Homeland Security Wants To Subpoena Techdirt Over The Identity Of A Hyperbolic Commenter (boingboing.net) 225
Techdirt is in hot water with the Department of Homeland Security all thanks to a commenter known as Digger. Techdirt's Tim Cushing published a story about the Hancock County, IN Sheriff's Department officers who stole $240,000 under color of asset forfeiture. In response to the story, Digger wrote, "The only 'bonus' these criminals [the Sheriff's Department officers] are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls." The Department of Homeland Security then contacted Techdirt to ask whom they should send a subpoena to in order to identify Digger. Masnick is worried the subpoena could come with a gag order. "Normally, we'd wait for the details before publishing, but given a very similar situation involving commenters on the site Reason last year, which included a highly questionable and almost certainly unconstitutional gag order preventing Reason from speaking about it, we figured it would be worth posting about it before we've received any such thing," Masnick writes.
Behind 7 proxies (Score:5, Insightful)
The only 'bonus' these criminals [the Sheriff's Department officers] are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.
Re: Behind 7 proxies (Score:4, Insightful)
Most comments like this are just frustrated people venting but sometimes they really are signs of a threat. People who are serious about shooting a pig do not normally say so in public. Sadly our governments are guilty of many of the things they are accused of, and so scared the public will find out, they will make you a criminal to stifle your right to say it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to know what sort of level of verbal threat counts as worthy of investigation to the Absolute Freedom Of Speech people.
There are two separate things happening here:
1. Potential government corruption
2. Potential threat of violence against a human
It's irrelevant that the target of 2 might be involved in 1. This isn't a country of vigilante justice, but rule of law, and we should be proud of that. You show impartiality whether you're investigating an angel or a demon - if selective justice is allo
Re: Behind 7 proxies (Score:5, Insightful)
The comment says that someone will probably do it. That's not a threat. If I say that "if Trump is elected President, he'll probably be shot", that's a prediction - not a threat. It's completely protected speech.
Re: (Score:2)
So it looks like the intent is to pick random comments so as to stretch existing rules further and further, so that any comment they dislike for any reason can be targeted. They can use that precedence creep to single out individuals for persecution via unsuccessful but extended prosecution. You know the drill, first the home invasion, trash the dwelling place, brutally assault the target, kidnap them and the jail them so as to continue the abuse. Ramp up false charges, arrange a massive bond and them exte
Re: Behind 7 proxies (Score:2)
But, critically, Trump wasn't arrested or charged with a crime. It sure as hell wasn't befitting a president, but it was legal.
Re: Behind 7 proxies (Score:4, Insightful)
I would like to know what sort of level of verbal threat counts as worthy of investigation to the Absolute Freedom Of Speech people.
I'm not a AFOS person per se, but I might be able to offer a reasonable response.
A direct threat, such as "I am going put shoot these police in the head"... might be deserving of investigation, if it isn't accompanied by context that conveys it's not serious.
This case is about a statement that boils down to "they'll probably get what's coming to them", where "what's coming to them" may or may not be proportional to the crime committed. Still, it's not a statement of intent. To imagine that say... in a conversation about a rapist, someone says "don't worry, someone will take care of him", and that's taken as intent rather than kharmic observation... that's worrying to me. Free speech should protect that. It should even protect "someone should take care of him." That should be above investigation. It's statement of opinion, not statement of intent to commit a crime.
Re: Behind 7 proxies (Score:4, Interesting)
It should even protect "someone should take care of him." That should be above investigation.
As always, it depends on the situation.
Suppose I list all the evils of a particular person and I encourage others to go kill that person. Someone in the crowd decides to do so. Having said that, I bear a certain responsibility for inciting. Again, free speech does not absolve me from responsibility for the actions that my speech may have provoked.
I do agree, though, that in some ways, it seems we're trying to "pre-crime" these situations. "Oh, he said that and people could take him seriously and somebody might act on what he said and then there'd be a crime, so let's just nip this in the bud by arresting him now."
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a clear statement of intent, but it also isn't clearly worded. So if it describes intent, or a philosophical take on cause and effect, well that just isn't clear.
Also, investigation is not prosecution or accusation. If we're going to get persnickety over the grammatical details, lets stay consistent. The difference between the statement and a threat is no greater than the difference between the statement and a more clearly worded statement. So the commenter gave them a "gimme" to harass techdirt; a
Re: (Score:2)
Also, investigation is not prosecution or accusation.
True, but investigation is consequences. Rest assured that this person - if outed - will permanently have a record, and the existence of that record will eternally be taken as "worthy of investigation", rather than "vetted and innocent" (assuming that's the result of the investigation).
An interesting thing that illustrates this: at the US border, one of the questions we foreigners are occasionally asked is "have you ever been arrested?" Not "have you ever committed a crime" or "have you ever been convic
Re: (Score:2)
If an investigation was a "consequence" in that sense then nothing would be allowed to be investigated. No, he won't "have a record" that is stupid. He'll have a file, but everybody has various files. The police keep a record of every time they pull you over, even if there is no citation, arrest, or even investigation. It isn't a meaningful metric. And when people talk about your "record" they're talking about the record of convictions. And sometimes people do also broaden that and ask about your arrest rec
Re: Behind 7 proxies (Score:3, Insightful)
Vigilante justice is what the police agencies are all about lately: forfeiture laws, shooting innocent travelers for driving cars nothing like the one they are looking for, and jiding their actions through the crony blue shield of silence.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not "Vigilante justice", because it's done under the cover of authority.
Re: Behind 7 proxies (Score:4, Funny)
That's not "Vigilante justice", because it's done under the cover of authority.
Indeed. Vigilante justice would be private citizens going around shooting corrupt police officers.
Re: Behind 7 proxies (Score:5, Informative)
I would like to know what sort of level of verbal threat counts as worthy of investigation to the Absolute Freedom Of Speech people.
TechDirt cited 2 cases to justify their belief that Digger's statement was rhetorical hyperbole and not a true threat.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
https://scholar.google.com/sch... [google.com]
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 US 378 - Supreme Court 1987
After hearing of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, a black employee of the Constable of Harris County, was fired for saying,
"yeah, he's cutting back medicaid and food stamps. And I said, yeah, welfare and CETA. I said, shoot, if they go for him again, I hope they get him."
The Supreme Court decided that the Constable's office could not fire her for making that statement.
https://scholar.google.com/sch... [google.com]
Watts v. United States, 394 US 705 - Supreme Court 1969
petitioner was convicted of violating a 1917 statute which prohibits any person from "knowingly and willfully . . . [making] any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States . . . ."[*] The incident 706*706 which led to petitioner's arrest occurred on August 27, 1966, during a public rally on the Washington Monument grounds.
According to an investigator for the Army Counter Intelligence Corps who was present, petitioner responded: "They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J." "They are not going to make me kill my black brothers."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one of those cases is a government employee who was fired, the other is a person who was arrested.
In both those cases, the Court decisions still allows the government employer, or police, to investigate if the person made a threat or not. Those cases are about the facts that would have to be believed in order to take punitive action against the person; they don't in any way scale back the ability of the police to investigate in those same exact situations.
Re: (Score:2)
The point that TechDirt (and their lawyers) made was that there was no grounds for suspicion that Digger had made an illegal statement, since the Supreme Court has ruled that similar statements were protected speech and not illegal.
Homeland Security can investigate (as long as its investigations don't infringe on other constitutional rights).
However, they have no right to get a subpoena from a judge, or an order to disclose the name, because there are no grounds for suspicion that a law was broken.
The AC as
Re: (Score:2)
The point that TechDirt (and their lawyers) made was that there was no grounds for suspicion that Digger had made an illegal statement, since the Supreme Court has ruled that similar statements were protected speech and not illegal.
If you have an accusation, you can't decide that it is covered by the SCOTUS ruling and drop the issue... without investigating! Investigation is the name of the process that is used to reach a conclusion one way or the other. That's a simple existential fact. The lawyers for TechDirt aren't responsible for investigating it, so rather than be stuck using a formal process they can just glance at what they know and make a conclusion. The people actually responsible for receiving the complaints have a less cas
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but this is my understanding:
A judge can decide that even when we assume that the facts as claimed are true and most favorable to the petitioner (the Department of Homeland Security), there would still be no crime and no basis for suspecting a crime.
If there's no reasonable suspicion of a crime, there's nothing to investigate.
You can't investigate a threat if the supposed "threat" is not a threat.
It's reasonable to conclude that Digger's statements are similar to the statements that the Supreme Court
Re: (Score:2)
A judge can't decide there is no basis for investigating if a crime was committed. Judges aren't gate-keepers for the starting of investigations. They're gate-keepers for search warrants, and legal accusations. And they can quash a subpoena, sure. But they can't quash an investigation.
The stuff you're thinking about is at a later stage, in situations that have a formal accusation of some sort. You're way ahead of yourself here. That stuff doesn't even come up. if they investigated, and then charged him with
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a country of vigilante justice, but rule of law, and we should be proud of that.
Funny you should say that in connection with a story where the border patrol took a quarter million dollars from someone and skipped due process. Even when procedure is followed, they call it "asset forfeiture" but robbery might be a better term for it.
Re: Behind 7 proxies (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a country of vigilante justice, but rule of law, and we should be proud of that.
Why should we be proud of rule by lawyers? The courts are not now, and never have been, a "neutral" party. They represent the interests of the oligarchy and make it their business to destroy the life of any pleb who gets out of line. "Rule of law" has only one claim to legitimacy - the terrifyingly brutal violence with which the courts enforce their will.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that that's always been true is false. There have been times when vigilante justice was much worse then official justice. But they weren't the times when the official justice had a lot of power behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we be proud of rule by lawyers?
History.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the mob outside your house then this evening.
How is it worse to be killed by a crazed, bloodthirsty mob than by a crazed, bloodthirsty bureaucracy? Also, a lynch mob will only kill you, while the courts prefer long term torture.
You haven't done anything wrong?
Innocence is no assurance, and little defense, against legal persecution.
Re: (Score:3)
I would like to know what sort of level of verbal threat counts as worthy of investigation to the Absolute Freedom Of Speech people.
There are two separate things happening here:
1. Potential government corruption
2. Potential threat of violence against a human
It's irrelevant that the target of 2 might be involved in 1. This isn't a country of vigilante justice, but rule of law, and we should be proud of that. You show impartiality whether you're investigating an angel or a demon - if selective justice is allowed, then it won't be the powerful men who lose out...
A potential threat is not actually a threat. Its the potential for a threat to exist. Its like a probability, when it becomes 1 then there is a threat and not before.
Re: (Score:2)
A potential threat is not actually a threat, and it is not a crime to be a potential threat.
However, a potential threat might be a threat, and that threat may or may not be imminent. So there is lots of room for legitimate investigation there. As long as they establish that there is an imminent threat before making an arrest, then they're doing it right by investigating.
If they wait until they're sure to start an investigation... there would never have been a single investigation. All crimes would be unsolv
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it is pretty clear that it just limits Congress from limiting speech through statute. Lesser governments are/were (the 14th expanded the 1st) allowed to limit speech, such as States passing laws limiting what slaves could say and even municipal governments regulating speech through eg noise bylaws or sign bylaws (though whether the writers considered that?).
It also didn't limit the judiciary from limiting speech and at the time common law was still in effect so common law limits would have been all
Re: (Score:2)
A different take away is that reform movements take a generation or more to be implemented. People grow up considering movements such as the Chartists, women's suffrage, civil rights etc to be reasonable, the old guard dies off and eventually reform does happen.
This is what is scary about life extension if it ever happens, the old guard could remain in power for close to forever or until they were killed off.
Re: (Score:2)
It's moments like these I realise I really would be a serf in medieval times, and modern medicine aside, we haven't really progressed.
Ah yea, about those antibiotics...
Re: (Score:3)
The comment is not itself an illegal act, but that doesn't stop it from creating reasonable suspicion that a real threat might have been made that warrants investigation.
I totally support the right of assholes to say lame shit, but I also do want the police to investigate threats of violence. The trope is that real [imaginary-real] criminals don't make threats first, but when I read the news about real shootings, a significant number of the people were in fact saying threatening things on a routine basis be
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The only person with a standing in court against this commentor is the person whose property was seized - and that's only if it really was libel.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a threat, it is a prediction. Sheesh!
Re: (Score:2)
The only 'bonus' these criminals [the Sheriff's Department officers] are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.
I'm not sure I see the problem here because (a) Freedom of Speech and (b) he/she made no actual threat, just offered speculation about one possible outcome. DHS needs to dial it down a bit and the Hancock County, IN Sheriff's Department needs to stop stealing.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, something about bullets dipped in pigs blood
I'm not 100% sure that policemens blood would actually be technically unclean.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, did the shooter have any milk in his pocket when he did it? These food rules are complicated.
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it looks like "homeland security" should be renamed STASI/NKVD/etc. They appear to be going after people for wrong-think, just like other state security apparatus of yesteryear in various communist countries.
From Day One! (Score:3, Insightful)
From day one I have feared and loathed the use of the name Father^h^h^h^h^h^h Homeland Security. I did and continue to say; What the absolute fuck? Does no one else see the irony. And then they started acting the part.
Re: (Score:2)
DHS = Department of Homeland Security
KGB = Committee for State Security
And NOBODY in Congress noticed the resemblance?
Re: (Score:2)
DHS = Department of Homeland Security
KGB = Committee for State Security
And NOBODY in Congress noticed the resemblance?
DHS is run by a committee?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do know a guy who thinks all security are the KGB, even private security.
He also spent 2 years thinking he was a Klingon, and worrying that the coffee shop baristas were in a conspiracy to downgrade the planetary defenses and leave us open to attack.
The past couple years have been better. He's an elf now, and has a more peaceful existence. The orcs will arrive eventually, though, sad but true.
Seriously, dude, consider how many things have the word "security" in them. Notice the resemblances?!?
Re: (Score:2)
We all knew the Republic had ended the day Our Masters started referring to America as "the Homeland".
R.I.P. Freedom, 1776 - 2001
Re: (Score:2)
Establish a GeStaPo, have it behave like a GeStaPo. This is really no surprise to anybody with at least a passing familiarity with human history.
Incidentally, the establishment of a GeStaPo is one of the main miliesones on the way to a full-blown police-state and then totalitarianism as final step. As the US is too large for a coalition of the righteous to free them from the tyranny the US population is currently in the process of cheering in, the only way out will be total economic collapse, and then a sl
Re: They _are_ stasi, version vista (Score:3, Insightful)
What can they do? Through you in jail and civil forfeiture all your stuff. Thanks for playing. You don't think you've broken any laws today? You are probably breaking one right now and you don't know it. If they want to arrest you, they will.
Come on man, you know this.
Re: They _are_ stasi, version vista (Score:4, Informative)
Civil forfeiture (Score:4, Informative)
Also, assuming someone does up and spend (at least) $5k to get some lesser amount back, the perpetrators know that nothing else will happen to them. There's no penalty for trying, so hey, why not try?
Informative graph: Civil forfeiture in the United States [washingtonpost.com] amounts to billions of dollars every year.
Will nobody think of the children? (Score:3)
Don't you understand that our highly trained police and other LEOs are only doing what they KNOW - because they are omniscient - is best for all of us. Can't you accept that you are just a slimeball that is not worthy to polish their shoes, as they slave every day to ensure that nothing nasty will ever happen to you again...
Re: (Score:2)
If they issue the gag order must we gag ourselves?
What if we refuse to gag? What if we continue to talk? What the fuck can they do to us? Kill us?
They can put you in prison and take your home and all your possessions. That's what they can do to you.
Re: (Score:2)
and take your home and all your possessions. That's what they can do to you.
Right, because OBVIOUSLY drug money. Thats all they have to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because OBVIOUSLY drug money. Thats all they have to say.
Sometimes they don't even have to say that. They may simply claim it's "proceeds of criminal activity" without specifying what activity.
Re: (Score:2)
If they issue the gag order must we gag ourselves?
What if we refuse to gag? What if we continue to talk? What the fuck can they do to us? Kill us?
This is no motherfucking North Korea, this is the United States of America
If they think they can gag Americans with a fucking gag order they can go fuck themselves
A Waco, Texas incident is enough, we will not allow any more government goon incident to happen
You many layers of constitution, federal laws, state laws, county laws, city by-laws (and probably several other layers I've forgotten about) mean that pretty much anyone can be put into legal limbo and tied up in legal issues indefinitely because there is virtually zero chance you haven't broken some law or regulation.
You've painted yourselves into a corner with so much law and regulation there is almost no way out of it and no individual, not even legal experts, stand any chance of figuring out where they
Re: (Score:3)
example of a somehwat cognizable threat.
How? If you say you think it's likely, you're not threatening to be the one to do it.
Hyperbolic Commenter TM (Score:5, Funny)
This is the worst thing that ever happened of all time. When I'm president, I'm going to make subpoenas so massive it'll make your head spin. They will be tremendous, tremendous subpoenas.
Re:Hyperbolic Commenter TM (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And Mexico is going to pay for them!
And whats more, Mexico is going to be forced to hand over all of their chilli recipes.
Commonly linked physical traits (Score:2)
But, damn, those are small fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows that television takes 10 lbs off your fingers. In fact, when it comes to fingers, let's just say I have no problem in that area.
Re:Hyperbolic Commenter TM (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys are all funny and stuff... but let's take a moment away from the snark about a donut-head reality-TV dip-weasle who isn't in charge of anything and recall that this is a story about our actual government running around stomping on your liberties and the constitution right now. Not in some Trump-ruled dystopian future, but in the Patriot Act present. So if we want to spew some snark toward the top of the executive branch, let's look to the guy who is actually in charge.
Very few people in government seem to have any interest in protecting your right to privacy online, or your freedom of speech. Getting deflected into a Team Red vs. Team Blue side-show does nothing to help rein in our leadership. It only provides a distraction while they continue to chisel away at your freedom.
Some of you jokesters are old enough to be able to recognize just how dystopian the present is. You don't even have to go all the way back to black-and-white TV to find an era when "show me your papers" was a popular meme for showing a horrible totalitarian regime. The idea of a government that is always watching its citizens was the cardboard-cutout villain in every action movie and TV show.
And here we are, less than half a lifetime later with a national government that will send agents to initiate a secret investigation about some loudmouth troll on the internet - threatening anyone who even mentions the fact that the government is snooping around with jail time. Holy crap, have we lost our way.
You guys are smart enough and well-informed enough that you should be leading the cries of "to the woodchippers!" instead of laying it off on some doofus who is not only not in power, but is never going to get elected to anything.
Re:Hyperbolic Commenter TM (Score:5, Insightful)
> Some of you jokesters are old enough to be able to recognize just how dystopian the present is
Some of us are old enough to recognize how much better it's gotten. I'm not quite old enough to remember the McCarthy era, but I do remember the hippie movement and the anti-war protests of the 1960's, and abuses of federal and police power during that era. Technology has made broad searching easier, but it's also made publicly reporting the abuses easier.
The war on drugs asset forfeiture cases are a source of funding for police departments, both honest and corrupt departments. They're a very real problem for honest citizens. But the ability to get information and find out the relevant laws, to fight it in court, has improved tremendously during my adult lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Plea bargaining was an evil innovation, but it wasn't a patch on the unconstitutional fostering of corruption that asset forfeiture is.
Re: (Score:2)
> Plea bargaining was an evil innovation,
"Innovation"? I'm not aware of any society that has ever existed without i. People learn it in childhood, dealing with accusations or suspicions by their peers and parents. Negotiation, and forms of haggling, are visible even in animals.
Re: (Score:2)
Negotiation is fine and dandy, but agreeing to be charged with, and plead guilty to, a crime that both you and the prosecutor know that you didn't commit in order to avoid being tried for a crime that the prosecutor suspects that you actually did commit makes a mockery of the justice system.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's consider that it's a huge system, and no one guy can really control it. That's why new presidents always change less than people expect. A president is either entirely unaware of 99% of cases like this, or sees it for 10 seconds of very biased presentation by a bureaucrat looking for a rubber stamp.
Re: (Score:2)
This. The fact the people think this case even crossed the presidents desk is absurd. That's why he has underlings.
Someone high up caught wind of this and got offended, now they are conducting a witch hunt. It's all it is. This man did nothing wrong. He threatened no one. I hope his identity remains secret.
Just wait till Trump gets elected. No muthafucka better make any jokes online about anyones hairpiece.
Steal my money (Score:5, Insightful)
Steal my money under asset bullshit and I may very well put a bullet in your head.
Re:Steal my money (Score:4, Insightful)
quickest way to convert an honest, decent person into a criminal (or worse, that T word) is to inflict insane injustice on him under color of law.
I could imagine that if I was unfairly messed with and left with no assets - basically robbed blind by the thugs in blue - I'd probably look for mafia style justice, if that even exists anymore. its like when people get locked up for bullshit crimes; the process only ends up MAKING them criminals. they'll never get a decent job again after jail time (usually) and so they have no choice - you, the state, have just CREATED a criminal. or worse.
I think that was the true gist of the posting. that if you arrest a guilty man, he will probably not fight back nearly as much as if you arrest or mess with an innocent, typical every day person.
being robbed by a thief hurts. it hurts no less if the thief wears a government issued uniform.
Re: (Score:3)
The process also creates greater demand for law enforcement and the courts. Why would they care if the number of criminals rises?
Re: (Score:3)
When did "earning it" come into play? What are you, a commie?
Re: (Score:2)
Moving in general, can be a tricky proposition if you are dealing with real asshole cops. Even worse when the reason you 'have to move' is the local asshole cop knows your face. Local gauntlet to run or not, everybody should know there are asshole cops on every freeway getting rich stealing stuff.
Especially tricky if someone is an obvious hippy. The cops know they get attached to paraphernalia. Stop any stoners u-haul and you will likely find a bong or three and a box of pipes.
Across town, just make a
Re: (Score:2)
You realise your posts could be taken as advice for families wanting to move west from eastern Europe during the Cold War?
USSA is fucking right.
Scary as fuck.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I guess I just don't get why it's illegal to carry large amounts of legal tender.
I guess since the tender is legal it is the 'carrying' that is illegal. Better stop lifting anything ever.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I just don't get why it's illegal to carry large amounts of legal tender.
I guess since the tender is legal it is the 'carrying' that is illegal. Better stop lifting anything ever.
Because its obviously drug money, duh.
Why even keep logs at all? (Score:5, Funny)
If you offer anonymous comments? Tell them the IP address is 127.0.0.1 and that's all you know.
Good job techdirt (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting out in front of the predictable gag order and bringing attention to this was ballsy and smart. Of course now DHS will probably start gag-ordering the pre- subpoena request... But thanks techdirt staff for shining the light.
It might not be technically possible to gag the request for the address to send the gag to, for procedural reasons. Expect this to become a thing. Also, expect somebody to try to game this with rotating addresses, because they only need to ask once (ever) if the address is still current.
Surely there's more to this? (Score:2)
I always assumed you can get away with some relatively stupid shit (I've come close regarding our Australian PM and housing prices) but within reason. Outright threats of course, very stupid thing to say but the law generally can interpret angry voter / reader from genuine loonatic.
That comment reply is honestly pretty tame, it's not pointing the finger at who would be pulling the hypothetical trigger, it could infact be a sarcastic reply or whatever.
To think D.H.S is investigating this is pretty scary.
Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it is normal to be investigated and still "get away with" it. A huge number of threats against politicians are "investigated" every year in the US. Almost no charges are ever filed. But if you say something in a gray area and the wrong person reports it, you could indeed be required to sit down for an interview where they ask you if you were serious, or not. That is what they're preparing to do here; sit him down, explain how serious it is to make such statements, and ask if he was serious. If he say
How Would Slashdot Fare? (Score:2)
Hey, now that this site is under new ownership, maybe they could do some things to prepare for the possibility that this will happen here. Don't log IPs. Post a warrant canary.
Since when is speculation considered a threat? (Score:5, Insightful)
The original Techdirt comment:
The only "bonus" these criminals are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.
The person wronged probably knows people who know people in low places who'd take on the challenge pro-bono, after a proper "cooling-off" period.
WTF? Digger is simply speculating that the victim of the forfeiture proceeding might be pissed off enough to go after the terminal kind of revenge. That seems like a reasonable speculation to me, and does not constitute a threat.
However, perhaps more to the point is the comment Digger posted immediately prior to the one quoted in TFS:
Everyone on the government side of this should have grand theft and / or larceny charges filed against them, and double the jail time as it is a slam dunk case.
They did not follow proper procedures, they no longer have the protection or immunity to prosecution normally afforded to government agents.
By failing to follow procedure, they've shown their true colors and should be treated as the criminals that they are.
I suspect the DHS, and whichever other TLAs and LEOs stepped on their own dicks in this case, are more upset about the comment Digger posted first, and are only using the one he posted next as a flimsy excuse to go hunting. Frankly, if they really believe Digger poses or is connected to a threat, then they might as well be the Keystone Cops. And if they DON'T believe in the threat, then they're bullies and thugs. Either way, they all need to be dismissed and barred from any further government jobs.
Re:Hyperbolic you say (Score:4, Funny)
Bet he keeps his eccentricity below 1 next time.
Re:Hyperbolic you say (Score:4, Insightful)
Banditry is normally punishable by death. Civil asset forfeiture is banditry.
Re:Hyperbolic you say (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, hyperbole saying he'll burn in hell or something is one thing, but threats of violence are not automatically hyberbole. Simply [secretly] not planning to do it, and just saying you will, is not an attempt to communicate exaggeration.
Hyperbole is an exaggerated comment not meant to be taken literally. If you straight out say something threatening, without any clear exaggeration, then it isn't obviously hyperbole. I'm not sure what the source of the "hyperbole" claim even is. Techdirt, I guess? The comment may or may not have been a poorly executed attempt at hyperbole; or it might have been a threat. My advice, if you're making comments that involve the police, and violence, make a clear exaggeration. Don't just deadpan a threat and rely on people trusting that you're a good person and so it just must have been exaggeration.
Threatening to send Voldemort or a Klingon Bird of Prey to wipe them out, that is clear hyperbole. A "bullet to their... skull" is just not obviously hyperbole, especially in the context where firearms are commonly possessed, and in fact a constitutional right. If somebody said that about me, I'd have to start carrying inflatable ninjas in my pocket for protection.
And if you run a website that has comments, expect to get some subpoenas, especially if you don't delete, redact, or otherwise squelch comments describing violence in the context of real humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, hyperbole saying he'll burn in hell or something is one thing, but threats of violence are not automatically hyberbole. Simply [secretly] not planning to do it, and just saying you will, is not an attempt to communicate exaggeration.
Hyperbole is an exaggerated comment not meant to be taken literally. If you straight out say something threatening, without any clear exaggeration, then it isn't obviously hyperbole. I'm not sure what the source of the "hyperbole" claim even is. Techdirt, I guess? The comment may or may not have been a poorly executed attempt at hyperbole; or it might have been a threat. My advice, if you're making comments that involve the police, and violence, make a clear exaggeration. Don't just deadpan a threat and rely on people trusting that you're a good person and so it just must have been exaggeration.
Threatening to send Voldemort or a Klingon Bird of Prey to wipe them out, that is clear hyperbole. A "bullet to their... skull" is just not obviously hyperbole, especially in the context where firearms are commonly possessed, and in fact a constitutional right. If somebody said that about me, I'd have to start carrying inflatable ninjas in my pocket for protection.
And if you run a website that has comments, expect to get some subpoenas, especially if you don't delete, redact, or otherwise squelch comments describing violence in the context of real humans.
What may be the course if the context of the comment. If I saw you in an ally and said that yeah it's hardly hyperbole and a genuine threat. If we were on an acting set and I was dressed like a 1950s train robber then again it's probably hyperbole. I think there's a difference between what we say on a comedy stage, what we say on an internet comment site, and what we say in a protest rally and that context is what makes certain phrases hyperbole and others legitimate threats. At least that's what I assume t
Re: Hyperbolic you say (Score:2)
I was just in the children's book section at Target, and two guys were talking...
"That's fucked up. You gotta respond yo..."
Met by, "Yeah... That fucker is going to get murdered..."
Guess what? There is *zero* fucking chance that these guys are actually going to murder someone. This is San Francisco, and these clowns are just posturing. If that sort of casual idiocy was sufficient cause for subpoena and/or warrant, DHS would have to deputize every US citizen to serve court orders.
And even more importantl
Re: (Score:2)
You're statistics-challenged, clearly, but murders do happen, and they are sometimes discussed casually first. There is a non-zero chance that they were going to murder somebody, and you simply have no fucking clue one way or the other.
The reason it doesn't matter what you heard is that it is hearsay, you heard them say, you didn't record it, they didn't write it down or broadcast it, they didn't say it to the potential victim, and they did not describe an imminent crime. Therefore, it is not a threat and c
Re: (Score:2)
$104 million taxpayer dollars produced ZERO convictions of ANY of Clinton's employees for acts on his watch or theirs.
Contrast with the 32 convicts, holding an astonishing 129 felony pleas or convictions between them under Raygun
Or 41's 16 (not counting the 8 unconstitutionally PARDONED BEFORE TRIAL (coverup?).
Or 43's 15.
Contrast Carter and Obama to the above Rogue's gallery
Hate all you want, but remember who actually does the deed and has suffered for having been PROVEN to do the deed.
Re: (Score:3)
Who is Masnick? Oh right, its the editor of Techdirt. Ok now the article makes some sense.
Agreed.
Yes, the editorial standards of style have dropped pretty low here. He should have been identified by his position, just as they would have done in a proper paper or periodical.
In journalism, anytime a person is mentioned it's standard practice to make reference to who he/she is in relation to the story, but slashdot often dispenses with those conventions.
Re: (Score:2)
In journalism, anytime a person is mentioned it's standard practice to make reference to who he/she is in relation to the story, but slashdot often dispenses with those conventions.
That was true back in the days when newspapers had copy editors on staff who were paid regular salaries and had steady jobs. http://www.amazon.com/Headline... [amazon.com]
And we printed them with lead plates.
Re: (Score:2)
That was true back in the days when newspapers had copy editors on staff who were paid regular salaries and had steady jobs.
And guess what? It's still true.
The rules of journalism don't change just because you fire people. If anything, they become more important so that illiterates like you aren't left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
That was true back in the days when newspapers had copy editors on staff who were paid regular salaries and had steady jobs.
And guess what? It's still true.
The rules of journalism don't change just because you fire people. If anything, they become more important so that illiterates like you aren't left behind.
Illiterates like me are writing the journalism that you read on the Internet. If you want quality, pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Illiterates like me are writing the journalism that you read on the Internet.
Well, that would explain why there's been such a precipitous drop in the overall quality of reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
Illiterates like me are writing the journalism that you read on the Internet.
Well, that would explain why there's been such a precipitous drop in the overall quality of reporting.
If you don't like the way Slashdot covers the news, you can get your money back.
Back in the days of well-funded, advertising-supported newspapers and magazines, they used to hire copy editors (like Theodore Bernstein) to review the stories, with a checklist of all the rules that they should follow. 3 or 4 editors (including me) would check each story. These articles didn't just come unvarnished out of the heads of reporters, they were the result of a labor-intensive process.
Then they fired the copy editors.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll just have to pardon me for pointing out the fact that most people don't know how to write an article or summary correctly, and for pointing out that journalistic standards apply even if people like you feel they shouldn't.
I sincerely hope this micro-aggression hasn't triggered you or violated your safe space.
-
Then they fired the copy editors. The result was apparent. But they didn't lose audience. So that's what you get.
No, it's not what I get. What I get is confirmation that some people are simply illiterate fools who wouldn't know quality writing if they were hunted down and beaten to death with a style guide
Re: (Score:2)
What I get is confirmation that some people are simply illiterate fools who wouldn't know quality writing if they were hunted down and beaten to death with a style guide.
I assume you are spending your retirement hunting people down and beating them to death with a style guide.
Re: (Score:2)
It was mostly a "don't care" attribute for me. If you don't care to explain to me who a certain name in an article is, my brain automatically replaces it with "some bozo".
Re: (Score:2)
or could you seriously not deduce exactly who 'Masnick' is simply from the point of view within TFS?
Right, it is a good policy to just assume that anybody quoted has a biased interest, and no opinion is ever expert, neutral, or third-party. Never give benefits for doubt; doubt is always a sign of bullshit. Except when it is horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Asset Forfeiture is treason and the punishment for treason is death.
Abuse of asset forfeiture in a bad thing. But I don't think you actually understand what the word "treason" means. No, I'm sure you don't understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well since the rest of the US Constitution can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the government wants it to mean, can we not do a bit of reinterpretation in regards to the precise definition of Treason?
I mean, if seizing property without the owner even being charged with a crime and with little in the way of due process involved is Constitutional as the government insists it is, a slight change to the interpretation of what constitutes Trea
Re: (Score:2)
... they always want the gold and silver but never the copper and lead. So picky.
I wish that I lived on your planet. On my planet, thieves don't know silver from chrome and couldn't care less, but they'll strip the wiring out of partially constructed buildings for the copper.
And sometimes they even steal car batteries for the $10 deposit return on the lead!