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.

6 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Whats so repugnant? by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:Whats so repugnant? by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's some example "threats" (all from TFA - worth reading for once)

      Rhywunl 5.3l.15 @ 11:35AM
      I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman.

      Product Placement I5.31.15 @ 1:22PM
      I'd prefer a hellish place on Earth be reserved for her as well.

      Really DoJ? Really?

      Even this:

      croaker l6.l.15 @ 11:09AM
      Fuck that. I don't want to oay for that cunt's food, housing, and medical. Send her through
      the wood chipper.

      is so obviously "political bluster", not a real threat.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Whats so repugnant? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 5, Informative
      You "forgot" mentioning in your examples the first two messages:

      AgammamonI5.31.15 @ lO:47AMltt
      Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.

      AlanI5.31.15 @ 12:09PMltt
      It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot.
      FTFY.

      So: "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot." - I am Greek, and this makes me think a quote from that Greek actor, Telly Savalas, while playing Kojak and answering to someone who feels threatened by him: "Greeks... they don't threaten - they utter prophecies!"

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
  2. Hiding behind anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can bet those retarded assholes would be much more polite if they weren't cowering behind a veil of anonymity.

  3. Yikes by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Those are not true threats by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.