Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday July 01 2018, @04:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the stubble-manliness dept.

California man arrested for threatening to kill FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's family over net neutrality

A 33-year-old resident of Norwalk, California was arrested today for sending threatening emails to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai last year, according to the US Department of Justice. The threats, sent by an individual named Makara Man, were made primarily in the second of three messages sent to Pai's official FCC email accounts in late December, just days after the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality protections.

The first email allegedly accused Pai of causing the suicide of a teenager through his actions that led to the net neutrality vote. The second email contained an explicit threat against members of Pai's family, as well as a listing of three locations in and around Arlington, Virginia where Pai is said to live. The third email allegedly contained a photo of Pai and a separate photo of Pai and his family.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @06:20PM (12 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @06:20PM (#701014)

    Threats will land you in prison, and a criminal record. Vote these guys out of office, and make sure they stay out.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Offtopic=1, Insightful=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Sunday July 01 2018, @06:59PM (11 children)

    by crafoo (6639) on Sunday July 01 2018, @06:59PM (#701021)

    Is this a troll? It's an appointed position. It's usually held by ex-telecom or cable corporate employees/board members.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @07:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @07:08PM (#701025)

      It's an appointed position.

      Yes, appointed by an elected official. You're supposed to remember that shit when you vote for your favorite crook.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 01 2018, @07:51PM (5 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 01 2018, @07:51PM (#701037)

      Then start voting for reps that appoint people who care about people over profits.

      More to the point, write to both your incumbents (rep and senators and prez) and the challengers and tell them what issues matter to you and what will be affecting your choices in November.

      Vote for the one who promises what you want to hear, if they lie, call them out on it and vote for the next one.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @08:43PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @08:43PM (#701050)

        I worked for a company that cared about people over profit and they were put out of business by a foreign company that cared about profits over people.

        I quit before it happened, but 100% of those cared for people lost their jobs, one of the three that I still keep in contact with never found another unless you count going from a high paying tech position to gas station attendant a job.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 01 2018, @10:16PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 01 2018, @10:16PM (#701077)

          Me too, the run lasted 12 years - better to spend 12 years there than be bounced around the profit seeking ping-pong machine. My friends who graduated at the same time and went to work for more standard "big corp" places were 75% laid off at least once by the time my 12 year run ran out.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday July 01 2018, @09:41PM (2 children)

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Sunday July 01 2018, @09:41PM (#701066)

        More to the point, write to both your incumbents (rep and senators and prez) and the challengers and tell them what issues matter to you and what will be affecting your choices in November.

        This way, you can collect a nice selection of form letters that let you know that yes, your representative has considered your views and is ignoring them and also, here's some nonsensical "data" to support the reasoning of that representative (how about showing us your bank account transactions instead?). My "representative" to congress told me he was against Obama's net neutrality rules because there was less innovation and infrastructure building since that rule was passed in 2015 than there had been in the twenty years prior to 2015.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 01 2018, @10:22PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 01 2018, @10:22PM (#701080)

          Sure, one letter doesn't make a difference, even the HOR reps over 700,000 people, your letter is one among thousands.

          But, by writing, you are heard hundreds of times louder than the constituents who don't write. It makes a difference, and when enough people get heard it can change positions on issues. The reps are absolutely bought and paid for, but they also need to get re-elected, so when an issue is hot with their constituency, sometimes they actually do listen to the voters instead of the lobbyists, at least on the hot-with-the-voters issues. There are plenty of issues that are completely off the voters' radar that reps can get their palm grease from.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @03:19AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @03:19AM (#701173)

            What Ajit Pai has proven is that no amount of letters is sufficient to do the right thing. There are few things that the government has done that are as universally unpopular as repealing net neutrality, which is why they had to stuff the comment box with fake comments and then refuse to validate that any of the pro-repeal comments were real. You've got dead people writing in as well as famous politicians that weren't in favor of repeal writing in and there's absolutely no interest by the FCC to get to the bottom of the fraud.

            And why should he? The Democrats have demonstrated that they really don't care about winning elections, as evidenced by the continual refusal to acknowledge that the voters don't have to vote for them. And as long as Trump and the GOP remain in charge, his job is safe.

    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday July 01 2018, @09:00PM (3 children)

      by Sulla (5173) on Sunday July 01 2018, @09:00PM (#701059) Journal

      Yeah but the people could have voted for another person like Obama and then Ajit wouldn't be a problem anymore!

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 01 2018, @10:25PM (1 child)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 01 2018, @10:25PM (#701083)

        51% of the people did, we needed 52. I'm convinced this is some kind of power gamble that the parties play, running so tight on the issues that elections come out on a knife edge - maximize power when you win, and when you lose it still gives maximal negotiation power.

        If the politicians would take a hard stand on the issues deep into winning territory, they'd be stuck with that stance, unable to horse-trade for favors after the election.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday July 02 2018, @01:10AM

          by Sulla (5173) on Monday July 02 2018, @01:10AM (#701130) Journal

          The answer of course was that Ajit would have been on the board regardless of who the president was, he was recommended by Obama and got a "bi-partisan" vote in both houses of the legislature.

          The parties do this alot, you are correct. If they cared about abortion they would have codified something when Obama held both houses, same for almost all of the issues the Dems say they care about. Republicans have had similar times where they had the ability to act but sat on their hands. Afterall, if either side dealt witht he gun issue it would be one less issue to argue about at election time.

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 02 2018, @03:26PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Monday July 02 2018, @03:26PM (#701405)

        Yeah but the people could have voted for another person like Obama

        I'm sorry, which of the candidates was that, again?

        I voted for Bernie in the primary but we saw where that got us (nowhere).

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"