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"
You can bet those retarded assholes would be much more polite if they weren't cowering behind a veil of anonymity.
1. Would a right-minded person consider the comments to be of a specific and threatening nature? This would have to go before a Grand Jury to decide if there is even a case to answer. This bit has apparently been done, and apparently there is a case to answer. ... make factual contentions regarding an Internet subscriber's infringing activities based solely on the fact that he or she pays the Internet bill," he wrote in his order of Elf-Man v Cariveau et al., 2013
2. This is an either/or, depending on the answer to the first question. If yes, are the comments traceable to an individual who can a: be named and b: therefore be served with a valid warrant of whatever description? If no, can an individual's rights be trumped by the rights of the State as they invoke that right to access to your information and everybody else's information per the new snooping laws which have given the Sunset sections of PATRIOT six months' grace? The Constitution says no, and District Judge John Rasnik agrees: "It is not clear that plaintiff could
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Please don't resist. In oppressive regimes such request should not be challenged.
We feel sorry for folks living in USA or North Korea
Clearly, suggestions that she "should be taken out back and shot" or "fed into a wood chipper" are LITERAL threats that the posters are going to immediately drive cross country in a diaper to perform these acts. And statements like these clearly cross the line into "repugnant".
I seem to recall that the Framers Intent for free speech and freedom of the press were written by men who had actually *anonymously* printed TREASONOUS and SEDITIOUS pamphlets against their lawful government just a few years before.
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.
There is one way to effectively end the last slivers of anonymity on the internet. It's by insulting federal judges.
Sometimes they make bad decisions or don't understand something technical. And there are mostly two kinds--the highly-educated and the locally favored guy who put in his time serving the system. But they are *THE* last line of defense that most of the citizenry have against violation of their civil rights and against government overreach.
Reason can oppose the subpoena. Court cases sell magazines. The lawyer to hire is Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen. He's the expert on anonymity and subpoenas. I'm a lawyer who does anonymous speech cases, but Levy's focus is n the discovery process in litigation, and what are the right standards; how much does the party seeking the subpoena have to prove in order to accommodate first amendment interests? The relevant cases include Dendrite, 2theMart, and Doe v Cahill.
Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), is a significant case in the realm of anonymous internet speech and the First Amendment. While similar issues had been tackled involving criticism of a publicly traded company,[1] the case marks the first time a U.S. State Supreme Court addressed the issue of anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Fargo
That right there is fucked up. No speaker is responsible for what the 'hearer' does.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
Ken White didn't request that the subpoena be issued. Someone leaked the subpoena to him because 1. He runs a popular blog. 2. He has criticized overly broad subpoenas in the past, and could be counted on to criticize this one. 3. He's well known to dislike the people who are being subpoenaed. "I don't like those guys, but they're getting screwed here" is a more credible story than "My buddy is getting screwed here."
Damn, that's good. I never really thought of the reasoning behind the change from the freedom loving liberal in the 50s, 60s and 70s to the modern day fascist liberal.
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
Yeah, especially considering that "X should be drug out into the street and shot" - which is very similar to "taken out back and shot - was a common phrase of fricking garfield, a cartoon character of some popularity.
It's an expression, and by no means a threat into itself.
How did Democrats go from being defenders of individual rights to experts in totalitarian tactics?
Shit, that happened during the FDR regime. That asshole had a man thrown in jail for pressing a suit for less than a government bureaucrat decided he should charge.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Judge Katherine Forrest will be sleeping with the fishes...
Judge Katherine Forrest will be given a nice pair of cement shoes...
A gift of a Sicilian necktie would look good on Judge Katherine Forrest...
NSA, come at me bro...
Now that the states have been effectively subdued...
Why do you say the states have been subdued? The states are the pillars of the republic.
2/3 of the states can call a constitutional convention, then they could redefine black as white, reverse day and night, cat and dog, and 3/4 of the states can ratify amendments proposed in such a convention.
Last I checked, that is pretty darned close to happening.... just a couple more states would need to apply for such convention.
Aaah, another case of using the word "fascist" with no idea whatsoever what it means. Fascism is an ECONOMIC system - NOT a political one, and it's closest parallel in the world today is actually the wall-street republican's policies !
You can combine ANY economic system with ANY political system - but people get pretty confused when they make up their own meaning for words - which is why their minds explode when they learn there are things like anarcho-socialism (indeed anarchist anti-state socialism could be called "classic libertarian" since the original libertarians espoused exactly that - libertarian didn't start meaning capitalist until the 1970's in fact).
Pinochet combined extreme free market fundamentalism with autocratic dictatorship. Franco of Spain during his 70-something years in power combined dictatorship with Fascism first, then Socialism, then Capitalism ! He had all three economic systems at various times without once changing the political system.
Now repeat after me: fascism is an economic system categorized by extreme collusion between government and corporations, deregulation for favoured industries and other examples of massive financial influence on the political process and a worship of the wealthy.
Musollini, the founder of fascism, in fact used to say "fascism would be better described as corporatism" - though he was himself quoting an Italian philosopher, but he clearly agreed with the description.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
No, fascism is a political system.
Oxford dictionary: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Wikipedia: Fascism is a form of reactionary authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Dictionary.com: (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
It's the libertarians who want to re-define the common meaning of this word. There are economic aspects to it, but it is primarily a political concept.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Just last week they decided that "threatening" remarks on the Internet weren't no thing in the absence of clear evidence of intent to do more than blow off steam. Oh. Wait. That was a threat against some nobody, a precedent that clearly does not apply if the aggrieved party is instead a high and mighty judge. [_EMILY_LATELLA_] Never mind. [_/EMILY_LATELLA_]
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Dude. For all I know you edited that page 5 minutes ago to try and 'prove' your point.
I quoted the inventor of fascism. That's a pretty good citation.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Now repeat after me: fascism is an economic system categorized by extreme collusion between government and corporations, deregulation for favoured industries and other examples of massive financial influence on the political process and a worship of the wealthy.
Musollini, the founder of fascism, in fact used to say "fascism would be better described as corporatism" - though he was himself quoting an Italian philosopher, but he clearly agreed with the description.
This is actually spot-on. As a European who has italian ancestors (some of whom were actually killed by fascists) and a father who is a historian of WWII, I can say I wish I had mod-points, as your comment deserves them.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Dictionary definitions are terribly boring arguments. Dictionaries seldom even attempt to include all known words much less all known definitions, and have real trouble keeping up with common usage of words. They are out of date the moment they are written.
There is no single common accepted standard for all definitions. Not only that but, the idea that you could completely sum up such a word in a few brief sentences is kind of silly. There can be no disagreement on what the definition of fascism is, was, should be today....because some guy wrote down what he thought in a book?
Where are the credentials of the person who wrote that particular entry? Where are his sources cited?
Dictionaries are useful when you don't have any context for understanding a word, they are NOT by any stretch of the imagination, the final authority on definitions....and of all of them....only one that I know of, in the English Language, even ATTEMPTS to be that, and that is OED.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"