Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is still there, but if you maliciously cyberbully someone till they kill themselves or threaten to kill them, the government has a responsibility to investigate as a matter of procedure - even if charges are not brought.so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.
The 1st Amendment is dead.
There's a HUGE difference between actual threats and shit talk on the internet.It is still there, but if you maliciously cyberbully someone till they kill themselves or threaten to kill them, the government has a responsibility to investigate as a matter of procedure - even if charges are not brought.so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.
The 1st Amendment is dead.
These comments were made in present tense, with the premise that they would be carried out. So the judge is well within rights as a matter of procedure to have it investigated.There's a HUGE difference between actual threats and shit talk on the internet.It is still there, but if you maliciously cyberbully someone till they kill themselves or threaten to kill them, the government has a responsibility to investigate as a matter of procedure - even if charges are not brought.so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.
The 1st Amendment is dead.
It’s hard to imagine the Reason.com commenters actually intended violent action against Forrest, so much as the typical trollish provocation that fills so many web comment sections. But that doesn’t make their speech any less illegal under existing statutes about threatening federal officials.
In fact, Forrest has been threatened before on the Dark Web site the Hidden Wiki, and even had her personal information published, including a purported home address. “I hope some drug cartel that lost a lot of money with the seizure of silk road will murder this lady and her entire family,” wrote a user named ServingJustice, who also published Forrest’s personal info.
Compared with that “doxing,” Forrest’s more recent critics on Reason’s website made what appear to be only idle threats. But they did so outside of the Dark Web’s anonymity protections. And if Reason coughs up their personal data to Grand Jury investigators, they may come to regret it.
There's a HUGE difference between actual threats and shit talk on the internet.It is still there, but if you maliciously cyberbully someone till they kill themselves or threaten to kill them, the government has a responsibility to investigate as a matter of procedure - even if charges are not brought.so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.
The 1st Amendment is dead.
Here is the judge they are throwing all this hate at: Katherine B. Forrest - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaThere's a HUGE difference between actual threats and shit talk on the internet.It is still there, but if you maliciously cyberbully someone till they kill themselves or threaten to kill them, the government has a responsibility to investigate as a matter of procedure - even if charges are not brought.so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.
The 1st Amendment is dead.
Is that the assumption you want the government to make?
Significant cases[edit]
On May 16, 2012, in Hedges v. Obama, Forrest blocked enforcement the National Defense Authorization Act's indefinite detention provision.[9] The ruling came as part of a suit challenging the NDAA as infringing "free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution."[10][11] Forrest's ruling was unanimously reversed by a appellate court panel on July 17th, 2013.[12]
The Government Wants Names of Online Commenters Who Trashed the Silk Road Judge
The Department of Justice has ordered libertarian website Reason.com to turn over the information of six commenters after they made threats against the federal judge who presided over the Silk Road trial.
Ken White of the blog Popehat obtained
the grand jury subpoena
issued by the Department of Justice last week, which demands "any and all identifying information” the website has pertaining to the threatening commenters. This includes email addresses, telephone numbers, IP addresses, and billing information associated with the accounts.
“It’s judges like these that should be taken out back and shot,” a user named Agammamon wrote, according to the filing.
“It’s judges like these that will be taken out back and shot. FTFY [fixed that for you].” a user named Alan replied (emphasis in the subpoena). Another user added: “Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.”
Clearly not threats at all but Justice wants to stifle dissent.
How about love thy neighbor: Mark 12 31 The second is this Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.The Government Wants Names of Online Commenters Who Trashed the Silk Road Judge
The Department of Justice has ordered libertarian website Reason.com to turn over the information of six commenters after they made threats against the federal judge who presided over the Silk Road trial.
Ken White of the blog Popehat obtained
the grand jury subpoena
issued by the Department of Justice last week, which demands "any and all identifying information” the website has pertaining to the threatening commenters. This includes email addresses, telephone numbers, IP addresses, and billing information associated with the accounts.
“It’s judges like these that should be taken out back and shot,” a user named Agammamon wrote, according to the filing.
“It’s judges like these that will be taken out back and shot. FTFY [fixed that for you].” a user named Alan replied (emphasis in the subpoena). Another user added: “Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.”
Clearly not threats at all but Justice wants to stifle dissent.
Not to curse a judge (Ex. 22:27)
The Greatest Commandment
(Deuteronomy 6:1-19; Matthew 22:34-40)
28And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31And the second is like, namelythis, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 32And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. 34And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
I know people here like to bash the big bad government, but this time the government is right. Threats against judges must be dealt with.
No, not meaningless internet banter type of threats. If it is a legitimate threat, then okay. "Judges like this should be taken out back and shot" is not really a specific threat.
Yep. Even that sort of thing should be looked out for, it can mean the difference between thwarting a terror attack and letting a lone wolf carry one out.I know people here like to bash the big bad government, but this time the government is right. Threats against judges must be dealt with.
No, not meaningless internet banter type of threats. If it is a legitimate threat, then okay. "Judges like this should be taken out back and shot" is not really a specific threat.
A threat is a threat and all threats should be taken seriously.
Yep. Even that sort of thing should be looked out for, it can mean the difference between thwarting a terror attack and letting a lone wolf carry one out.I know people here like to bash the big bad government, but this time the government is right. Threats against judges must be dealt with.
No, not meaningless internet banter type of threats. If it is a legitimate threat, then okay. "Judges like this should be taken out back and shot" is not really a specific threat.
A threat is a threat and all threats should be taken seriously.
We don't need another Oklahoma bombing, just because investigators had their hands tied.
Yep. Even that sort of thing should be looked out for, it can mean the difference between thwarting a terror attack and letting a lone wolf carry one out.I know people here like to bash the big bad government, but this time the government is right. Threats against judges must be dealt with.
No, not meaningless internet banter type of threats. If it is a legitimate threat, then okay. "Judges like this should be taken out back and shot" is not really a specific threat.
A threat is a threat and all threats should be taken seriously.
We don't need another Oklahoma bombing, just because investigators had their hands tied.
I agree. Err on the side of safety. If it's shown that these people were just "talking shit", then so be it. But if nothing is done and one of these people act on their threat then people would be asking why nothing was done when the threats were made.
Yep. Even that sort of thing should be looked out for, it can mean the difference between thwarting a terror attack and letting a lone wolf carry one out.I know people here like to bash the big bad government, but this time the government is right. Threats against judges must be dealt with.
No, not meaningless internet banter type of threats. If it is a legitimate threat, then okay. "Judges like this should be taken out back and shot" is not really a specific threat.
A threat is a threat and all threats should be taken seriously.
We don't need another Oklahoma bombing, just because investigators had their hands tied.
I agree. Err on the side of safety. If it's shown that these people were just "talking shit", then so be it. But if nothing is done and one of these people act on their threat then people would be asking why nothing was done when the threats were made.
Conventional wisdom is the ones that publicly threaten aren't the ones you need to worry about. Unless they're Muslim. Not making a punchline, it's unfrotunately true. Muslims who become violent do, often as not, give advanced warning.
Yep. Even that sort of thing should be looked out for, it can mean the difference between thwarting a terror attack and letting a lone wolf carry one out.No, not meaningless internet banter type of threats. If it is a legitimate threat, then okay. "Judges like this should be taken out back and shot" is not really a specific threat.
A threat is a threat and all threats should be taken seriously.
We don't need another Oklahoma bombing, just because investigators had their hands tied.
I agree. Err on the side of safety. If it's shown that these people were just "talking shit", then so be it. But if nothing is done and one of these people act on their threat then people would be asking why nothing was done when the threats were made.
Conventional wisdom is the ones that publicly threaten aren't the ones you need to worry about. Unless they're Muslim. Not making a punchline, it's unfrotunately true. Muslims who become violent do, often as not, give advanced warning.
All threats should be taken seriously. If a person writes on social media that a bomb is going to detonate at a school at 10:am or that the person is going to go "postal" at a school and your children were attending that school, what would you do?
It is all quite legal, under the Freedom/Patriot Act and counter-terrorism powers. Also, various laws on cyber-bullying already exist, so even on those grounds the government has a responsibility to investigate. You are acting like there won't be a trial and court case, under any eventuality.We gonna start reaching out the long arm of the law every time someone ties one on and talks a little smack online? This is a blatant case of over reach.
Yep. Even that sort of thing should be looked out for, it can mean the difference between thwarting a terror attack and letting a lone wolf carry one out.A threat is a threat and all threats should be taken seriously.
We don't need another Oklahoma bombing, just because investigators had their hands tied.
I agree. Err on the side of safety. If it's shown that these people were just "talking shit", then so be it. But if nothing is done and one of these people act on their threat then people would be asking why nothing was done when the threats were made.
Conventional wisdom is the ones that publicly threaten aren't the ones you need to worry about. Unless they're Muslim. Not making a punchline, it's unfrotunately true. Muslims who become violent do, often as not, give advanced warning.
All threats should be taken seriously. If a person writes on social media that a bomb is going to detonate at a school at 10:am or that the person is going to go "postal" at a school and your children were attending that school, what would you do?
What 'should happen' and what's practical to execute are different things. And if it becomes the standard practice to investigate every little threat, then the real threats will flood the internet with false-threats prior to executing real attacks. Have to use training and experience to assess and discard the nonsense from the genuine ones.
Yep. Even that sort of thing should be looked out for, it can mean the difference between thwarting a terror attack and letting a lone wolf carry one out.
We don't need another Oklahoma bombing, just because investigators had their hands tied.
I agree. Err on the side of safety. If it's shown that these people were just "talking shit", then so be it. But if nothing is done and one of these people act on their threat then people would be asking why nothing was done when the threats were made.
Conventional wisdom is the ones that publicly threaten aren't the ones you need to worry about. Unless they're Muslim. Not making a punchline, it's unfrotunately true. Muslims who become violent do, often as not, give advanced warning.
All threats should be taken seriously. If a person writes on social media that a bomb is going to detonate at a school at 10:am or that the person is going to go "postal" at a school and your children were attending that school, what would you do?
What 'should happen' and what's practical to execute are different things. And if it becomes the standard practice to investigate every little threat, then the real threats will flood the internet with false-threats prior to executing real attacks. Have to use training and experience to assess and discard the nonsense from the genuine ones.
Answer the question.
I agree. Err on the side of safety. If it's shown that these people were just "talking shit", then so be it. But if nothing is done and one of these people act on their threat then people would be asking why nothing was done when the threats were made.
Conventional wisdom is the ones that publicly threaten aren't the ones you need to worry about. Unless they're Muslim. Not making a punchline, it's unfrotunately true. Muslims who become violent do, often as not, give advanced warning.
All threats should be taken seriously. If a person writes on social media that a bomb is going to detonate at a school at 10:am or that the person is going to go "postal" at a school and your children were attending that school, what would you do?
What 'should happen' and what's practical to execute are different things. And if it becomes the standard practice to investigate every little threat, then the real threats will flood the internet with false-threats prior to executing real attacks. Have to use training and experience to assess and discard the nonsense from the genuine ones.
Answer the question.
Write one that doesn't make me think "stupid hick" and I will.
Who made you the US Government, as it is entirely sound and reasonable to investigate alleged offenses, even if those offenses later turn out to not merit further investigation.The law is made to be practiced by the judgments of reasonable people.
The judge was allegedly threatened, and bullied, until an investigation proves otherwise. Those involved are likewise considered innocent till proven guilty. That is the point of having a formal investigation, that you believe the government shouldn't be allowed to have.The judge was not being threatened. He was not being bullied.
So you have no problems with people violating other people's privacy and sending them hate messages, simply on the basis that there is 'no credible case' in your opinion because they are a judge.There was no credible case of potential or imminent violence.
Why? Do you believe that government officials, judges, and workers have less civil rights and less of a right to be safe than internet trolls?A higher standard of application rests upon those whom have been entrusted with the keys to the car.
Government wants site to name trolls
