Government wants site to name trolls

[paddymurphy]

so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.


The 1st Amendment is dead.

No one has gone to prison no one has been charged. If the posters were just blowing smoke, no one will.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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 threats? Judges will be taken out back and shot is a threat.

It's a figure of speach, dude. There's no reason to think that there's an imminent threat.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.


The 1st Amendment is dead.

No one has gone to prison no one has been charged. If the posters were just blowing smoke, no one will.

Well, it's highly unlikely that anyone will go to jail for this. But that's not quite the point. The US Govt. Is using Unconstitutional means to harass citizens.

 

[PratchettFan]

The law is made to be practiced by the judgments of reasonable people.

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 judge was not being threatened. He was not being bullied.

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.

There was no credible case of potential or imminent violence.

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.

A higher standard of application rests upon those whom have been entrusted with the keys to the car.

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 random internet poster used hyperbole/figure of speech to vent frustration on a public matter. If that is the standard for allowing the government to investigate the citizenry, then we may as well all just sign over our rights and liberties now.

What happened does not constitute a threat. Any court would throw that out as a frivolous charge.

Whose privacy was violated besides the people's whose records were subpoena'd? The judge is a public entity as it relates to his judgments. I don't think you've taken law at the college level, dude.

The judges civil rights have not been violated. He faces no imminent danger. The question is why do you think that people's liberties should be able to be so easily trounced?

How is investigating, without charging anyone 'trouncing liberties'. If the investigation goes further and has sufficient grounds to convict someone, then you believe they should be able to break the law?

But that isn't what this is really about, as you are making out like lawful procedures are 'unconstitutional' or illegal with no evidence to back that claim up.

Silk Road is dead, for the moment at least, and frankly I am not going to lose any sleep at night, if a few male internet trolls get fined for saying a female judge should be 'shot in front of the courthouse' or turned into pulp.

Again who appointed you as lead investigator, as you have no facts to back up your claim it does not merit investigation. The judge is a woman, you said she is a man. Good luck with that, but you are going to get nowhere.

What if the investigation ends and no one is charged, what if someone is charged, it is not your opinion that matters here, but those actually involved in the case.

I don't agree with the Freedom/Patriot Act, but there is nothing that impares civil liberties in a public legal procedure by a civilian court - which seeks the release of IP addresses to track down people that have allegedly could have broken the law.

There's nothing to investigate. Using a figure of speech to justify violating a person's private space is trouncing liberties. This is not probable cause, dude.

Now, do we want to then outlaw saying stuff like 'he should be shot' and consider that an across the board threat? Like how you can't yell 'fire' in a building unless there is a fire. We don't b/c it would be as preposterous as these subpoenas. The judge that issued them should be....

The judge disagrees.

 

[PratchettFan]

so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.


The 1st Amendment is dead.

No one has gone to prison no one has been charged. If the posters were just blowing smoke, no one will.

Well, it's highly unlikely that anyone will go to jail for this. But that's not quite the point. The US Govt. Is using Unconstitutional means to harass citizens.

No, it isn't. Seriously, "I don't like it" does not equal "unconstitutional".

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The law is made to be practiced by the judgments of reasonable people.

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 judge was not being threatened. He was not being bullied.

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.

There was no credible case of potential or imminent violence.

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.

A higher standard of application rests upon those whom have been entrusted with the keys to the car.

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 random internet poster used hyperbole/figure of speech to vent frustration on a public matter. If that is the standard for allowing the government to investigate the citizenry, then we may as well all just sign over our rights and liberties now.

What happened does not constitute a threat. Any court would throw that out as a frivolous charge.

Whose privacy was violated besides the people's whose records were subpoena'd? The judge is a public entity as it relates to his judgments. I don't think you've taken law at the college level, dude.

The judges civil rights have not been violated. He faces no imminent danger. The question is why do you think that people's liberties should be able to be so easily trounced?

How is investigating, without charging anyone 'trouncing liberties'. If the investigation goes further and has sufficient grounds to convict someone, then you believe they should be able to break the law?

But that isn't what this is really about, as you are making out like lawful procedures are 'unconstitutional' or illegal with no evidence to back that claim up.

Silk Road is dead, for the moment at least, and frankly I am not going to lose any sleep at night, if a few male internet trolls get fined for saying a female judge should be 'shot in front of the courthouse' or turned into pulp.

Again who appointed you as lead investigator, as you have no facts to back up your claim it does not merit investigation. The judge is a woman, you said she is a man. Good luck with that, but you are going to get nowhere.

What if the investigation ends and no one is charged, what if someone is charged, it is not your opinion that matters here, but those actually involved in the case.

I don't agree with the Freedom/Patriot Act, but there is nothing that impares civil liberties in a public legal procedure by a civilian court - which seeks the release of IP addresses to track down people that have allegedly could have broken the law.

There's nothing to investigate. Using a figure of speech to justify violating a person's private space is trouncing liberties. This is not probable cause, dude.

Now, do we want to then outlaw saying stuff like 'he should be shot' and consider that an across the board threat? Like how you can't yell 'fire' in a building unless there is a fire. We don't b/c it would be as preposterous as these subpoenas. The judge that issued them should be....

The judge disagrees.

The judge should be reprimanded if not recalled.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.


The 1st Amendment is dead.

No one has gone to prison no one has been charged. If the posters were just blowing smoke, no one will.

Well, it's highly unlikely that anyone will go to jail for this. But that's not quite the point. The US Govt. Is using Unconstitutional means to harass citizens.

No, it isn't. Seriously, "I don't like it" does not equal "unconstitutional".

Probable cause, dude. There's no way in hell that this comes close to that.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Writing that someone deserves to be shot, and/or fed into a wood chipper, probably isn't the best thing to be posting. Whether or not it warrants a federal investigation, I don't know. But, write shit like that and there's a good chance someone's gonna come a knockin. I'm not sure what one takes away from expressing oneself like that. How much can venting like that relieve one's stress? Now, subtract that from the stress of having Federales at one's door--and potentially having to defend oneself in court. Seems like more trouble than it's worth. Free speech or not free speech, it doesn't mean inconsequential.

 

[Judicial review]

They can speak to my attorney's. If USMB needs attorney's I got them.

 

[PratchettFan]

so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.


The 1st Amendment is dead.

No one has gone to prison no one has been charged. If the posters were just blowing smoke, no one will.

Well, it's highly unlikely that anyone will go to jail for this. But that's not quite the point. The US Govt. Is using Unconstitutional means to harass citizens.

No, it isn't. Seriously, "I don't like it" does not equal "unconstitutional".

Probable cause, dude. There's no way in hell that this comes close to that.

Yes, it does. And, as I said, the judge thinks so as well.

 

[paddymurphy]

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 threats? Judges will be taken out back and shot is a threat.

It's a figure of speach, dude. There's no reason to think that there's an imminent threat.

Here, there clearly was. A violent criminal organization on trial and prior threats made against the judge.

 

[paddymurphy]

so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.


The 1st Amendment is dead.

No one has gone to prison no one has been charged. If the posters were just blowing smoke, no one will.

Well, it's highly unlikely that anyone will go to jail for this. But that's not quite the point. The US Govt. Is using Unconstitutional means to harass citizens.

Bull. This is one specific incident where they are honestly concerned about threats against a judge presiding over a criminal trial.

 

[Ernie S.]

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 threats? Judges will be taken out back and shot is a threat.

"I will take X out back and X him." Is a threat with a name and an action in place of X. What you quoted is not. It is an opinion.

 

[Two Thumbs]

so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.


The 1st Amendment is dead.

No one has gone to prison no one has been charged. If the posters were just blowing smoke, no one will.

it's called tyranny

the government is using force to shut people up

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm thinking they just want to set a precedent where they can force websites to divulge members' personal data.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm thinking they just want to set a precedent where they can force websites to divulge members' personal data.

No precedent is required. The courts have been doing this since the first bulletin board. They have been subpoenaing phone records since the first phone system. This is not new or unusual. When you post on a public board you are not posting in private.

 

[paddymurphy]

so shit talking on a web site can get you sent to prison.


The 1st Amendment is dead.

No one has gone to prison no one has been charged. If the posters were just blowing smoke, no one will.

it's called tyranny

the government is using force to shut people up

No. It is called investigating a threat to kill a federal judge.

 

[paddymurphy]

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 threats? Judges will be taken out back and shot is a threat.

"I will take X out back and X him." Is a threat with a name and an action in place of X. What you quoted is not. It is an opinion.

Actually, it is. The judge was named in the article and they were clearly referring to taking that named judge our and shooting her. Whether or not that post is a crime would depend on the facts that they will garner in an investigation which is all that they are doing. A search warrant is issued based on probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any crime. They will interview the poster and determine whether they intended to convey a threat or not.

 

[Ernie S.]

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 threats? Judges will be taken out back and shot is a threat.

"I will take X out back and X him." Is a threat with a name and an action in place of X. What you quoted is not. It is an opinion.

Actually, it is. The judge was named in the article and they were clearly referring to taking that named judge our and shooting her. Whether or not that post is a crime would depend on the facts that they will garner in an investigation which is all that they are doing. A search warrant is issued based on probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any crime. They will interview the poster and determine whether they intended to convey a threat or not.

The posts are there for all to see. They are NOT specific threats but mere musings, much the same as me saying that all my problems would disappear if I robbed a bank. It's ludicrous to assume that I am about to rob a bank and there is no threat.
Nothing is to be gained by knowing the real life identity of the poster.

 

[paddymurphy]

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 threats? Judges will be taken out back and shot is a threat.

"I will take X out back and X him." Is a threat with a name and an action in place of X. What you quoted is not. It is an opinion.

Actually, it is. The judge was named in the article and they were clearly referring to taking that named judge our and shooting her. Whether or not that post is a crime would depend on the facts that they will garner in an investigation which is all that they are doing. A search warrant is issued based on probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any crime. They will interview the poster and determine whether they intended to convey a threat or not.

The posts are there for all to see. They are NOT specific threats but mere musings, much the same as me saying that all my problems would disappear if I robbed a bank. It's ludicrous to assume that I am about to rob a bank and there is no threat.
Nothing is to be gained by knowing the real life identity of the poster.

It is a crime to post a threat to commit a crime. The question is whether the poster actually intended to convey a direct threat. If, after interviewing those who posted this vile nonsense it appears they are the typical keyboard coward, they will not be charged. If, however, they provide additional evidence supporting the conclusion that they intended to threaten the judge, they can be charged. It is an investigation. They have the right to investigate a threat to kill a federal judge.