Government wants site to name trolls

[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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Clearly you don't understand what a subpoena is, or that it's Justice's responsibility to investigate possible violations of Federal law:

'In the subpoena, the government cited a violation to U.S. Code Title 18 Section 875, which prohibits “transmitting any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.” This law has been applied to cyberbullying, stalking and threats transmitted over the Internet.'

Feds Subpoena Libertarian Media Site Over Comments Threatening Silk Road Judge - Forbes

Consequently, the notion that the government is motivated by a desire to 'stifle dissent' is unfounded, ignorant hyperbole. Nor is there any evidence Justice is pursuing the matter in bad faith; the government is investigating the threats in accordance with the law. Should indictments be forthcoming those accused will be presumed innocent and afforded their comprehensive right to due process of the law, including challenging the merits of any charges on First Amendment grounds.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Clearly you don't understand what a subpoena is, or that it's Justice's responsibility to investigate possible violations of Federal law:

'In the subpoena, the government cited a violation to U.S. Code Title 18 Section 875, which prohibits “transmitting any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.” This law has been applied to cyberbullying, stalking and threats transmitted over the Internet.'

Feds Subpoena Libertarian Media Site Over Comments Threatening Silk Road Judge - Forbes

Consequently, the notion that the government is motivated by a desire to 'stifle dissent' is unfounded, ignorant hyperbole. Nor is there any evidence Justice is pursuing the matter in bad faith; the government is investigating the threats in accordance with the law. Should indictments be forthcoming those accused will be presumed innocent and afforded their comprehensive right to due process of the law, including challenging the merits of any charges on First Amendment grounds.

Hopefully you're right but who really knows with our crazy overbearing government? I've never heard of anything like this happening before . . .

 

[Blackrook]

I know people here like to bash the big bad government, but this time the government is right. Threats against judges must be dealt with.

 

[ChrisL]

I know people here like to bash the big bad government, but this time the government is right. Threats against judges must be dealt with.

No, not meaningless internet banter type of threats. If it is a legitimate threat, then okay. "Judges like this should be taken out back and shot" is not really a specific threat.

 

[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.

Clearly you don't understand what a subpoena is, or that it's Justice's responsibility to investigate possible violations of Federal law:

'In the subpoena, the government cited a violation to U.S. Code Title 18 Section 875, which prohibits “transmitting any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.” This law has been applied to cyberbullying, stalking and threats transmitted over the Internet.'

Feds Subpoena Libertarian Media Site Over Comments Threatening Silk Road Judge - Forbes

Consequently, the notion that the government is motivated by a desire to 'stifle dissent' is unfounded, ignorant hyperbole. Nor is there any evidence Justice is pursuing the matter in bad faith; the government is investigating the threats in accordance with the law. Should indictments be forthcoming those accused will be presumed innocent and afforded their comprehensive right to due process of the law, including challenging the merits of any charges on First Amendment grounds.

“It’s judges like these that should be taken out back and shot,”

Is NOT a threat. It is a simple statement. Whether or not I agree with it, I do not. What matters is Justice's attempt to gather names from an internet message board under false pretense.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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


The 1st Amendment is dead.

 

[Ernie S.]

I know people here like to bash the big bad government, but this time the government is right. Threats against judges must be dealt with.

Had someone actually said. "I'm going to shoot the judge on the court house steps", you could call it a threat.

“It’s judges like these that should be taken out back and shot,”

Is STILL not a threat.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

BullKurtz best start cooling his jets then, how many people has he threatened to beat up on here LOL

 

[hipeter924]

Those involved in Silk Road were nasty pieces of work*, and their customers were almost just as bad, so the judge had good reason to take the threats seriously.

*The guy who ran it was involved with gang activity, and plotted a hit on one of his suppliers to the site.

 

[Ernie S.]

Those involved in Silk Road were nasty pieces of work*, and their customers were almost just as bad, so the judge had good reason to take the threats seriously.

*The guy who ran it was involved with gang activity, and plotted a hit on one of his suppliers to the site.

Granted.
I just think that this case sets a precedent that I don't much like.
If I was to say something like that here, would USMB be forced to give Justice my personal information?

 

[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.

Clearly you don't understand what a subpoena is, or that it's Justice's responsibility to investigate possible violations of Federal law:

'In the subpoena, the government cited a violation to U.S. Code Title 18 Section 875, which prohibits “transmitting any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.” This law has been applied to cyberbullying, stalking and threats transmitted over the Internet.'

Feds Subpoena Libertarian Media Site Over Comments Threatening Silk Road Judge - Forbes

Consequently, the notion that the government is motivated by a desire to 'stifle dissent' is unfounded, ignorant hyperbole. Nor is there any evidence Justice is pursuing the matter in bad faith; the government is investigating the threats in accordance with the law. Should indictments be forthcoming those accused will be presumed innocent and afforded their comprehensive right to due process of the law, including challenging the merits of any charges on First Amendment grounds.

It's called hyperbole, dude. This is an abuse of the law.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Had someone actually said. "I'm going to shoot the judge on the court house steps", you could call it a threat.

“It’s judges like these that should be taken out back and shot,”

Is STILL not a threat.

Good thing you put that in quotes. Someone might have to haul you off to San Quentin otherwise.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Those involved in Silk Road were nasty pieces of work*, and their customers were almost just as bad, so the judge had good reason to take the threats seriously.

*The guy who ran it was involved with gang activity, and plotted a hit on one of his suppliers to the site.

All accusation, no link.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We gonna start reaching out the long arm of the law every time someone ties one on and talks a little smack online? This is a blatant case of over reach.

 

[PratchettFan]

Those involved in Silk Road were nasty pieces of work*, and their customers were almost just as bad, so the judge had good reason to take the threats seriously.

*The guy who ran it was involved with gang activity, and plotted a hit on one of his suppliers to the site.

Granted.
I just think that this case sets a precedent that I don't much like.
If I was to say something like that here, would USMB be forced to give Justice my personal information?

Certainly possible. The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, but it doesn't say you have the right to anonymous speech.

 

[hipeter924]

Those involved in Silk Road were nasty pieces of work*, and their customers were almost just as bad, so the judge had good reason to take the threats seriously.

*The guy who ran it was involved with gang activity, and plotted a hit on one of his suppliers to the site.

All accusation, no link.

It was discussed in the case dumbass (when the emails and messages were released), which confirms to me that you know very little about the case you are commenting about.

Link: Silk Road founder hit with life imprisonment

 

[hipeter924]

Those involved in Silk Road were nasty pieces of work*, and their customers were almost just as bad, so the judge had good reason to take the threats seriously.

*The guy who ran it was involved with gang activity, and plotted a hit on one of his suppliers to the site.

Granted.
I just think that this case sets a precedent that I don't much like.
If I was to say something like that here, would USMB be forced to give Justice my personal information?

Certainly possible. The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, but it doesn't say you have the right to anonymous speech.

Yep, which is why the US government is allowed to examine anonymous speech for criminal or terrorist activity.

It comes with the Freedom Act and counter-terrorism powers, as the government has to take threats of violence seriously - especially since there really are people with the capability to kill judges, and appointed/election officials.

 

[hipeter924]

We gonna start reaching out the long arm of the law every time someone ties one on and talks a little smack online? This is a blatant case of over reach.

It is all quite legal, under the Freedom/Patriot Act and counter-terrorism powers. Also, various laws on cyber-bullying already exist, so even on those grounds the government has a responsibility to investigate. You are acting like there won't be a trial and court case, under any eventuality.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Clearly you don't understand what a subpoena is, or that it's Justice's responsibility to investigate possible violations of Federal law:

'In the subpoena, the government cited a violation to U.S. Code Title 18 Section 875, which prohibits “transmitting any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.” This law has been applied to cyberbullying, stalking and threats transmitted over the Internet.'

Feds Subpoena Libertarian Media Site Over Comments Threatening Silk Road Judge - Forbes

Consequently, the notion that the government is motivated by a desire to 'stifle dissent' is unfounded, ignorant hyperbole. Nor is there any evidence Justice is pursuing the matter in bad faith; the government is investigating the threats in accordance with the law. Should indictments be forthcoming those accused will be presumed innocent and afforded their comprehensive right to due process of the law, including challenging the merits of any charges on First Amendment grounds.

“It’s judges like these that should be taken out back and shot,”

Is NOT a threat. It is a simple statement. Whether or not I agree with it, I do not. What matters is Justice's attempt to gather names from an internet message board under false pretense.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks that is a threat lacks reading comprehension skills.