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."
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'
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
Actually planning a crime is a criminal action. It's called "conspiracy to commit" and people get put in jail for it.
Oh just kiss already
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.
Killing an innocent person...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
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...)
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
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.
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.
$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.
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.