SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the unintended-consequences-anyone? dept.
On Dark Web sites like the Silk Road black market and its discussion forums, anonymous visitors could write even the most extreme libertarian and anarchist statements without fear. The rest of the internet, as a few critics of the US judicial system may soon learn, isn't quite so free of consequences.
Last week the Department of Justice issued a grand jury subpoena to the libertarian media site Reason.com, demanding that it identify six visitors to the site. The subpoena letter, obtained and published by blogger Ken White, lists trollish comments made by those six Reason readers that—whether seriously or in jest—call for violence against Katherine Forrest, the New York judge who presided over the Silk Road trial and late last month sentenced Silk Road creator Ross Ulbricht to life in prison.
"It's judges like these that should be taken out back and shot," wrote one user named Agammamon, in a comment thread that has since been deleted from Reason.com's story on Ulbricht's sentencing.
"It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot," answered another user named Alan.
"Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse," reads a third comment from someone going by the name Cloudbuster.
The subpoena calls for Reason.com to hand over data about the six users, including their IP addresses, account information, phone numbers, email addresses, billing information, and devices associated with them. And it cites a section of the United States criminal code that forbids "mailing threatening communications." When those communications threaten a federal judge, they constitute a felony punishable by as much as 10 years in prison. (The average internet user has no such protection.)
The Streisand Effect lives.
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:56PM
At least they used a subpoena this time instead of the sites just handing over the information (which should be illegal). That aside, the whole thing is ridiculous. Those are not threats.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:59PM
People who are frustrated by corrupt, unchanging governments say these sorts of things all the time. They don't intend on actually doing anything. All the government is doing here is proving even further that it is full of scumbags.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bornagainpenguin on Thursday June 11 2015, @12:20AM
I was going to post that JFK about peaceful change and then thought better of it. Yay for the chilling affect!
Of course the worst part is the paranoid part of me wonders if that isn't exactly the effect they were aiming for with this fishing expedition...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:00PM
If that's not a threat, then what is? It looks pretty unambiguous to me.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:09PM
Then you're not taking into account intent or probability, which are the most important things. People who are frustrated with their governments will often use strong language like this; I've seen numerous calls even on this website to hang corrupt politicians. That doesn't mean it's even remotely likely they actually intend to do anything.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:14PM
Whatever I may think of this or any other government, I have zero sympathy for loudmouth cowards. Don't make a threat unless you're prepared to go through with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:17PM
That's nice and all, but irrelevant, as no actual threats were made.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:15PM
A threat is saying something like, "I'm gonna shoot or beat the shit out of person X."
A threat is not saying something like, "I hope person X has the shit beat out of them."
Learn the fucking difference.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday June 11 2015, @12:11AM
It's not the choice of words that determines whether something is a threat, it's the intent. "Nice place, it would be a shame if something happened" is a threat in many contexts. "It would be a shame if her father found out what you said about her" is also a clear threat. A police officer saying "I could arrest you if you don't answer me" is a clear threat.
This judge sentenced someone for murder who was only convicted of selling narcotics. I tend to think that the comments weren't threats, but if they were, they were more than justified. That judge is a criminal calling her lethally dangerous to the public would be accurate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @12:14AM
Shut your pie hole or else I'll come shut it for you. -- gewg_
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:26AM
Will you bring pie?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:44PM
If that's a threat then I'm a felon.
A: "hope" -- he didn't say he was a god and would cast that person into hell. I really don't think hoping for something is a threat. There are a number of people I hope get run over by a bus. I wouldn't push them into the way of the bus, I wouldn't ask someone to do it, and if I saw them about to step in front of a bus, I'd do everything I could to stop it. But if it happened accidentally, I'd be stoked. That isn't a threat, it's a personality fault on my part perhaps, but certainly no threat. Kind of like the quote attributed (maybe incorrectly) to Clarence Darrow along the lines of "I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with great satisfaction."
B: This is nothing but asserting that a fantasy torture chamber (hell) exists and the judge would be consigned there. That's way more mild than the threats of eternal damnation preachers make on a constant basis. If that's a threat, and any Federal judge ever went to church, there should be a decent number of preachers doing time.
C: "I'd prefer" -- again this is not a threat -- it's a statement of preference, not a statement of some intended action. It's a vague and amorphous expression of anger but not in any way a threat. Secondly, "hellish" is a totally subjective word. Some might consider spending a day in 100 degree Nevada heat as hellish, other's a day in Ketchikan where they get 100" (or something like that) of rain a year. Finally, he never said he would actually do anything -- he was just riffing on the hell fantasy (fantasy in that hell is a non-existent place).
Anyway, in the home of the free, it is totally clear that hyperbolic expressions of anger are no longer tolerated (even if acquitted, the trial will be bankrupting). Which brings me to the following rules:
In order to not run afoul of the Federal government, never criticize it. If you do criticize it, use the most milquetoast terms possible. If you will not use milquetoast terms, be certain to phrase your gripe in a personal manner and not outwardly -- e.g., "I am angry." Never cast blame on those deserving of it if they are Federal employees. Do not say "That FBI agent was a total dick" -- say "I'm angry at that FBI Agent." Never wish or hope for anything or even use imagery that is obviously fictitious. The Feds will not understand, either willfully or because they honestly don't understand (which is scarier I think). The Feds have no sense of humor and are very exceptionally sensitive. They are also religious fanatics, at least outwardly. So, "I hope you go to hell" is an actual threat to them, whereas "I'm angry at you, you perfect paragon of virtue" should probably not cause a problem, at least for a few more years. Certainly at some point, just being angry at the Feds will be a criminal offense.
These are the new rules it seems -- I will have to get used to them because I've apparently been violating them for a long time.
Lastly, I just decided against writing a section about hoping that Reason keeps few logs or the users used Tor or some other IP masking technique, but now I'm thinking better of that, and for the record, I have eliminated that hope from my mind. I realize it is an un-American thought and contrary to correct thinking.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:55PM
Stupid people mouthing off does not a crime make. While I don't feel much sympathy for the loud mouths, it's also a Waste of my taxes to send the cops/FBI/et al after all the trolls. *Do Not Feed the Trolls*
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by penguinoid on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:45AM
it's also a Waste of my taxes to send the cops/FBI/et al after all the trolls. *Do Not Feed the Trolls*
Some people would give these trolls free food and lodging and medical care, all at taxpayer expense. It's definitely not the way most people think of "Do not feed the trolls".
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:08PM
...you mean federal prison employees?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday June 11 2015, @09:08PM
The Employees are just doing their jobs. There wouldn't as big of a need for prison employees, if we didn't funnel everyone we possibly can into the system.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:06AM
Unless you are one of them, there is no "We". You are a subject, they are your masters.
There is They.
They are the enemy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:22AM
"I'm going to come over Friday and murder you and your kids." That's a threat.
"It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot," is an expression from an angry person who believes that the government has run amok. That's as old as the republic. Wikipedia reports this [wikipedia.org] about first chief justice of the supreme court, John Jay:
I believe government officials should fear direct repercussions if they abuse their power. Americans are not serfs or subjects, but free citizens. Government officials are granted authority by those citizens to do the People's business. If they should pervert that trust to self-dealing, oppression, or any other crime, the citizens can and must revoke their grant of authority; when those in government collude to frustrate the will of the citizenry entire, as we see now on a nearly daily basis, by refusing to enforce our laws or by the baldly selective application of justice, then the citizenry can and must revoke their grant of authority to that government entire. This judge and her enablers in the Justice Department and the rest of government seem to have forgotten all this, and clearly hold themselves to be our betters; it has, after all, been a very long time since the American people asserted their absolute primacy as the source of power in the United States. But as these officials continue their unbroken chain of abuses and usurpations, we shall all see the limits of the public's patience.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:56PM
Incoming subpoena for Phoenix666's details in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1,....
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:30PM
Based on existing precedent from the US Supreme Court, I would think these should be protected speech. In order for speech to legally be considered a 'threat' it needs to be very specific. These statements in particular were not at all specific and more importantly were not "I'm going to..."; they were "Someone should...". ie, someone *else*. That's not in any way a threat. If that kind of speech constituted a threat than half the most popular media pundits would currently be rotting in prison. I have definitely heard the *exact same words* used in some of these comments said on national television, and nobody ever got arrested for that.