Slashdot Mirror
Court: 'Repugnant' Online Discussions Aren't Thoughtcrime (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in favor of former NYPD officer Gilberto Valle — the so-called "cannibal cop." In 2012, Valle was fired and arrested for going online and talking about his fantasies, which included kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, and cannibalism. He was later convicted in a jury trial. A district court judge overturned the conviction, but the government appealed, hoping to make it stick. The Appeals Court has now affirmed Valle's acquittal. In the ruling (PDF), the court notes, "We are loathe to give the government the power to punish us for our thoughts and not our actions. That includes the power to criminalize an individual's expression of sexual fantasies, no matter how perverse or disturbing. Fantasizing about committing a crime, even a crime of violence against a real person whom you know, is not a crime." The court also addressed the government's questionable efforts to use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to increase the severity of Valle's punishment: "While the Government might promise that it would not prosecute an individual for checking Facebook at work, we are not at liberty to take prosecutors at their word in such matters."
More of the quote:
While the Government might promise that it would not prosecute an individual for checking Facebook at work, we are not at liberty to take prosecutors at their word in such matters. A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly.
Pay attention the next time your senator or congresswoman or Attorney General or CIA head or ex head or President says, "Come on, Shelley. Give it a rest. We aren't going to abuse it."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
No it was way more detailed. He was researching how long chloroform is effective and also used his access to police databases to look up potential victims. Separately its not that sketchy but all together its the planning of a crime.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
This is the sort of ruling that reminds me of what I admire about the US. The United Kingdom has pretty much totally abandoned the idea of freedom of speech in the past couple of decades, with people prosecuted for describing sexual fantasies, for telling ridiculous jokes, for drawing silly pictures, for declaring support for horrid ideas... all, it seems, with the aim of driving those who are a genuine threat underground, so we can move from directed intelligence-gathering to national surveillance.
Or the alternative description is he was researching material so his writing was more accurate. Something authors do all the time.
For all the bluster of the prosecution, if this man was actually planning these actions and his documents weren't just a story why did he change the names of the people?
Maybe it's because he was just writing a story. If they thought this guy was a real risk they should have put him under 24 hour surveillance and waited for him to take action. Even if what he planned was real all they could arrest him for was researching a story. A vile, repugnant story but a story nonetheless.
If this guy can be prosecuted for what he did so could you for what you write on the internet.