Reddit Bans Subreddit Dedicated To Finding Navy Yard Shooters

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reddit became a gathering place for amateur sleuthing in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing earlier this year, fueling what some reports called 'online witch hunts' that resulted in some people being falsely identified as the bomber. Now Andrea Peterson reports at the Washington Post that a section on the popular online community for finding the Navy Yard shooters has been banned. 'We banned it because it violated site rules by encouraging the posting of personal information,' says Erik Martin from reddit. The shooting at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning left at least 12, including a gunman dead. But police say there may be another suspect at large, and they 'have reason to believe' this individual was involved in shootings."

Comments

I Am Not A Superhero

[xkosh]

IANAS

and.....

[Anonymous Coward]

i have no idea

Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a story about reddit, l predict the usual anti-gun nuts will come out of the woodwork with their gun control agenda.

This is plainly offtopic and should be discouraged by modding all threads down.

Keep it ontopic folks, otherwise you are hijacking the conversation and violating slashdot policy.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[cheater512]

Can someone please mod this nut offtopic?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how civilised countries that dont have hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of people dont have the long line of gun massacres? And are safer in general with less crime in general? So what is wrong with the picture here, or is it the USA is just fucked up?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm out of mod points. But thanks for asking.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

oppression comes in many forms. Preventing the right of people to defend themselves from folks who don't care what the law says... well, that's even more fucked up than what you're describing.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how civilised countries that dont have hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of people dont have the long line of gun massacres? And are safer in general with less crime in general? So what is wrong with the picture here, or is it the USA is just fucked up?

Get your nose out of the business of people who live in
other countries.

We don't care what your opinion is, we choose to do things
differently in the US and will continue to do so whether you
pathetic bootlicking self likes it or not.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

you're an ignorant hypocrite

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Then how about the USA let other countries have weapons of mass destruction without lying about it and then invading them.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how civilised countries that dont have hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of people dont have the long line of gun massacres? And are safer in general with less crime in general? So what is wrong with the picture here, or is it the USA is just fucked up?

The USA is not a civilized country. Period.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[MightyYar]

And are safer in general with less crime in general?

You might want to look at those crime stats again. The USA has a fuckload of homicides compared to Western Europe, especially by gun, but violent crime overall is not bad. And that's a minor miracle considering our public policy regarding the urban poor. So yes, in the US if you are involved with gang warfare, you stand a larger chance of being murdered than in Europe. On the other hand, if you are just walking down the street, you are a lot more likely to get mugged in Europe. So there you go.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

AHAHAHAHAHA and you think a gun will do that. Funny too how those safe countries have much harsher controls also are MORE free in actual important ways than your shithole.

Hey guess what - the fact the crime rates and murder rates AND massacres are MORE prevalent in the USA completely debunks your theory about self defence. And did you ever think that in an armed populance, the criminals just simply shoot first? How you gonna defend yourself if you are fucking dead?

Frankly I'll take being in a country where you are actually safe and have no fear of being assaulted - maybe instead of fellatio over the imagined protection of a gun you get your fuckign society in order and create an enviroment where poeple dont feel the need to shoot or be criminals int he first place? Oh wait you mean the real solution is too hard so you have to have to run and hide under so called gun rights?

Fuck you and your guns and your short sighted bullshit.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with a massacre? You make it sound like nipples were shown during the killings.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[bhcompy]

Civilized countries like Switzerland, where almost everyone has an assault rifle at home at one time or another and has an option to take a fire arm home for free from the government after their mandatory military service? That country is pretty goddamn civilized.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Preventing the right of people to defend themselves from folks who don't care what the law says... well, that's even more fucked up than what you're describing.

yeah because that's worked out so well! do you carry a gun everywhere just in case there is a shooting massacre? what sort of fucked up hick wants to live in a society (pretty loose use of the term in this context) where everybody is carrying a deadly weapon and trained to kill? the best trained with the biggest gun will be the one left standing.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the part where you're attempting to compare the monocultures of Europe with the US.

Protip, kid: You have no fucking clue.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think that, and yet it is illegal to lay a simple minefield around my house to keep myself and my loved ones safe from criminals who don't care about the law. My guns are all well and good, but I have to sleep some time, and my guns aren't always with me, so I could easily be caught unprepared.

I'm also not allowed to have a single trifling little anti-aircraft missile system or iron dome system to protect my family in my own home. And yet any criminal who doesn't obey the law is perfectly free to lob mortars into my house willy-nilly.

And, get this, the oppressive state forces me to drive my loved friends and relatives around in a tin can car which has no reactive armor, no 120mm smoothbore cannon, and not even a 50 cal machine gun mounted on top of it. How could I possibly protect my family if some criminals who don't obey the law just decided to attack my car that is utterly defenseless thanks to the oppressive state?

Such oppressive bullshit. The state is practically patronizing me by allowing me to have a few pea shooters. They're basically saying "if the criminals who don't care about breaking the laws launch a full scale amphibious and aerial invasion of your property, then you may have a gun to shoot your family and loved ones with before turning on yourself, before the enemy can rape and torture and kill you all."

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[rubycodez]

Compared to what? Japan where more people are murdered by their own hand? Syria? North Korea? Mexico?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

If your aim was really to prevent partisan bickering, I would like to think you'd have left "anti-gun nuts" out of it entirely and presented a neutral stance instead. As it stands, you're just making a pre-emptive strike.

Actually, if you drop "anti-gun" and change "agenda" to "agendas", this sounds like a downright reasonable post. Perhaps keep that in mind next time?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[halivar]

This is getting tedious. America has had more guns than people since Euros first stepped foot on it 500 years ago. If guns haven't turned the US into a lawless Mad Max apocalyptic wasteland by now, chances are it isn't going to anytime soon.

Oh wait you mean the real solution is too hard so you have to have to run and hide under so called gun rights?

And WTF does it even mean to "run and hide" under gun rights? This is histrionic babble.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Oligonicella]

How dare you criticize such a well thought out and rational point of argument?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip little manchild : You are a fucking idiot

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[symbolset]

Guns owned by Americans still outnumber Americans, as they have since WWII. Americans are still more likely to be killed by an agent of the government, or themselves, than another armed citizen. Ownership of guns is not the problem. Lack of mental health care is the problem.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[symbolset]

The argument about gun rights is about to dissolve into an argument about restricting chemistry, and we know how that ends. If people can print a gun then all bets are off.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of gun ownership has lead to hideously destructive wars as dictators could easily take over. If you average in those deaths, gun control is massively murderous. Enjoy your Pax Americana, Europa Europa.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[symbolset]

When my daughter's psychotic abusive ex-boyfriend tried to push his way past me into my house to confront her I was within my right and able to end his life right then. But I didn't. I chose to not. Time will tell if I erred there, and the trend is "yes, that was a mistake".

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[2fuf]

You can't print ammunition

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, we've had horrible dictators in Europe. They jailed and tortured people based on their nationality or religion, started wars, limited the freedom to travel, engaged in mass surveilance to the best of their abilities, controled peoples money even beyond their borders -- even requiring foreign banks to denounce on their citizens incomes and wealth, employed secret courts, blatantly disregarded their laws or even constitution. OH WAIT.
So when are You going to start Your revolt?

Anyway, speaking plainly, because I know the situation of Your schools: just having guns doesn't mean shit. In order to wage war on a dictator and his well organized army You need supplies and organization. An armed mob can't march on the capitol on an empty stomach (or an extremely fat one). And an armed mob can't do much against bombs dropped from several kilometers (You can put miles here, I know You are not accustomed to rational measuring systems) away or above, or against gas or other weapons of mass terror, destruction or crowd control. Even police could control Your mob of crazed gun owners, and easily. Army would only get involved if shit really hit the fan -- and then what are You going to do with Your assault rifles against tanks?

Not only that, are You going to fight an army with an uprising? So You basically start an another hideously destructive war, only this time it's a civil war.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[cbope]

The difference compared to the US is that in Switzerland, all those guns are kept at home by people who have been trained and serve(d) in the military. As in, they have been through a selection process to weed out the unstable idiots who should not have guns, because you do not want unstable idiots to have firearms period, whether in the military or not.

In the US, any Billy Joe Bob Gun-nut can go out and buy an assault rifle with little more than a basic background check. There is no training requirement and there is no psychological check in place to prevent guns from ending up in the wrong person's hands.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[cbope]

To further refine that, it's a lack of mental healthcare PLUS the easy availability of guns that is the problem. One without the other would not really be a problem.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

You are implying military service in general and conscription specifically include a comprehensive psychological and emotional analysis. They don't. (I have served.)

Further, assault rifles are no more legal in the US than in Canada, England, Australia, or Germany. It is very uncommon for civilians to rock fully-automatic weapons. Perhaps you are thinking of semi-automatic weapons.

I get the beef with the AR-15 because it looks almost identical to the M-16, but functionally it is no different from a semi-automatic handgun. One press of the trigger, one bullet comes out. Trigger must be released before another bullet can be fired. This is common sense, since neither short nor long bursts of suppressing fire are particularly useful in the context of engaging one or two hostiles during a school/mass shooting. They would be employed to suppress large groups of enemies on the battlefield.

Some SWAT teams, for example, use rifles that incorporate a two-round burst capability, allowing SWAT officers to deliver the proverbial "double tap" with one press of the trigger. That is about the only useful capability I can imagine for automated fire on civvie street.

Have I shot automatic weapons? Yes. Is it fun as hell? Also yes. Do we, as civvies, want automatic weapons? Sure, many of us do.

Do we "need" them? My answer is "I don't know". A better answer is probably "Not yet, hopefully not ever".

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[IamTheRealMike]

That's not what the article actually says. What it says is that the murder rate in the USA is much higher in general (it makes no mention of gang warfare), but that the mugging rate is lower than in Europe. Perhaps because people get shot instead of mugged instead?

Also, although it's a minor issue, I take umbrage with your phrasing of the first statement. It can be read to imply that violent crime in the USA is somehow doing better than normal. In fact violent crime rates have fallen everywhere in lockstep with phasing out of leaded petrol. The US has merely followed that trend, as would be expected from a phenomenon rooted in heavy metal poisoning.

So essentially what we have is that violent crime fell everywhere, including the USA, but in America muggings are generally replaced with shootings.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[MichaelSmith]

...and where the police don't walk around all day expecting to be shot dead.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[drinkypoo]

Not only can you print ammunition, but making bullets in a mold is beyond trivial.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[drinkypoo]

maybe instead of fellatio over the imagined protection of a gun you get your fuckign society in order and create an enviroment where poeple dont feel the need to shoot or be criminals int he first place?

Sadly, we can't create that country by outlawing guns.

Fuck you and your guns and your short sighted bullshit.

You're an anonymous coward. Emphasis on coward. You'd have to stand on a stool to even fail at penetration. But go ahead, try and fuck some gun owners, let us know how that works out for you.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[ScentCone]

The difference compared to the US is that in Switzerland, all those guns are kept at home by people who have been trained and serve(d) in the military

The guy (dead now) who shot up the Navy Yard had previously been in the military. And all he needed was a simple shotgun. The sort of thing that VP Biden says is exactly what people should own for hunting and self defense. He used that simple shotgun to shoot a military guard and gain access to that guard's handgun. He came across the rifle inside the Yard, said the Washington Post.

And no, just about nobody can buy an assault rifle. Do you mean a semi-auto rifle no different than every rancher uses to kill varmints in his cow pasture, only also equipped with black plastic parts that make no difference in lethality, but which make it look scarier to uninformed soccer moms?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

... the easy availability of guns ...

Indeed, that is what the news is reporting: deranged people with multiple firearms is the cause of massacres. So get rid of the firearms and deranged people will just be another disenfranchised demographic in a neo-liberal economy. But it will never happen: The right of corporations to make money; arms factories for example, is more important than the safety of the unwashed masses.

Australia disarmed 17 years ago, thanks to federal law, but its states are now installing 'stop and frisk' laws to stop gang murders. France is doing the same. Yet another reason why the 'criminals will be limited to knives (which are much safer)' mindset was so monumentally stupid.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[MightyYar]

So essentially what we have is that violent crime fell everywhere, including the USA, but in America muggings are generally replaced with shootings.

People, broadly, do not get shot for robbery. I may have been exaggerating for effect, but roughly 1/3 of homicides are motivated by an argument of some kind. 1/5 come while committing a felony. The point is, you are unlikely to get shot in the US just walking down the street.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

Lack of mental health care is the problem.

If that was the case, then people with even severe mental illnesses wouldn't be at much greater statistical risk (based on actual cases) of being assaulted and/or killed by everyday "sane" individuals than vice-versa, and the vast majority of violent gang members, rapists, etc. wouldn't similarly be lacking an identifiable mental illness.

While the majority of people in our prisons do have either a psychiatric illness or serious learning disability, they primarily comprise the ranks of people committing non-violent or non-lethal acts of crime out of desperation, caused by poverty (which is often both a cause and result of 'brain' conditions of all kinds) and/or the results of addictions caused by attempting to control their symptoms through drug use.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[MightyYar]

I think gun advocates are barking up the wrong tree with the whole "overthrow the government" angle. I agree that is a silly case to make when you have rifles and they have tanks.

That said, you don't have dictatorships in Europe??? What??? I'll give you a pass on Belarus, but Spain wasn't a democracy until pretty recently. Still, it doesn't fit the narrative of a gunless population overrun by a dictator.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

I love posts like this, because they're from people who obviously don't read the news.

How many countries are there where a well armed population is currently involved on ongoing contact with a better funded and equipped state military. 10? 15? The Tamil tigers went on for decades on a tiny island and you think there's no where to hide and strike from in the third largest country in the world? The police could handle it? Is that the police force that is completely comprised of local citizenry and has no connection to the state or national military?

No, you're right though, obviously despite 100% of the evidence being absolutely to the contrary.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

We do. We had, and we will have dictators. And they did (do) exactly the same things that are happening right now in America, Land of the [redacted].
The thing is, since permission to carry guns was supposed to scare the government from enacting dictatorship or curtailing freedom, where is the open revolt that was supposed to happen in the event of such tyrany?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[geminidomino]

One without the other would not really be a problem.

Yep, because crazies can't kill people without a gun.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[MightyYar]

LOL, dude I think you are argumentatively agreeing with me...

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[master_kaos]

I always laugh at this, "right to defend yourself" Defend yourself from what? I thought good ol' US OF A is the BEST PLACE ON THE PLANET if it is so great why do you need to defend yourself? Chances are if you need to defend yourself with guns, you are probably going to be killed anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Why do you need automatic weapons to defend yourself, or hand guns. Whats wrong with just a .22 or shotgun? Canada even seems high at 30, but I bet at least 20 of those are hunters or farmers if not more. If you are just defending yourself, you don't need a concealable weapon.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

But...but...but... that one guy in that one country knifed someone!!! GUN CONTROL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE YOU LIBERAL FAGGOT!!!!

-Typical retard NRA member

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

I think gun advocates are barking up the wrong tree with the whole "overthrow the government" angle. I agree that is a silly case to make when you have rifles and they have tanks.

That said, you don't have dictatorships in Europe??? What??? I'll give you a pass on Belarus, but Spain wasn't a democracy until pretty recently. Still, it doesn't fit the narrative of a gunless population overrun by a dictator.

The problem is people frame the concept wrong.

The Chestertown Gun club, can't stand up to the US Army. But they could stand up to the Kent County Sherif's Department. Not all abuse of power is "the president declared martial law", much more frequently it's smaller scale, and closer to home.

Similarly, in the event of a foreign occupation (it happened to France not that long ago), it would be really useful for the local militia if there were a fuckload of guns and ammo just laying around in people's homes mostly unaccounted for. This case is really the more relevant one to the 2nd amendment (which was drafted when the possibility of Britain deciding to reconquer the US was a very real concern.)

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[MightyYar]

This case is really the more relevant one to the 2nd amendment (which was drafted when the possibility of Britain deciding to reconquer the US was a very real concern.)

The problem is that the concept was abandoned before the 1700s ran out. They returned to the concept of a standing army after the militia idea proved ineffective.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Patch86]

The guy (dead now) who shot up the Navy Yard had previously been in the military. And all he needed was a simple shotgun. The sort of thing that VP Biden says is exactly what people should own for hunting and self defense. He used that simple shotgun to shoot a military guard and gain access to that guard's handgun. He came across the rifle inside the Yard, said the Washington Post.

The US's problem (if you accept it as a problem, which I do, but which you probably don't, but which I don't really want to argue about) is that it is flooded with guns of all sorts, compared to your average EU country.

Today's killer started out with a shotgun, shot a security guard, and took his semi-automatic handgun. Let's compare with the UK- shotguns are fairly readily available here, but not much else is. You can shoot as many policemen or security guards as you like with your shotgun, but you aren't going to be able to take their semi-automatic handgun- because security guards and beat policemen do not carry guns. If you shoot someone with your one-shot-at-a-time shotgun in the UK, the very next gun that you'll see on the scene will be one of the ones in the hands of the heavily armed police assault team who turn up to deal with you. In the meantime, your capacity for damage is limited by your manual shotgun loaded with birdshot.

Britain presumably has exactly the same number of deranged maniac who want to go on killing sprees as America does. The difference is, our deranged maniacs simply cannot get access to heavy weaponry.

Organised crime is obviously a slightly different proposition; but none of the big massacres to hit American headlines in the last few years fall into that category.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Patch86]

If you think that the perpetrator of the massacre in Washington could have killed 12 people with a box knife and a claw hammer, you are crazy.

The fact he killed 12 people is directly attributable to him managing to gain access to guns- one shotgun under his own steam, and two more weapons available at the scene. Him being crazy on its own would not have caused that massacre.

Same can be said of any school shooting or similar that you'd care to mention.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[geminidomino]

Same can be said of any school shooting or similar that you'd care to mention.

Okay... Let's see.

"Boston bombing."

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[ScentCone]

security guards and beat policemen do not carry guns

Are you saying that the military guards who protect the entrances to the UK's military headquarters buildings are unarmed? Really?

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[rea1l1]

That's exactly when you need a concealable weapon, otherwise you're the first target.

Re: Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, are you really saying Hitler was just as bad as Obama? I'm a conservative asshole and hate Obama, but come on, this is just pure hyperbole.

Re: Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwins Law. Also, Hitler was not the only dictator in Europe, there were others as well. Anyway, Hitler was nominated for Nobel Peace prize in 1939, and I'm not even joking.
And I'm not saying that this current president is worse or better than Hitler. The changes that are happening in America are not the fault of one president (Bush had had a hand in there as well) or the currently ruling party, but of fear. What I am saying is that people went on with limiting their freedoms in America, just as it happened in Germany. It is a slippery slope argument, I know, but if You were Jewish, in 1930s, would You have stayed in Germany? The answer we would have given today is most definite "no", but we are blessed with the knowledge of the future... so why did so many Jews say in Germany then? They too had had their freedoms curtailed, their liberties taken away and substituted for a system of control and oppression.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[rubycodez]

with today's news the situation gets even funnier for the Obama / Feinstein talking points of going to anti-"assualt rifle" and federal background checks... perp used a shotgun (just like Joe Biden reccommended!) and moreover had fed background check for his contractor job (passed even with all his previous bad behaviour).

Someone play Barack and the bitch (who built her millions on exporting assualt weapons while serving on committeee that authorized the same) the sad trombone

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[kmoser]

You can't print gunpowder.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[symbolset]

I do believe that one guy with a box knife did kill several thousand people on 9/11/2001. It's all about leverage. He took control of a plane with his box knife, crashed the plane into a building causing it to collapse, and thousands of people died. The bad guys don't need cannon, RPGs, fully automatic weapons to hash us up. They can continue to work on our psyche until we are as deranged as them. When we are as free of civil liberty as they want society to be the transition will be simpler for people to adjust to.

Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This

[symbolset]

I'm guessing you haven't dealt much with folks suffering from severe mental illness. I have. Yeah, they ought not have guns. But frankly whether they have guns or not is irrelevant to the fact that if you let your guard down they are going to kill you because you are an imagined threat/their ghost told them to/they don't know why/they enjoy killing and are fine with it. They could kill you with their bare hands, or a spoon. Frankly you should need a special OSHA permit to deal with crazy people. Given my experience with the clinically insane, they lack the discipline to learn how to properly aim a pistol generally, though there are exceptions.

This has nothing to do with the general population though. We don't organize the rights and benefits of our society around the needs of the clinically insane.

Pointless

[Revek]

Since 4chan will just get it wrong for them.

Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as it's the speech we allow you to say.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it on your property or public property. If you start talking crap about the occupation of palestine at Starbucks, they tell you to get out.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Sarten-X]

In America, you have freedom of speech... but it's the 18th-century definition of "speech", which is more accurately described by today's use of the word "expression", because you have the freedom to claim any idea you want, rather than being required to pretend you like whatever the government likes. Speaking of government, that's the only entity offering you that freedom. The government promises you free expression, but others are equally free to express displeasure at your expression, to the extent of their other rights. Businesses can refuse to serve you, newspapers can reject your letters to the editor, and other people can even burn you in effigy... because those are all protected speech/expression as well.

Of course, in the past 237 years, people have abused that freedom of expression to curtail others' rights. The Supreme Court has determined that the right to free expression is not as important as someone else's right to life, and it doesn't override rule of law, either. Speech that incites "imminent lawless action" is not protected, even from the government.

Americans have the freedom of expression. You can post your ideas on a billboard and display them (in a lawful manner), and you are completely safe from government prosecution and persecution for holding those views. You are not safe, however, from the consequences of pissing people off.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court has determined that the right to free expression is not as important as someone else's right to life, and it doesn't override rule of law, either. Speech that incites "imminent lawless action" is not protected, even from the government.

They have no power to insert things into the constitution that weren't there before, which is exactly what they did.

That "fire in a crowded theater" case? Used to arrest war protestors.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[circletimessquare]

well said

it is unfortunate so many people out there think freedom means "i can do whatever the hell i want without consequence" like an immature child

and don't understand what freedom really is: something that goes hand in hand with responsibility, as any true adult understands

please note:

where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom

if you don't understand or agree with that statement, you don't even know what freedom really is

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

I must have missed when Reddit and all other businesses had to adhere to the US Constitution, the Ten Commandments, and the Code of Hammurabi. Oh, wait, that's because I don't live in some kind of deluded libertarian bubble where everyone needs to bend to the whims of uninformed idiots.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Trentula]

You are not safe, however, from the consequences of pissing people off.

Like advocating for the freedom of slaves...

Re:Freedom of speech...

[russotto]

it is unfortunate so many people out there think freedom means "i can do whatever the hell i want without consequence" like an immature child

Just what DO you think freedom means? Do you think freedom means "I can do whatever the hell I want, right up until the point the state decides what I'm doing is irresponsible and sends goons to beat the shit out of me, throw me in a cage, and/or kill me?" Because that's an awfully funny definition of "freedom"; it's rather similar to "despotism".

where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom

if you don't understand or agree with that statement, you don't even know what freedom really is

The usual way that statement works is "the large print giveth, the small print taketh away". For example, "citizens have the right to free speech / citizens have the responsibility not to speak in a way Authority doesn't like".

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Sarten-X]

They have no power to insert things into the constitution that weren't there before...

...but the SCOTUS does have the power (and the duty) to interpret the law according to the circumstances at hand, reconciling the traditional written law with the current societal views. Ideally, the judicial branch is what determines whether something that is law is also right.

That "fire in a crowded theater" case? Used to arrest war [protesters].

Or, from the perspective of American citizens in 1919, the accused (Schenck) was weakening the American war effort, indirectly threatening the lives of every American. That infringes on their inherent and inalienable right to life, which as noted earlier, generally takes precedence over freedom of expression. The key detail in the ruling, of which "falsely shouting fire in a theatre" was an illustration, was that speech intended to create a "clear and present danger" should not be protected.

However, the SCOTUS was eventually swayed by later societal focus on the right of free expression. In 1969, another case reached the court (involving a man indirectly threatening the President), but the opinion had changed. The SCOTUS opined that even though the speech was advocating violence and literally even promoting treason, it was not directly inciting "imminent lawless action", so it should indeed be protected. That test remains the standard to this day, overriding the earlier "clear and present danger" concept.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Isaac Remuant]

Reddit has terms of service and rules that you adhere to when posting or otherwise participating in the community. They don't have an obligation to accommodate those rules to your liking.

That doesn't destroy your freedom of speech. You're free to email or use some other service which allows you to communicate that information. You can try Slashdot, if you want.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[circletimessquare]

more like "your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose"

i can't play my music at 3 am, i impinge on my neighbor's right to sleep

i can't speed 120 mph on the highway, i impinge on other driver's right to live

i can't smoke in the office, i impinge on my fellow worker's right to breathe

and when the boss/ police/ landlord comes by and complains, there will be some, like yourself, who in their immaturity, will see it as the state taking away their rights, when the only person infringing on other people's rights is you

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, seriously...

If I WAS safe from the consequences of pissing people off then what would be the point of having free speech to begin with?

Re:Freedom of speech...

[kwbauer]

Actually, they are not supposed to reconcile anything "with the current societal views." That is what causes all the problems. When current societal views say that "freedom of the press" only means printing or speaking viewpoints approved by the government and the government says that believing in the FOSS ideals is no longer allowed are we still okay with SCOTUS reconciling "with current societal views" or would we prefer that SCOTUS focus solely on the original intent of the framers (or authors of more recent amendments)?

Your example actually shows where SCOTUS fell for the current societal views trap and a later court had to correct the course back to be more in alignment with the original intent. That is, we are free to express ideas that are not popular; even ideas that are against the government. So far, nobody has been able to show that the framers were advocates of lawlessness or outright lying so the current interpretation is that free speech was never intended to allow such speech.

Another good example to see why adherents to all sides of the political spectrum should want the original interpretation model is the privacy of email and other cloud-storage. Why should personal communications via email or text message be viewed differently than snail mail. The court views Fedex and UPS the same as USPS, so why not email and text messages? I've seen it argued that because cloud-stored documents are in the hands of a third-party that the 4th amendment no longer applies to them. Really? The 4th amendment applies to my safe deposit box at the bank and to my storage unit I might rent and my property in them is being held by a third party. Are the things I type and store in the cloud any less my personal effects than the things I type on paper and store in that safe deposit box? No. But because "original intent" was getting in the way of the liberal agenda for so many years, society through it out as a concept and treats the phrase about the same way that the word Voldemort is treated in the Harry Potter universe.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[kwbauer]

While you may not be physically safe you are legally and philosophically safe. That is why the US allows many modes of self-defense. People may be upset by your words but that does not give them the "right" to harm you over it.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[kwbauer]

I like the definition I heard a Black man on TV use once a few years ago.

"Freedom does not mean doing what you can get away with, doing what you please. It means, instead, having the opportunity to do what you ought to do--for family and for community and for humanity as a whole."

Re:Freedom of speech...

[kwbauer]

Oh, the beauty of silence... or fools (idiots) not remaining silent.

Pot, meet kettle.

A libertarian would whole-heartedly agree that the US Constitution absolutely does not require a business to accommodate anyone's needs or desires. For instance, libertarians are absolutely against such things as the EEOC penalizing employers for not hiring based on race or political viewpoints and such. Libertarians view the constitution as allowing people to assemble with other like-minded people and this inherently means that they can choose to not associate with not-like-minded people.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[91degrees]

This has been reddit's policy for a while. It's fairly open and free, but there are explicit limits. Reddit doesn't claim to be a totally free and pen forum.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses can refuse to serve you

Me, yes. Me and my friends, yes. Me and everyone that has the same skin color as me, no.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[khallow]

Ah, yes. The freedom to do what Authority decides you ought to do. Bottom line is that in free societies, people will on occasion do things that aren't good for themselves or for society. Freedom means the freedom to do wrong things - thought not freedom to do them without consequence.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about irresposible zombies. That would be great.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[fa2k]

where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom

if you don't understand or agree with that statement, you don't even know what freedom really is

All right, I'm intrigued. To me, freedom in the legal sense is about immunity from consequences, i.e. that you can do something without being punished. Freedom is different from legal rights in that it's the default -- if nobody threatens you with violence, you are free. If the government grants you (or recognises your right to) freedom of speech , you can say anything without being persecuted by the government. The fact that others can ostrichise you or condemn you for the speech is orthogonal to the question of freedom. Even the government can disagree, but they can't use their special powers. Then the famous example of yelling "fire" in a theatre, to cause danger and panic. This is illegal, but that is a restriction of the freedom of speech. Less freedom. The lawmakers maintain that some limitations of the freedom of speech are necessary for a functioning society. There is no mandate of personal responsibility, it's all "you do X and I track you down and lock you up". (I'm not saying this is wrong, I don't have a coherent opinion on it)

So, how does responsibility factor in? Is your statement a practical one, that society cannot function unless people take responsibility? If so , that seems like a question of ethics, whether this is truly responsibility or instead compassion, "goodness" or maximisation of utility. The concept of freedom is also only indirectly involved.

So I think I finally got it (I should probably edit the post now, but I won't, sorry if I bored you to death [i.e. I abused my freedom of speech to infringe on your right to live]). Having ultimate freedom means having the ability to infringe on others' freedoms, so such a system is not only impractical, it is fundamentally inconsistent. I still don't think that responsibility is the solution, though it would be nice if we could not restrict people's freedom to punch wherever they damn well pleased, and rely on their human decency to not have them beat each other up. In practice, I think responsibility enters, but the granting of freedoms seems carefully measured so that an irresponsible person can't do too much harm (with multiple exceptions, of course, but only at the level of ppb).

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Sarten-X]

Yes, SCOTUS exists to reconcile laws with the current views. Laws are slow to change, whereas technology and morality can change overnight.

When current societal views say [bad things] are we still okay with SCOTUS...

Just stop right there. "We" are society. If current views are in favor of censoring speech, that means that Americans generally consider such censorship to be right. Since this is a democracy, ruled by the people, it is ultimately the people's opinions that matter most, even more than the original wording of the law.

There are many good reasons to reject the morality of 1776 to suit modern tastes. Eliminating the three-fifths compromise is a glaring example, along with expanding voting rights, abolishing slavery, implementing term limits, and federating infrastructure. When the Constitution was written, society generally assumed that such changes would be unnecessary. After all, it was really only white male landowners who did anything politically anyway, so naturally they were the only ones who needed to be able to vote.

Privacy, as you so blindly pointed out, is another reason to diverge from the Constitution's original intent. In the decades leading up to the Constitution's writing, the British military had used searches as a means to deny service to colonists. If someone had annoyed the local commander, they could expect their shop to be shut down for the next week while soldiers searched/destroyed it for no particular reason, with no oversight. The Fourth Amendment was included not to ensure secrecy, but to protect only against harassment. Note that it's placed in context with the right to not quarter troops, and the right to not incriminate yourself. That's why the Fourth Amendment's applicability to third-party storage is in question, because a search that doesn't interrupt your daily business is much less likely to be harassment.

More recently, though, the expectation for a "reasonable" search has grown to include respect for secrecy as well. Society's idea of "reasonable" has now shifted enough that a SCOTUS ruling in accordance with the original intent would be outrageously wrong. Remember that in 1776, walls weren't insulated, glass windows were expensive, and gossip was the primary local news source. The only expectation of privacy happened outside the town - and somebody probably would see you leaving.

By the same principle, consider that the morality of today may not apply in the future. One opinion currently changing is how free speech applies to corporate entities. Currently, corporations are allowed to choose how they conduct business as a matter of expression. This is how companies can choose not to do business with a group they find offensive or otherwise don't like. It's also how a company can make political donations to further their own goals. There's growing controversy surrounding both of these issues, so I expect that within the next few decades, we'll see a SCOTUS ruling clarifying how much free speech corporations (along with store managers, employees, and other representatives) can actually have while operating.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom means the freedom to do wrong things - thought not freedom to do them without consequence.

Thing is, those consequences don't necessarily correct the wrong behavior.

In fact, one of the wrong things people are free to do is to prevent and cover up consequences from applying to people who do wrong things. Now, there are consequences to obstructing justice, but then you are free to do another wrong thing to cover that up, and the wrong doing just piles up instead decreasing.

You know, maybe first you cook meth to cover your cancer expenses and leave enough money for your family after you're gone, but then you had to kill a guy, and make deals with thugs and drug lords, and a whole bunch of other stuff happen, and you go deeper and deeper, turning from humble chemistry teacher to feared drug lord who makes the best blue meth...

Re:Freedom of speech...

[circletimessquare]

when the consequence hurts me as well, i have a right to have a say in that behavior

because i love freedom crushing authority?

no, because i love MY freedom

and i don't want my freedom oppressed by that from which a lot of freedom oppression in this world actually comes from: not the stereotypical government goon, but from my fellow citizen who is an irresponsible moron

Re:Freedom of speech...

[circletimessquare]

that's a very interesting example

it sounds like a premise for a book or movie or tv show

i bet it would be quite successful

Re:Freedom of speech...

[circletimessquare]

in a society where people always do whatever the hell they want with no regard for responsibility, you get absolute authoritarianism, because somebody has to make the assholes pay

in a society where people always acts responsibly, you have the utopian libertarian ideal society of 100% freedom

of course, neither extreme actually happens, but the point is, the more people behave responsibly, the more true freedom everyone has, and the less people beahve responsibly, the more people have to depend upon the state to make society function

Re:Freedom of speech...

[khallow]

maybe first you cook meth

If meth cooking were legal, none of the rest would follow.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[khallow]

when the consequence hurts me as well

In a society with free speech, you get a say even when that behavior is none of your business.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure why not. Somebody earlier did the wrong thing in making meth cooking illegal. Instead of correcting that wrong, people did more wrongs, leading to the gangs and drug lords and violence. The point still stands

Re:Freedom of speech...

[khallow]

The point still stands

As does my point. Society of the US is unable to accept the freedom of allowing people to use harmful recreational drugs on themselves. This loss of freedom leads to other harms as your morality play demonstrates.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the loss of freedom that led to other harms. It is people's own choices that lead to other harms. Somebody choose to make meth illegal. Did somebody force them to make that choice? Government didn't point a gun to their head, since it was government themselves who made the choice (what, government pointed a gun at itself?)

People had the freedom to choose. Losing their freedom was a consequence of their choice. Going back to my first point, people continue to make more wrong choices instead of actually facing the consequences or doing something to reverse the wrong doing.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[khallow]

I suppose that's why we have economics as a theory. Sure, people can make choices willy nilly. But it turns out that they tend to make choices that favor interests, theirs or others that they support.

People had the freedom to choose. Losing their freedom was a consequence of their choice.

But it didn't have to be a consequence.

Going back to my first point, people continue to make more wrong choices instead of actually facing the consequences or doing something to reverse the wrong doing.

Or make wrong doing not wrong doing. There's a considerable parsimony of power to making something not illegal.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose that's why we have economics as a theory.

Which school of economic theory you believe in is also a choice, one which many people choose to believe the wrong one (wrong in the sense the theory doesn't actually work and might even harm people in the end), and even keep believing in it after repeated failures

Sure, people can make choices willy nilly. But it turns out that they tend to make choices that favor interests, theirs or others that they support.

Sure they can favor their interests. But it turns out those interests are often not based on reason, but petty morals and irrational emotions. Supporting those interests often end up being wrong doings. Many losses of freedom are a result (consequence) of people supporting their (emotional) interests

But it didn't have to be a consequence.

And people didn't have to make the wrong choices, or do wrong things, or base their interests on emotion rather than logic. But... they did. So the consequences (loss of freedom) happened. How you gonna react? That's another choice, and people continue to choose the way the choose.

Or make wrong doing not wrong doing. There's a considerable parsimony of power to making something not illegal.

Whatever. People did not choose to do that either.

Re:Freedom of speech...

[khallow]

Well, you've posted a bunch and I just don't get the point. I apologize, but maybe I'll figure it out some other time.

I'm ready to go

[alen]

Just tell me who to beat senseless with mob justice and I'm there

Re:I'm ready to go

[Anonymous Coward]

We've discovered his Slashdot user ID number is 225700, we'll have his address for you shortly. Lock and load.

Re:I'm ready to go

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, look at that. He can't even spell "Alan" correctly - obviously a sleeper.

Re:I'm ready to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful, from his post history it appears that he prefers laying on a couch over sitting in a chair, while watching 3d porn on a 50" TV.

Re:I'm ready to go

[PopeRatzo]

Be careful, from his post history it appears that he prefers laying on a couch over sitting in a chair, while watching 3d porn on a 50" TV.

That doesn't narrow it down much among Slashdot readers.

Because the whole Boston Bombing effort...

[Anonymous Coward]

...went really well for Reddit. They probably banned it just for the potential deluge of bad publicity.

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort...

[icebike]

Went really well for the NSA too.
Another one they missed. No doubt it will be time to beg congress for more money to redouble their effort.
I'm sure we will all feel safer then. /s

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not arguing with you; the leaders and government of this country have at least as bad of a record, with far more collateral damage. The NSA should be disbanded and Clapper fired.

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort...

[Anonymous Coward]

Went really well for the NSA too. Another one they missed. No doubt it will be time to beg congress for more money to redouble their effort. I'm sure we will all feel safer then. /s

As a Belgian I say: let them spend it on a Star Trek Enterprize shaped building with a Jurassic Park around it.

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort...

[Greyfox]

They were... probably spying on the wrong internets at the time...

Re:Because the whole Boston Bombing effort...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reddit is kind of a paradox. When I get too tired to read, I'll browse its vast treasure trove of posted images. Nearly all the content posted is not genuine, but is promoted as genuine. Its nearly all low resolution, and its almost always quite easy to spot the pixel inconsistencies if you know what to look for and where. Most of the commentary is either intended as jokes, or are sincere comments from those duped by the poster's deception. I like to think that there is this world out there of good natured people that sincerely want to help, but mostly its this but also this being manipulated purposelessly for entertainment.

Reddit you say ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it this site perpetually overloaded because it runs on a pooper scooper in the clouds ?

The subreddit was mostly a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

When I checked it, all the Redditors were pointing out how bad Reddit fucked things up last time around and most of the posts in the subreddit were just jokes or trolling comments.

For example, the thread called "First security cam stills are out" linked to this:
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/183ob861iy0ckjpg/ku-bigpic.jpg

Re:The subreddit was mostly a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have flagged that as potentially NSFW.

Re:The subreddit was mostly a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I work on a pig farm, so no.

Hiding the truth!

[Sarusa]

And right after they'd managed to finger Lee Harvey Oswald.

Coincidence? Follow the money, sheeple!

Re:Hiding the truth!

[tbonefrog]

Right on. The whole thing was a plot to keep Obama off the TV talking about the crooks who stole all the money five years ago and have just gotten stronger.
Obama was on TV but only a few minutes and not on the evening news (unless I missed it) And the two pictures of the suspect were of two completely different people. And the second shooter was relegated to the grassy knoll.

All this to control a news cycle. Scared yet?

One thing we know for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't possibly be a terrorist attack since we are constantly told on Slashdot that there are no terrorists, and deviation from that view is punished.

Brilliant

[Intrepid imaginaut]

As I recall and TFS states these Sherlocks managed to wrongly identify at least one person in the Boston bombings and correctly identify none, so good riddance to any further efforts in that direction.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the purpose of this banned subreddit wasn't actually to find the shooter. It was satirical. All the posters were making fun of how bad they fucked things up during the Boston bombings.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it to the incompetent professionals of our militarized police state.

The government is concerned about gun violence but wants to bomb the fuck out of Syria and Iran. Go figure.

Other "news" outlets also got it wrong

[mynamestolen]

by incorrectly naming suspect. http://www.dailydot.com/news/aaron-alexis-navy-yard-linkedin-reddit/

At least, the justice is not as swift any more

[mi]

Having been on the receiving end of one such "investigation", I can say, I'm glad, the justice is not as swift these days.

But you can't ban this — not without abolishing the First Amendment...

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more

[MightyMartian]

Give them time. Soon it will join the 4th in applying only to you in your home... with the door closed... and the curtains drawn... in your basement.. by yourself... sometimes.

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more

[tocsy]

Sure they can. Reddit can allow/disallow whatever they want - the First Amendment covers rights of free speech against the government only.

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more

[DRJlaw]

But you can't ban this â" not without abolishing the First Amendment...

For values of "you" which equal the Federal government, a State government, a municipality, or some other government actor.

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

Fourteenth amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Held to bring the States within the umbrella of the first amendment in Gitlow v. New York.

However, Reddit is not a government actor. More to the point, Reddit has absolute editorial discretion under the Communications Decency Act -- so that even case law concerning speech in company towns and shopping centers cannot be used by analogy to create any obligation for the site to permit it.

Reddit could ban it, your local paper could ban it, and your ad-supported or paid email service could ban it. They simply don't have the power to throw you in jail or confiscate your money if you violate the ban.

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more

[kwbauer]

Well, the part about "you" meaning the government was created by liberals trying to prove that "the people" really means state governments or everyone collectively as a group but not any individual person.

I really wish they would stop doing that and admit that "the people" means every single one of us individually.

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if you believe that the 1st amendment gives you a right to not hear undesirable speech. Then isn't reddit just using it's 1st amendment right?? Or even simplier reddit is making a political statement by not allowing the speech on their website

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more

[Anonymous Coward]

As the difference between the corporation and the government gets more and more blurry, this is clearly one part of the Constitution in need of revision.

Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be really, really careful about permitting third parties to engage in conduct that the government is not allowed to engage in, if you're designing a legal system for a society (or interpreting the Bill of Rights, which amounts to the same thing). It is easy enough for the government to use third party agents to engage in actions on behalf of the government that the government itself can not do.

Historically this has been done in a number of cases, such as arranging for foreign intelligence agencies to spy on the public, or paying commercial companies to keep records on gun ownership when a government agency is prohibited from keeping those records.

This is often known as obeying the letter of the law, while completely subverting the intent.

Similarly, it is one thing to protect a small piece of property around a person's dwelling as an exercise of privacy rights, but it is another thing altogether to limit access to a large property (even privately owned) that is not being used by the owner for some legitimate purpose that would reasonably justify such limits. It is a small step here to using 3rd party ownership of land as a means of infringing the right to travel, one of the fundamental rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment, and recognized as being subject to strict scrutiny. Infringing the right to travel is a problem in itself, but this is increasingly be used by the government (or by businesses) to block the right of the public to long term oversight (another 9th Amendment right). After all, if you can't get on the land, you can't discover all the illegal and unethical things going on.

The US legal profession, in practice if not "officially", encourages this sort of thing. They've figured out that having more and more restrictions on individual freedom creates a long term artificial demand for the services of their profession, provided that the legal system is complex enough to have lots of loopholes and exceptions available to those with the resources to hire a lawyer. It's not a conspiracy, rather a situation where a group of amoral individuals collectively have recognized that certain things are to the benefit of that group.

Many of the issues here are similar to the issues with 3rd party agents that arise in the branch of law known as the "Law of Agency".

Having said all that, a right to privacy certainly arises under the 9th Amendment as a right retained by individual members of the people, and that right should not be violated by others by, for example, posting private information to public forums.

Guns don't kill people.

[Anonymous Coward]

folks who don't care what the law says...

Guns don't kill people.

Dangerous minorities do.

Oh I see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tumblr gets a front page story, so Reddit has to have one too.

Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control

[Anonymous Coward]

http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-control/

Monarch Programming is a method of mind control used by numerous organizations for covert purposes. It is a continuation of project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control program developed by the CIA, and tested on the military and civilians. The methods are astonishingly sadistic (its entire purpose is to traumatize the victim) and the expected results are horrifying: [...]

Re:Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control

[ColdWetDog]

http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-control/

Monarch Programming is a method of mind control used by numerous organizations for covert purposes. It is a continuation of project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control program developed by the CIA, and tested on the military and civilians. The methods are astonishingly sadistic (its entire purpose is to traumatize the victim) and the expected results are horrifying: [...]

Do not touch your dial.

We control the horizontal.
We control the vertical.

And you, dear AC, should control you alcohol and other drug intake. Hope you start feeling better soon.

Re:Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control

[LoRdTAW]

If you believe this please seek medical help for your mental condition. I am serious. I knew one person who went from dapper young stud to paranoid nut bag after a stint in jail (lesson in life, don't hit a white man in the rural south if the color of your skin is significantly darker than his, even if he provokes you). Everywhere he looked he saw conspiracy, chemtrails, mind control, new world order, etc. He lost it, even smashed a brand new laptop he spent 1200 on after only two weeks when he thought the government hacked it to spy on him. He moved out west and became a preacher and last I heard he was back home with his mother.

How is this any different?

[libtek]

"Police are now looking for shooters car in and around Navy Yard. Its described as Black Nissan with Texas tag BJH-7396.

Paul Wagner
Fox5Wagner

via Twitter about 1h ago"

Re:How is this any different?

[jonnythan]

The difference is they are the police. That is their job, they are professionals, they have training, and they are accountable.

Reddit users? None of those apply.

Re:How is this any different?

[libtek]

That was via Twitter... A social media site.

FOX News, nor Twitter apply either... They are obviously making an open release to the public, for any pertinent information. Or did I misunderstand the Make and Model plus Licence Plate registration info? They are just telling us that THEY are looking, right?

Re:How is this any different?

[jonnythan]

The police issued the statement to the press that they were looking for a black Nissan with that license plate. Fox News, a media outlet, published the statement. People with information on this Nissan should contact the police, not Reddit.

Re:How is this any different?

[libtek]

Reddit is not people. I gotcha.

You could have said that first.

Seems kind of silly to me that *any* method of public dissemination, which could share the EXACT SAME INFORMATION, would be censored. I wish them luck.

Re:How is this any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is they are the police... and they are accountable.

Sir, you should quit your day job and become a stand-up comedian, this one line alone will have people howling with laughter for at least an hour.

Re:How is this any different?

[drinkypoo]

The difference is they are the police. That is their job, they are professionals, they have training, and they are accountable.

It's their job, professionalism varies widely, the training is literally community college, and HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Re:How is this any different?

[jonnythan]

What are you talking about? Reddit is not publishing official police statements. They're trying to do their own investigation. Last time this happened it was a spectacular failure that implicated two innocent people. Reddit's management clearly does not want that happening again.

doesn't fit the stereotype and sound bites

[rubycodez]

preliminary research indicate the shooter was registered Democrat, Obama supporter, muslim and gay. Obama's teleprompter is going to drill a hole in the ground with the spin job.

Re:doesn't fit the stereotype and sound bites

[rubycodez]

oh my, now it turned out perp didn't even use an AR-15, instead he used a shotgun just like Joe Biden said every American should use for home defense.

passed federal background check for his contractor job too, maybe those wouldn't make a dent in gun crime?

Leave it to the professionals

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

The NSA most likely has more than enough information to secretly try and convict this person. Notice to arm chair vigilantes, the government is already more than likely to have all these peoples internet search histories, all their acquaintances and all their phone calls. And that presumes that normal everyday monitoring hadn't already flagged them for extra scrutinity!

Rest assured citizen, you are in good hands! Just don't band together informally, remember, that's what the terrerists do!

Re:Leave it to the professionals

[citizenr]

The NSA most likely has more than enough information to secretly try and convict this person

NSA has enough information to secretly try and convict EVERY American.

Re:Leave it to the professionals

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is better for Capitalism because if NSA every American in prison. The prison CEO would cut cost that it would be profitable for Wallstreet to jailbreak or prevent slavery! Freedom is not popular and unforunet so Wall Street is actully losing really losing a money! But expecetion stock in prison stock should make up for it of course so if losing money on prison stock them Wall Street losing money.

Good for reddit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Im a reddit member and the way they all acted during the boston bombing was disgraceful. They were all jumping on bandwagons, calling out people, making false accusations and pretending like they were FBI agents hunting down criminals when in reality they were all pretentious douches that wanted to feel tough and special.

Id seen pictures posted of people, claims made and in the end they were all wrong. I just hope they didn't damage anyone's reputation with that pitiful excuse for amateur hour.

I hope they all suffer from sexual dysfunction for the rest of their lives.

The hivemind is not suited for crime detection

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Social media is great for a lot of things such as getting different points of view on a news topic. Social media is not good for witch hunts. Anyone who's used reddit knows how easily the hivemind is swayed to hate or love someone. All it takes is a cleverly worded article romanticizing about how great or how awful someone is. People who know the formula can almost flip a switch to the entire community.

Witch hunts are bad enough when it is just a corporation behaving badly. Thread people talk about passing out pitch forks and so forth and so on. There definitely is a witch hunt mentality sometimes on reddit. And normally it is mostly harmless. Dumb, but harmless. Social media is good for a lot of things, but crime solving is not one of these things.

Real media is threatened by social media. So anything that is bad in social media, real media will highlight hard. They'll try everything they can to discourage people from using social media and outright close it down if they can. So it is better that social media witch hunts get shut down prematurely, before someone determines themselves to be a vigilante or otherwise act dumb out in public.

To conclude social media should be used for it strengths such as bringing attention to intelligent conversations, humor, and different points of view. This is refreshing compared to main stream media which every channel is corrupted by political agendas so there is no such thing as different points of view that are correct. Social media has weaknesses, and maybe we should really act to make sure these weaknesses don't go out of control.

Re:The hivemind is not suited for crime detection

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go so far as to say one of the most entertaining parts about the site is learning to manipulate the general opinion on a topic. I think one can learn a lot about how groups of people think, and learn some caution about jumping to conclusions, by trying it. In theory at least I think it's made me a lot less prone to come down for or against anything given how easy everyone, including myself, can be manipulated. It's one thing to know it intellectually, another to really see it in action on a fairy easily replicated way.

Re:The hivemind is not suited for crime detection

[kwbauer]

I'd say that social media is tailor made for witch hunts as the whole point of witch hunts is to incorrectly convict and execute somebody.

Re:The hivemind is not suited for crime detection

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go so far as to say one of the most entertaining parts about the site is learning to manipulate the general opinion on a topic. I think one can learn a lot about how groups of people think, and learn some caution about jumping to conclusions, by trying it. In theory at least I think it's made me a lot less prone to come down for or against anything given how easy everyone, including myself, can be manipulated. It's one thing to know it intellectually, another to really see it in action on a fairy easily replicated way.

Funny, that's what I use /. for...

Missed the sarcasm

[Camael]

Except the purpose of this banned subreddit wasn't actually to find the shooter. It was satirical. All the posters were making fun of how bad they fucked things up during the Boston bombings.

And you know that:

1. Some posters will miss the /sarcasm tag, take it seriously and post personal information of real life people.
2. Some posters will take the opportunity to post personal information of their ex's, their enemies, their bosses...
3. Some media company will miss the /sarcasm tag and flog stories about how Reddit is screwing the lives of innocent people. Again.

Reddit did the right thing by shutting it down.

Re:Missed the sarcasm

[girlintraining]

Reddit did the right thing by shutting it down.

You mean, after the epic clusterfuck that was the boston bomber coverage on Reddit destroying the lives of a handful of people, yes... then they did the right thing. Of course, those people still hiding under the covers in their house with PTSD and social anxiety from being unable to walk in public without being accused of being "the bomber that got away" are still waiting for their apologies... so you know, "right thing" is a bit subjective.

Re:Missed the sarcasm

[AmiMoJo]

I disagree, people who mistake humour for a call to vigilantism and then join in need to take personal responsibility for their stupidity. In some ways it's better that we find out who they are and limit the harm they can do, rather than trying to ban the humour. Especially if they are a TV news channel rather than an individual.

We have gone down this slippery slope in the UK already. Someone tweeted about blowing up an airport if his flight was cancelled, clearly a joke to any reasonable person. He was convicted of making threats of terrorism and although eventually cleared after a long appeal process it wrecked his life. The people who should have been convicted were the ones who arrested and decided to prosecute him. They should be held accountable for their stupidity, which has harmed our society greatly.

Re:Missed the sarcasm

[quacking duck]

I disagree, people who mistake humour for a call to vigilantism and then join in need to take personal responsibility for their stupidity. In some ways it's better that we find out who they are and limit the harm they can do, rather than trying to ban the humour. Especially if they are a TV news channel rather than an individual.

I disagree with your disagreement in this case. You can take the idiots to task for being clueless to sarcasm and raining vigilante justice on the wrong people, for not taking personal responsibility, etc but this ignores two things:

1) you can't un-ruin any lives they've harmed. One idiot missing the /sarcasm tag spawns more idiots who miss the /sarcasm tag and are convinced this ID'd person "got away with it"
2) especially online, it can be difficult to ID the actual people who are doing harm to innocent people

It's like saying you don't need to watch when you cross a street because you have the right of way and drivers need to take personal responsibility for watching for pedestrians at all times. It's a nice fantasy, the reality is that even though you're 100% right, you and your family/friends will suffer far greater loss than the person in the vehicle that hits you.

Re:Missed the sarcasm

[AmiMoJo]

If you have to watch what you say because idiots might get the wrong idea it has a chilling effect on free speech and on satire, both of which are vital for democracy.

Your analogy of stepping out into the road is flawed because even if you have right of way the road is a shared space and the rules are designed to work when both parties are paying attention. If we wanted to put all the responsibility on drivers we could, but they would then have to drive at 5 kph in urban areas.

This isn't even news

[Old Wolf]

All that happens on such a subreddit is wild speculation. Last time they did it, innocent people wrongly identified got harrassed IRL. They're not detectives. Just send any real tips direct to the FBI.

Re:This isn't even news

[Anonymous Coward]

No, all that happened on that subreddit was NOT "wild speculation". It was a satirical subreddit set up to mock how bad Reddit fucked up the Boston bombing "manhunt".

Preference

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say it's better with a thousand innocent people being checked out by law enforcement than one guilty going free because nobody shared their knowledge.

In particular in situations like this where terror is a possible angle all resources must be utilized in order to maximize the chance for getting the guilty ones and minimizing the time before that happens. Terrorists have no rights, not as citizens, not as human beings - and should be treated accordingly.

You're a bit slow...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't print ammunition"

Apparently you're a bit slow on the uptake of a 3D Printers capabilities.

To whit: Forget guns, here comes 3D printed ammunition

Great journalism

[Anonymous Coward]

"left at least 12, including a gunman dead"

I think they meant "left at least 12 dead, including a gunman"

To the Washington Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you try to censor people?

It's the "authorities" that have proved to be incompetent with countless investigations, and violate suspects due process of law, and if they wouldn't do things like that, then people would not be conducting independent investigations.

You have a choice. Either end your little ban, or close your doors and get the hell out of our country.

There are repercussions on those that censor freedom.

We are Anonymous.

We do not forgive. We do not forget.

Expect us.