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: 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?