Slashdot Mirror
FBI Seeks Suspect's Web Game Records
wiredmikey writes "The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday asked the administrator of an Internet game to hand over records of communications by Jared Loughner, following a Wall Street Journal article describing disturbing messages the accused shooter wrote over a three-month period last year. In an interview, David McVittie, the administrator of the Web game Earth Empires, said he was contacted by the FBI, which requested the files, including 131 messages that Mr. Loughner wrote."
The going after twitter messages looks kind of dubious, but this request has more grounding - it would be very easy for someone to use any online RPG to use as a conduit for messages if they thought someone might be monitoring email or phone. Given that the U.S. is treating him as a criminal suspect (which I'll leave the validity of to the side), this request seems pretty reasonable to build a case against someone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why exactly is this news or a surprise? Will everyone be shocked because they request credit card, banking and cell phone information too?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Obviously, they have plenty of probable cause connecting him to an actually serious crime, and they probably obtained a warrant in this case to get these records. While Loughner may not have left explicit notes along the lines of "I'm going to shoot people", it would definitely be relevant for the purpose of establishing his mental state.
Not every search-and-seizure is objectionable, you know. Sometimes, the government is actually doing its job properly.
But why?
I mean, how does this help?
Oh no. An agency authorized by the people to keep them safe has used the system we created to keep the people safe. Will there be no end to this tyranny?
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
Hey, I have no doubt Loughner said some creepy stuff on some online games. I have $10 that says none of it was half as bad as the shit that I hear Halo-playing 12 year olds say on XBox Live at night though.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
This is just another example of our fascist dictatorial government shitting on free speech.
Really? Is his right to free speech being infringed upon simply because the government is looking to see what he said?
If you want to say something but don't want anybody else to know what you said, mumble to yourself. But if you speak out loud, don't be surprised if somebody heard you.
And "freedom of speech" was never about "no consequences for your speech".
for case. This is what they are supposed to be doing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, it is not. You do not understand what "fascist" and "dictatorial" actually mean. Plus, exhortation to violence is not protected speech. Finally, even if it were protected speech, the government is allowed to access it with a warrant while building a criminal case. You, sir, are an idiot.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It is rather pointless to get this information and perhaps dangerous. Things said in-game could be construed by others to mean things other than what they intended. While undoubtedly Loughtner is guilty, it sets a disturbing precedent where people will be judged out of context for what they said. I mean, whats next? Arresting someone because they said in the middle of a Call of Duty game that they were going to shoot someone (referring to the game)?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
every time someone in the government so much as sneezes, you are supposed to read their actions as the continual destruction of our rights and the inevitable vise-like tightening towards the establishment of worldwide freedom crushing fascism
not, you know, meat and potatoes law enforcement
so shame on you. where is your requisite dose of paranoid schizophrenia when making comments on a comment board? i have never been so outraged at such a reasonable and even tempered post in a long time
now get back to your keyboard and find something to whine about hysterically!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They want to see if he's insane or not. Given the amount of crazy this guy has displayed, it is possible he's actually legally insane. Part of determining that will be looking in to the communications he's made. That's going to include things in games, as well as e-mail and so on. The more information the better.
I'm pretty sure "exhortation to violence" is actually protected speech (in the US), as long as it's not immediate violence - a clear and present danger. If a skinhead website wants to go on a rant about how the Jews are evil and should be killed, without suggesting any specific and immediate illegal acts ("are there any queers in the theater tongiht? Get em up against the wall!"), that's protected. Eventually we'll fuck the constitution yet again and outlaw unpopular speech (aka hate speech), but it hasn't quite happened yet.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
it was computer games that caused this!!!
I KNEW IT!!
Then turn off the computer.
For example, I think you're a shit eating fuckface. Don't like that? Turn off your computer. Pussy.
Correct, it must be an immediate exhortation to violence. Sorry if that was unclear.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, this isn't "Dangerous", it's part of the give and take of a criminal trial, and requesting this information was a perfectly proper thing to do. Just like you can use phone recordings, e-mail messages, letters, conversations, etc.... why should there be special status for his online message transcripts?
Yes, things can be taken out of context. And that is an argument the defense can make, should the prosecution choose to use this evidence in the trial. The mere possibility of the evidence being mis-interpreted is no reason for the evidence never to be collected.
SirWired
for reasons of insanity:
"I couldn't stop hearing Palin's voice in my ear telling me to shoot them all!"
It would be, actually, so easy for terrorists to communicate on games like Counter Strike.
Personally, I think free speech should be an absolute. Thusly I should be able to say I think all Yankee fans should die in a fire without fear of being dragged to court for it. All speech, even hate speech, should be protected.
That being said, this isn't an issue of prosecuting him for speech. It is a matter of using his statements to prove the murders were premeditated.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
According with several FPS game logs, we have a lot of mass murderers around. They even found there who sniped the player Jfk
Your statement is borderline crazy. Please educate yourself on the actual rights provided by the constitution so you can identify the many actual abuses made by the US government. This isn't one of them.
There is something about your tone that makes me fear for the lives of congress-people.
The guy shot 20 people in broad daylight, killing six including a little girl, an old man trying to shield his wife with his body, and a federal judge. Among the 14 wounded were a US Rep who may never fully recover. He was only prevented from killing more people by people tackling him during a reload... If ever there was an excuse to get a warrant for some transcripts this is it.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
You're talking to people who have no idea what evidence is, or the chain of evidence. Or how it's used in law to build a case, this is pretty much normal, run of the day type of stuff.
Om, nomnomnom...
If free speech is an absolute, and all speech is protected, then libel and slander would not be crimes. You okay with that?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
People could still sue in civil courts over libel and slander, which is what they do most of the time currently.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I'm more afraid of my government imprisoning me for speaking out against them than I am of being libeled. So, yes.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How could they sue in civil court if slander and libel were protected speech?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Pro-pot or anti-pot, atheist or believer, the actions of Loughner reflect only on Loughner.
This tarring of everyone with continent-wide brushes is bullshit from ALL sides.
And anyone who engages in it goes right into my "part of the problem" bucket.
Pretty much nails it.
Close. The "clear and present danger" test was obsoleted by Brandenburg v. Ohio, in favor of the "intent, imminence, likelihood" test. See http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21677
But you're right on the whole.
Yeah I don't think the shooter fits in directly with any major ideology. That said Mother Jones has two very interesting articles on the language he uses and reports from friends close to him. They mention the "sovereign citizen" movement as a possible influence. I don't know what the truth is but I know that most communist are not real big fans of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/sovereign-citizens-jared-lee-loughner
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message
Peace my brothers & sisters,
End15
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
Charles Manson was convicted of several murders because he incited others to kill. He wasn't physically there when the murders took place, yet he is generally accepted as being the dominant factor in those murders. He was convicted for conspiracy and had joint responsibility for the murders. This is a really fuzzy area, because Manson manipulated people who did the killing but was convicted as though he was the one with the knife. So whatever Manson said to manipulate the Family appears to have crossed the line from protected free speech to an illegal incitement to violence. Fuzzy fuzzy.
I haven't seen anybody explicitly make the Manson connection, but it seems that the vibe is in the air.
So, you'd like to base laws on what you personally happen to be most afraid of, rather than what is just?
Well, at least you're in good company these days.
You can sue someone for anything. There doesn't have to be a criminal law for the basis of a lawsuit.
Every libel/slander/defamation case I can recall has been a civil one. It wouldn't shock me to discover criminal defamation laws, but I'd argue they are unconstitutional.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Well said. Wish I had mod points for you.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
ya,right.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You should really think about what you just posted there and then consider whether the rest of your comment should even be admitted into a conversation about civil rights, etc.
And "freedom of speech" was never about "no consequences for your speech".
Let's be careful with how we throw this phrase around, shall we? I've seen it used with increasing frequency over the past few weeks, in a number of different contexts, and it scares me that people will still be parroting this when the gov't really does start cracking down on free speech.
How could they sue in civil court if slander and libel were protected speech?
Because civil court has nothing to due with law, just lawsuits.
Nothing to say here... move along
Mad as in "insane" or as "angry"? Probably both!
Seeing as every gun rampage of the last 3 decades has been (I think quite successfully) linked directly to the perpetrator playing Metroid or listening to Alice Cooper, I think it's satisfying that yet another case has been wrapped up quite so quickly; clearly tick-based browser strategy game "Earth Empires" is the corrupting force behind this travesty.
I hope it, and all games like it, are quickly brought to justice. For the sake of the children, you understand.
Just adding, your right "chance" Even Face to face, is suspect. Infrared and basic audio eavesdropping come to mind. Thus, it maybe argued that silence is safe, not so. Consider, the advances in neuroimaging. All we can hope for, is to STOP paying the high-cost of insecurity.
At the same time, truly consider the risk and probabiliities of imagined and very real risk escalation.
I do not use ATM's in the middle of the night, associate with violent game players - with the mostly disenchanted fantasies of same.
Don't know the answer, but hold on to your own and protect your liberties. I hate looking over my shoulder, and object to anyone looking over mine as well.
Too bad, we will always be faced with others that choose not to live a non-destructive. just and un-imposing life.
Adults, kids stealing consoles, kids killing parents over video game play etc. Children fighting over yug0gi0oh cards etc.
We are going backwards.
But if you speak out loud, don't be surprised if somebody heard you.
And "freedom of speech" was never about "no consequences for your speech".
That's correct, however don't be surprised when somebody understands or experiences what the essence of that can be, how extremely oppressive it can be when twisted and turned using every trick in the book, as often happens be it a trivial matter or not, and starts speaking using bullets or other means of violence. Hard for a person to speak any louder than that and little reason not to when pushed hard enough.
And boy are most people surprised time and time again. Maybe they're simply fools.
The guy killed a bunch of people including a 9YO child in front of hundreds of witnesses, and some of you can still get outraged that somebody wants to find out what he had to say on a GAME FORUM? Sheesh!
I'm an administrator for earth empires, though I'm not the one mentioned by name in the summary. I'm posting AC for obvious reasons.
The FBI only wanted information from an alliance hosting site related to the game. I believe an appropriate equivalent would be a WoW guild setting up a forum to discuss strategy, organize raids, and things like that. Information was obtained from the forum, but not from the game itself.
The alliance hosting site in question happens to be run by one of the game's administrators. Providing information to the FBI did not violate the site's privacy policy in this case because the site's community manager had already leaked information to the WSJ. Even if we had wished to fight the subpoena, we do not have the legal resources to do so.
I hope that this provides a little more context and clarifies the situation.
As I understand it, if you take actions that are intended to lead to someone's death you can be charged with murder, regardless of whether that action is pulling the trigger yourself, paying someone else to pull the trigger, or somehow manipulating another person to do it. This is IMHO the correct way to handle these things. Do you feel that Manson is not criminally responsible for those deaths?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Do these people here on Slashdot realize that by blaming the GOP, they sound just like the idiots that blame violent video games for violence?
Well spoken. However, I am not sure that it is the same thing to compare populist propaganda designed to incite hate and fear with simulations of violence. The former is certainly trying to influence and alter behavior, while the latter is just trying to provide escapist entertainment.
While I would not be surprised to find out that a unstable individual was incited to violence by extremist propaganda, I think the prudent thing to do would be simply wait and let the investigation proceed and see if the source of this insanity can be uncovered before we start flinging blame about. I
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
we have Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Drowning Pool and Video Games to blame for his actions... can't we just blame him?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Here's the only response I'd like from the server company, hosting company or networking company.
Mr FBI,
I'm happy to work to provide the data within a reasonable time after the court order is provided AND my legal council has validated it AND the FBI has agreed to pay costs associated with retrieval of the specific required data.
Thanks.
- Website, Server and Network Owner
---
At the same time, I'd expect an email AND phone call to the person for who the data was being requested.
There's a wonderful thing about living in the USA. We have laws which should treat everyone equally (in theory) and the government needs to play by those rules too.
People could still sue in civil courts over libel and slander,
I don't think you understand what "absolute" means; if free speech was an absolute, government could not restrict speech through law at all, whether that law was civil, criminal, or administrative. There are protections that are restricted to a criminal context, but these rights are necessarily not "absolute", they are bounded by the criminal context. Free speech rights already extend beyond the criminal context, and limit civil actions for libel and slander (e.g., the famous New York Times v. Sullivan rule); at the same time they are not absolute in either the civil or criminal context.
You can sue someone for anything. There doesn't have to be a criminal law for the basis of a lawsuit.
There doesn't have to be a criminal law to file a civil lawsuit, but there does have to be a law; the absence of a legal basis for the suit is, unsurprisingly, a ground for dismissal.
You cannot have a law prohibiting libel or slander if free speech rights are absolute. In fact, even in the US legal system which actually exists without absolute free speech protections, the free speech rights that do exist limit the ability to sue for libel or slander -- consider, e.g., New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964).
IF you cause me quantifiable damages, then I have a valid lawsuit even if there isn't a law to govern it.
And while I feel dirty citing it, the famous McDonalds Coffee lawsuit comes to mind. McDonalds merely served the same temperature coffee that they always have forever. Someone spilled coffee on themselves, and McDonalds had to fork over something like 14 million.
There was no criminal law broken.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
As long as they used the proper procedure for requesting information off the server logs (ie, a search warrant), then there's no issue here. The problem that one can easily foresee is some sort of automated monitoring of all information - even from video games - to be parsed for profiled styles of communication. I don't know about you, but I assert a certain level of privacy in my conversations - whether they're between two people in a closed environment or via an email or a letter. While everything can be recovered and used in a court of law (again, with proper procedures), that doesn't mean that they should all be actively monitored -- which I think is an obvious eventual path that can be extrapolated from this.
Of course, if what they're doing here is "shitting on free speech", then I have to wonder how the original commenter feels about them using testimony from people who have had conversations with a person who is accused of a crime. Oh noes!
Also, wouldn't it be weird to see them try and auto-parse games for profiled communications? What on earth would you flag that isn't part of common game conversations about every three seconds?
You can exercise your freedom of speech to express your dissent. The consequences for that speech will be that we're going to audit you. Or accuse you of a hideous crime. Or just disappear you and leave your family wondering where you ran off to, fifty years ago.
You can not successfully sue someone in civil court for protected speech.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That's not the direction we're going. We're rapidly heading in the "mean words are a form of assault" direction. I'm sure there will be a felony level conviction for "meanness" in my life time.
Falsely accusing you of rape, because I don't like you is hardly the same thing as being criminalized for merely saying or writing something violent. Even if we DO try to turn every sixth grader drawing a map of his school or every fifth grade boy drawing pictures of guns into a suspected socio-path that has to be monitored and observed closely for the rest of their life.
OK, I find that government suppression of free speech is less just than libel. If I'm imprisoned by my government for speaking out against it, I'm pretty much fucked, and so is the country. If I'm libeled I have recourse, I can debunk the accusations, or I can libel the fucker right back.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
IF you cause me quantifiable damages, then I have a valid lawsuit even if there isn't a law to govern it.
Wrong. I mean, you can file a lawsuit anytime you want, but if there is no law providing an actual remedy for the harm you allege occurred, no matter what the magnitude of the harm is or how directly related it is to my action, that lawsuit will (if the court is doing its job) be dismissed when I file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
And while I feel dirty citing it, the famous McDonalds Coffee lawsuit comes to mind.
The famous "coffee lawsuit", Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, was brought under negligence law, which is law, and thus not an example of your claim that "quantifiable damages" produce a "valid lawsuit even if there isn't a law to govern it".
Someone spilled coffee on themselves, and McDonalds had to fork over something like 14 million.
There was a $3 million jury award, which was reduced by the judge to $640,000; the award was appealed by both sides, and settled prior the appeal being heard for an amount reported as less than $600,000, which is just a little less than $14 million.
There was no criminal law broken.
Sure, there was no criminal law at issue because it wasn't a criminal case. But not all law is criminal, and there would not have been a judiciable claim without an applicable law. The absence of criminal law is not the absence of law.
Because it wouldn't be justified if he shot 20 people outside a strip club at night, killing six people including four strippers, a DJ, and a customer . . .
Anyway, I find it hard to believe anyone finds the request inappropriate. The only newsworthiness here is on two points:
1) It's chat from inside a game. Seems unusual; therefore, interesting-ish.
2) Did they just call up the company and say "hey, send this to us" and the guy folded or did they actually use a warrant? One would think they did. You know, because why would you risk a case otherwise? On the other hand, it's certainly not out of the question for the government to just say "send us your data on these people" and for the admins to comply without question and without guarding their customers rights whatsoever. You know, the whole telecommunications industry being in bed with the government as far as warrant-less requests over the last decade, for example.
You aren't a lawyer, are you?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Certain of that? or do you just think it SHOULD be true?
Nothing to say here... move along
Sorry, that came out a lot more adversarial that I intended.
Nothing to say here... move along
I'm sure it is true. Don't worry about sounding adversarial. This is the Internet. If I had a thin skin, I wouldn't be here.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I never claimed it was the same thing. EnderAndrew wants absolute free speech. I was merely pointing out one of the consequences.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I do think he was absolutely responsible, because he expertly manipulated people to kill for him. I think the Manson case represents an extreme end of the spectrum of a fairly murky and slippery moral dilemma. On the other end you have talking heads and some (erstwhile) politicians that are manipulating people to hate, appealing to people's animal instincts of fear, and that could lead to similarly horrible outcomes. The question is, at what point (if any) is it morally incumbent for us to say "these are things you can't say" because a lunatic will act on the rhetoric?
It wouldn't get the FBI in your hypothetical, I'd like think it'd get the same attention from the local cops (and it probably would, with this many people dead or wounded it wouldn't exactly be easy to file under "statistics")
As to your point two... it wouldn't really bother me if they hadn't gotten a warrant in this case. If the FBI calls me up and says "We'd like you clients records, because he.. um... might have been involved in some... stuff" I'm gonna want to see the warrant. If the FBI calls me up and says "Your client was that guy on TV that just killed six people in front of hundreds of witnesses... think we could see his records?" Unless there's a compelling legal reason for me to insist on a warrant I probably won't. I know they can get one in couple of hours, why waste everyone's time? The facts of the case aren't in question and the records are clearly relevant.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
And "freedom of speech" was never about "no consequences for your speech".
That deserves to be a sig
You can exercise your freedom of speech to express your dissent. The consequences for that speech will be that we're going to audit you. Or accuse you of a hideous crime. Or just disappear you and leave your family wondering where you ran off to, fifty years ago.
I'm pretty sure that's *not* what happened here with Jared.
I would like to agree with you, I really would -- but in civilized society, some words are going to have consequences. And yet this isn't such a case -- in this case, it's his actions that had consequences and anything he may have said is going to be secondary.
Yeah, I can't see any harm in investigating this guy, given that he was seen by so many witnesses and is pretty obviously guilty. Why would anyone complain?
Given what he did, I don't have any problem with them looking through all of his stuff. I doubt they'll find anything interesting, the guy is obviously nuts, but there's no way to be sure about all that without checking to see.
That's a rough call. There are two aspects to it I think. The first is intent. If there is no intent, it's not murder, though it's debatably manslaughter depending on the circumstances. The second is (for lack of a better term) causality. Can it be proven that you knew or should have known that your actions would cause someone's death, and can it be proven that your actions were a necessary contributing factor to the death (in other words, is there a likelihood that it would have happened anyway without you doing anything?). I suppose that still leaves us with an unpleasantly large gray area. We might have to settle for the Potter Stewart approach ("I know it when I see it"). I don't think in this case Palin is criminally responsible, but I'm not sure I could define what exact words she could say that would be just enough to cross the line.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
An insanity defense has nothing to do with whether it was pre-planned or not.
Insanity is about whether the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong. Not whether or not it was planned.
From US Code Tile 18 > Part 1 > Chapter 1
17. Insanity defense
(a) Affirmative Defense.-- It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
(b) Burden of Proof.-- The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Insanity defense
The problem here, of course, is that any sort of reasonably clear-headed research, planning or rehearsal of a murder will strongly suggest that you understood perfectly well where you were headed and why you wanted to go there.
The one thing you do not want to be caught researching is the insanity defense itself.
And "freedom of speech" was never about "no consequences for your speech".
So I guess any dictatorship can claim they support free speech now, don't they?
"You are free to speak, but it will have consequences."
What's the point of free speech if you can't speak without having to fear repercussions?
Just send this P.O.S. to China. They have a much efficient legal system.
New Economic Perspectives
> Insanity is about whether the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong. Not whether or not it was planned.
Yeah, but they can prove that the person knew it was wrong because of certain actions the killer did beforehand that wouldn't make sense unless they knew it was wrong. How do I know? Dad went nuts and murdered mom. This sort of thing came up at trial and I was deposed concerning it, then later called to the stand during the trial. The insanity defense was tried. It failed. He got life in prison, as well as treatment for schizophrenia.
So... yeah. I have some idea what it's like.
Incidentally, if you know any of these folks, give them space, yes, but... don't be too distant. It's easy to feel (and become) isolated after something horrific like this. That's not healthy.
Actually that guy is not "innocent until convicted" because he was caught red-handed on the spot, while committing the shooting spree. The court still may find him "not guilty due to insanity" although I seem to recall insanity defence is prohibited under federal law and he already appeared at a federal courthouse. I would say Obama is doomed of re-election if the shooter is not executed by ballot time. I do expect speedy trial and execution within one year very much.
I wish the 2nd amendment was given the protection of the 14th amendment, but only in exchange for capital punishment on the book for every firearm homicidor under US jurisdiction (because people who cannot be adequately punished for homicide, should not be allowed to bear and carry devices explicitly designed for homicide).
While your comment was quite interesting to me, just admit that you were waiting for an excuse to use the word "numismatist" weren't you. Kudos on the awesome use of a $0.50 word.
Really? Because you can successfully sue someone for shoveling their fucking sidewalk if it re-freezes and ends up slipperier than the snowy sidewalk was. And even if it's not a successful suit, who wants to be sued?
The law in that case is against negligence by a property owner. My point was that there needs to be a law on the books for a successful lawsuit, and you have shown nothing to disprove my point. Thanks for bringing up irrelevant tangents, though, they always make a discussion more colorful.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This whole mess with Palin reminds me of that weird thing that happens with a room full of people at a party all having different conversations. Suddenly the room goes silent except for one person who is in the middle of saying something that is loud and also socially inept. Everyone else in the room hears it.... In this case what distracted the party was 31 gunshots.