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."
Well LA has per crime now so what is next?
You mean pre crime, loser!
In your face! Victory is mine!
..and how is that different from convicting someone of thought crime?
At least a crime would have occurred...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use 'Anti-Muslim' Speech That 'Edges Toward Violence'
Actually, it's the opposite. They're saying you can't convict someone for their fantasies, no matter how disturbing.
MOO
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
APPS!
If you even read the summary instead of just the summary title, you'd know that's actually what they said.
If all judges were this sensible, then those who want to imprison people for "climate change denial" will be thwarted.
All zero people.
Well probably not quite zero, there's enough people in the world that there's probably one nutjob who says something like that. I'll bet you can't find a remotely significant number of people with such views.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Planning a crime isn't illegal either. If it were most Hollywood writers/producers/directors would be jailed.
Wait a minute, you might actually be on to something here...
Although you would have to jail a bunch of really good authors too. Bummer.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Actually planning a crime is a criminal action. It's called "conspiracy to commit" and people get put in jail for it.
Wrong. He could certainly have action taken against him for misusing public databases. But not because it related to planning a crime.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Planning a crime isn't illegal either. If it were most Hollywood writers/producers/directors would be jailed.
When there is a planned crime, agreement between the conspirators, AND a clearly targeted potential victim? I think that's a crime, guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29#United_States
All zero people.
Lawrence Torcello blows a hole in that claim: http://gawker.com/arrest-clima...
Though you're right, there (thankfully) doesn't seem to be a significant number of people who agree with him.
By that reasoning, if a person were to research how to make some hostile device they have committed a crime. Without regard to whether they've bought any materials to actually do it.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Oh just kiss already
Seems to almost perfectly require Evelyn Hall's pithy description of Voltaire's attitude.
Nice to see a judge agreeing.
We might be able to come up with a new programming method using recently open-sourced Swift and implement 64-bit hosts file software that pre-emptively blocks any crime from reaching the victims. I know a guy who might help us with this, he knows a lot about building high-performance hosts file tools. In order to summon him I suggest we all install AdBlocking extensions in our browsers and let it be publically known that we use such resource hogging low quality software.
Redditors aren't people.
Then again, neither are we by those standards.
Killing an innocent person...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
He. Selected. A. Specific. Individual. To be his victim. That's what makes it a crime.
Imagine someone writing up a plan to kill you, Feyshtey, on a particular day, with a particular tool, with express cooperation of a few other people. The police discover it. Should they prosecute? Or should they let it go until the plan is actually carried out and you were transformed into a corpse?
There is a huge chasm between "I hate that Feyshtey guy, I want to kill him" and "Ok, Bob, we will kill Feyshtey a week from today, using this rusty screwdriver. We'll ambush him in his house, tie him up and drive him to the woods, then stab him to death." One is protected speech, the other is conspiracy to commit murder.
You have to actually do something more than just talking about doing a crime, for being guilty of conspiracy.
E.g. in Valle's case, fabricate chloroform, finding ropes, weapons and such in your car or house, a data collection for a potential victim he stalked.
This would have been a very dangerous precedent to set. As a society we have to stop being so terrified that something bad MAY happen that we police all potentially harmful actions. I'm glad no one was hurt but we have to be willing to accept a certain level of risk to have the freedoms we all want. Maybe he was going to kill that woman and that would have been tragic but it's nothing in the grand scheme. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will and trying to stop everything that might happen eventually leads to a police state. I'd personally rather have the slim risk of being tortured to death and eaten than guaranteed oppression.
You have to actually do something more than just talking about doing a crime, for being guilty of conspiracy. E.g. in Valle's case, fabricate chloroform, finding ropes, weapons and such in your car or house, a data collection for a potential victim he stalked.
You also need more than 1 person. Just to be specific: 18 U.S. Code 1117 - Conspiracy to murder If two or more persons conspire to violate section 1111, 1114, 1116, or 1119 of this title, and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
Well LA has per crime now so what is next?
Thought police. They will arrest anybody caught thinking.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Right. Planning involves more than daydreaming. But writing it down can be considered a part of planning. I think the prosecutors didn't take the right tack with this case.
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.
If all judges were this sensible, then those who want to imprison people for "climate change denial" will be thwarted.
All zero people.
Well probably not quite zero, there's enough people in the world that there's probably one nutjob who says something like that. I'll bet you can't find a remotely significant number of people with such views.
Crawl out from under that rock, because you're WRONG:
Read a US Senator (Democrat, natch) call for bringing RICO charges against climate deniers.
More here: Arrest Climate-Change Deniers
And here: Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?
More: Al Gore Blasts GOP Climate Deniers, Thom Hartmann Says Throw Them in Jail
Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice
Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?
WTF? DEATH PENALTY?!?!?!
Yes indeed - death penalty. And he's not alone:
Climate “Deniers” Must Be Jailed or Killed
What States' Attorneys General Can Do About Climate Deniers (Hard to believe the Kennedy clan has fallen that far - JFK tried to depose a Communist dictator instead of sucking up to him...)
who's the innocent person being killed in your scenario.. ?
I think if he was just talking in generalities then it's not illegal. If you start talking about actions against specific individuals in specific locations it gets to be over the line. I suspect that what he had written freaked the jury out. I believe that they started thinking the city would be safer if this creep was behind bars. Understandable but if it was only a fantasy then he should never have been tried.
Not sure why they'd do that. LA doesn't have a particularly high thinking rate. And it's recidivism rate for thinking is even lower.
I think he's saying that hanging him would have been the crime.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The man hanged for politically incorrect thoughts? Well, what we know, maybe stole some sweet in a shop when he was a kid, then he would not be innocent, but still, hanging for a stolen lollipop seems too strict to me.
If conspiracy to commit was actionable on writing a story there would be a LOT of people in jail. Better than 3/4s of the population has probably violated the law in a story, writing or drawing at some point in their lives.
Remember those pictures you drew of a kid? Actionable conspiracy under your definition. For all the research this person did he never took a single action to make his plan real. He didn't buy chloroform, he didn't start building a kitchen and he didn't have a partner (regardless of what the prosecution to the press). He was writing stories.
Though he's one sick individual and probably shouldn't have been a cop with fantasies like that nothing he did was illegal. That's a fact at this point as all his convictions were tossed.
No, he selected a specific individual to be the object of his fantasy. That's what makes it NOT a crime. You know that, and pretending otherwise makes you a liar.
See, there's exactly where your scenario deviates from this particular case. If any person negotiates action with another, it's not fantasy. They have ACTED, and it IS a crime.
But if all a person has done is fantasize, or research, and there's been no purchase of materials physical actions progressing the act closer to reality, then it's THOUGHT. Thought is not a crime, and as soon as you start to blur that line you start to make it possible for any person in a position of power make a case to prosecute anyone that has pissed them off or crossed them in some way.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
And by your reasoning, any person that purchases a firearm is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Elizabeth I of England may not have been the first person to say it, but she probably said it best: "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls."
Good, inexpensive web hosting
It isn't just planning, you must ALSO take a step to carry out said plans. The actual crime is not the planning, but taking a step to carry it out.
I can plan all day with my wife and kids and anyone else about how to beat someone with a baseball bat. But if I don't have a bat, that isn't a crime. The moment I go and buy a bat with the intention of carrying out a crime, then all bets are off. Read the statute very carefully.
do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy
Have to advance the conspiracy.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors. There needs to be more than one person involved. It isn't really punishing preparations for a crime, you're punishing the idea of more than one person coming together with intent to commit a crime. The preparations that the parties are making is merely showing the intent to conspire.
He. Selected. A. Specific. Individual. To be his victim. That's what makes it a crime.
Imagine someone writing up a plan to kill you, Feyshtey, on a particular day, with a particular tool, with express cooperation of a few other people. The police discover it. Should they prosecute? Or should they let it go until the plan is actually carried out and you were transformed into a corpse?
None of that is illegal, nor should it be. No thoughts should be illegal. No plans should be illegal. Taking action to further those plans: that's what should be (and is, at least for conspiracy) illegal.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It sounds like a crime, but it is a harassment charge or possibly an assault, and then only if it was known to the prospective victim.
If it was expressed to a co-conspirator it might be conspiracy to commit murder, but another co-conspirator would be essential for that.
Uh, yes? He was "not a murderer" until he killed someone. Up until that very moment he was "not a murderer" then he killed a person and became "a murderer". I don't know why that concept seems so hard for you to understand.
"I wanna be a murderer, I'm gonna be a murderer" is gangsta rap, not a crime.
It is a bit of a pre-crime scenario. The theory is that a planned act by more than one person increases the likelihood and the severity of any crime significantly; enough that any combination of people making serious plans to commit a crime need to be stopped before they are able to execute.
However, actual intent to commit a crime needs to be shared with the conspirators. Buying a gun could be proof of intent, but if the presumed plan the conspirators made was to try and kill their target in a way that was undetectable as a homicide, for instance by using poison, it could be argued that the purchase of a gun would not be proof of the conspiracy because a gun could not be used to execute a killing without it being quickly determined to be a homicide. A gun is dangerous, but it did not match the plan, and if it was something like a hunting rifle, it could be suggested that it was just a coincidental purchase. You'd have to link the gun to the conspiracy, you can't just say "gun BAAAAAAD" and demand a conviction.
Admittedly, this is one case where you really have to understand and accept presumption of innocence. I imagine many juries would see "gun purchase" and assume that the defendant was more nefarious because of the possibly coincidental purchase.
Richard Stallman x Twilight Sparkle?
This is the problem with conspiracy and thought crimes in general. Even if someone has a hammer and a plan to kill a particular person it doesn't mean they'd actually carry it out. We shouldn't be arresting people who haven't committed actual violence and there is evidence of that violence for which the person being violated has not agreed against another person. Otherwise we hand ammunition to prosecutors, juries, and judges to convict people who are nothing more than innocent victims in an even more f'd up system.
He was later convicted in a jury trial.
Convincted of conspiracy to commit kidnapping, by the way. Just in case you thought he was convicted of simply expressing grim thoughts.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It seems silly that the difference between crime and not-crime is whether you wrote your thoughts on paper.
I get that society should be protected from imminent threats, but it seems clumsy to call it a crime when there are no victims.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I read (TFA) as a finding of guilt to commit conspiracy was overturned. Nothing about the status of thoughtcrime as an actual crime. Nobody ever suggested that the thoughts by themselves violated law. Just that, absent any other evidence, they are insufficient to create intent.
Have gnu, will travel.
Still a better love story than Twilight.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What, fucking underage boys is ok now? I thought you have to be a priest for this to be ok.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So I guess I should stop writing those murder mysteries.
Why again is Steven King still at large?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
AG Loretta Lynch was just explaining that if people use unpleasant rhetoric about Muslims, the Department of Justice would "go after them." She also told Muslim parents that if their kids are bullied at school, they should call the DoJ immediately.
... mean? Insensitive?
You know, not talk to the principal, or local law enforcement, no. Call the federal government.
No mention other people being bullied, of course.
So watch that rhetoric, people! The Obama administration just said they feel they have the power to "go after you" if you're found being
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The punishments suggested aren't far off from the punishments handed out for the crime of heresy in days past.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-12/article-3/part-2/16-12-100-2
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 12 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH AND MORALS
ARTICLE 3 - OBSCENITY AND RELATED OFFENSES
PART 2 - OFFENSES RELATED TO MINORS GENERALLY
16-12-100.2 - Computer or electronic pornography and child exploitation prevention
Of most interest to this discussion:
(e) (1) A person commits the offense of obscene Internet contact with a child if he or she has contact with someone he or she knows to be a child or with someone he or she believes to be a child via a computer on-line service or Internet service, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, e-mail, or on-line messaging service, and the contact involves any matter containing explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse that is intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either the child or the person, provided that no conviction shall be had for a violation of this subsection on the unsupported testimony of a child.
(2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or by a fine of not more than $10,000.00; provided, however, that, if at the time of the offense the victim was 14 or 15 years of age and the defendant was no more than three years older than the victim, then the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
In other words, if you go online and have an "adult" conversation with a person claiming to be a child of 14 years of age in the state of Georgia, you can be convicted of a felony and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. Interestingly enough, there are some people who have been convicted of this crime (and no other) who have somehow wound up with more-severe sentences (20 year sentences, albeit most of it served on probation) as a consequence of plea deals.
This appellate decision seems to invalidate those sections of the Georgia statute posted above, along with any convictions/plea deals based on them.
NO!
PEOPLE AREN'T REALIZING!!!
We can finally discuss what we REALLY want to do with APK :P
HAHA!
I wonder if he has a perty mouth
$10 says that if the defendant wasn't a cop, the conviction wouldn't have been overturned in the first place, and if it were appealed, the appeals court would side with the prosecution.
The moment I go and buy a bat with the intention of carrying out a crime, then all bets are off.
Since you just said he has kids, he was teaching his kid to play baseball.
Reasonable doubt and all that.
Because the only thing worse than a postvert is a prevert!
Well the politicians are safe then.
Because he lost his touch years ago. He's now as predictable as 3 month old milk.
How about getting some psychiatric care going, because that sounds like one sick person right there.
This kind of holding is somewhat more important than usual because it is coming from the 2nd Circuit, which is one of the most respected appeals courts in the country. It will give it a little extra weight if the question is examined by either another circuit court or the Supreme Court in the future.
Well I didn't read all your links, but I did read the first one: the senator is drawing a parallel between the RICO lawsuit which was successfully filed against the tobacco companies, showing that they deceived the public and compromised public health in pursuit of greater profits, and the oil companies who are doing the same thing today. This is a perfectly reasonable comparison to make.
Despite what you say, the senator is not calling for anyone to be imprisoned. He is suggesting the filing of a civil lawsuit.
I hope that the rest of your links are less deceitful, it can't be that hard to find some nut who's saying something outrageous.
Wrong again! There are no laws against climate change denial. For the simple reason that there are no laws against being self-serving, ignorant, and stupid.
There are laws against fraud, and criminal negligence. And there are restrictions on the allowed actions of monopolists and oligopolists. Penalties absolutely do include jail time.
And if he can show that he actually did that with his kids, has pictures showing them playing baseball with the bat, and they go to the park every weekend, then triple your point...
From the I-dont-think-thoughtcrime-means-what-you-think-it-means dept.
I just saw a famous feminist dox some guy on facebook because he used the word "slut" online. She tattled to his employer (an apartment complex). He was fired the next day. Can't remember her name. Clemintine Ford or some shit like that.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/sydney-man-fired-after-calling-feminist-writer-clementine-ford-a-sl/news-story/e1179d6bd723ab6e395c1e2735e4a157
Furry and not fury? Hmm... I will probably think of APK in a whole new light now.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I understand he made some preparation by purchasing a variety of restraint and torture devices that were found in his garage. Where the line is drawn is a bit subjective but that *may* count for some. It doesn't appear to count in this case, for whatever reason - I've not read much about it.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You don't see the difference between writing a novel and writing that you are going to kill all your co-workers and how you're going to do it in explicit detail? Not that you hate them and would like them dead but that you are going to come in next week with an AK-47 and shoot them all.
I know there's all this talk about thought-crime and whatnot, but I'd just like to chime in for a moment...
Gilberto "Cannibal Cop" Valle illegally used a police database to research his potential victims. This was illegal, regardless of whether or not he actually planned to use the information he gained to commit any crimes, and has nothing to do with the thought-crime part of this case. By breaking the law, Cannibal Cop committed a crime, so a crime did occur.
The reason this appeals court threw out the conviction for illegal use of a police database is because of the issue of jurisdictional. That is, he got off on a technicality. Granted, he served some time already, so in a sense, he didn't get away with it entirely. However, his conviction record is now squeaky clean, and I'm sure he'll be back on the force in no time.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Not when the novel is written from a first person perspective with an eye toward the future.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Heh....gonna have them Folsom Prison Blues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Here, second hit on Google by searching on "police cannibal child". I'm probably on some list now, thanks a lot! :-) To the main point, the problem here is he hadn't actually done anything illegal. It's really important we only punish criminals. In order for someone to be a criminal they have to have committed a crime. Nail him on the DB search, having a taillight out or not trimming his trees properly (this is Cali after all) but find an actual crime to prosecute him for!
No you lack communication skills.... because you can look at it two different ways...
Because the only thing worse than a postvert is a prevert!
Maybe preverts commit pre-crime, which is what this is all about? Or maybe they just think about it... Aw, hell, now I'm getting confused.
That would explain most Hollywood movies. ..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Yes but doesn't English do that all the time? Try '80 to 180 million', does it mean '80 to 180,000,000' or '80,000,000 to 180,000,000' ?? Causes me problems all the time.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
The problem there is that the numbers are so huge.. With no further climate change at all climate is already set to kill between about 1 to 3 billion people in the next 100 years, in the worst case scenario that rises to 3 to 5 billion - or more. Maybe the death penalty is a bit strong today, but the majority of the world already have their fingers pointed firmly at the USA and the West on this .. so if real climate change does kill a lot of people then we will all be taking a lot of collective heat.
Some of the worst case scenarios for climate change involve widespread food web collapse. - To survive a full scale event the most likely zero day solutions look a lot like Hitler's extermination camps but on a vastly bigger and global scale. An even uglier and -faster- zero day solution is to destroy 50 or 100 of the worlds biggest cities with nuclear weapons.
When you compare climate change denial to that a death penalty doesn't look quite so extreme - but I have a far better solution, since most of them (generalisation) demonstrate the symptoms of severe mental illness they should all be assessed and put into mental asylums. The people who created the whole climate denial movement are different though, it turns out that they were already enemies of America and of humanity.. (the real NWO) and they only created climate change denial as yet another tool for manipulating and brainwashing the common people..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
So I guess I should stop writing those murder mysteries.
Why again is Steven King still at large?
Most people can differentiate between fiction and reality. If you can't, I hope you're receiving suitable medical treatment.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No plans should be illegal.
Try planning a terrorist attack and then claiming it was just a bit of harmless fun when the police arrest you.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I wondered how long it would be before the paedophiles came out of the woodwork.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
While the FBI has made a bad habit of convincing homeless people to plan terrorist attacks and then arresting them, to keep the FBI's stats looking good, non-corrupt police don't arrest people until they take some clear act to further the plan. For terrorist attacks, that usually involves acquiring some explosives or other weapon, and at least for the ones that make the news, the people arrested had done many such acts. Of course, corrupt police value "taking action" over personal liberty, and so you occasionally get things like game companies being raided by the FBI. It's an imperfect world, but we should expect better.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.