Slashdot Mirror
Homeland Security Wants To Subpoena Techdirt Over The Identity Of A Hyperbolic Commenter (boingboing.net)
Techdirt is in hot water with the Department of Homeland Security all thanks to a commenter known as Digger. Techdirt's Tim Cushing published a story about the Hancock County, IN Sheriff's Department officers who stole $240,000 under color of asset forfeiture. In response to the story, Digger wrote, "The only 'bonus' these criminals [the Sheriff's Department officers] are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls." The Department of Homeland Security then contacted Techdirt to ask whom they should send a subpoena to in order to identify Digger. Masnick is worried the subpoena could come with a gag order. "Normally, we'd wait for the details before publishing, but given a very similar situation involving commenters on the site Reason last year, which included a highly questionable and almost certainly unconstitutional gag order preventing Reason from speaking about it, we figured it would be worth posting about it before we've received any such thing," Masnick writes.
The only 'bonus' these criminals [the Sheriff's Department officers] are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.
So it looks like "homeland security" should be renamed STASI/NKVD/etc. They appear to be going after people for wrong-think, just like other state security apparatus of yesteryear in various communist countries.
Om, nomnomnom...
This is the worst thing that ever happened of all time. When I'm president, I'm going to make subpoenas so massive it'll make your head spin. They will be tremendous, tremendous subpoenas.
You are welcome on my lawn.
... they always want the gold and silver but never the copper and lead. So picky.
Steal my money under asset bullshit and I may very well put a bullet in your head.
If you offer anonymous comments? Tell them the IP address is 127.0.0.1 and that's all you know.
What can they do? Through you in jail and civil forfeiture all your stuff. Thanks for playing. You don't think you've broken any laws today? You are probably breaking one right now and you don't know it. If they want to arrest you, they will.
Come on man, you know this.
From day one I have feared and loathed the use of the name Father^h^h^h^h^h^h Homeland Security. I did and continue to say; What the absolute fuck? Does no one else see the irony. And then they started acting the part.
Who is Masnick? Oh right, its the editor of Techdirt. Ok now the article makes some sense. Of course, simply writing "Mike Masnick, the editor of Techdirt, is worried the..." is probably too complicated, and I guess it should be common knowledge who 'Masnick' is, or we should expect people to look it up right?
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Bet he keeps his eccentricity below 1 next time.
Getting out in front of the predictable gag order and bringing attention to this was ballsy and smart. Of course now DHS will probably start gag-ordering the pre- subpoena request... But thanks techdirt staff for shining the light.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
Most of the time, civil forfeiture doesn't even require any laws to be broken. The charges are brought against the property itself, not the owners. Many cases the "charges" against the actual real humans never go through, but the property is never returned without thousands spent in court to get it back. The police often count on the fact that it costs $5k+ to fight them, so they KNOW that anything stolen under that is "free stuff".
If they issue the gag order must we gag ourselves?
What if we refuse to gag? What if we continue to talk? What the fuck can they do to us? Kill us?
They can put you in prison and take your home and all your possessions. That's what they can do to you.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I always assumed you can get away with some relatively stupid shit (I've come close regarding our Australian PM and housing prices) but within reason. Outright threats of course, very stupid thing to say but the law generally can interpret angry voter / reader from genuine loonatic.
That comment reply is honestly pretty tame, it's not pointing the finger at who would be pulling the hypothetical trigger, it could infact be a sarcastic reply or whatever.
To think D.H.S is investigating this is pretty scary.
What next? Should I pack my bags if I write "Obama is a doo-doo head" or something?
Banditry is normally punishable by death. Civil asset forfeiture is banditry.
That's the rhetoric. The reality is other.
This is the country where you can never be forgiven for anything. Where a bad credit report, an arrest, adjudication withheld, conviction, a tweet, or just the lack of a Facebook account can result in a distinct narrowing — or complete loss of — job opportunities. Why? Not because of the law. Because people have chosen retribution over rehabilitation, and further have taken retribution into their own hands, which they are encouraged to do by their peers, by the media, and directly by the government through one-way enabling mechanisms such as public lists designating no-fly, no-buy and of course violent and sexual offender. Also by much of theism, which, as always, specializes in pointing at anyone not of a particular faith and labeling them in some negative way. Atheists, those despicable human beings not of any faith, have been specifically called out by various legislation as not suitable for public office, etc., and of course huge numbers of people blithely and comfortably declare they wouldn't elect them anyway. Many posters here regularly cheer the activities of vigilante groups. We have met the enemy, and they are us.
Considering that this is the accepted norm for the behavior of the average citizen, I fail to see how anyone expects to get any meaningful number of said citizens significantly upset about the government's recent tendency to take another inch in its never-ending crusade against "things that might cause things that might be bad things or be inconvenient for the courts, law enforcement, or public officials."
The masses swallow every little dollop of "FOR THE CROTCH-BLOSSOMS! TERRORWITS! DWUGS!" they are fed. They don't know a meaningful statistic from any other number flung at them by the media or the government. They think cops are heroes doing such a dangerous job that no rule is inviolate. Very few could tell you what the constitution says, and even fewer have any idea of what the overall thrust of the document is, much less a grasp on specific meanings, either as "interpreted" by the judiciary or as likely intended by the people who wrote it.
Fulminating about things on the Intarwebz isn't going to accomplish anything. Well, other than draw the attention of some facet of law enforcement. You won't get people unglued from their televisions and apps. A very small number of people have been yelling about these erosions for decades now; the course the nation has taken has remained uniformly towards more authoritarian law, ever more tenuous lip service to the constitution, all the while constantly throwing up carefully-crafted bogymen to keep the masses well focused away from the core problems. People don't listen. They don't care. They're pretty comfortable overall, and the plight of the relatively small number of people the system screws — just a few percent — means basically nothing to them until it is them, and then it's far too late.
I have no suggestions. I think the people have screwed themselves far beyond any hope of redemption. It would be lovely to be proven wrong, but so far... no sign of that.
Hey, now that this site is under new ownership, maybe they could do some things to prepare for the possibility that this will happen here. Don't log IPs. Post a warrant canary.
Also, assuming someone does up and spend (at least) $5k to get some lesser amount back, the perpetrators know that nothing else will happen to them. There's no penalty for trying, so hey, why not try?
Informative graph: Civil forfeiture in the United States amounts to billions of dollars every year.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
But, damn, those are small fingers.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Asset Forfeiture is treason and the punishment for treason is death.
Abuse of asset forfeiture in a bad thing. But I don't think you actually understand what the word "treason" means. No, I'm sure you don't understand it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Don't you understand that our highly trained police and other LEOs are only doing what they KNOW - because they are omniscient - is best for all of us. Can't you accept that you are just a slimeball that is not worthy to polish their shoes, as they slave every day to ensure that nothing nasty will ever happen to you again...
The original Techdirt comment:
The only "bonus" these criminals are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.
The person wronged probably knows people who know people in low places who'd take on the challenge pro-bono, after a proper "cooling-off" period.
WTF? Digger is simply speculating that the victim of the forfeiture proceeding might be pissed off enough to go after the terminal kind of revenge. That seems like a reasonable speculation to me, and does not constitute a threat.
However, perhaps more to the point is the comment Digger posted immediately prior to the one quoted in TFS:
Everyone on the government side of this should have grand theft and / or larceny charges filed against them, and double the jail time as it is a slam dunk case.
They did not follow proper procedures, they no longer have the protection or immunity to prosecution normally afforded to government agents.
By failing to follow procedure, they've shown their true colors and should be treated as the criminals that they are.
I suspect the DHS, and whichever other TLAs and LEOs stepped on their own dicks in this case, are more upset about the comment Digger posted first, and are only using the one he posted next as a flimsy excuse to go hunting. Frankly, if they really believe Digger poses or is connected to a threat, then they might as well be the Keystone Cops. And if they DON'T believe in the threat, then they're bullies and thugs. Either way, they all need to be dismissed and barred from any further government jobs.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
If they issue the gag order must we gag ourselves?
What if we refuse to gag? What if we continue to talk? What the fuck can they do to us? Kill us?
This is no motherfucking North Korea, this is the United States of America
If they think they can gag Americans with a fucking gag order they can go fuck themselves
A Waco, Texas incident is enough, we will not allow any more government goon incident to happen
You many layers of constitution, federal laws, state laws, county laws, city by-laws (and probably several other layers I've forgotten about) mean that pretty much anyone can be put into legal limbo and tied up in legal issues indefinitely because there is virtually zero chance you haven't broken some law or regulation.
You've painted yourselves into a corner with so much law and regulation there is almost no way out of it and no individual, not even legal experts, stand any chance of figuring out where they stand. Even your police and courts are not clear on what laws they are supposed to enforce. They literally make it up as they go along, especially the police.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
and take your home and all your possessions. That's what they can do to you.
Right, because OBVIOUSLY drug money. Thats all they have to say.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Well since the rest of the US Constitution can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the government wants it to mean, can we not do a bit of reinterpretation in regards to the precise definition of Treason?
I mean, if seizing property without the owner even being charged with a crime and with little in the way of due process involved is Constitutional as the government insists it is, a slight change to the interpretation of what constitutes Treason seems rather minor in comparison.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Gang stalking at its finest.
Right, because OBVIOUSLY drug money. Thats all they have to say.
Sometimes they don't even have to say that. They may simply claim it's "proceeds of criminal activity" without specifying what activity.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Yeah, hyperbole saying he'll burn in hell or something is one thing, but threats of violence are not automatically hyberbole. Simply [secretly] not planning to do it, and just saying you will, is not an attempt to communicate exaggeration.
Hyperbole is an exaggerated comment not meant to be taken literally. If you straight out say something threatening, without any clear exaggeration, then it isn't obviously hyperbole. I'm not sure what the source of the "hyperbole" claim even is. Techdirt, I guess? The comment may or may not have been a poorly executed attempt at hyperbole; or it might have been a threat. My advice, if you're making comments that involve the police, and violence, make a clear exaggeration. Don't just deadpan a threat and rely on people trusting that you're a good person and so it just must have been exaggeration.
Threatening to send Voldemort or a Klingon Bird of Prey to wipe them out, that is clear hyperbole. A "bullet to their... skull" is just not obviously hyperbole, especially in the context where firearms are commonly possessed, and in fact a constitutional right. If somebody said that about me, I'd have to start carrying inflatable ninjas in my pocket for protection.
And if you run a website that has comments, expect to get some subpoenas, especially if you don't delete, redact, or otherwise squelch comments describing violence in the context of real humans.
Yeah, hyperbole saying he'll burn in hell or something is one thing, but threats of violence are not automatically hyberbole. Simply [secretly] not planning to do it, and just saying you will, is not an attempt to communicate exaggeration.
Hyperbole is an exaggerated comment not meant to be taken literally. If you straight out say something threatening, without any clear exaggeration, then it isn't obviously hyperbole. I'm not sure what the source of the "hyperbole" claim even is. Techdirt, I guess? The comment may or may not have been a poorly executed attempt at hyperbole; or it might have been a threat. My advice, if you're making comments that involve the police, and violence, make a clear exaggeration. Don't just deadpan a threat and rely on people trusting that you're a good person and so it just must have been exaggeration.
Threatening to send Voldemort or a Klingon Bird of Prey to wipe them out, that is clear hyperbole. A "bullet to their... skull" is just not obviously hyperbole, especially in the context where firearms are commonly possessed, and in fact a constitutional right. If somebody said that about me, I'd have to start carrying inflatable ninjas in my pocket for protection.
And if you run a website that has comments, expect to get some subpoenas, especially if you don't delete, redact, or otherwise squelch comments describing violence in the context of real humans.
What may be the course if the context of the comment. If I saw you in an ally and said that yeah it's hardly hyperbole and a genuine threat. If we were on an acting set and I was dressed like a 1950s train robber then again it's probably hyperbole. I think there's a difference between what we say on a comedy stage, what we say on an internet comment site, and what we say in a protest rally and that context is what makes certain phrases hyperbole and others legitimate threats. At least that's what I assume the author's intent was by labeling it hyperbole.
Just another second banana
I was just in the children's book section at Target, and two guys were talking...
"That's fucked up. You gotta respond yo..."
Met by, "Yeah... That fucker is going to get murdered..."
Guess what? There is *zero* fucking chance that these guys are actually going to murder someone. This is San Francisco, and these clowns are just posturing. If that sort of casual idiocy was sufficient cause for subpoena and/or warrant, DHS would have to deputize every US citizen to serve court orders.
And even more importantly, this comment is not a direct threat of violence. It is a statement of likely outcome, which, like Trump's stupid "riots" comment, doesn't rise to the level of iminent threat.
Proof please.
$104 million taxpayer dollars produced ZERO convictions of ANY of Clinton's employees for acts on his watch or theirs.
Contrast with the 32 convicts, holding an astonishing 129 felony pleas or convictions between them under Raygun
Or 41's 16 (not counting the 8 unconstitutionally PARDONED BEFORE TRIAL (coverup?).
Or 43's 15.
Contrast Carter and Obama to the above Rogue's gallery
Hate all you want, but remember who actually does the deed and has suffered for having been PROVEN to do the deed.
Ahhh, NO.
So long as the threat is credible, it is Terroristic threats and assault in the 3rd Degree
You're statistics-challenged, clearly, but murders do happen, and they are sometimes discussed casually first. There is a non-zero chance that they were going to murder somebody, and you simply have no fucking clue one way or the other.
The reason it doesn't matter what you heard is that it is hearsay, you heard them say, you didn't record it, they didn't write it down or broadcast it, they didn't say it to the potential victim, and they did not describe an imminent crime. Therefore, it is not a threat and could not be investigated as a threat. There would be no complaint of a threat. It could be investigated as a potential conspiracy to commit murder, but only if there was something purported to be evidence. A published statement that may or may not be threatening is a real statement, that was really published, and so it is evidence; of a crime, or that there wasn't a crime, depending on the result of an investigation. In your case, there is only hearsay; you heard somebody else say things. That isn't evidence, so there would not be any investigation to determine if a crime was committed.
But if you recorded the guys, then it might be evidence of a conspiracy to commit murder. It all depends on if, in addition to what you overheard, they were also taking material actions to further the cause of the guy ending up dead. And you don't have any idea one way or the other if that is the case. They might have been talking about a video game, or a TV show, or even engaging in hyperbole. But contrary to your magical thinking, you don't know which it is.
Homeland Security needs to be DISMANTLED.
We need to take back this country from the paranoid lunatics and the exploiters.
Wow dude.. You really don't get hyperbole, do you?
Of course there is a non-zero chance that murder will occur, though, given these guys were hanging around with their mom later, I feel quite comfortable placing a bet against their follow through.
And, remember, if you're going to call out someone as stats challenged, zero probability events do occur. Zero probability does not imply impossibility.
Seriously, dude... Hyperbole. Get some. The probability that you reply to this post without coming off like a douchebag is zero...
Somewhere in there, I have won/lost or lost/won some argument.
Wrong. I'm sorry but when it comes to the law, I believe police
Police receive no training in the law. All of their legal "knowledge" is inferred from department policies about who to arrest when, and what codes to use.
Feds do receive a small amount of legal training, and usually have college degrees.
Also, lawyers speak in narrow terms. That link isn't talking about if threats are legal. It is talking about if they amount to assault. Words have meaning... even legal words!
Gosh, that's a great theory. "Gee Judge, see, the cops weren't even allowed to investigate, because I claim they don't understand hyperbole."
That is just a bunch of fail. You didn't address any of the points I made, or any of the legal issues. Believing the cops don't understand hyperbole just proves they were being reasonable to investigate. Who fucking cares if I "understand" the hyperbole or not? Why do you care? I don't care. The cops don't care. You're the only one who cares if I understand hyperbole, and you're the only one who thinks that you know about it.
You don't have to think it is a threat to understand that the cops are allowed to investigate.
No, you didn't win or lose an argument, because you didn't understand anything well enough to have one.
You never joke with law enforcement officers. They have been specially bred and selected for non-intelligence, and will always SWOOOOSHED by any joke that’s smarter than what a 8 year old can grasp.
Police do not have any education pertaining to what the laws are.
Oh, by all means put President Trump in. Well known, a Socialist will lose to a Capitalist for no better reason than advertising
Sorry, WRONG.
My own state, California, defines such threats without ability to implement as criminal threats
other jurisdictions call it Terroristic Threats. In both cases the crime is charged as assault.
Did you get your law degree from Liberty University, like 1/3 of Bush's Prosecutors?
Wrong
on all counts. Any lawyer would have told you the truth
The cop claim is a complete lie.
Cops are taught exactly as much as they need to know to lie effectively on the stand, no more.
A socialist will put an end to government coercion and spying on individuals? Really? Socialism is pro-individual now?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond