Homeland Security Wants To Subpoena Us Over A Clearly Hyperbolic Techdirt Comment
from the guys,-calm-down dept
Earlier this week, one of our writers, Tim Cushing, had a story about yet another abuse of the civil asset forfeiture procedure. You can read that whole story for the details, but the short version is that US Customs & Border Patrol, along with Hancock County (Indiana) Sheriff's Dept. officers, decided to seize $240,000 in cash from a guy named Najeh Muhana. Muhana sought to get that cash back, but after a series of ridiculous communications, his lawyer was told that Customs and Border Patrol in Ohio was keeping the money, and that Muhana had "waived his rights to the currency." This was not true, and certainly appeared to be pretty sketchy. Because of all of this, Muhana filed a lawsuit against US Customs & Border Patrol asking for his money back.Not surprisingly, this story of what many would argue is just blatant theft by law enforcement (the people who are supposed to be protecting us from theft) upset a number of folks who expressed their frustrations in the comments -- some using colorful language. That kind of language might not necessarily be considered appropriate in polite company, but isn't entirely out of place in internet forums and discussions where rhetorical hyperbole is not uncommon.
So I have to admit that I was rather surprised yesterday afternoon when we received a phone call from an agent with Homeland Security Investigations (the organization formerly known as ICE for Immigration and Customs Enforcement), asking where they could send a subpoena to identify a commenter on our site. Our lawyer, Paul Levy of Public Citizen Litigation Group, requested more information and we were told that DHS is interested in obtaining user information on the following comment by "Digger."
The only "bonus" these criminals are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.Now, that's pretty crude and a bit ridiculous. But it's also pretty obviously not even anything remotely like an actual threat. First off, he's not suggesting that he's looking to do this at all. He's suggesting that "the person wronged" -- by which he likely means Mr. Muhana -- would somehow get some friends to do this. This is pretty ridiculous and almost certainly wrong. Second, he's actually responding to another comment, that reasonably bemoans the likelihood that those involved in all of this will receive no punishment at all.
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.
Now, it's entirely possible that there are more details here involving a legitimate investigation, but it's difficult to believe that's the case given the information we have to date. Also, we have not yet received the subpoena, just the phone calls and emails suggesting that it's on its way. 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.
We have told Homeland Security that we're willing to receive the subpoena and review it, but that based on what we know, we have serious First Amendment concerns about the request itself. Multiple Supreme Court cases, including Rankin v. McPherson and Watts v. United States have made it clear that people have a First Amendment right to say that they hope the President gets shot, let alone a law enforcement agent. It may be rude and uncomfortable, but if it is not an indication of a "true threat," then it is protected. And, as such, the idea of disclosing any information about someone who was clearly engaged in rhetorical hyperbole in an internet forum, likely leading to federal agents showing up at his or her door, is quite troubling to us.
Really, the most ridiculous part of this is why this is what's being investigated, rather than why the government was basically able to just walk away with $240,000 from this guy and ignore his attempts to get his money back.
We will keep you informed... as much as we are able to.
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: asset forfeiture, comments, dhs, free speech, gag orders, homeland security, homeland security investigations, hsi, ice, indiana, najeh muhana, ohio
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Keep fighting the good fight for all of us.
God bless you.
God bless TD.
God bless the First Amendment.
God bless America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warrant canary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warrant canary
> Our client requires that you give the following undertakings by the 5pm AEST on February 15 2016:
...I suggested...
> This site really needs a bank of countdown timers down the side, one for each such "requirement.
The warrant canary can go in the same area.
In any case, there's little evidence that warrant canaries work. A court could issue a secret warrant that includes a prohibition against triggering the warrant canary. A year ago Australia passed a law making it illegal to report on warrant canaries regarding new mandatory data retention laws; the US will inevitably follow. Apple's and Reddit's warrant canaries have already been triggered, which makes them useless for future warrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Warrant canary
But that just reveals to the public that the government doesn't mind promoting and requiring dishonesty. Such is a hallmark of corruption. Isn't the point of the government to protect us from lies and corruption? If they're actively requiring lies and corruption instead of protecting us from it then it publicly raises the question, and the discussion, why do we even need the government? They're actually making things worse for us. They're promoting the things they're supposed to protect us against. They're being the oppressive, corrupt, dishonest regimes they're supposed to be protecting us against. Why do we need them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Warrant canary
Having grown up during the 60s I guess I wonder whether the correct response to these gag attempts (NSL etc) is to ignore them, and then fight them in court? If nothing else it would help to make the issue visible to the common man.
And really, do we believe the right to tell the truth would not be upheld eventually by the Supreme Court? And, if the answer is no... then I think we've passed the point of no return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Warrant canary
I would have serious doubts on this account. The govt may now have arrogated to itself the power of prior restraint, but the power of compelled speech seems to cross a line that has not yet been entirely cleared.
The govt may be able to command you to not say that you disapprove of producing ammunition to be used against Russian revolutionaries, Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, but it has a harder time compelling you to endorse it. Compare Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, with WV State Board of Educaiton v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624.
A little more recently, Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 750 largely rejected the idea of compelled state-supplied speech. A requirement to say ``no warrant offensive to owner's principles'', in the case that the person in charge wanted to remove the visible warrant canary, would be hard to distinguish from any other state self-endorsement requirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then maybe someday, "Yep, we got it and no gag order. Yipee!"
Or............................
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope, sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And tried to cover it up. And failed, or is failing. Again.
And are now trying to cover up the cover-up. And failing. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not horrible internet comments!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not horrible internet comments!
Maybe that would be like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not horrible internet comments!
Fox News is precisely the type of organization that would go along with that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not horrible internet comments!
the lesson to take from that, is that 'approved' violence and threats by the brownshirts are perfectly okay by Empire, it is threats against Empire itself, and by extension, its eee-vil minions of doom which are NOT to be tolerated in the least...
AND, this is EXACTLY why stupid shit SJW sheeple dickheads should realize that so-called 'anti-hate' laws, etc are fucking slitting their own throats: those laws they are demanding will NOT -ultimately- be used to defend the 99% being wronged, but to prevent and punish ANY/ALL criticism of Empire and its eee-vil minions of doom...
idiots...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than the original comment, more than the response to it, I think this line is the most screwed up part to the whole thing. The idea that you can be barred from reporting on legal issues that you're indirectly involved in, barred from even saying that you are involved in a legal issue, just because some agency doesn't want their actions made public.
Given how the other case went I agree with the others suggesting a 'Gag clause canary' somewhere on the site, just in case, though hopefully it won't be needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The very reason for people to be able to take their story to the media is so that the "Government" will be cowed into submission when they go overboard and so that fellow American citizens can know that something unjust is happening and do something to show support for the wronged.
DHS needs to understand that if it keep pushing people like they are are going to incite a riot of the people themselves.
Maybe they need to subpoena themselves for trying to cause an insurrection!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because thats the Murhika we live in now. The good ole USSA.
Remember kids... when it comes to Tyranny... JUST SAY NO!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
United Secure States of America brought to you by the criminals running our countries security services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless the government tells you that you aren't allowed in which case just roll over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That such "conspiracies" can only do great harm to America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it would also seem that ICE, CBP Homeland Security aren't very big fans of the media doing stories on the asset seizures that happen to involve cash from citizens because they can (no crime needed it would seem)
Honestly so how much time and money are they going to waste on this so called "investigation" of that comment. Was the comment over the line, to a point yeah, but honestly how many other people post way worse on the internet?
Seriously there are people posting a heel of a lot worse and more direct threats at other people or groups.
This seems to me this is someones more butthurt at the story subject, and this is the ICE, CBP, Homeland Security indirect way of trying to throw a little scare at Techdirt by the way of using the comment as leverage to say" Hey, keep this up and we will tie you up in legal fees and make life hell for your company and writers if you want to keep writing and questioning cash seizures we do for fun and profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There ya go. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody can make Homeland Security look as bad as it does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nobody can make Homeland Security look as bad as it does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Saying that someone else might think about doing the above is not a crime it is a mater of fact that there are people out there that could be crazy enough to do so without any input from others on a website comment board.
Remember we are talking about a gang or border control agents stealing money from a citizen for no reason with no evidence of a crime. That in itself is enough to implement protections ensured by the constitution to respond with weapons to stop a government agency gone wild.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think a one-time comment on weblog would suffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The spelling just enhances the appearance of being a jackass.
The content itself reveals give the true appearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Tech Dirt!
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's essentially them swaggering on by to say "We're keeping an eye on you all." in hopes of intimidating people in the comments section, and the site itself, into not talking so much about the sorts of crimes that the DHS and agencies it's friendly with are committing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Preferably by either water-cannon or napalm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be a planted loop.
I have to admit when I was young and often drunk, I posted some dumbass things like that. I am REALLY glad that those were the good old days when law enforcement thought that the Internet was a piece of fishing equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It could be a planted loop.
Is this a new euphemism for masturbation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It could be a planted loop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It could be a planted loop.
Also, dammit, I received an internet forum death threat in an argument about the proper golf grip, just to note how devalued the currency of violent invective has become in such venues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grasping at staws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it looks more and more like that I am able to comment less and less. Apparently the software or what ever filter is set up doesn't like VPN. I continually from time to time get the 'awaiting moderator' type message. It then shows up sometime later that day or maybe the next, long after the current interest is gone. No one hardly looks anymore as the newest is up.
With that, I guess I'll wait just a bit before changing home page and seeking somewhere else maybe not as difficult to make posts at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As was mentioned in another post in answer here I'm well aware of the wanting to count every head, every move, and an address. I rarely supply them.
One thing I have never done has been to spam. If I supply a link it is always in relation to the comment as source. Spamming is not something I can control beyond my actions and most likely it is the reason for the filter or it is in the cloud to prevent DDoS attacks. Either way, commenting is becoming increasingly more difficult to do here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You might want to check on that. As far as I have heard, it calls itself a VPN, but it's just a proxy. The difference is, a proxy doesn't encrypt your communication, so ISPs and the like can still spy on your traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I continually from time to time" Read that again. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Very few sites allow anonymous commenting without at least supplying an email address, and if those that do have any kind of traffic whatsoever, then they will also have filters by necessity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if the thugs will actually try to buy a fight with people that actually know what they are doing and that have an engaged community behind them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't see Homeland Security getting very far with this, I liken this to the Big Bad Wolf who wants to huff and puff and threaten to blow the house down...except the Department of Homeland Security is playing the part of the Big Bad Wolf at the behest of someone from CBP/ICE.
This whole thing is a farce in my opinion, I think the agent mentioned in the story is a little embarrassed as he is associated to the seizure on the behalf of CBP/ICE who have much egg on their face as well.
I am sure the good folks over at CBP/ICE are just a little embarrassed that this didnt stay out of the media and their methods and attempt at a legal hold up for fun and profit didnt work out so well.
I doubt Techdirt is shivering in fear and the staff is plastered to the windows waiting for the dark colored SUV's full of Agent Foster Grannt's piling out and running into the building to seize everything, far from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HERE YA GO
It is legal for the people to rise up against crime by the police or government and in this case it is doubly right as the courts are colluding with the border gangs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HERE YA GO
Yes, "against all enemies foreign and domestic"... and that is not even close to all of the commentary from the founders on the subject. In fact the words of the founders themselves are in fact now considered Terrorist Language.
An agent of the law in breach of the Constitution should be considering nothing other than a domestic enemy of the state... we typically call them criminals but for some reason people think that because they are from government there is some magical voiding effect on constitutional rights when they "choose" for them not to apply.
We have to seriously question the motivations of a government that has "in fact" accused the language and actions of the founder of this nation as terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, I do question why the Department of Homeland Security is investigating this and not the FBI, Secret Service or the Justice Department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you forget to read anything besides your eyelids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't incite something and then think you have the right to get pissed off about the response!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. I was taken aback by that comment when I first red it. I think the government should investigate people who make death threats against agents, even though those agents are corrupt.
2. While everyone deserves due process and civil asset forfeiture is blatantly evil, this guy who had his money taken was obviously not some innocent like the better examples we've seen. I don't think we should be rallying around that particular flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bent Franklin... Internet, Internet... Bent Franklin. First drink is on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "moral standing" of the person getting screwed has just exactly not a single fucking thing to do with this, and here is why.... perception. Letting the government run all over someones liberty just because everyone agrees they are a dirt bag starts to look more and more like if they were not a dirt bag they would not have had their rights trampled. So the next time a completely innocent person is fucked over, everyone just thinks they deserved it anyways and WHAMMO... TYRANNY with the complete support of people like you!!!
And trust me, they will come for you. So yes, be very sorry you swam against the tide because in some ways... you are worse than anyone else... because youre logic helps to innocuously, but certainly poison the foundations of liberty so that when everyone finally finds that the foundations of liberty have been rotted away by your logic, the uphill fight will be that much more difficult when we wake up.
In this case, I can certainly say your name lives up to your ignorance in this case...
Compared to Ben Franklin, you are Bent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, I don't care if the man from whom the money was stolen was a child molester leaving the home of one victim and on his way to another victim's house - the blatant theft of money by the State from anyone, regardless of their "innocence", should anger you.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
- H.L. Mencken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The commenter wasn't saying 'I would...' or even 'If it was up to me I would...', they were posting without evidence about how the one who had his money stolen might know people who are in the violence for money business who would be willing to commit some of that violence on their behalf.
2. Doesn't matter. Defending the rights of everyone often requires that you defend the rights of people that might be or even are guilty(in the sense that they've done the action, not necessarily that they've been found guilty of such) of various crimes or unpleasant actions, because if they don't have the protections afforded by those rights neither do you should it ever be your turn as the accused.
Doesn't matter if every last dollar they stole from him was directly related to the most heinous of crimes(rather than what I believe was the unlicensed sale of cigarettes that had him on their radar), the theft was wrong and the stonewalling followed by the claim that time was up the money was theirs was worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Me too. But that wasn't a death threat. It was speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like free speech, you have to support those who you disagree with, or even think guilty, less you find that your assets are no longer safe from from forfeiture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Tyranny requires a boogeyman to distract the tyrannised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Innocence is not a requirement for due process.
Besides, we're all guilty of something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm just glad you didn't blue it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The post under investigation didn't threaten anyone with death, let along a government agent. The comment stated that it would be good if someone else were to conspire to commit a crime - a completely protected form of speech. Speech supporting general crime, or even a specific crime is protected, unless it's likely to lead to imminent lawless action (i.e. inciting a riot) or directly threatening lawless action, even if surreptitiously (awfully nice store you have, pity if something happened to it. This post was neither, even setting aside the hyperbole expected in the forum.
We should absolutely rally around the worst offenders, otherwise we're supporting through inaction the erosion of our liberties. If it's ok to seize the bad guys assets, and the assertion of bad guy status is all that's needed as in this example, then we're all only an assertion away from having our assets seized. There's a classic story about a man in an elevator asking a beautiful woman if she'll have sex with him for a million dollars..... the same analogy applies here if we don't protect even the unsavory in our society.
Additionally, how is this guy obviously not innocent? Many immigrants carry very large amounts of cash as their original culture/country may not have had adequate banking to allow them to be accustomed to EFTs. What else in the story made you think the victim was not only not innocent, but "obviously not ... innocent"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds a bit like "I'm not a racist but..."
The WHOLE POINT of due process, rule of law etc etc is that it protects the good and the bad (and even the ugly) equally. You don't get to choosewhich flag to rally around - because once the bad precedent is set it affects everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Point number 2 is mute because if the agent just followed the rules they would not even find the small amount of marijuana nor the concealed gun. So how do you know that this person is not so innocent based on paying for a trainticket with another persons creditcard because last time I checked this is not illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Picking and choosing which people to defend means no one is defended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I didn't need a FW pointing to counterarguments to Bent's statement. I needed this one to highlight the fact that someone like Bent (whose comments have always seemed sensible and insightful as far as I can remember) made the statement in the first place. I could've easily missed it otherwise.
I'm still wondering if it isn't just the most understated, Atacama-dry, more-British-than-the-Queen-throwing-scones-at-a-Dalek, dead-pan sarcasm ever posted in the history of TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. We should only advocate for justice and the rule of law when it benefits saints. What could possibly go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Any chance you could use your amazing psychic powers and tell us next week's lotto numbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Swim against the tide
2.Just because someone MAY BE a scumbag doesn't mean that his rights shouldn't be fully supported, if for no more reason than to not allow law enforcement to set a precedence for future cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with item 1., as long as the investigators investigate the REASON the threat was made. The agent could be a rogue and operating outside his job description or authority.
As for item 2, IMHO, "asset forfeiture", as now employed, is simply Government sanctioned grand theft. There needs to be a conviction or some other due process to enable it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It was clearly and purely speculation on Digger's part.
Comparing the poster's "they'll probably get a bonus or promotion" to saying that it would be more likely that something negative would come of it, exaggerated ridiculously of course, and I'd choose different wording, but I think I can see what Digger meant, and threat it was not, at least in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dig this
Is treated as criminal behavior
You live in a nation run by criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dig this
That'd give them carte blanch to engage in the most mindbogglingly egregious political fuckery ever seen by man, all without the slightest fear of repercussions. Hey, we're the ones that asked for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical Behavior by the Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously
Attempting to challenge the right to free speech!
Now they are not only thieves, they are impeaching the constitution as well.
I feel sorry for you North America, I really do.
I am also very concerned that our government in Australia is following your footsteps, they love chugging on that big old North American dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holding my comment for moderation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holding my comment for moderation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or is it Digger you'r holding for moderation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does the DHS actually do, and to whom is it accountable to? I suspect the answers are a) whatever the fuck it wants and b) no one. I ask these questions on an account with my real name and a sincere interest in knowing the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woodchipper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Homeland Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheater
I'm so very upset with you. It's not fair for you to cheat the system. the government should not have to require a gag order on you you should just automatically gag yourself. What next are you going to let the commenter no that his comment is the one that was suspect. Are you also going to broadcast it out so that way then his friends can warn him or her. Shame on you Mike. This is not the United States that your daddy grew up in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An un-checked government...
The people of this country have ignored the government's granting unto itself more and more powers over the people. And when occasional voices object the heavy hand of authoritarianism descends to squelch the voices, even when it is clear that protected free speech is the target.
Ans when the powers that be in Homeland Security oppress the people, they should be aware that it has been foretold that the release of Cthulhu is at hand ("In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming") and when he escapes, the many tentacles of his face shall rip out the spleens of the DHS oppressors - then Cthulhu will pluck out the eyeballs of their DHS cohorts . There will be wailing and nashing of teeth by many government agents on that day. Furthurmore, gkjkjerg x$ln3*h @bhb$%kz@#prsh...
EXCUSE ME, THIS IS HIS MOM - I'M COMPLETEING HIS TYPING. PLEASE IGNORE WHAT HE JUST WROTE ABOUT SPLEENS BEING RIPPED OUT. IT WASN'T HIS FAULT. I MADE HOME-MADE SPAGHETTI SAUCE WHEN I FOUND OUT I DIDN'T HAVE ANY MUSHROOMS. SO I USED SOME FROM THE JAR HE KEEPS HIDDEN IN HIS DESK (WHICH I DIDN'T TELL HIM). HE LOVED THE TASTE BUT NOW HE'S ACTING REAL STRANGE-LIKE. I HAD TO HIT HIM OVER THE HEAD WITH MY ROLLING PIN. HE'S NAPPING NOW. HE'LL BE OKAY COME MORNING.
AND THAT PART ABOUT PLUCKING OUT DHS EYEBALLS?
NEVER MIND.
HIS MOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digger....Liberal
I think what's got DHS in a twist is that they suspect Digger is a commie pinko liberal. Those are vastly more dangerous, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Digger....Liberal
This is hardly a liberal vs conservative problem, so try to avoid making it out like it is one.
Multiple agencies have put out more than enough literature to piss off all sides and reveal that they give just exactly no fucks when it comes to abusing the American People's liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, I wonder if they looked you up before they made the request for this information ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
ROFLMAO David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defund DHS and TSA
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a multiply redundant $55 billion dollar (2010) a year quasi secret police and bureaucratic boondoggle of an abomination that in a sane nation, which held true to it's founding republican principals, would be defunded and it's constituent agencies (eg Coast Guard, Secret Service, etal) returned to their department(s) of origin.
The worthless DHS agency known as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) which is in part responsible for helping to condition US citizens into accepting intrusive, humiliating and liberty denying security theater checkpoints as normal and would be defunded as well.
TSA screens roughly 600 million persons at US airports per year (not including the persons TSA screens at concert/sporting venues, train/bus stations etal) over a 15 year period that amounts to 9 billion persons screened all without uncovering a single terrorist.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves.html
http://politicaloutcast.com/tsa-st ill-hasnt-caught-terrorist/
If congress had half a spine it would smash the giant "rice bowl" known by the acronym DHS and scatter it's political appointees and worthless security theater bureaucrats to the wind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defund DHS and TSA
You can be certain of who the real enemy of the American People are by seeing what kind of trouble you get into when you joke about or insult them.
Go ahead, stand in line at the TSA and crack a joke or insult them! You will be quickly introduced to the biggest terrorists in America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with Digger. If the state refuses to punish those they employ who commit crimes against the citizenry. Then people will start actively fighting back instead of being passive about having their rights violated so casually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art Imitating Reality
Then when someone mentions that these nefarious groups could possible be in someones employ, quite easily doing nefarious things to law enforcement persons, it suddenly becomes a red flag. They want to have their cake, and eat it too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think that Digger's comments make much more sense if you take his two comments (6 minuntes apart) together to get a complete thought. Then it looks a little more ominious:
"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."
"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."
He calls everyone on the government side criminals, and then says that criminals should get a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.
When you put the two together, there is a clear threat, and one that suggests action against government agents. Phrased like that, you get a little domestic terrorist at work.
This is one of those cases where Techdirt could stand on their narrow first amendment rights and claim it's about protecting speech, but that would then be forgetting to protect the people who work at the government agencies. Do you know for a fact (absolute) that this guys comments are NOT the first step in doing something really bad?
Sometimes your first amendment rights are meaningless in the bigger picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You make it sound as if said group of people don't already get more protection than the average person.
A policeman could gun down a street full of orphanages and you'd still be scrambling to your feet, foaming at your mouth and flailing your arms to call reasonable doubt. Hey, maybe the orphanages were being staffed by a suspected murderer, or there's a cache of marijuana buried under the foundations that turns out to be sausage and cheese. You don't know for a fact (absolute), after all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, I do completely understand why the cops would be concerned and want to take a closer look. And I don't have a problem with that, so long as they behave well while they're doing it.
But I do wonder how many resources they are burning doing this kind of thing. I see comments of a similar sort all the time across the internet -- they can't possibly spend time and money investigating them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem they face is that Techdirt will very likely stand on 230 rules and say that they will absolutely not help in any manner to identify the guy or otherwise provide any information regarding the user, IP, or any other information that might help to identify him.
While I can understand that Mike is probably foaming at the mouth for the chance to push said rights, it points out the complexity of the legal process for law enforcement. They can see something that probably should be at least lightly investigated, but they will run into a Masnick brick wall when it comes to helpful information.
Its a case like this that makes it clear that 230 protections and protections for anonymous posters may be every so slightly too great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You really are clueless. Section 230 has nothing to do with any of this. It only applies to questions of liability and no one is arguing that Techdirt is liable. Just whether or not they should reveal the info.
While I can understand that Mike is probably foaming at the mouth for the chance to push said rights, it points out the complexity of the legal process for law enforcement. They can see something that probably should be at least lightly investigated, but they will run into a Masnick brick wall when it comes to helpful information.
"Helpful information" that may be illegally sought. That's the issue.
Its a case like this that makes it clear that 230 protections and protections for anonymous posters may be every so slightly too great.
Again, this has nothing to do with Section 230 and Section 230 is completely irrelevant to anything discussed here. Nice to see that you're so confused and obsessed with it though that you'd insert it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As well it should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point isn't that they should or should not stand on them (it's the law, they should) rather that it's cases like this that show how the law ends up creating a legal blockage that should not be acceptable. The guy can spout off with impunity, threaten anyone, and suddenly it's up to Techdirt if he should or should not be investigated?
It's not right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because, "It's not right," that DHS be impeded from dealing with Digger straightly: not by lawyers, trial, due process or any of that other law BS; and certainly not by that aggravating First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thought so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damn, you are a bad troll. "Your side" drove drunk last week, so you should go to jail for them.
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't need to "troll", unlike you. Anyone who does a cursory search of this website's comments can see for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And here's where we disagree. I'm not seeing a legal blockage that should not be acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you find it acceptable that the information that may lead to my arrest be withheld by Techdirt because, well, they feel like it?
We aren't talking about some civil "he said bad things about how I smell" lawsuits, we are talking about a direct and fairly well articulated threat to human life.
Would you have a different opinion if someone was to act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, depending on context.
"Would you find it acceptable that the information that may lead to my arrest be withheld by Techdirt because, well, they feel like it?"
Arrest for what? In the case being discussed here, nobody is talking about arresting anybody. Also, Techdirt isn't withholding information just because they feel like it.
"we are talking about a direct and fairly well articulated threat to human life."
We are? Where? Neither your hypothetical comment or the comment under discussion are a well-articulated threat (although yours comes closer than the original).
"Would you have a different opinion if someone was to act?"
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Put another way, he sounds like he would blend nicely with the idiots that took over the national park building a couple of months ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But where there are real threats there are 'offline world' evidence that such 'threats' will come true. Nobody doubts that a threat from ISIS or whatever u call it may be carried out. But a random dude on a tech blog foaming in rage over politicians being assholes or something? Hardly. That's the issue here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please learn to read. I said " information that may lead to my arrest". I didn't say it as an absolute, rather as a step in the process. Clearly, if Techdirt doesn't provide certain information, it's unlikely they would ever have a hope of tracking the guy down otherwise. Thus, Techdirt gets to decide who gets a free pass. Seems like "due process" got all blown out.
"We are? Where? Neither your hypothetical comment or the comment under discussion are a well-articulated threat (although yours comes closer than the original).
"
The original is a clear enough threat to me. It reads like the words of someone who is comtemplating something more than just being a keyboard warrior. I could be wrong (and I hope I am) but honestly, would it hurt for the police to door knock him and see if he's living with an arsenal of weapons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where is that written? There's no such thing. The concerns expressed are pretty clear. One: the comment is clearly hyperbolic and fits the subject of the article. Second: they are worried that such thing comes with needless gag orders that currently plague the justice system and against which many companies are pushing back. What seems somewhat clear to me is that TD will not comply blindly and will stand up to the user (appeal any decision to get the data about him to law enforcement) because they believe the comments are clearly not threats thus invalidating any order but that's how due process work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And clearly not for a whole lot of other people. But it's Techdirt that owns the platform and if they think an eventual subpoena is wrong then they should challenge it yes. And they should be able to do without excessive gag orders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I've already said, assuming that the police behave in a reasonable and professional manner, no, it wouldn't hurt. But that's not what we're talking about here.
What we're talking about here is due process. You seem to be taking issue with Techdirt for not only requiring a subpoena in order to disclose information but also for publicly discussing the issue.
I simply don't see the problem with that stance -- even if the comment at issue was actually a clearly articulated threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Looking at Whatever's behavioral history, if the above hypothetical scenario does actually happen, you can bet that not only will the police storm the fuck out of the location and shoot everyone in sight, but Whatever will be right there screaming his head off and flailing his dick in support, even if it turns out the police gunned down the wrong house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I went back and looked at the comments myself, and found this interesting.
Quoting "That one guy"
I imagine after a stunt like this they'll be looking not at demotion but promotion or a bonus.
Quoting "Digger"
The only "bonus" these criminals are likely to see ....
I could be wrong, but it sure looks like the bonus was directed at that one guy's sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you are wrong. That be no sarcasm... that be cynicism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So rather than tapdancing around the issue, perhaps you would want to add something to the discussion rather than just more ad hom attacks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or we could hang every dirty and corrupt state official along with their sympathizers by the lampposts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is simply not true. The first quote said that people on the government side "should have grand theft and / or larceny charges filed against them," which is not a threat of violence.
The second quote said that "a bullet to their apparently empty skulls" could be the consequence of their actions - by someone who is not the poster.
This is clearly hyperbole (and pretty ridiculous IMHO), and is clearly not a direct threat to the agents involved by the commenter.
No reasonable person would conclude that this poster was about to go out and shoot any of the agents involved.
Even if it could be interpreted as such, it does not rise to the level of a "true threat." For example, here's a quote that is much more of a "clear threat," this one against the President:
Yet this statement is not a "true threat," it is protected speech. The Supreme Court reached that decision in Watts v. United States.
Here's another example:
This, again, is protected speech. See NAACP. v. Claiborne Hardware.
Luckily for every single human in the U.S., this is not even close to the standard for investigating anyone. There is no way for anyone to know if any speech is "NOT the first step in doing something really bad."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: speech as the first step to doing something really bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CBP Agents are Criminals
Instead of attempting to silence commenters and perhaps Techdirt itself, I suggest the DHS seriously needs to clean up their act and stop stealing American's hard earned cash from them at traffic stops. In short, the CBP Agents need to obey the same laws against theft that they enforce on everyone else.
I especially suggest that the DHS immediately cease and desist from issuing bogus subpoenas in order to silence commenters they don't like. First of all, it will never ever work and second it will always result in the streisand effect with many many more comments the DHS doesn't like.
You yellow bellies at the DHS/CBP Agents need to man up so you can take an insult or two and most of all, stop stealing American's money at traffic stops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robery Charges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why DHS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why DHS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God Complex
Apparently the DOJ as a whole has adopted this philosophy - without the prerequisites - and expanded it to "We're better than everyone else, can do NO wrong, and, even if we do, we're above the law and untouchable." Where they got this concept, I have no idea, but it needs to change - fast. They're just asking for trouble when the general citizenry gets totally fed up with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: God Complex
They murder, harass and intimidate anyone that tries to stand up to them. All while being protected by the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Homeland Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You should have taken the opportunity to bug those assclowns about their illegal domain seizures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before they launch an attack they should check down the barrel of their guns , give it a good eyeball look and then pull the trigger ,you know to be sure it was loaded ....
if it was... Problem solved and oh job well done DHS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
or how bout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still part of my wanted to cheer on the original comment, on some gut level it struck me as karmically just for that to happen.
And I then the thought flashed in my brain: "I better not write that comment, because I don't want to risk being investigated by federal law enforcement. It would be a huge ordeal that could easily cause massive problems, even ruin my life, and there's an outside chance they could actually get an indictment or even a conviction! I shouldn't leave that comment."
That's a horrible thought. I was actually afraid to speak out about an important issue of public policy because of the threat of being targeted by law enforcement. That's evil. This is how democracies die.
So, as a gesture of faith in what is great about the American experiment: I also think it would be great if someone shot that scumbag cop in the head. It would be a blow for the both the fourth and first amendment.
How dare you make me have to think about that, DHS. How dare you turn simply expressing a political opinion into an act of courage. How dare you profane the most fundamental values of the very nation you swore to serve and protect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was "ALREADY" illegal for the government to remove 1st and 4th amendment rights.
Why in the fuck should we consider it a bad thing when someone says we need to violently fight back?
Everything, and I mean everything the Government does is a threat of violence itself. If you do not do what a cop says... you are threatened, if you do not follow the law, there is a threat of violence, if you do not pay your taxes there is a threat of violence.
So as citizens, there must also be a threat of violence when the Government breaks the laws as well.
So we really need to stop calling the people that retaliate against InJustice as the wrong doers here, those that breach "The People's" rights are the actual wrong doers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See Something, Say Something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HackerNews brought me here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The proper response.
But seriously, if a subpoena is served (and I'm skeptical that one will be), it's a slam-dunk case of abuse of process for the reasons stated in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inevitable Result
At the rate the U.S. Government is going, we will either end up like Germany in the 30's or we will be in the middle of the equivalent of the "French Revolution". Considering what I see in Idaho and Montana, the latter is far more likely. DC needs to wake up. Besides, I look terrible in brown.
We, as a nation, have survived based on a 240 year old document that has remained intact since the beginning. Somehow, WE THE PEOPLE have allowed that document to become distorted and insignificant. Yes, WE THE PEOPLE have ALLOWED this to happen. WHY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inevitable Result
Damn it, we've all got to get past our differences and unite under a common banner. To this end, I declare that we shall be known as the United People's Front of American States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example:
The only "bonus" these criminals are likely to see could be a an AIDS ridden dick jammed down their throat.
Or is that too outlandish to actually happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could I also suggest...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would perhaps be a reasonable assumption. I intend to post an update by the end of *next* week at the latest (would be this week, but it's a really busy week...). If there is nothing in the next two weeks... start asking. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just had a terrible thought.
What if they decided to get aggressive with a predetermined list of moderntarian forums to create a Strizand effect intentionally. Perhaps as a means of inciting a response that they could later use to paint everyone supporting alternative candidates as fruit loops?
It would be consistent with some of the counter punch political strategy we've seen lately. Maybe DHS cut a deal with Hillary Antionette? I wonder what she promised them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mmmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anybody else experiencing a downgraded HTTPS cert for techdirt today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]