Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters

from the your-taxpayer-dollars-at-work dept

Tue, Jun 9th 2015 8:16am — Mike Masnick

Back in 2011, as some of you may recall, we received a note from the US Marshals service, telling us that they were "investigating" a comment that had been placed on an article about a ruling by Judge Beryl Howell, who had received some criticism, given that she had previously been an RIAA lobbyist, and was now issuing rulings friendly to the legacy copyright industry. The comment in question was:

Is it time to start murdering the corrupt yet?

The guy from the US Marshals told us that he was investigating this comment and asked us to remove it (but did not ask for any information about the anonymous commenter). We found it somewhat disturbing that the US government would be asking us to delete comments, even if they, somewhat obliquely, questioned whether or not it might make sense to murder a judge (though the comment in question did not advocate such a move). We had our lawyer reach out the US Marshals, and after we told them that we would not be removing the comment, they told us that they understood our decision, and that was the last we ever heard about it.

It appears that things have gone much, much further with a similar situation with the website Reason, who we link to on a semi-regular basis. As Popehat is reporting, the DOJ has issued a grand jury subpoena to Reason seeking to identify the people behind a bunch of angry, hyperbolic comments on this post about Ross Ulbricht. As was the case with our post, some of the comments talk about killing judges, though in fairly typical internet fashion:

AgammamonI5.31.15 @ lO:47AMltt
Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.

AlanI5.31.15 @ 12:09PMltt
It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot.
FTFY.

croakerI6.1.15 @ 11:06AMltt
Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you
feed them in feet first.

Cloudbusterl6.l.15 @ 2:40PMIIt
Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.

Rhywunl5.3l.15 @ 11:35AMIIt
I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman.

AlanI5.31.15 @ 12:11PMIIt
There is.

Product PlacementI5.31.15 @ 1:22PMIIt
I'd prefer a hellish place on Earth be reserved for her as well.

croakerl6.l.15 @ 11:09AMIIt
Fuck that. I don't want to oay for that cunt's food, housing, and medical. Send her through
the wood chipper.

The subpoena says that it's investigating possible violations of 18 USC 875, which outlaws interstate threats. Popehat, of course, does an excellent job explaining why it is fundamentally and legally ridiculous to argue that any of these comments are "true threats" under the law.

True threat analysis always examines context. Here, the context strongly weighs in favor of hyperbole. The comments are on the Internet, a wretched hive of scum, villainy, and gaseous smack talk. The are on a political blog, about a judicial-political story; such stories are widely known to draw such bluster. They are specifically at Reason.com, a site with excellent content but cursed with a group of commenters who think such trash talk is amusing.

The "threats" do not specify who is going to use violence, or when. They do not offer a plan, other than juvenile mouth-breathing about "wood chippers" and revolutionary firing squads. They do not contain any indication that any of the mouthy commenters has the ability to carry out a threat. Nobody in the thread reacts to them as if they are serious. They are not directed to the judge by email or on a forum she is known to frequent.

Therefore, even the one that is closest to a threat — "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot" isn't a true threat. It lacks any of the factors that have led other courts to find that ill-wishes can be threats.

There's much more detail in the article.

Unfortunately, he also notes that the US Attorneys' office can probably get away with this kind of bogus fishing expedition. Despite the fact that it's extraordinarily unlikely that anyone engaged in these comments actually broke the law, the DOJ likely just needs to show that it has a "compelling interest" in investigating the mere possibility of a threat, and Reason can be forced to hand over the information. Following that, if the DOJ is feeling particularly nasty, it can make life horrible for those commenters in question. This seems like it should raise all sorts of First Amendment alarm bells about the chilling effects it can create for anonymous speech (especially political speech), but according to Popehat's analysis, the courts (so far) aren't buying it.

Equally as troubling is the fact that, when Ken "Popehat" White reached out to the US Attorney's Office with questions about this, Niketh Velamoor, the Assistant US Attorney who signed the subpoena, pretended that there might be a gag order on the subpoena, even though he likely should have known that there was no such gag order:

Mr. Velamoor was suspicious and defensive. At one point he told me that he "believed" that there was a gag order prohibiting this subpoena from being released by its recipients, and that whoever gave it to me must have violated that order, and that he would be "looking into it" and how I got it.

Such gag orders do exist. However, I note that two days earlier on June 2, 2015, Mr. Velamoor signed the cover letter on the subpoena, which contained the Department of Justice's standard language about secrecy:

The Government hereby requests that you voluntarily refrain from disclosing the existence of the subpoena to any third party. While you are under no obligation to comply with our request, we are requesting you not to make any disclosure in order to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation and because disclosure of the existence of this investigation might interfere with and impede the investigation.

In other words, two days before he told me that he believed there was a gag order on the subpoena, Mr. Velamoor told Reason.com that it was not required to keep the subpoena secret.

Perhaps Mr. Velamoor misspoke. Perhaps Mr. Velamoor misremembered. Perhaps Mr. Velamoor didn't secure the gag order until after he issued the subpoena.

Or perhaps Mr. Velamoor, bless his heart, was lying in an attempt to intimidate me.

It's much easier to try to intimidate anonymous internet commenters if you can do so without having to publicly disclose your own disdain for the First Amendment in the process....

Either way, shouldn't we take a step back and ask a simple question: is this kind of thing really what the US Attorneys should be working on? Especially in the Southern District of NY where so many high profile cases are going on all the time? At best, this is just a typical "cover your ass" situation. If the judge in Ross Ulbricht's case actually did come to some harm, eventually it would get out that people were saying mean stuff on the internet, and the DOJ would like to be able to show that it did, in fact, investigate things, rather than ignore them. That means, most likely, nothing would ever come of this anyway in the long run. None of those commenters are likely to get charged with anything because they almost certainly didn't do anything illegal.

But still... it's frightening. The chilling effects are real. The Popehat article goes into these in much more detail, but in short, the US government can still cause tremendous problems for these commenters, even if everything they said is clearly protected speech. As White notes, you may think you're just blowing off steam in making an angry comment, but that won't stop you from being summoned to testify before a grand jury or to hire lawyers to defend yourself. Nor will it much matter should the FBI suddenly show up at your workplace, telling people there that they need to talk to you "just to clear some things up."

Should the DOJ be investigating threats? Sure. But, at some point, someone has to have a little perspective and to understand what's a threat and what's just some commenters saying idiotic things online.

Revised Grand Jury Subpoena (PDF)Revised Grand Jury Subpoena (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anonymous speech, chilling effect, doj, free speech, grand jury, internet comments, ross ulbricht, subpoena, true threats, us attorneys office
Companies: reason

140 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Espryon (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 7:58am

Wow better watch what I say. I could be guilty of a thought crime. No wonder people are reading 1984 in larger numbers then ever before in history since that book was written by George Orwell. Free Speech much be dead if they're seriously trying to arrest/prosecute people making seemingly threatening comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 8:22am

Ahh yes...
Nothing like a a dose of Ken White with my morning coffee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 8:29am

A threat is only real if the person(s) making it have the capacity and the will to carry it out.

Until they can prove that, they can sit on their thumbs and spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  Yes, wait until a person actually follows through on a threat before acting. That is totally smart........
  
  I hope you are never in charge of making laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    Will and capacity != taking action.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      JFC, you're delusional.... and dangerous. Please never ever vote or run for office.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you would arrest a quadriplegic threatening to personally cut someone to ribbons with a katana then, or someone resident in Mongolia threatening to feed US politicians through a wood chipper then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uh yes (and nice try at a strawman!). Failure to follow up on a threat is a failure in itself. If they didn't want to be punished, than they always have the option to, you know, NOT threaten people.
        
        You probably would just turn the other way when it comes to Elliot Rogers or the Columbine shooters too, though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JP Jones (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uh yes (and nice try at a strawman!).
        
        Strawman. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
        
        Fallacy tip: something can't be a strawman argument if it accurately represents your argument. Since you agree with his interpretation of your argument, it is by definition not a strawman.
        
        And the rest of your statement is so completely stupid I'm not even going to bother trying to address it. You're welcome for the quick lesson on fallacies, though (extra credit: find mine).
        
        Learning is fun!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm almost convinced this troll is a chatbot...don't waste your time on pointing out the fundamentals of reason on these droids...they're preprogrammed to generate rebuttals of pure nonsense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think it's a chatbot, but I'm starting to think it really is a troll in the classic sense - he doesn't really care about the topic, he's just here to rile people up for fun.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nothing goes without a reason
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I refuse to belive that there is a largr group of peolple out there that drives all of us to suffer...200,000 thosand years in a world without society..yet for the past 2000, we all live in pain. When does it end?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RD, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you, please never breed. We don't need more goosestepping yes-men further enabling those in power to abuse the citizenry any more than we already have.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nobody ever said that living in a free society is safe. If you don't like it then move to North Korea where thought crimes are punishable by death.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 8:33am

This appears to be an interesting variation on the high court/low court issue.

Recall that less than two weeks ago, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a guy who was blatantly threatening his ex-wife with violence because he made an utterly transparent claim that it was "just rap lyrics" and he was "expressing himself." This despite the fact that he had never performed rap music for an audience or attempted to sell his work as a songwriter, and--according to the ex-wife at least--didn't even listen to rap. That's about as blatant a lie as you can possibly come up with, but he still got off the hook.

But threaten someone important, like a federal judge, even when the threats are obviously not real this time, and boy does everyone take it seriously!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JP Jones (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re:
  You know...you know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
  
  - Joker
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff Walden, 10 Jun 2015 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: Elonis with respect to here
  Mason Wheeler, #4:
  
  You ought to be a bit more careful what you claim to know about Elonis. The feds started filing charges after they came to his doorstep to ask him questions, at which point he deployed a knowledgeable question about whether he was being detained and had to answer questions, they said he wasn't, so he shut his door on them. That to me suggests he really is somewhat knowledgeable about his rights, and could well have been deliberately exercising them even to extremes writing rap lyrics. And certainly there's no requirement to have previously performed in a certain way, for a first-time performance to potentially be legitimate.
  
  As for your last point, about "important". That the feds started pressing charges after Elonis gave them the (perfectly legal, if "disrespectful") brushoff, does suggest some element of retribution for contempt of authority could have been present in Elonis's case, just as in the instant case against a sitting judge.
  
  Was Elonis making a true threat? Dunno, but his doorstep performance does make plausible that he might have been attempting to exercise rights without meaning to make a threat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 8:36am

Good reason to carefully structure ill wishes
Rather than wish your enemy dead (whether quickly and painlessly or in a gruesome and public fashion), wish them a long and miserable life: no job, no money, not in prison (lest they be supported at the taxpayer's expense), bad or no home, recurring but nonfatal health problems, notable mention on all the popular watchlists (No Fly, Sex Offender, etc.), invisible to the media, shunned by their family and loved ones, and forgotten by history. It's a better punishment, it does not involve wishing violence come to them (even in an abstract sense), and it's far easier to argue that there is no way you could have the resources to make it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re: Good reason to carefully structure ill wishes
  May your crotch be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Coyoty (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Good reason to carefully structure ill wishes
    This appears to be a threat to use biological weapons. Prepare to have officials visit you demanding to know where you are keeping your research livestock and what organisms you have designed for the fleas to distribute.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 8:44am

another case of the government wanting to change the law to suit the 'crime'. someone has gotten their pants in a twist and want the law office to step in, just because they can!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:01am

The government is very selective about which particular false threats of violence it investigates. Has it ever investigated threats against Snowden's life? I've seen plenty. How about threats against people accused of hurting children? I've seen plenty of those too.

The government doesn't care about false threats. It cares only about being challenged, and will use any excuse it can to silence that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  Snowden gave up due process the second he became a traitor and fled to China.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    If it's possible to give up due process, then "due process" means nothing at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you knowingly aid a rogue country with classified information in which you lied to obtain, it is possible.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then the US system is broken. Things like due process aren't rewards for good behavior and removing them is not punishment for bad. These things are to ensure the integrity of the system itself.
        
        If you are really taking the stance that the state should weaken the integrity of its own system because it really hates someone, then you're arguing that the rule of law is a bad thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not broken, it's exactly how it should be. If you knowingly turn your back on the justice system, then you no longer deserve to benefit from it.
        
        If he was really concerned with what he was doing, then he would have leaked it to the press and turned himself in. Simply lying, stealing, and fleeing just shows that he's a coward who is only interested in ransom and blackmail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What ransom and blackmail? Ransom and blackmail require a threat. They require leverage. When he turned over all of his documents, what leverage does he have to threaten anyone with?
        
        Or, looking at it from a different angle, if he was interested in ransom and blackmail, where are his terms? At what point did this "traitor" ever demand the Government do X or else he would do Y?
        
        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If you knowingly turn your back on the justice system, then you no longer deserve to benefit from it."
        
        This is so wrong that I am astounded that anyone could even type it in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You fail to understand that the illegal activity he was exposing was illegal for anyone to talk about including Congress.
        
        If you still don't get it:
        
        It's like making it a crime to report a crime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you knowingly turn your back on the justice system, then you no longer deserve to benefit from it.
        
        What does it mean to "turn your back on the justice system"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt, 10 Jun 2015 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It absolutely is broken, as there's nothing but a wealth of evidence that there's no protecting whistleblowers here in America. Snowden is a hero and he did was he had to to make the documents public. If he had stayed here the Justice system would not protect him, anymore than they protected that guy who made the video that supposedly caused sparked Benghazi.
        
        But hey, you're probably so stupid that you think the Duggar scandal is a big deal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But hey, you're probably so stupid that you think the Duggar scandal is a big deal.
        
        I would say most people consider child sex abuse a big deal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you feel your government can spy on ALL of its citizens because *reasons* then YOU are the traitor here.
        
        Feel free to give up all of the rights you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow you off the cliff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is no spying unless you're a delusional nutcase like Rand Paul.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If that's the case, then the NSA's budget is way overblown, isn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So the multi billion dollar hay stack (datacenter) in Utah is a figment of my imagination?
        
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
        
        The ars technica statist extremist crowd needs to get off tech dirt...I can spot your kind almost anywhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, so LOVEINT was a figment of everybody's imagination, then?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There is no spying..."
        
        That's some top-shelf denial right there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, hopefully you don't have a Google account if you feel that way since you clearly don't want anybody "spying" on your precious Groupon offers and junk email.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        yes, and double for Apple
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, if you're going to complain about hypothetical government "spying", then I would hope you don't have a Apple or Google account since that would be a tad hypocritical.
        
        And that doesn't even get into the fact that, even if the government were doing that, THAT IS THEIR JOB. It's their job to ensure the safety of its citizens. It's a lot worse for a for profit company to do it to make money, yet all these hypocrites who complain always do it while logged into a Google account or from Chrome.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No it's their job to uphold the laws of the land. It is our job to keep ourselves safe from both foreign and domestic threats including those in Washington which is why we have the right to bear arms so that we can abolish our government should it befome corrupt...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, I get it now. You're one of the insane lunatic anti-government gun nuts.... don't you have a Rand Paul rally to go to or something?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You really need to come up with something other than "Rand Paul this" and "Rand Paul that."
        
        It's a weak argument, if you can even call it that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not really, but they're better than those insane statists like yourself who want to turn our country into a prison state...oh wait, it already is:
        
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
        
        If 3 out of 4 inmates are serving hard time for nonviolent crimes (not to mention the 700,000 innocent for failing to pay bail bonds) is not a sure sign of a broken and corrupt government then...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Yes, if you're going to complain about hypothetical government "spying", then I would hope you don't have a Apple or Google account since that would be a tad hypocritical."
        
        Not even slightly. You can voluntarily give some people access to your personal information and refuse to give others the same access without any hypocrisy whatsoever. Please explain how I'm wrong.
        
        But you ignore the big difference: in the case of spying services such as Apple and Google, you are voluntarily giving them data. In the case of the government, you are being forced to.
        
        Equating those two things is extremely deceptive.
        
        "if the government were doing that, THAT IS THEIR JOB."
        
        No, it's not. Not at all.
        
        "It's their job to ensure the safety of its citizens"
        
        To a limited degree, and even to that degree, the job of "keeping us safe" must always be second to the job of "keeping us free". When the government spies on us all, it does neither.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        LookingOverMyShoulder (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Have you even read the Constitution? It lists very specific things that are under the Federal government. All things not specifically listed are left to the states and the people. The only real qualifier for that is that the states cannot enact laws that do not follow the Constitution. Over the years the Feds have grabbed off more and more and the SCOTUS has twisted and bent the Constitution in ways it was never intended to go, so now we have this Nanny Federal Government.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        VivaLaDemocracy, 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Much agreed -- unfortunately, it mostly comes down to this:
        
        We are now all forced to participate in commerce. At minimum to even live on your property you have to pay the property taxes, you can't build or repair anything without paying the permit fees, you can't travel off your property without paying for a drivers license and vehicle registration, you can't hunt or fish without buying a permit either. You cannot occupy public lands, and if you want to even put up a tent you have to pay a usage-fee. In some states, if you own property (cars, vehicles, boats, or 'other assets of value') you have to pay tax on those too.
        
        Albeit the Federal Government was only given "INTERstate Commerce" authorities (meaning "from one state, to another") they have declared that because things COULD be sold across states, or because the MONEY used in commerce originates from 'federally regulated banks' -- that, they have the authority to regulate anything that could be sold.
        
        Second, they also assert authority over things that are a matter of "public safety". For example, you can pay a several hundred dollar "federal tax stamp" fee to own an "automatic firearm" (per firearm). The fact that a limitation (which is an "infringement") could even be placed on firearms [given the 2nd amendment] is just plain ludicrous.
        
        We're all under the rule of "law and order" -- if the Government doesn't get their piece of the action (tax revenue, permit/licensing/registration fees, etc) then they'll send armed persons to arrest you and throw you in jail. If you resist, they'll beat you into compliance. Last time I checked this is how the mafia operations -- "pay your protection money, or it's curtains for you, kid"
        
        Now, by conducting commerce, this means that you have income. By having income, you are subject to income taxation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Albeit the Federal Government was only given "INTERstate Commerce" authorities (meaning "from one state, to another") they have declared that because things COULD be sold across states, or because the MONEY used in commerce originates from 'federally regulated banks' -- that, they have the authority to regulate anything that could be sold.
        
        The twisting of the commerce clause is one of the great almost unrecognized travesties of constitutional law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just Another Anonymous Troll, 14 Jun 2015 @ 1:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1. The spying is not hypothetical.
        2. It's only hypocritical once Google can kill me with drones.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        LookingOverMyShoulder (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 3:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Absolutely true. One could always take those customer "loyalty" cards and get a few (6-10) friends to get one as well and meet once a month or so and toss them all in a hat, draw one and use it for the month. I suppose you could do somewhat of the same thing with a shared gmail or yahoo account. It's easy enough to set up a fake identity on Google, I did it just to see if I could. Same for whatever came after hotmail. Yeah if you're caught you've violated their terms of service, but as far as I know they can't lock you up, all they can do is shut down your account. Not so with our Federal Masters who can lock you up without even allowing you to contact an attorney.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:23am
    
    Re: Re: Snowden
    Snowden gave up due process the second he became a traitor and fled to China.
    Your comment fails on multiple counts. Due process protects "any person", without specifying that they must be a citizen, and without regard to what crimes they have committed or are alleged to have committed. Even if he was convicted of being a traitor and the penalty for such was immediate loss of citizenship, he would still be entitled to due process.
    
    As for "fled to China", when was that? He was briefly in Hong Kong for the document handover, then proceeded to Russia. He never fled to mainland China, and by my recollection, never intended to flee to Hong Kong. It was only a transition point (as Russia would have been, if the idiots at State had not revoked his passport).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Snowden
      "As for "fled to China", when was that? He was briefly in Hong Kong for the document handover, then proceeded to Russia. He never fled to mainland China, and by my recollection, never intended to flee to Hong Kong. It was only a transition point (as Russia would have been, if the idiots at State had not revoked his passport)."
      
      LOL. Glenn Greenwald, is that you? Still spinning, huh? Transition point my foot. And it's not like Russia is any better.
      
      But, by all means, keep trying to defend the traitor all you like. It doesn't make you look any better but you can still try.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DOlz (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        James Clapper is that you? You can keep calling Mr. Snowden a traitor all you want, but it won’t detract from the lies and violation of your oath to defend the Constitution. The alphabet soup gang who are determined to destroy the Consitution by turning us into a nation of cowards are the real traitors.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        LOL. You sound as batcrap insane as Ron and Rand Paul. Check your tinfoil hat and make sure it's not cutting off the oxygen to your brain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        Lying to Congress is perjury.
        
        Clapper lied to Congress. And admitted it. What justice has he faced?
        What about Petraeus? I don't see him in prison...or is that because he leaked info to his mistress? (Just pointing out what a fine, upstanding military person who cheats on his wife that he is).
        
        Care to respond with something other than "tinfoil hat" comments?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        I dunno, go ask them I guess? Nice job trying to deflect because you can't defend the traitor Snowden though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        That's it?
        
        That's all you can come back with?
        
        Fucking lightweight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        Well come up with something relevant first. Deflecting and talking about random people who have nothing to do with the conversation contributes nothing.
        
        (I noticed you're still trying to deflect though...)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        It's about equal protection and treatment under the law.
        
        If some can do things with no consequences, and others face severe consequences for same actions, how can you defend one over the other?
        
        - Lies to Congress - nothing.
        - Leaks sensitive info to his whore - nothing.
        - Sparks a national debate on a spying infrastructure out of control - off with his head.
        
        I just find it peculiar that someone would feel so strongly about one, but have absolutely no opinion on the other.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        Well, if nothing will happen then why is Snowden hiding in Russia? I mean clearly you say he's not a traitor or anything.. so why is he hiding when nothing happens for lying or stealing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        He's not hiding anywhere! You know where he is.
        
        All you need is the balls to go get him, you know, for principle's sake.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        Well, if nothing will happen then why is Snowden hiding in Russia?
        
        Because the US is attempting to charge him under the Espionage Act, a law that effectively prevents the accused from making a valid defense of their actions.
        
        Only a moron bets their life against the house when the house stacks the deck and only allows you to play the deuces from your hand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        One cannot have a valid defence of their actions when there is no valid defence of their actions.
        
        It's a fact that he lied to obtain the job. It's a fact that he stole classified information. It's a fact that he ran off to a rogue country.
        
        If he didn't want to be charged with espionage, he could have released the information to the press and turn himself in as a whistleblower instead of being a criminal and traitor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        By your logic, those who expose a major crime ring should turn themselves over to the ones who are running it...And what happens to those who defy a crime lord? They vanish without a trace which is exactly what will happen if he does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        LOL. "Major crime ring"? Now you're just being absurd and making straw-men arguments. You Snowden disciples crack me up, acting like he's a saint or martyr instead of a criminal who stole documents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        What is with you statists and misusing fallacies?
        
        Appeal to authority much? Heh
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        You Snowden disciples crack me up, acting like he's a saint or martyr instead of a criminal who stole documents.
        
        I regard Snowden for what he is - someone who exposed programs that two separate courts, two separate White House review boards and plenty of others have noted to be illegal and/or unconstitutional.
        
        That sounds like the very definition of a patriot to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        If he didn't want to be charged with espionage, he could have released the information to the press...
        
        He did turn over all the information to the press.
        
        ...and turn himself in as a whistleblower instead of being a criminal and traitor.
        
        You are making zero sense here. If he turned himself in as a "whistleblower" he would have been treated as a "criminal and traitor" just like the previous whistleblowers have been. What would have been gained by that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        " If he turned himself in as a "whistleblower" he would have been treated as a "criminal and traitor" just like the previous whistleblowers have been."
        
        Do you try and be ignorant or is it all just an act?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        Are you asking yourself that question in the thirdperson or are you actually going to back up your claims with supportive evidence?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        Do you try and be ignorant or is it all just an act?
        
        Ignorant of what exactly? Do you really think that he wouldn't have been charged under the Espionage Act just because he turned himself in? That sounds like an ignorant statement to me.
        
        PS: I knew that eventually that Shindlerisms would come out in this thread.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        It's a fact that he ran off to a rogue country.
        
        Thats subjective.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tqk (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        I hope you're just an ignorant bastard, as in not knowing what happened to David Drake, John Kiriakou, or Jeffrey Sterling when they tried to work within the system.
        
        However, I suspect you're just a bald-faced liar. Die screaming in a fire.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        He did turn it over to the press.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        James Clapper is that you?
        
        I doubt it. Based on the worn out arguments that keep getting repeated ad nauseam it sounds more like this idiot to me:
        
        https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=john+schindler
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
        "LOL. Glenn Greenwald, is that you? Still spinning, huh? Transition point my foot. And it's not like Russia is any better."
        
        It's not. Sadly, the United States revoked his passport WHILE he was in a Russian airport hoping to get onto another flight elsewhere. Thereby forcing him to remain in Russia.
        
        So it wasn't by his choice and his alone that he remains in Russia.
        
        "But, by all means, keep trying to defend the traitor all you like. It doesn't make you look any better but you can still try."
        
        Coming from someone who has labeled a man who has yet to see anything in the way of a trial a "traitor" that's not saying much. You're far worse than anyone here.
        
        Until such time as due process of the law is followed and Edward Snowden receives a trial in which his guilt or innocence for the crime of treason is determined by a judge or jury he is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE ISN'T. That means at present he is not a traitor and only AFTER a trial is held which determines anything beyond that can he be labeled a traitor, but only if found guilty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Spoken like a true statist who is completely ignorant of the facts. Fyi, Hong Kong is not apart of China although they do try to claim that it is...but it's not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    You seem to embrace the chinese and russian methods, so what's the problem?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AricTheRed (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:03am

Thank the light!
... That no one uttered this curse against the judge;

"I curse thee woman! That all your daughters will grow up to be Cheeleaders and marry Cowboys!"

A buddy used that one on my mom when I was 13. And it worked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:05am

Dignity, my ass
But, but, aren't they just trying to protect the 'dignity' of the court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LVDave (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:08am

I wonder..
I noticed they use the word "voluntary" here.. Makes me wonder if they're using the same definition of "voluntary" that their brothers over at the IRS use.. namely the IRS's constant use of the term "voluntary compliance".. Two words that really don't belong together, but then the IRS really doesn't belong in ANY country besides perhaps the old USSR...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:09am

I've got a lead for them
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers

--ws64
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:10am

Oh look, idiots on the Internet who think they can say anything they want and try to justify it with "lol but free speech".

Honestly, I hope they do get caught and I hope they can share a cell with the idiot from Silk Road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  Fuckin' statist. They are some of the worst scum on the net...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nah, that title would be reserved for people who defend a criminal who facilitated a site for murderers and drug dealers (including hiring assassins) by sending death threats to judges.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How in the nutty fuck does one link people talking trash with the silk road? You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to make that connection...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uh, because that's what they were protesting, derp. Read the article and look at the signs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You still don't get it. Let me clarify: Show me a direct link between those comments and a hitman.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 4:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fyi, hitmen don't make threats on the net. They're hired guns who could give two shits less about any of this ane will drain your last life in public without a second thought - for the right price.
        
        Look no futher than south of the border. Allow me to open your eyes to reality:
        
        http://www.bestgore.com/tag/assassination/
        
        So tell me statist dogs, how does any of this resemble an 'actual' threat to the judge in question? To the informed, it's clearly obvious that there is none. So rest assured, in your safe bubbles, that no threat of this calibar is rampant...yet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As was clearly explained in the article, no threats were sent to judges. Please try to stick to the actual story during your trolling.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BornFree (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Right down there at the bottom with the tribalists and nationalists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  I hope you grow old, bitter, and miserable.
  
  I hope your friends and family disown you and you die from old age alone and forgotten.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    Annnnd, I have screenshotted this and will be reporting it.
    
    Good day troll.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - lucidrenegade (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thanks for the laugh.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed. Picture this mutt going to the authorities and saying "This random internet commentator wished me a long life AND I DEMAND YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Coyoty (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And he intends for my relatives and friends to not ask me for money and to make no claims upon my estate!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Annnnd, I have screenshotted this and will be reporting it.
      
      To whom?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's gonna tell his mom.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm betting it is either Dumbledore or the Ministry of Magic. Who else would listen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Will already report it to the authorities, the website host, and the owners.
        
        A threat is a threat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A threat is a threat.
        
        You feel threatened when someone wishes you a long (albeit miserable) life?
        
        Grow a pair, dude.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > and you die
        
        That is a threat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is a threat.
        
        No, it's not. Especially when in the full context of "and you die from old age". No moreso than "I wish you a long life" is any kind of threat to anyone, anywhere, ever.
        
        Get a life, my friend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know what, I dearly hope this gets investigated. I dearly want to see this publicized, and have your face revealed. I always wanted to see what a big crybaby on the Internet looks like after he had his feelings hurt.
        
        ...Oops, did that qualify as a threat?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You just committed a thought crime against another so yes...it is a crime and it's only a matter of time before they bring you in. Just make sure you don't clear your browser history(for the rest of your life...) or it'll be an automatic conviction without due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you're not going to die? Cool, what's your secret?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        People like your are how kids get suspended for nibbling a gun out of a pop tart. Your display of righteous indignation combined with your childlike "he took my lunch money, I'm telling teacher" attitude makes me embarrassed for you and glad that we were able to win the second WW before you, and people like you, began the pussification of this country. Here's a tissue, now go get your hug from mommy and let the adults have an adult discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Will already report it to the authorities, the website host, and the owners.
        
        Will already? Ok. I don't see it yet, but I'll be looking for it and will treat it with all of the seriousness it deserves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Careful, he might have a TARDIS.
        
        http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TimeTravelTenseTrouble
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *Hoping* something happens to you is not a threat.
        
        Stating something *should* happen to you is not a threat.
        
        Pointing out that your choices or behavior may result in harm coming to you is not a threat.
        
        A threat is stating what someone *will* do to you, when, where, how.
        
        See Game of Thrones for a good example of the difference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Coyoty (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's going on his permanent record.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:44am
  
  Re:
  but free speech....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    ... does not guarantee freedom from repercussions.
    
    I think it's clear nobody is denying them the right to say whatever stupid nonsense they want.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      so, no free speech?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They can say whatever threats they want to, as shown above. They also need to understand that there are repercussions for threats against other people. Your right to free speech stops when it involves infringing on anybody elses rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:49am
        
        corrected
        They can say whatever threats they want to, as shown above. They also need to understand that there are repercussions for threats against people in power. Your right to free speech stops when it involves people in power.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 7:59pm
        
        Re: corrected
        "Your right to free speech stops when it involves people in power."
        
        You do realize that this is exactly what started both the US revolution and the US civil war right?
        
        Some say that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it while others often fail at trying to improve upon it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 9:57am

None of those commenters are likely to get charged with anything because they almost certainly didn't do anything illegal.

Unless they have flushed their browser history. Also Reason could be in trouble if they have deleted logs. Destruction of evidence is a useful hammer when you have nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:08am

Okay, I'll buy a wood chipper so the good people at Reason can feed DOJ bods into it. Where should I send it, and how much do you think it would cost me to send something so big and heavy via Royal Mail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 10:25am

Wet noodles
Can we use wet noodles on the court house steps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Coyoty (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 7:03pm
  
  Re: Wet noodles
  Wet noodles are an extremely inefficient weapon. To keep them from flying apart, you need to drape them over your victim instead of using them as whips. Eventually your victim may die of erosion. It's better to use spoons.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 11:53am

"None of those commenters are likely to get charged with anything because they almost certainly didn't do anything illegal."

No, but I bet you a dollar they all end up on the no-fly list. Maybe even have some of their belongings confiscated because of "drugs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re:
  I swear people like you can't possibly be real. Are you a chat bot? If so, somebody royally fucked up your AI...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
avideogameplayer, 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:22pm

What's that old saying? 'Kill them all and let god sort them out...'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 12:59pm

Power corrupts
Power corrupts. Absolute power...is actually kinda neat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 6:40pm
  
  Re: Power corrupts
  I know the pain and i have lived the struggle...amd because i know they might see me first...ibut i dont care...fuck will
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personanongrata, 9 Jun 2015 @ 5:21pm

US Department of Justice (ha-ha) (sic)
This is the same Department of Justice that hasn't prosecuted one person involved in the theft of trillions of dollars in the run-up and aftermath of the depression of 2008.

This is the same Department of Justice that would rather look forward not backward and gift US government torturing sadists and their aiders and abettors in the executive branch and congress a get out of jail free card.

This is the same Department of Justice that time and time again in courts across the land defends the indefensible and wholly unconstitutional total surveillance state created by the US government and it's collaborating corporate cronies, paid for with our tax dollars (this is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment: forced to pay for your own enslavement).

This is the same US Department of Justice that has prosecuted nine whistleblowers under the pernicious auspices of the Espionage Act of 1917 (nine whistleblowers is six more than all other administrations combined: congrats Noble Laureate).

Do you see a pattern?

Does it have anything to do with justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RealityBites, 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:34am
  
  Don't forget the Cartel Money Launderers and the DOJ treason
  The DOJ (Dept of Jackass's) let the cartel money laundering banks go free after servicing 100's of billions of cartel money. The DOJ gives guns to the cartels and their agents are given booze and hookers by the cartels... Perhaps it is we who mistakenly think the DOJ works for us... its pretty clear who their bosses are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 7:16pm

for granted...
Sooner or later, this false sense of world peace you all live in will crumble. Maybe 10 years from now or hunded you can all feel it comming.

Since the war on drugs is near a close, what do you think will fill its place?

Debt prsions is what we have to look forward to...the incaciration of the poor en masse. It has already begun.

Like a water damn, sooner or later it will collapse if not by hand then by time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 7:25pm
  
  Re: for granted...
  2017-2020 is my bet for an economic collapse
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 7:37pm
    
    Re: Re: for granted...
    It takes generations of abuse before an uprise is born...it wont be our generation, but its growing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 7:22pm

using fear to keep political dissenters in line.

I use the term political dissent to describe people that disagree with the banana republic justice system the USA has going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RealityBites, 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:27am

Can't expect a marshal or a judge to have an IQ over that of a monkey.
Look who they work for. They aren't smart enough to read let alone understand what is written, they simply do as they are told.

Just like the organ grinder monkey, they dance when the money goes in the cup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Rasmusen, 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:49am

Brewington case--someone actually was jailed for blogging
The Indiana Brewington case last year was similar, except the blogger was not just subpoena'd, but actually convicted of a felony. Then he lost his appeal first at the appellate court and then the Indiana Supreme Court.

We need to be very afraid. Judges are not unbiased on this matter.

http://volokh.com/2013/01/22/harshly-criticizing-a-judge-or-others-for-their-past-conduct-crime/
http ://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/01/conviction-of-blogger-who-threatened-judge-upheld/8 584563/ ((contrary to the new article ,, the Supreme Court did *not* really pull back from the earlier decision-- it just said, falsely, that the man's blog comments were meant as a threat to the judge, tho there's no indication the judge ever "heard" the supposed threat)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
despiser, 10 Jun 2015 @ 7:54am

Civil War 2 is quickly approaching
This CRIME SYNDICATE posing as a Govt does not have my CONSENT to be governed in this way.

Its really this SIMPLE AMERICA> This Govt is required to have the consent of the people.

NO CONSERNT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p123321 (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 8:34am

Chilling?
"But still... it's frightening. The chilling effects are real."

I don't know... I think if you look at the big picture, this looks more like government shooting itself in the foot, than anything. Both the absurd sentence for DPR, and then this over-the-top reaction to idiot comments, cannot but reduce government legitimacy (or what passes for it) in the eyes of the people. Such actions do not come without costs. When governments lose all legitimacy, they soon cease to exist. It is their life-blood, yet here they are pissing it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JakeRake, 25 Jun 2015 @ 8:20pm

What Happens To The Commenters
So the other side of the story is what happens to the commenters. There is a process used on these people. Once their identity is known, they can be referred to political allies. Private reputation management companies and political groups monitor these folks. If they continue to say things that the political parties or powerful individuals don't like, then they can be put into a program. Essentially, it’s a domestic psychological warfare campaign. They warn these folks, and if they don’t shut up, then they start following them around. The do weird street theater and let them know that their being watched. If they still don’t shut up then they use electronic harassment equipment on them, and they’ll do a character assassination to smear them. They’ll start a noise campaign inside their house to keep them sleep deprived, and pay people to harass them at work. There is an entire group of people who are subject to this treatment. They call themselves “targeted individuals,” and their claims are based in fact. This treatment is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and it has a chilling effect on the First Amendment. It’s up to people who are willing to fight for freedom to research this stuff and corroborate the evidence. It’s true, and there are many crimes attached to the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]