4 ms·

For or against Trump is an issue. He is the president. You cannot threaten the president and expect no action from the FBI and secret service.

brewdad 9y ago
Are you saying 1.3 million people directly threatened the president? Really? This is a dragnet plain and simple. Will they find a few threats? Probably. My guess is 1.299 million Americans will needlessly be harmed by this action.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  How will they be harmed? What do you suggest FBI should do to protect American interests? Will Google and other hosts block this website just like they are doing with neo Nazi domains? If yes, then probably FBI can rest. Otherwise they have to take measures that ensure the safety of America's elected president.
  - charonn0 9y ago
    The actions of privately-owned registrars are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      It's not irrelevant. What Google and go daddy did is tantamount to censorship. And that actually does prevent somebody from exercising free speech.
      - sixstringtheory 9y ago
        Private corporations and government are different, legally and philosophically. You won't be able to apply a law written specifically restricting the government to private citizens or corporations without a constitutional amendment. What Google and GoDaddy did was the private citizen equivalent of hearing someone else state their opinion, allowing the words to enter their brain, think about them, and then decide they do not espouse those opinions, so they will not go around stating them to other people as fact. That is not censorship, it's just good sense.
      - charonn0 9y ago
        Whether or not Google and Godaddy's actions are appropriate is a separate discussion from whether or not the government can compel political websites to disclose their visitor logs.
      - walterstucco 9y ago
        They did what they thought it's best for their platforms It's theirs, Google and Godaddy are not public libraries. I can't stop you from screaming pro Nazi propaganda on the streets But if you do it in my home, I kick you out. Simple as that
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > What Google and go daddy did is tantamount to censorship It is censorship (not “tantamount”), but censorship of the sort (private actors deciding on what views to promote with their own resources) that the idea of “free speech” in general, and the First Amendment in particular, exist to protect.
MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
Who threatened him? Nobody has been accused of threatening - the people who were arrested in the case at issue are charged with rioting. And even if one of the rioters had also made threats, how is getting 1.3 million ip addresses of visitors to the site that organized the protest possibly salient to that investigation? It's not a forum, there isn't going to be any further incriminating evidence on it. If the threatener visited the site, the went to the protest and made the threat, what exactly does the government gain by proving that he visited it?

brewdad 9y ago

Are you saying 1.3 million people directly threatened the president? Really? This is a dragnet plain and simple. Will they find a few threats? Probably. My guess is 1.299 million Americans will needlessly be harmed by this action.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dingo_bat 9y ago
How will they be harmed? What do you suggest FBI should do to protect American interests? Will Google and other hosts block this website just like they are doing with neo Nazi domains? If yes, then probably FBI can rest. Otherwise they have to take measures that ensure the safety of America's elected president.
- charonn0 9y ago
  The actions of privately-owned registrars are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    It's not irrelevant. What Google and go daddy did is tantamount to censorship. And that actually does prevent somebody from exercising free speech.
    - sixstringtheory 9y ago
      Private corporations and government are different, legally and philosophically. You won't be able to apply a law written specifically restricting the government to private citizens or corporations without a constitutional amendment. What Google and GoDaddy did was the private citizen equivalent of hearing someone else state their opinion, allowing the words to enter their brain, think about them, and then decide they do not espouse those opinions, so they will not go around stating them to other people as fact. That is not censorship, it's just good sense.
    - charonn0 9y ago
      Whether or not Google and Godaddy's actions are appropriate is a separate discussion from whether or not the government can compel political websites to disclose their visitor logs.
    - walterstucco 9y ago
      They did what they thought it's best for their platforms It's theirs, Google and Godaddy are not public libraries. I can't stop you from screaming pro Nazi propaganda on the streets But if you do it in my home, I kick you out. Simple as that
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > What Google and go daddy did is tantamount to censorship It is censorship (not “tantamount”), but censorship of the sort (private actors deciding on what views to promote with their own resources) that the idea of “free speech” in general, and the First Amendment in particular, exist to protect.

MaxfordAndSons 9y ago

Who threatened him? Nobody has been accused of threatening - the people who were arrested in the case at issue are charged with rioting. And even if one of the rioters had also made threats, how is getting 1.3 million ip addresses of visitors to the site that organized the protest possibly salient to that investigation? It's not a forum, there isn't going to be any further incriminating evidence on it. If the threatener visited the site, the went to the protest and made the threat, what exactly does the government gain by proving that he visited it?