Feds Want To Unmask Internet Commenters Writing About the Silk Road Trial Judge 183
An anonymous reader writes: A grand jury subpoena, obtained by Ken White of the law blog Popehat, demands that libertarian news magazine Reason hand over "any and all identifying information" about certain commenters posting on an article published May 31st, "Silk Road Trial: Read Ross Ulbricht's Haunting Sentencing Letter to Judge." The subpoena cites a law against "interstate threats" as the reason for demanding the information, which the Supreme Court very recently decided must include real intent.
As White points out, the comments — repugnant as they are — may very well not constitute a true threat, as they aren't directed at the judge and don't detail any real plans for violence. The kicker: although it's possible to fight the subpoena, precedent suggests the U.S. Attorney's office may have the power to obtain the information anyway. However the situation shakes out, this isn't nearly the first fight over commenter anonymity and the First Amendment, and certainly won't be the last.
As White points out, the comments — repugnant as they are — may very well not constitute a true threat, as they aren't directed at the judge and don't detail any real plans for violence. The kicker: although it's possible to fight the subpoena, precedent suggests the U.S. Attorney's office may have the power to obtain the information anyway. However the situation shakes out, this isn't nearly the first fight over commenter anonymity and the First Amendment, and certainly won't be the last.
Whats so repugnant? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see an issue here, not a single threat, and frankly, when you look at the laws these judges enforce, case in point here, really....I see nothing repugnant. I dislike these shitbags this much too. I wish people like this judge would do us all a favor and jump feet first into a wood chipper. Would make the world a much better place.
and I don't need to be anonymous. No threat here....I wish she would do the world a favor...for us.
Re: (Score:2)
Tom Cruise Missile was legally ruled as a terrorist threat against Scientology. Does that qualify as a precedent?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Whats so repugnant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's some example "threats" (all from TFA - worth reading for once)
Rhywunl 5.3l.15 @ 11:35AM
I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman.
Product Placement I5.31.15 @ 1:22PM
I'd prefer a hellish place on Earth be reserved for her as well.
Really DoJ? Really?
Even this:
croaker l6.l.15 @ 11:09AM
Fuck that. I don't want to oay for that cunt's food, housing, and medical. Send her through
the wood chipper.
is so obviously "political bluster", not a real threat.
Re:Whats so repugnant? (Score:5, Informative)
AgammamonI5.31.15 @ lO:47AMltt
Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.
AlanI5.31.15 @ 12:09PMltt
It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot.
FTFY.
So: "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot." - I am Greek, and this makes me think a quote from that Greek actor, Telly Savalas, while playing Kojak and answering to someone who feels threatened by him: "Greeks... they don't threaten - they utter prophecies!"
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me. You are from the country that "is home to the first advanced civilizations in Europe and is considered the birthplace of Western civilization" (Wikipedia), and the best you can come up with is a Telly Savalas quote? Now, where to begin ...
Then again, Kojak was kinda cool back then.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, sharing some geography with a cool civilization that lived a few thousand years before your time, whose accomplishments had absolutely nothing to do with you, does not increase your cachet one iota. Yes, iota is Greek!
Re: (Score:2)
2. I'm fully aware of your political beliefs which you rightly guessed that I do not espouse. "We" Greeks did jack shit, the ancient Greeks built the Parthenon along with a number of other really impressive feats. And the Telly Savalas thing was indeed funny, but that's not what prompted me to criticize your taking pride in an ancient civilization's accomplishments, just because you happen to share some traits, out of dumb luck.
Ran out of mod points but discussion i
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me. You are from the country that "is home to the first advanced civilizations in Europe and is considered the birthplace of Western civilization" (Wikipedia), and the best you can come up with is a Telly Savalas quote? Now, where to begin ...
Hah, you may be right, but in my defence: it's not "Telly Savalas"... it's Professor of Phychology Telly Savalas [youtube.com] (from an interview in Greek tv - o.k., "it will be all Greek to you", but you can read a translation in the comments)!
Then again, Kojak was kinda cool back then.
Of course he was "cool" - all Greeks are!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... my culture also considered themselves a civilization surrounded by barbarians... It didn't end well for anybody.
That mindset is scientifically idiotic (humanity evolved at one time - and all human civilizations are the same age and exactly the same level of advancement - the DIRECTIONS of advancement varied, we didn't all go in the same directions but we ALL went equally far) and politically it's basically a really good way to cause endless wars, bloodshed and death.
I fail to see the upside that mak
Re: Whats so repugnant? (Score:2)
*blinks* Where to begin. 1. there were multiple waves of human* exodus from Africa. 2. Later waves interbred with previous waves. 3. One wave, which was probably homo erectus, only interbred with the Denisovians. 4. The idea that advancement was equal is stupid. That the time period for advancement was the same (which is objectively untrue as groups living in one place would have more opportunities for advancement than nomads) has no effect on rate of advancement.
*for Genus values of human.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These have to be considered in a cultural context. The phrase "People like this should be taken out back and shot" is a colloquialism. Really a dysphemism. It may be a jerky, insensitive, and ugly - but there are people who utter that phrase but have never thrown a punch or held a fun in their life. Even the person who changed "should be" to "will be" is just trying to add emphasis.
The Agammamnon5.3.15 statement above is similar to someone posting "I'm going to ream that guy's asshole so hard he can't w
Re: (Score:2)
These have to be considered in a cultural context.
O.K. - so, the proper authorities should find the people who made those comments and consider their culture - right?
The phrase "People like this should be taken out back and shot" is a colloquialism. Really a dysphemism. It may be a jerky, insensitive, and ugly - but there are people who utter that phrase but have never thrown a punch or held a fun in their life.
Who was that English king who said "will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest?" just before some of his knights murder Archbishop of Canterbury?
Even the person who changed "should be" to "will be" is just trying to add emphasis.
I already wrote about that Kojak quote when answered to someone who felt threatened by him: "Greeks... they don't threaten - they utter prophecies!"
The Agammamnon5.3.15 statement above is similar to someone posting "I'm going to ream that guy's asshole so hard he can't walk for a week." If you really take it literally, and look at what they said, that is one of the most horrible awful things a human being could ever say. And yet, it's probably uttered daily by a lot of people talking about their boss or a politician, with no intent of action.
O.K., if you say so - again: the proper authorities should find the people who made those comments a
Re: (Score:3)
Still not realistic cause for legal requirement to disclose information pertaining to all those individuals who made comments. A straight up fishing expedition, admittedly a likely very successful fishing expedition (the psychology of the individuals involved means they cant resist childishly rebelling) but still a fishing expedition, likely to be far more successful for the IRS rather than the FBI. In fact this is a pretty solid sign that the whole web site, it's operators and funders as well as it's subs
Re: (Score:2)
Still not realistic cause for legal requirement to disclose information pertaining to all those individuals who made comments.
You may have read that other Greek replying and criticizing me for mentioning that i am a Greek... but anyway: i don't know what are "the legal requirement to disclose information" in USA, but in Greece (and -most of- Europe?), just implying that you will kill a judge is valid reason (and has been done numerous times for less threatening comments) - plus, it is not about "all those individuals who made comments", but about "all those individuals who made threatening comments".
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, my only criticism of you mentioning that you are Greek is that you do it in like, every thread :P
My criticism to anyone criticizing me for mentioning that I AM A GREEK in every thread (!), is that this criticism was not able to make me a better human being... i still do it!
Re: (Score:2)
"A bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes."
You might be inclined to read that as a threat, but it isn't. It's a quote from a text which continues like this:
Curiously, an edition of the Encyclopedia Galactica which conveniently fell through a rift in the time-space continuum from 1000 years in the future describes the Marketing Department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as:
"A bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
The phrase "first against the wall when the revolution comes" (or similar) has a long tradition in expressing complete and utter disagreement. It's much older than the Hitchhiker's Guide from which it is quoted above.
I understand that, but i understand also that the proper authorities must make sure that the message "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot." is not a threat - i think that making sure judges (emphasis added!) are not threatened is important for every civilized society.
Re: (Score:2)
By mentioning such a phrase of text as that death threat, they should de-anonymize your account as well!!!! lol, that's how these things work.
My God, i think you are right! Well, my defence would be: i am a broke Greek, i could not afford to travel in USA and kill that judge...
Re: Whats so repugnant? (Score:2)
It is repugnant to refer to anyone, but especially a judge that way. Recall the firestorm, that arouse, when a Congressman merely accused Barack Obama of lying. The "culprit" was admonished by the House and forced to apologize.
That he was correct — contrary to various denials [talkingpointsmemo.com] — is besides the point, you don't talk to President that way.
So, of course, it is repugnant. But not illegal. I doubt, DOJ, are even hoping to win a conviction. But, being part of a rather vicious and vindictive Administr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still a more accurate source of news than Fox !
MORONS (Score:2)
There is one way to effectively end the last slivers of anonymity on the internet. It's by insulting federal judges.
Sometimes they make bad decisions or don't understand something technical. And there are mostly two kinds--the highly-educated and the locally favored guy who put in his time serving the system. But they are *THE* last line of defense that most of the citizenry have against violation of their civil rights and against government overreach.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are *THE* last line of defense that most of the citizenry have against violation of their civil rights and against government overreach.
And you are suggesting that they are unprincipled and will rule based on emotion, because those whose rights that are violated involve the people speaking out against the judges?
Button Man (Score:5, Insightful)
But they are *THE* last line of defense that most of the citizenry have against violation of their civil rights and against government overreach.
Only if the button man follows orders.
They usually need federal judges too, to legitimize whatever they're trying to do. The Independent Judiciary in South Africa during Apartheid couldn't end it, but made some difference. The Judiciary in Pakistan didn't successfully prevent a warlord taking over, but made some difference. Neither judiciary was entirely gutted and as a result you got some systemic feedback against even oppressive regimes.
Re: (Score:2)
I dislike these shitbags this much too. I wish people like this judge would do us all a favor and jump feet first into a wood chipper.
Calm down man, I think you need a joint.
Re:The Obama administration (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats were defenders of individual rights when they needed to subdue the power of the states. Now that the states have been effectively subdued...
Re: (Score:2)
Now that the states have been effectively subdued...
Why do you say the states have been subdued? The states are the pillars of the republic.
2/3 of the states can call a constitutional convention, then they could redefine black as white, reverse day and night, cat and dog, and 3/4 of the states can ratify amendments proposed in such a convention.
Last I checked, that is pretty darned close to happening.... just a couple more states would need to apply for such convention.
Re:The Obama administration (Score:5, Informative)
Aaah, another case of using the word "fascist" with no idea whatsoever what it means. Fascism is an ECONOMIC system - NOT a political one, and it's closest parallel in the world today is actually the wall-street republican's policies !
You can combine ANY economic system with ANY political system - but people get pretty confused when they make up their own meaning for words - which is why their minds explode when they learn there are things like anarcho-socialism (indeed anarchist anti-state socialism could be called "classic libertarian" since the original libertarians espoused exactly that - libertarian didn't start meaning capitalist until the 1970's in fact).
Pinochet combined extreme free market fundamentalism with autocratic dictatorship. Franco of Spain during his 70-something years in power combined dictatorship with Fascism first, then Socialism, then Capitalism ! He had all three economic systems at various times without once changing the political system.
Now repeat after me: fascism is an economic system categorized by extreme collusion between government and corporations, deregulation for favoured industries and other examples of massive financial influence on the political process and a worship of the wealthy.
Musollini, the founder of fascism, in fact used to say "fascism would be better described as corporatism" - though he was himself quoting an Italian philosopher, but he clearly agreed with the description.
Re: (Score:2)
No, fascism is a political system.
Oxford dictionary: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Wikipedia: Fascism is a form of reactionary authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Dictionary.com: (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nation
Re: (Score:2)
Dictionary definitions are terribly boring arguments. Dictionaries seldom even attempt to include all known words much less all known definitions, and have real trouble keeping up with common usage of words. They are out of date the moment they are written.
There is no single common accepted standard for all definitions. Not only that but, the idea that you could completely sum up such a word in a few brief sentences is kind of silly. There can be no disagreement on what the definition of fascism is, was, sh
Re: (Score:2)
Now repeat after me: fascism is an economic system categorized by extreme collusion between government and corporations, deregulation for favoured industries and other examples of massive financial influence on the political process and a worship of the wealthy.
Musollini, the founder of fascism, in fact used to say "fascism would be better described as corporatism" - though he was himself quoting an Italian philosopher, but he clearly agreed with the description.
This is actually spot-on. As a European who has italian ancestors (some of whom were actually killed by fascists) and a father who is a historian of WWII, I can say I wish I had mod-points, as your comment deserves them.
Re: The Obama administration (Score:2)
Dude. For all I know you edited that page 5 minutes ago to try and 'prove' your point.
I quoted the inventor of fascism. That's a pretty good citation.
Re: (Score:2)
Hiding behind anonymity (Score:5, Funny)
You can bet those retarded assholes would be much more polite if they weren't cowering behind a veil of anonymity.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I dunno I get pretty inpolite about a lot of these issues even in person. we are talking about people who enforce laws that are far more repugnant than anything said here. There is no justification at all for drug laws or suffering the tyranny lovers who make and enforce them.
They deserve to be insulted, and put in their place amongst the worst criminals in human history.
Though, I have just about kicked a guy out of my house for admitting he was a on a jury that found someone guilty of drug laws, so much fo
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno I get pretty inpolite about a lot of these issues even in person. we are talking about people who enforce laws that are far more repugnant than anything said here. There is no justification at all for drug laws or suffering the tyranny lovers who make and enforce them.
I agree that the so-called "War on Drugs" is an abject failure, and if I were king for a day, it would end today.
What I find comical is the FBI action is against a world wide web forum, a website freely available for anyone on the planet to opine and pontificate as they see fit. It is probable that the majority of commenters don't even live in the US or are subject to US law. Its probably a bunch of kids who have nothing better to do but troll the FBI and the funny thing is, The FBI fell for it.
Re:Hiding behind anonymity (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole thing started to crumble, once the one guy said "there ought to be a law" and it was considered. Now, we have a bunch of nanny raised kids who can't handled even the slightest taste of harshness without crumbling into a ball of whimpering jelly. All because someone said "there ought to be a law" and made it so.
Nobody stops are to even ask "why".
Re: (Score:3)
For the record, are we talking about the Silk Road warriors or the FBI?
And someone else said, "there ought to not be a law" and then pretended it was so. And got caught.
Re: (Score:2)
and then pretended it was so.
It wasn't a pretend, it was a reasonable approximation of "there ought to be a law". The problem is, we have gone so far over that line, that it is acceptable for someone to think this was okay, let alone longer than the moment it would have taken to go ... "naaaaah"
After all, we gotta protect everyone from everything ever possible. You know, there oughta be a law !
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you hit the turbo button there.
Passing laws against the sale of crystal meth is the same as genocide? I need some of that rock you're smoking, pal. I believe the refs in last night's Blackhawks/Lightning game should also be put in their place "amongst" the worst criminals in human history, while we're
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Hiding behind anonymity (Score:2, Informative)
They call that "jury nullification" in the US and it is the actual job of the jury to judge the law and defendant. Last line of defense against a tyrannical state and all that.
Re: (Score:3)
They call that "jury nullification" in the US and it is the actual job of the jury to judge the law and defendant.
This exists, but you cannot speak of it in court, Or you risk going to jail, or if a juror is involved: having the verdict thrown out.
Jury nullification is not supported by the courts;; it's just a physical fact, that the jurors are people: therefore, they have the physical ability in an act of civil disobedience to intentionally fail to follow legally required instructions from the j
Re: (Score:3)
A Jury is generally instructed specifically that their opinion of the law should hold no bearing on the result
Jury nullification involves intentionally casting aside the instructions, for example, and declaring someone innocent, since the law is felt to be unjust.
It is an act of civil disobedience. In order for it to be successful a nullification, the jurors must insist the defendant did not break the law and not let it spill that the reason they reached their verdict was about their opinion of th
Re: (Score:2)
> but finding someone guilty of a standing law is different than being in support of the law itse
I disagree entirely. Why would you even bother with a jury of peers rather than experts if the whole point wasn't for individuals to test the law itself against general sensibilities?
One should not be convicted of a crime solely because some dusty law book says so or because its been tradition. When the law is wrong it deserves opposition and it deserves to be broken, law makers and prosecutors deserve to see
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, I consider the entire concept of an Oath vile, no person with good and just intentions would ever ask a person to utter one.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ultimately, the act of nullification requires one to go against the juror's oath.
Serious question: what if you refuse to take the juror's oath? If you'd be punished for refusing then the oath is given under duress and carries no moral weight. If not, then either you can serve on a jury without taking the oath (and thus with no qualms regarding nullification), or else refusing the oath would make a perfect "get out of jury duty free" card.
Re: Hiding behind anonymity (Score:3)
yes, I told the judge just that for the same reason (quoted Justice Jay on the matter) and he said to go home - they don't want jurors who know anything about the law.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are being interrogated in court you're forced to swear to tell the truth. You're FORCED to do it. And it carries a LOT of weight.
Legal weight, perhaps, under an unjust legal system, but not moral weight; an oath given only under duress is no oath at all. For an oath to be morally binding there must be consent, and there cannot be consent when the oath is coerced. Of course, even worse than the prospect of being punished for violating an oath extracted under duress is that fact that you're being compelled to testify against your will in the first place. Without compulsory testimony, the oath would be voluntary and thus actually mean s
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're not fit to sit on a jury. Nullification is the entire reason we have juries. It's the last defense against a government run amok.
-jcr
bullshit. Jury nullification is a breach of your responsibility as a juror and a complete cop out. A jury is there to render a non biased verdict as to whether someone broke the law they were charged with, nullification is dangerous (though sometimes I agree with it too, but should be a very very rare occurance). A Jury is often working on incomplete information, this is done to attempt to keep bias out. As an example I was a juror on a murder trial, we had one member of the Jury that even though she though
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
your ignorance is truly mind boggling even for slashdot, that is saying a lot considering some of the ignorance that is regularly displayed here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Classic.
Re:Hiding behind anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
You can bet those retarded assholes would be much more polite if they weren't cowering behind a veil of anonymity.
You do have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously, retarded or not.
Re: (Score:2)
You can bet those retarded assholes would be much more polite if they weren't cowering behind a veil of anonymity.
I've seen many post where one threatens the other with death threats or for libel yet it went no further (and this was when the posters IP address was listed in the headers).
Re: (Score:2)
You can bet those retarded assholes would be much more polite if they weren't cowering behind a veil of anonymity.
I've seen many post where one threatens the other with death threats or for libel yet it went no further (and this was when the posters IP address was listed in the headers).
Didn't think of it when posting.
My Usenet provider retains many years of post in some areas, here's part of a header as a cit, if you go to https://www.robtex.com/ [robtex.com] and input the "NNTP-Posting-Host:" you can see where this person lived or still lives.
All you see anymore is the message bouncing back and forth between Google servers with 10.x.x.x addresses.
--------
Subject: Re: Really #ucked up kid
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:40:01 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6
This is a two pronged argument (Score:3)
1. Would a right-minded person consider the comments to be of a specific and threatening nature? This would have to go before a Grand Jury to decide if there is even a case to answer. This bit has apparently been done, and apparently there is a case to answer. ... make factual contentions regarding an Internet subscriber's infringing activities based solely on the fact that he or she pays the Internet bill," he wrote in his order of Elf-Man v Cariveau et al., 2013
2. This is an either/or, depending on the answer to the first question. If yes, are the comments traceable to an individual who can a: be named and b: therefore be served with a valid warrant of whatever description? If no, can an individual's rights be trumped by the rights of the State as they invoke that right to access to your information and everybody else's information per the new snooping laws which have given the Sunset sections of PATRIOT six months' grace? The Constitution says no, and District Judge John Rasnik agrees [slashdot.org]: "It is not clear that plaintiff could
Re:This is a two pronged argument (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a two pronged argument (Score:5, Funny)
Well that's not kosher.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, then a cheeseburger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I like to put it this way: "A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, but it won't indict bacon."
Re: (Score:2)
As for item 1, it is said that any decent DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like classic government overreach.
Government doesn't seem to think so. Never does either. Which is why the road to tyranny is always a slow drip.
Re: (Score:2)
Increasingly, "government overreach" is getting to be a redundancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Normal procedures for North Korea and USA (Score:2, Interesting)
Please don't resist. In oppressive regimes such request should not be challenged.
We feel sorry for folks living in USA or North Korea
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't resist. In oppressive regimes such request should not be challenged.
We feel sorry for folks living in USA or North Korea
What an utterly inane statement. This slashdot discussion is all about juries, judges, laws, interpretations of laws, justice, and freedom. Do you think any of these things matter in North Korea? That's the huge difference between the US and North Korea. Sure, there are a lot of things wrong with the US and its government and laws, but it's nowhere near the situation in North Korea. Not even close.
That's a common problem here on slashdot, the bubbling of emotions to cloud reasoning. Yes, prosecuting p
Yikes (Score:5, Interesting)
I seem to recall that the Framers Intent for free speech and freedom of the press were written by men who had actually *anonymously* printed TREASONOUS and SEDITIOUS pamphlets against their lawful government just a few years before.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know they would have to drive across the country? How do you know they are not serious? This case is borderline, but even in more clear cases where people have said they were sitting outside someone's house, complete with their home address, people have claimed that they didn't think the threats were serious.
How about taking some responsibility for what you say? If you are not serious, make that clear. Otherwise accept that your actions are likely to cause alarm, like shouting "fire!" in a theatr
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the <sarcasm> tage and were promptly modded to zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Search for Lisa Nowak [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're acting like a big baby?
Those are not true threats (Score:5, Insightful)
There is zero chance those are true threats.
1) No objectively reasonable person reading those words on that forum would possibly believe the judge's life was in any danger.
2) There is no actual threat of specific action. The closest, perhaps, is this one: "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot." But that's not a threat against this judge, specifically, just "judges like these." And "will be" but no mention of who's going to do the shooting. Or when. Just some indeterminate point in the future, someone "will" do something to perhaps other people like this one. That's not a threat. All the rest of the "threats" are of the form "hope" or "should," which are also not threats, but wishes. I can wish you dead all I want, but unless I've developed magic powers that make my wishes come true, "wishing" is a pretty damn empty threat.
3) Also, the words were not directed at the judge, or posted in a place anyone would reasonably expect her to read.
This is stupid, so stupid, and I hope Reason fights them.
And this is totally different than Elonis, in which he posted his raps about how 1) he 2) will 3) commit specific acts of violence 4) against specific people and 5) posted them in a place those people are very likely to see. This is nothing like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Just some indeterminate point in the future, someone "will" do something to perhaps other people like this one. That's not a threat.
At some point in the future, and I'm not saying when, people like you will be pummelled with pillows. I'm not saying you. Just people like you. You have absolutely nothing to worry, and the fact I'm saying that in a very menacing tone should not be taken as a suggestion that I'm actually specifically meaning you.
For all you know, no one has your personal address and is not in the habit of parking outside your home in the dark. No. Although some people have a psychopathic hatred of people like you, you
Re: (Score:2)
This is the wonderful thing, in my opinion, about the word "reasonable" that we see in so many laws and precedents. It's left to juries of our peers to decide what's "reasonable" and not, in specific circumstances. Not generalized hypothetical situations. But on a case by case basis. And what's reasonable and what is not changes as society does.
This is good! I don't want a defined standard of "reasonableness" from the 1700s enforced today. I like the same general principles, but I want today's standard of r
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so what they're going to do is find out who said this, check to make sure they haven't been doing anything that looks like planning to kill someone, and then close the investigation.
Maybe. And maybe it's an opportunity to harass the libertarian community.
As Ken opines, this is, in fact, legal and they do have the power to do this, even if we grant that the threats are not unprotected true threats.
Actually, granting that the threats are not unprotected true threats voids the legality of the requests.
Re:Those are not true threats (Score:5, Interesting)
Not exactly. Here's a lengthy comment [slashdot.org] I wrote about the decision. While I am not a lawyer, I do pretend to be one on the internet. I post on forums where people write analyses of cases and we discuss them, and actual lawyers (including my father) have said the analysis to which I linked you (or a version thereof) is "not bad." Take that for what you will.
Elonis' conviction was overturned, yes, but he's not out of the woods. It's been remanded back to the 3rd circuit. The nut of the decision is that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were bad, saying they needed only to find that Elonis was negligent, posting things that he should have known would be interpreted as threats. The Supremes said that's not good enough. They won't tell us what the standard actually is (recklessly? Knowingly? Purposefully?) but "negligently" is not good enough. So he could well get a new trial, at which point the judge will inform the new jury they must find that he was one of those other things.
Here, however, I find it impossible that anyone could post those anonymous comments to the Reason blog and any of: 1) intend to make a reasonable person afraid for her life ("purposefully"), 2) know a reasonable will become afraid for her life ("knowingly"), or 3) know a reasonable person will likely fear for her life and do so anyway ("recklessly").
So, none of the possible mens rea requirements that result from Elonis could apply here. There is zero chance anyone could ever convict any of these people under 18 U. S. C. 875.
And the U.S. Attorney's Office knows it. Absolutely knows it. They are doing this purely to harass and threaten, and chill political dissent. It's despicable.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a judge who deals with drug dealers, some of whom have murdered or ordered hits on people. In fact in the very case being commented on there were suggestions that murders had been ordered. I imagine the court and the judge both have security, in the form of guards and metal detectors etc.
So yeah, Joe Random might not take such things too seriously, but we are not talking about Joe Random. The people posting these comments could be ex users of Silk Road, drug addicts who are now pissed off, or drug d
Re: (Score:2)
But particularly a reasonable judge should be able to distinguish between true threats and what is merely political hyperbole. And these statements are nowhere near true threats.
"True threats" are not precisely and uniformly defined, and are different in different jurisdictions. But there are general tests one can apply. A bunch of little check boxes you can mark off that, if you have enough of them, you can reasonably call them a true threat.
These statements meet almost none of them. It would impossible fo
Re: (Score:2)
You would have to look at the totality of the circumstances. Who's doing the threatening? Do they have a history of violence? How specific is the action they're talking about?
Probably not. If I were holding hands with a black girl and a person I don't know came up, called me a "nigger lover" and told me that "people like me will be shot," I would probably tell him to fuck off. No, I would feel uncomfortable and offended, and angry about it, but I would not feel afraid for my life.
Interstate Threats (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the posts contained no verifiable threats ( real or otherwise ) that's not really the point of this is it ?
My guess is the true agenda is to show folks that your First Amendment rights are always subject to scrutiny and interpretation by those who may not like what you have to say. That realization tends to have a chilling effect on what folks are willing speak up about. Which is probably the point of the whole exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how do they know the threats are interstate if they don't know who posted them?
reason should hire paul alan levy (Score:3)
Reason can oppose the subpoena. Court cases sell magazines. The lawyer to hire is Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen. He's the expert on anonymity and subpoenas. I'm a lawyer who does anonymous speech cases, but Levy's focus is n the discovery process in litigation, and what are the right standards; how much does the party seeking the subpoena have to prove in order to accommodate first amendment interests? The relevant cases include Dendrite, 2theMart, and Doe v Cahill.
Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), is a significant case in the realm of anonymous internet speech and the First Amendment. While similar issues had been tackled involving criticism of a publicly traded company,[1] the case marks the first time a U.S. State Supreme Court addressed the issue of anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention Elonis vs US
Relevant Video (Score:2)
Fargo [youtube.com]
that the hearer will take the threat seriously. (Score:2)
That right there is fucked up. No speaker is responsible for what the 'hearer' does.
Read the comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the comments have been censored, I just don't see it. There were many posts suggesting that the courts, law enforcement, and the DOJ have jumped the shark, but nothing that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat. That makes this read as an intimidation play against citizens making legitimate commentary and at the same time, a validation of the views they expressed.
Judge Katherine Forrest (Score:2)
Judge Katherine Forrest will be sleeping with the fishes...
Judge Katherine Forrest will be given a nice pair of cement shoes...
A gift of a Sicilian necktie would look good on Judge Katherine Forrest...
NSA, come at me bro...
I Thought The Supreme Court Ruled On This (Score:2)
Re: Blogger getting subpoena? (Score:2)