Government wants site to name trolls

[Moonglow]

This is hardly a surprising development. Just as students are being taught to Speak Properly via the Social Justice Warrior Programming, the rest of us must be brought to heel so that we do not speak or write anything that isn't part of the approved Group Think.

Sounds like the 1950's..

 

[hipeter924]

This is hardly a surprising development. Just as students are being taught to Speak Properly via the Social Justice Warrior Programming, the rest of us must be brought to heel so that we do not speak or write anything that isn't part of the approved Group Think.

Sounds like the 1950's..

In the 1950s the in thing was the [Un]-American Affairs Committee, and going after everyone that didn't approve of state propaganda, or who wasn't a corporate lobbyist.

Don't think internet trolls ever really cut it as 'persecuted group'.

But if they do, expect $100 million payouts to Westboro, for disrupting their disrupting of funerals.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The law is made to be practiced by the judgments of reasonable people.

Who made you the US Government, as it is entirely sound and reasonable to investigate alleged offenses, even if those offenses later turn out to not merit further investigation.

The judge was not being threatened. He was not being bullied.

The judge was allegedly threatened, and bullied, until an investigation proves otherwise. Those involved are likewise considered innocent till proven guilty. That is the point of having a formal investigation, that you believe the government shouldn't be allowed to have.

There was no credible case of potential or imminent violence.

So you have no problems with people violating other people's privacy and sending them hate messages, simply on the basis that there is 'no credible case' in your opinion because they are a judge.

A higher standard of application rests upon those whom have been entrusted with the keys to the car.

Why? Do you believe that government officials, judges, and workers have less civil rights and less of a right to be safe than internet trolls?

A random internet poster used hyperbole/figure of speech to vent frustration on a public matter. If that is the standard for allowing the government to investigate the citizenry, then we may as well all just sign over our rights and liberties now.

What happened does not constitute a threat. Any court would throw that out as a frivolous charge.

Whose privacy was violated besides the people's whose records were subpoena'd? The judge is a public entity as it relates to his judgments. I don't think you've taken law at the college level, dude.

The judges civil rights have not been violated. He faces no imminent danger. The question is why do you think that people's liberties should be able to be so easily trounced?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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


The 1st Amendment is dead.

It is still there, but if you maliciously cyberbully someone till they kill themselves or threaten to kill them, the government has a responsibility to investigate as a matter of procedure - even if charges are not brought.

There's a HUGE difference between actual threats and shit talk on the internet.

These comments were made in present tense, with the premise that they would be carried out. So the judge is well within rights as a matter of procedure to have it investigated.

The following are all in present tense:
View attachment 42384
View attachment 42386

View attachment 42385

View attachment 42383
Whether these actually lead to charges depends on state and federal laws, as some states laws are weaker than others or only apply to schools and students.

Anyway, Wired ran an article on this too, and they think that those involved with posting the comments could be charged: Feds Want to ID Web Trolls Who Threatened Silk Road Judge WIRED

It’s hard to imagine the Reason.com commenters actually intended violent action against Forrest, so much as the typical trollish provocation that fills so many web comment sections. But that doesn’t make their speech any less illegal under existing statutes about threatening federal officials.

In fact, Forrest has been threatened before on the Dark Web site the Hidden Wiki, and even had her personal information published, including a purported home address. “I hope some drug cartel that lost a lot of money with the seizure of silk road will murder this lady and her entire family,” wrote a user named ServingJustice, who also published Forrest’s personal info.

Compared with that “doxing,” Forrest’s more recent critics on Reason’s website made what appear to be only idle threats. But they did so outside of the Dark Web’s anonymity protections. And if Reason coughs up their personal data to Grand Jury investigators, they may come to regret it.

It's a huge overstep to take a common phrase like that and drag someone to jail.

law or not, it outright wrong

 

[PratchettFan]

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


The 1st Amendment is dead.

It is still there, but if you maliciously cyberbully someone till they kill themselves or threaten to kill them, the government has a responsibility to investigate as a matter of procedure - even if charges are not brought.

There's a HUGE difference between actual threats and shit talk on the internet.

These comments were made in present tense, with the premise that they would be carried out. So the judge is well within rights as a matter of procedure to have it investigated.

The following are all in present tense:
View attachment 42384
View attachment 42386

View attachment 42385

View attachment 42383
Whether these actually lead to charges depends on state and federal laws, as some states laws are weaker than others or only apply to schools and students.

Anyway, Wired ran an article on this too, and they think that those involved with posting the comments could be charged: Feds Want to ID Web Trolls Who Threatened Silk Road Judge WIRED

It’s hard to imagine the Reason.com commenters actually intended violent action against Forrest, so much as the typical trollish provocation that fills so many web comment sections. But that doesn’t make their speech any less illegal under existing statutes about threatening federal officials.

In fact, Forrest has been threatened before on the Dark Web site the Hidden Wiki, and even had her personal information published, including a purported home address. “I hope some drug cartel that lost a lot of money with the seizure of silk road will murder this lady and her entire family,” wrote a user named ServingJustice, who also published Forrest’s personal info.

Compared with that “doxing,” Forrest’s more recent critics on Reason’s website made what appear to be only idle threats. But they did so outside of the Dark Web’s anonymity protections. And if Reason coughs up their personal data to Grand Jury investigators, they may come to regret it.

It's a huge overstep to take a common phrase like that and drag someone to jail.

law or not, it outright wrong

Who was drug to jail?

 

[ChrisL]

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


The 1st Amendment is dead.

It is still there, but if you maliciously cyberbully someone till they kill themselves or threaten to kill them, the government has a responsibility to investigate as a matter of procedure - even if charges are not brought.

There's a HUGE difference between actual threats and shit talk on the internet.

These comments were made in present tense, with the premise that they would be carried out. So the judge is well within rights as a matter of procedure to have it investigated.

The following are all in present tense:
View attachment 42384
View attachment 42386

View attachment 42385

View attachment 42383
Whether these actually lead to charges depends on state and federal laws, as some states laws are weaker than others or only apply to schools and students.

Anyway, Wired ran an article on this too, and they think that those involved with posting the comments could be charged: Feds Want to ID Web Trolls Who Threatened Silk Road Judge WIRED

It’s hard to imagine the Reason.com commenters actually intended violent action against Forrest, so much as the typical trollish provocation that fills so many web comment sections. But that doesn’t make their speech any less illegal under existing statutes about threatening federal officials.

In fact, Forrest has been threatened before on the Dark Web site the Hidden Wiki, and even had her personal information published, including a purported home address. “I hope some drug cartel that lost a lot of money with the seizure of silk road will murder this lady and her entire family,” wrote a user named ServingJustice, who also published Forrest’s personal info.

Compared with that “doxing,” Forrest’s more recent critics on Reason’s website made what appear to be only idle threats. But they did so outside of the Dark Web’s anonymity protections. And if Reason coughs up their personal data to Grand Jury investigators, they may come to regret it.

Meh, I've read similar comments here and elsewhere that really mean nothing. It's just people venting their frustrations in most circumstances. Also, if someone was seriously planning on doing something like that, they probably shouldn't announce it online.

 

[hipeter924]

The law is made to be practiced by the judgments of reasonable people.

Who made you the US Government, as it is entirely sound and reasonable to investigate alleged offenses, even if those offenses later turn out to not merit further investigation.

The judge was not being threatened. He was not being bullied.

The judge was allegedly threatened, and bullied, until an investigation proves otherwise. Those involved are likewise considered innocent till proven guilty. That is the point of having a formal investigation, that you believe the government shouldn't be allowed to have.

There was no credible case of potential or imminent violence.

So you have no problems with people violating other people's privacy and sending them hate messages, simply on the basis that there is 'no credible case' in your opinion because they are a judge.

A higher standard of application rests upon those whom have been entrusted with the keys to the car.

Why? Do you believe that government officials, judges, and workers have less civil rights and less of a right to be safe than internet trolls?

A random internet poster used hyperbole/figure of speech to vent frustration on a public matter. If that is the standard for allowing the government to investigate the citizenry, then we may as well all just sign over our rights and liberties now.

What happened does not constitute a threat. Any court would throw that out as a frivolous charge.

Whose privacy was violated besides the people's whose records were subpoena'd? The judge is a public entity as it relates to his judgments. I don't think you've taken law at the college level, dude.

The judges civil rights have not been violated. He faces no imminent danger. The question is why do you think that people's liberties should be able to be so easily trounced?

How is investigating, without charging anyone 'trouncing liberties'. If the investigation goes further and has sufficient grounds to convict someone, then you believe they should be able to break the law?

But that isn't what this is really about, as you are making out like lawful procedures are 'unconstitutional' or illegal with no evidence to back that claim up.

Silk Road is dead, for the moment at least, and frankly I am not going to lose any sleep at night, if a few male internet trolls get fined for saying a female judge should be 'shot in front of the courthouse' or turned into pulp.

Again who appointed you as lead investigator, as you have no facts to back up your claim it does not merit investigation. The judge is a woman, you said she is a man. Good luck with that, but you are going to get nowhere.

What if the investigation ends and no one is charged, what if someone is charged, it is not your opinion that matters here, but those actually involved in the case.

I don't agree with the Freedom/Patriot Act, but there is nothing that impares civil liberties in a public legal procedure by a civilian court - which seeks the release of IP addresses to track down people that have allegedly could have broken the law.

 

[hipeter924]

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


The 1st Amendment is dead.

It is still there, but if you maliciously cyberbully someone till they kill themselves or threaten to kill them, the government has a responsibility to investigate as a matter of procedure - even if charges are not brought.

There's a HUGE difference between actual threats and shit talk on the internet.

These comments were made in present tense, with the premise that they would be carried out. So the judge is well within rights as a matter of procedure to have it investigated.

The following are all in present tense:
View attachment 42384
View attachment 42386

View attachment 42385

View attachment 42383
Whether these actually lead to charges depends on state and federal laws, as some states laws are weaker than others or only apply to schools and students.

Anyway, Wired ran an article on this too, and they think that those involved with posting the comments could be charged: Feds Want to ID Web Trolls Who Threatened Silk Road Judge WIRED

It’s hard to imagine the Reason.com commenters actually intended violent action against Forrest, so much as the typical trollish provocation that fills so many web comment sections. But that doesn’t make their speech any less illegal under existing statutes about threatening federal officials.

In fact, Forrest has been threatened before on the Dark Web site the Hidden Wiki, and even had her personal information published, including a purported home address. “I hope some drug cartel that lost a lot of money with the seizure of silk road will murder this lady and her entire family,” wrote a user named ServingJustice, who also published Forrest’s personal info.

Compared with that “doxing,” Forrest’s more recent critics on Reason’s website made what appear to be only idle threats. But they did so outside of the Dark Web’s anonymity protections. And if Reason coughs up their personal data to Grand Jury investigators, they may come to regret it.

It's a huge overstep to take a common phrase like that and drag someone to jail.

law or not, it outright wrong

Who was drug to jail?

Yep. What if no one is charged at all, or if those involved are only fined. People in this thread are making out like this is an 'out of control police state' act, yet no one has been arrested let alone charged with anything.

 

[007]

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.

Pfft... so what... all they have to do is tell the DOJ their hard drive crashed, so it was removed and destroyed, or they wiped their server clean, or they just can't find the information, it's been deleted, or any number of lame bull shit lines like the IRS did, and Hitlery.

Nobody hands over this kind of info, doesn't the DOJ know that?

Why doesn't the NSA have that info anyway?

 

[EverCurious]

Ya know, back in the day I'd be like, STFU its just peeps talking shit you morons.

But now a days... idk peeps be crazy out there. They use social media to plan riots, to open season on cops, shoot up schools...

I can understand that there might be a reason to investigate, but I have a feeling in this case, it's just peeps talking politics shit (like on here) so it's a bit of an over-reach to subpoenaing their names. Unless there's something we're not privy to in this situation, this is bullshit.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How many of you are brave enough to threaten a federal judge with his or her life?

 

[hipeter924]

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.

Pfft... so what... all they have to do is tell the DOJ their hard drive crashed, so it was removed and destroyed, or they wiped their server clean, or they just can't find the information, it's been deleted, or any number of lame bull shit lines like the IRS did, and Hitlery.

Nobody hands over this kind of info, doesn't the DOJ know that?

Why doesn't the NSA have that info anyway?

Probably they will find it difficult to charge someone, even if they do order the release of the IP addresses. But what is silly is the big deal made out of a judge's subpoena, as if in online related cases no one has ever ordered the release of an IP address.

 

[Idadunno]

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.

The two students responsible for the Columbine High School shooting had a blog about doing it. Shame someone didn't try to get their info beforehand to try and stop it.

 

[hipeter924]

How many of you are brave enough to threaten a federal judge with his or her life?

They are too busy making out like Federal judges are Nazis to answer.

The judge being attacked:
- Is a successful female lawyer turned judge.
- Ruled against some provisions of the counter-terrorism powers.
- Is an Obama appointed Judge.

Whereas the internet trolls have done shit all for society are painted as victims of a 'police state', for putting up abusive shit online about a woman who is only trying to do her job.

Now it is liberal judges being attacked for doing their jobs, meaning even being appointed by Obama doesn't save them from being set upon by their own party.

 

[hipeter924]

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.

The two students responsible for the Columbine High School shooting had a blog about doing it. Shame someone didn't try to get their info beforehand to try and stop it.

If you read some of the posts in this thread, it would be 'Violating their rights' just to investigate just because other people said the 'same sorts of things' online.

So if a million people say 'going to Syria', this is meant to mean that they can't investigate for terrorist links because only a few of that million put those words into action.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't see where any specific person was threatened. It seemed like a general statement IMO. If they mentioned the particular judge by name and actually threatened his or her life, then I might understand.

 

[Ernie S.]

The law is made to be practiced by the judgments of reasonable people.

Who made you the US Government, as it is entirely sound and reasonable to investigate alleged offenses, even if those offenses later turn out to not merit further investigation.

The judge was not being threatened. He was not being bullied.

The judge was allegedly threatened, and bullied, until an investigation proves otherwise. Those involved are likewise considered innocent till proven guilty. That is the point of having a formal investigation, that you believe the government shouldn't be allowed to have.

There was no credible case of potential or imminent violence.

So you have no problems with people violating other people's privacy and sending them hate messages, simply on the basis that there is 'no credible case' in your opinion because they are a judge.

A higher standard of application rests upon those whom have been entrusted with the keys to the car.

Why? Do you believe that government officials, judges, and workers have less civil rights and less of a right to be safe than internet trolls?

A random internet poster used hyperbole/figure of speech to vent frustration on a public matter. If that is the standard for allowing the government to investigate the citizenry, then we may as well all just sign over our rights and liberties now.

What happened does not constitute a threat. Any court would throw that out as a frivolous charge.

Whose privacy was violated besides the people's whose records were subpoena'd? The judge is a public entity as it relates to his judgments. I don't think you've taken law at the college level, dude.

The judges civil rights have not been violated. He faces no imminent danger. The question is why do you think that people's liberties should be able to be so easily trounced?

How is investigating, without charging anyone 'trouncing liberties'. If the investigation goes further and has sufficient grounds to convict someone, then you believe they should be able to break the law?

But that isn't what this is really about, as you are making out like lawful procedures are 'unconstitutional' or illegal with no evidence to back that claim up.

Silk Road is dead, for the moment at least, and frankly I am not going to lose any sleep at night, if a few male internet trolls get fined for saying a female judge should be 'shot in front of the courthouse' or turned into pulp.

Again who appointed you as lead investigator, as you have no facts to back up your claim it does not merit investigation. The judge is a woman, you said she is a man. Good luck with that, but you are going to get nowhere.

What if the investigation ends and no one is charged, what if someone is charged, it is not your opinion that matters here, but those actually involved in the case.

I don't agree with the Freedom/Patriot Act, but there is nothing that impares civil liberties in a public legal procedure by a civilian court - which seeks the release of IP addresses to track down people that have allegedly could have broken the law.

There is obviously no crime to investigate.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The law is made to be practiced by the judgments of reasonable people.

Who made you the US Government, as it is entirely sound and reasonable to investigate alleged offenses, even if those offenses later turn out to not merit further investigation.

The judge was not being threatened. He was not being bullied.

The judge was allegedly threatened, and bullied, until an investigation proves otherwise. Those involved are likewise considered innocent till proven guilty. That is the point of having a formal investigation, that you believe the government shouldn't be allowed to have.

There was no credible case of potential or imminent violence.

So you have no problems with people violating other people's privacy and sending them hate messages, simply on the basis that there is 'no credible case' in your opinion because they are a judge.

A higher standard of application rests upon those whom have been entrusted with the keys to the car.

Why? Do you believe that government officials, judges, and workers have less civil rights and less of a right to be safe than internet trolls?

A random internet poster used hyperbole/figure of speech to vent frustration on a public matter. If that is the standard for allowing the government to investigate the citizenry, then we may as well all just sign over our rights and liberties now.

What happened does not constitute a threat. Any court would throw that out as a frivolous charge.

Whose privacy was violated besides the people's whose records were subpoena'd? The judge is a public entity as it relates to his judgments. I don't think you've taken law at the college level, dude.

The judges civil rights have not been violated. He faces no imminent danger. The question is why do you think that people's liberties should be able to be so easily trounced?

How is investigating, without charging anyone 'trouncing liberties'. If the investigation goes further and has sufficient grounds to convict someone, then you believe they should be able to break the law?

But that isn't what this is really about, as you are making out like lawful procedures are 'unconstitutional' or illegal with no evidence to back that claim up.

Silk Road is dead, for the moment at least, and frankly I am not going to lose any sleep at night, if a few male internet trolls get fined for saying a female judge should be 'shot in front of the courthouse' or turned into pulp.

Again who appointed you as lead investigator, as you have no facts to back up your claim it does not merit investigation. The judge is a woman, you said she is a man. Good luck with that, but you are going to get nowhere.

What if the investigation ends and no one is charged, what if someone is charged, it is not your opinion that matters here, but those actually involved in the case.

I don't agree with the Freedom/Patriot Act, but there is nothing that impares civil liberties in a public legal procedure by a civilian court - which seeks the release of IP addresses to track down people that have allegedly could have broken the law.

There's nothing to investigate. Using a figure of speech to justify violating a person's private space is trouncing liberties. This is not probable cause, dude.

Now, do we want to then outlaw saying stuff like 'he should be shot' and consider that an across the board threat? Like how you can't yell 'fire' in a building unless there is a fire. We don't b/c it would be as preposterous as these subpoenas. The judge that issued them should be....

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Not threats? Judges will be taken out back and shot is a threat.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

The comment said they will be taken out back and shot. That is a threat. There were clearly more overt threats that are not discussed in the article.