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: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday June 11 2015, @01:35AM
sat around all day long planning your destruction, but did not act on my intent, nor told anyone about my intent. Have I committed a crime?
Now suppose I posted an actual threat. Do I intend to murder you? It's hard to say unless you ask me, or find some other evidence such as a recent purchase of a weapon.
We have laws in large part to prevent the outbreak of violence among the population.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:37AM
Ok sure. Whether you have committed a crime depends on the competence of the legislature, which I doubt is what you were intended to discuss. Perhaps you meant "should it be a crime?"
If you only planned it in your head, then you haven't put anyone or the public in danger. On the other hand, if you publish a book full of a person's schedule and reasons they should be killed, then you've clearly demonstrated intent to harm another person. In my (minority) opinion, "well he deserved it" should be an affirmative defense for a jury to decide. But "planning" in terms of thinking and "planning" in terms of publishing have very different effects on the target.
The posters in the story clearly made their alleged threats public, so the question of "not telling anyone" is not the situation here.
And I must insist on disagreeing with your last statement. We have laws so that the outbreak of violence is dealt with with reason and consistency, not to prevent violence. The prevention of violence against a person is his own responsibility, not the governments. It's important, because a juror should never think "if I don't convict him, then he might hurt someone else". He should only be thinking "do the charge, sentence and probability of the defends guilt balance out?". The purpose of laws is to prevent one person from having his hand cut off for stealing bread, and another from getting a pass.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:25AM
I posted about this the other day. For a crime to be burglary specifically requires one to have the intent to commit a crime while entering a structure.
If I steal your wallet while you're not looking, that's theft.
If I steal your wallet at gunpoint, that's robbery.
If I enter your home so I can steal your wallet, that's burglary.
For burglary to be outlawed was not intended to prevent the loss of your wallet but to prevent me from being violent towards you.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]