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.
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.
Well that's not kosher.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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.
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 *