Slashdot Mirror
Feds Want To Unmask Internet Commenters Writing About the Silk Road Trial Judge
An anonymous reader writes: A grand jury subpoena, obtained by Ken White of the law blog Popehat, demands that libertarian news magazine Reason hand over "any and all identifying information" about certain commenters posting on an article published May 31st, "Silk Road Trial: Read Ross Ulbricht's Haunting Sentencing Letter to Judge." The subpoena cites a law against "interstate threats" as the reason for demanding the information, which the Supreme Court very recently decided must include real intent.
As White points out, the comments — repugnant as they are — may very well not constitute a true threat, as they aren't directed at the judge and don't detail any real plans for violence. The kicker: although it's possible to fight the subpoena, precedent suggests the U.S. Attorney's office may have the power to obtain the information anyway. However the situation shakes out, this isn't nearly the first fight over commenter anonymity and the First Amendment, and certainly won't be the last.
As White points out, the comments — repugnant as they are — may very well not constitute a true threat, as they aren't directed at the judge and don't detail any real plans for violence. The kicker: although it's possible to fight the subpoena, precedent suggests the U.S. Attorney's office may have the power to obtain the information anyway. However the situation shakes out, this isn't nearly the first fight over commenter anonymity and the First Amendment, and certainly won't be the last.
I don't see an issue here, not a single threat, and frankly, when you look at the laws these judges enforce, case in point here, really....I see nothing repugnant. I dislike these shitbags this much too. I wish people like this judge would do us all a favor and jump feet first into a wood chipper. Would make the world a much better place.
and I don't need to be anonymous. No threat here....I wish she would do the world a favor...for us.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
There is zero chance those are true threats.
1) No objectively reasonable person reading those words on that forum would possibly believe the judge's life was in any danger.
2) There is no actual threat of specific action. The closest, perhaps, is this one: "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot." But that's not a threat against this judge, specifically, just "judges like these." And "will be" but no mention of who's going to do the shooting. Or when. Just some indeterminate point in the future, someone "will" do something to perhaps other people like this one. That's not a threat. All the rest of the "threats" are of the form "hope" or "should," which are also not threats, but wishes. I can wish you dead all I want, but unless I've developed magic powers that make my wishes come true, "wishing" is a pretty damn empty threat.
3) Also, the words were not directed at the judge, or posted in a place anyone would reasonably expect her to read.
This is stupid, so stupid, and I hope Reason fights them.
And this is totally different than Elonis, in which he posted his raps about how 1) he 2) will 3) commit specific acts of violence 4) against specific people and 5) posted them in a place those people are very likely to see. This is nothing like that.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Even if the posts contained no verifiable threats ( real or otherwise ) that's not really the point of this is it ?
My guess is the true agenda is to show folks that your First Amendment rights are always subject to scrutiny and interpretation by those who may not like what you have to say. That realization tends to have a chilling effect on what folks are willing speak up about. Which is probably the point of the whole exercise.
I think this case is a perfect example of the old saying that "a good prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich".
But they are *THE* last line of defense that most of the citizenry have against violation of their civil rights and against government overreach.
Only if the button man follows orders.
They usually need federal judges too, to legitimize whatever they're trying to do. The Independent Judiciary in South Africa during Apartheid couldn't end it, but made some difference. The Judiciary in Pakistan didn't successfully prevent a warlord taking over, but made some difference. Neither judiciary was entirely gutted and as a result you got some systemic feedback against even oppressive regimes.
Unless the comments have been censored, I just don't see it. There were many posts suggesting that the courts, law enforcement, and the DOJ have jumped the shark, but nothing that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat. That makes this read as an intimidation play against citizens making legitimate commentary and at the same time, a validation of the views they expressed.
The Democrats were defenders of individual rights when they needed to subdue the power of the states. Now that the states have been effectively subdued...
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You can bet those retarded assholes would be much more polite if they weren't cowering behind a veil of anonymity.
You do have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously, retarded or not.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Then you're not fit to sit on a jury. Nullification is the entire reason we have juries. It's the last defense against a government run amok.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."