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.

41 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Behind 7 proxies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only 'bonus' these criminals [the Sheriff's Department officers] are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.

    1. Re: Behind 7 proxies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most comments like this are just frustrated people venting but sometimes they really are signs of a threat. People who are serious about shooting a pig do not normally say so in public. Sadly our governments are guilty of many of the things they are accused of, and so scared the public will find out, they will make you a criminal to stifle your right to say it.

    2. Re: Behind 7 proxies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would like to know what sort of level of verbal threat counts as worthy of investigation to the Absolute Freedom Of Speech people.

      There are two separate things happening here:

      1. Potential government corruption
      2. Potential threat of violence against a human

      It's irrelevant that the target of 2 might be involved in 1. This isn't a country of vigilante justice, but rule of law, and we should be proud of that. You show impartiality whether you're investigating an angel or a demon - if selective justice is allowed, then it won't be the powerful men who lose out...

    3. Re: Behind 7 proxies by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative
      In this case, the commentator is not a threat (well, not likely, anyway - that is, no less likely to be a threat than you are.) The quote in TFS is incomplete. It ends with:

      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.

      Basically the commentator was alleging that the person law enforcement "confiscated" property from was violent and linked to organized crime, and would probably arrange for a hit on the officers involved if the law doesn't solve the problem for him.

      Not happy about the support for violence, and if I were a moderator I'd have removed or hidden that comment, but the commentator is not a threat to the officers involved. (Well, unless he's a hitman looking for business ;-)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re: Behind 7 proxies by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The comment says that someone will probably do it. That's not a threat. If I say that "if Trump is elected President, he'll probably be shot", that's a prediction - not a threat. It's completely protected speech.

    5. Re: Behind 7 proxies by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would like to know what sort of level of verbal threat counts as worthy of investigation to the Absolute Freedom Of Speech people.

      I'm not a AFOS person per se, but I might be able to offer a reasonable response.

      A direct threat, such as "I am going put shoot these police in the head"... might be deserving of investigation, if it isn't accompanied by context that conveys it's not serious.

      This case is about a statement that boils down to "they'll probably get what's coming to them", where "what's coming to them" may or may not be proportional to the crime committed. Still, it's not a statement of intent. To imagine that say... in a conversation about a rapist, someone says "don't worry, someone will take care of him", and that's taken as intent rather than kharmic observation... that's worrying to me. Free speech should protect that. It should even protect "someone should take care of him." That should be above investigation. It's statement of opinion, not statement of intent to commit a crime.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    6. Re: Behind 7 proxies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vigilante justice is what the police agencies are all about lately: forfeiture laws, shooting innocent travelers for driving cars nothing like the one they are looking for, and jiding their actions through the crony blue shield of silence.

    7. Re: Behind 7 proxies by nbauman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would like to know what sort of level of verbal threat counts as worthy of investigation to the Absolute Freedom Of Speech people.

      TechDirt cited 2 cases to justify their belief that Digger's statement was rhetorical hyperbole and not a true threat.

      https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

      https://scholar.google.com/sch...
      Rankin v. McPherson, 483 US 378 - Supreme Court 1987

      After hearing of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, a black employee of the Constable of Harris County, was fired for saying,

      "yeah, he's cutting back medicaid and food stamps. And I said, yeah, welfare and CETA. I said, shoot, if they go for him again, I hope they get him."

      The Supreme Court decided that the Constable's office could not fire her for making that statement.

      https://scholar.google.com/sch...
      Watts v. United States, 394 US 705 - Supreme Court 1969

      petitioner was convicted of violating a 1917 statute which prohibits any person from "knowingly and willfully . . . [making] any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States . . . ."[*] The incident 706*706 which led to petitioner's arrest occurred on August 27, 1966, during a public rally on the Washington Monument grounds.

      According to an investigator for the Army Counter Intelligence Corps who was present, petitioner responded: "They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J." "They are not going to make me kill my black brothers."

    8. Re: Behind 7 proxies by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Actually it is pretty clear that it just limits Congress from limiting speech through statute. Lesser governments are/were (the 14th expanded the 1st) allowed to limit speech, such as States passing laws limiting what slaves could say and even municipal governments regulating speech through eg noise bylaws or sign bylaws (though whether the writers considered that?).
      It also didn't limit the judiciary from limiting speech and at the time common law was still in effect so common law limits would have been allowed, things like libel and perhaps uttering threats.
      The other question is how much power the writers expected the President to wield, can the President order silence in matters of national security?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re: Behind 7 proxies by jmcvetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't a country of vigilante justice, but rule of law, and we should be proud of that.

      Why should we be proud of rule by lawyers? The courts are not now, and never have been, a "neutral" party. They represent the interests of the oligarchy and make it their business to destroy the life of any pleb who gets out of line. "Rule of law" has only one claim to legitimacy - the terrifyingly brutal violence with which the courts enforce their will.

    10. Re: Behind 7 proxies by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      I would like to know what sort of level of verbal threat counts as worthy of investigation to the Absolute Freedom Of Speech people.

      There are two separate things happening here:

      1. Potential government corruption
      2. Potential threat of violence against a human

      It's irrelevant that the target of 2 might be involved in 1. This isn't a country of vigilante justice, but rule of law, and we should be proud of that. You show impartiality whether you're investigating an angel or a demon - if selective justice is allowed, then it won't be the powerful men who lose out...

      A potential threat is not actually a threat. Its the potential for a threat to exist. Its like a probability, when it becomes 1 then there is a threat and not before.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    11. Re: Behind 7 proxies by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's not "Vigilante justice", because it's done under the cover of authority.

      Indeed. Vigilante justice would be private citizens going around shooting corrupt police officers.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    12. Re: Behind 7 proxies by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It should even protect "someone should take care of him." That should be above investigation.

      As always, it depends on the situation.

      Suppose I list all the evils of a particular person and I encourage others to go kill that person. Someone in the crowd decides to do so. Having said that, I bear a certain responsibility for inciting. Again, free speech does not absolve me from responsibility for the actions that my speech may have provoked.

      I do agree, though, that in some ways, it seems we're trying to "pre-crime" these situations. "Oh, he said that and people could take him seriously and somebody might act on what he said and then there'd be a crime, so let's just nip this in the bud by arresting him now."

    13. Re:Behind 7 proxies by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      Also, something about bullets dipped in pigs blood

      I'm not 100% sure that policemens blood would actually be technically unclean.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    14. Re: Behind 7 proxies by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      The comment is not itself an illegal act, but that doesn't stop it from creating reasonable suspicion that a real threat might have been made that warrants investigation.

      I totally support the right of assholes to say lame shit, but I also do want the police to investigate threats of violence. The trope is that real [imaginary-real] criminals don't make threats first, but when I read the news about real shootings, a significant number of the people were in fact saying threatening things on a routine basis beforehand. In my own experience with people committing more minor violence, the ones who do it are often the same ones who threaten it. And psychologically, repeating it increases belief in the solution. An investigation might very well remind them of potential consequences.

      Don't give these pigs such an easy time to legally inconvenience you by investigating potential threats.

      If you want to keep the pork on the fire, keep the fire up to code so the fire department doesn't interfere.

    15. Re: Behind 7 proxies by chaboud · · Score: 2

      But, critically, Trump wasn't arrested or charged with a crime. It sure as hell wasn't befitting a president, but it was legal.

  2. So.... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
    1. Re:So.... by omnichad · · Score: 2

      example of a somehwat cognizable threat.

      How? If you say you think it's likely, you're not threatening to be the one to do it.

  3. Hyperbolic Commenter TM by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Hyperbolic Commenter TM by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

      And Mexico is going to pay for them!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Hyperbolic Commenter TM by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You guys are all funny and stuff... but let's take a moment away from the snark about a donut-head reality-TV dip-weasle who isn't in charge of anything and recall that this is a story about our actual government running around stomping on your liberties and the constitution right now. Not in some Trump-ruled dystopian future, but in the Patriot Act present. So if we want to spew some snark toward the top of the executive branch, let's look to the guy who is actually in charge.

      Very few people in government seem to have any interest in protecting your right to privacy online, or your freedom of speech. Getting deflected into a Team Red vs. Team Blue side-show does nothing to help rein in our leadership. It only provides a distraction while they continue to chisel away at your freedom.

      Some of you jokesters are old enough to be able to recognize just how dystopian the present is. You don't even have to go all the way back to black-and-white TV to find an era when "show me your papers" was a popular meme for showing a horrible totalitarian regime. The idea of a government that is always watching its citizens was the cardboard-cutout villain in every action movie and TV show.

      And here we are, less than half a lifetime later with a national government that will send agents to initiate a secret investigation about some loudmouth troll on the internet - threatening anyone who even mentions the fact that the government is snooping around with jail time. Holy crap, have we lost our way.

      You guys are smart enough and well-informed enough that you should be leading the cries of "to the woodchippers!" instead of laying it off on some doofus who is not only not in power, but is never going to get elected to anything.

    3. Re:Hyperbolic Commenter TM by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Some of you jokesters are old enough to be able to recognize just how dystopian the present is

      Some of us are old enough to recognize how much better it's gotten. I'm not quite old enough to remember the McCarthy era, but I do remember the hippie movement and the anti-war protests of the 1960's, and abuses of federal and police power during that era. Technology has made broad searching easier, but it's also made publicly reporting the abuses easier.

      The war on drugs asset forfeiture cases are a source of funding for police departments, both honest and corrupt departments. They're a very real problem for honest citizens. But the ability to get information and find out the relevant laws, to fight it in court, has improved tremendously during my adult lifetime.

  4. Steal my money by krray · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Steal my money under asset bullshit and I may very well put a bullet in your head.

    1. Re:Steal my money by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      When did "earning it" come into play? What are you, a commie?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Steal my money by NotAPK · · Score: 2

      You realise your posts could be taken as advice for families wanting to move west from eastern Europe during the Cold War?

      USSA is fucking right.

      Scary as fuck.

    3. Re:Steal my money by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      quickest way to convert an honest, decent person into a criminal (or worse, that T word) is to inflict insane injustice on him under color of law.

      I could imagine that if I was unfairly messed with and left with no assets - basically robbed blind by the thugs in blue - I'd probably look for mafia style justice, if that even exists anymore. its like when people get locked up for bullshit crimes; the process only ends up MAKING them criminals. they'll never get a decent job again after jail time (usually) and so they have no choice - you, the state, have just CREATED a criminal. or worse.

      I think that was the true gist of the posting. that if you arrest a guilty man, he will probably not fight back nearly as much as if you arrest or mess with an innocent, typical every day person.

      being robbed by a thief hurts. it hurts no less if the thief wears a government issued uniform.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Steal my money by Agripa · · Score: 2

      ... the process only ends up MAKING them criminals.

      The process also creates greater demand for law enforcement and the courts. Why would they care if the number of criminals rises?

  5. Why even keep logs at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you offer anonymous comments? Tell them the IP address is 127.0.0.1 and that's all you know.

  6. Re: They _are_ stasi, version vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. From Day One! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Hyperbolic you say by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bet he keeps his eccentricity below 1 next time.

  9. Good job techdirt by s4m7 · · Score: 2

    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.
  10. Re: They _are_ stasi, version vista by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Informative

    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".

  11. Re:incomplete article by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    Who is Masnick? Oh right, its the editor of Techdirt. Ok now the article makes some sense.

    Agreed.

    Yes, the editorial standards of style have dropped pretty low here. He should have been identified by his position, just as they would have done in a proper paper or periodical.

    In journalism, anytime a person is mentioned it's standard practice to make reference to who he/she is in relation to the story, but slashdot often dispenses with those conventions.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  12. Re:Hyperbolic you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Banditry is normally punishable by death. Civil asset forfeiture is banditry.

  13. Civil forfeiture by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  14. Will nobody think of the children? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    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...

  15. Since when is speculation considered a threat? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  16. Re:Hyperbolic you say by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re: Hyperbolic you say by chaboud · · Score: 2

    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.

  18. Re:Hyperbolic you say by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

    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.