have it', which led to an innocent man being hung. One of the first tests should be if the actual criminal incitement charge actually led to any actual physical crimes being committed, which in all these cases did not.

Then there are the cases of police undercover agents also engaged in incitement to commit criminal offenses. These are never prosecuted especially when their aims are to publically discredit political activists groups, which the state deems objectionable.

Posting on an Internet site and computer crime also needs careful consideration due to nature of the publishing media simply because it can be so easily fraudulently used by the controlling authorities or unauthorised hacker.

I also get very nervous when I hear the term pre-emptive arrest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/01/police-arrest-97-notting-hill

I pretty sure that if the police come knocking down most folks door that they can make a good criminal case from anything that they deem to be an illegal substance. i.e. Esbit tabs equates to bomb making component material let alone chapati flour etc.

I think you have it right there

There needs to be a balance between people openly using "social media" to conspire to commit crime - which no one wants,
and a whole lot of other "conversational" forms of comment
including humor, sarcasm, open discussion, flaming, pot stirring, academic excercises - like we do here sometimes - etc

The problem is how and where to draw the line, and that will take a wiser head than mine to figure out.

From over here, "some" of the sentencing does look a bit over the top, but I'm not across all the details !

That's a different case, and it's still not a thought-crime. It's debatable whether it's a crime at all, and whether he should have been arrested. I think normally he wouldn't have been; he was rather foolish to try something like that just after people had been killed in rioting. (Which isn't to say I condone the arrest. There have been some prosecutions I consider wrong, notably the Robin Hood Airport bomb "threat".

"Thought crime" by definition is pretty clear cut. Publishing online is an action, not a thought. Shouting "Let him have it" is an action, not a thought.

Actions have consequences. People can be responsible for those consequences even if they didn't intend them.

I disagree. If someone drink-drives, they should be prosecuted even if they don't have an accident. Attempted murder should be prosecuted even if the attempt failed.

I suspect its all designed to keep ordinary folks on their toes and to keep the official terror narrative going, whilst the public ask awkward questions that don't have satisfactory answers. i.e. the engine core in this photo is a JT9D-7A/7F/F series - the only problem is that American Airlines Flight 175, which supposedly hit the WTC2 in 2001 was a Boeing 767-222ER which had JT9D-7R4 engines, which has a completely different design for the High pressure turbine Stage 1 cooling duct shown in the middle overlay photograph. I guess the FBI missed that one as the NTSB investigation whose first task in any aircraft crash/accident/foul play is to identify the aircraft involved and wasn't allowed to proceed.

http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/09/murray-street-engine.html

Perhaps the tin foil hat will stop me thinking those thought crimes (or asking some online pertinent questions about mass murder terror crimes), which all conspiracy folks know are projected there by the flickering light bulbs of the new LED types. I think I've been listening to Jones for too long. That will be my defense at any trial assuming I get one.