9 ms·
Released from a gag order regarding a federal investigation into a silly comment
- Y_Y 5y agoIn my home country you have the constitutional right to visit a judge at their home to plead particular kinds of cases. All the same, threatening the judiciary is one of the most anti-social things you can do, and should be strictly policed. I don't know if trawling news comments is an effective way to do that, but I'm glad to know they're making an effort. A few false positives (appropriately handled) is a good sign of sufficiently high sensitivity.
- jaywalk 5y agoIn my home country (that I share with the US Marshalls) you have the constitutional right to express a desire for harm to come upon anyone or anything, regardless of whether it's a federal judge or not. It's worrying that a federal agency would do anything in regards to comments that are clearly protected by the constitution.
- rocqua 5y agoyou have the constitutional right to express a desire for harm to come upon anyone or anything Do you have a source for that beyond "the 1st ammendment"? This feels like the kind of thing that has an exception. I think "inciting violence" is not covered. Certainly, threats are illegal, not sure how veiled those threats need to be to circumvent that.
- lapsed_pacifist 5y agoIt's quite the other way around: threats must be very specific in order to not be protected speech in the United States. Saying 'let's burn this mother down' during a protest is protected speech, for instance. In general, the threat must be specific and imminent, such as 'let's go to that building right there and do $violence right now!' They have been mentioned several times in this thread, but you should consult Popehat's writings for in depth breakdowns of what is and is not protected speech.
- inglor_cz 5y agoThe doctrine is "imminent lawless action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action Pointing at a person during riots and screaming "Kill that muthafucka now" would almost certainly cross the threshold. Organizing an unofficial Wannsee conference to plan a genocide of $UNDESIRED_GROUP into details would not, even though the entire event would be a hatefest.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- narrator 5y agoIt's great that we have these laws and the U.S Marshalls to enforce them since a lot of jerks wind up in civil litigation because civil litigation is how one can deal non-violently with jerks who try and screw with people's businesses, and cause damage and harm. These jerks are used to getting what they want through intimidation and well... being jerks. Without this kind of protection, there'd be nothing to stop these jerks from getting their way through continuing their pattern of intimidation.
- kstrauser 5y agoWowsa, I know I’ve made comments like the one the US Marshal service investigated, along the lines of “I wouldn’t be surprised if ${victims of some injustice} didn’t start seeking vigilante justice”. Cory Doctorow wrote a whole novella (“Radicalized”) about the premise. It doesn’t mean I want someone to, because I’ve been to law-free places and hell if I wanna live in a Might Makes Right society. It means that I’ve read about the French Revolution and would prefer we identify when we might be going down that road so we can avoid it.
- phkahler 5y ago>> It doesn’t mean I want someone to... It means the thought crossed your mind with enough strength for you to post it. In almost all cases that's a big nothing, but it's a tiny breadcrumb that might start to look like something if there are a lot of them, or if you were to rant on about it in a thread. Its interesting to think about automating searches for actual threats or patterns that might be indicators.
- teawrecks 5y agoMy guess is that this comment was flagged by an automated system and only once someone reviewed it did they say "nah, this is nothing." > it means the thought crossed your mind...might start to look like something if there are a lot of them This doesn't make any sense. Thinking about worst case scenarios is normal. The person who is going to rob you is the one person who is definitely not going to tell you in advance that you're going to be robbed.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 5y agoAs one counter example the Christchurch murderer posted a manifesto in advance of his attack then livestreamed it, including before the first murder.
- 5y ago
- swiley 5y agoAt risk of attracting the attention of the US Marshals (whom I previously held in high regard): These kinds of stupid games will end in all political discussions happening over TOR with all the implications that entails.
- advisedwang 5y agoThe order was time limited, narrowly scoped. The comment was by no means a clear threat, but its also not unreasonable to interpret it that way. I don't really think techdirt has much to complain about here.
- jaywalk 5y agoThey have one very good thing to complain about: the comment very clearly violated no laws. TechDirt had the burden of preserving records and a gag on their speech placed upon them for absolutely no reason.
- cyanydeez 5y agodo you think, if i created a dragnet of internet comments threatening violence might happen in multiple forums across the internet, to varying degrees to silly to seriously contemplative? you think, perchance, they were actually looking at multiple comments from multiple sources presenting a pattern of behaviour by some pseudononymous potential plotter? people are so self centered and ignorant of these things,.
- Natsu 5y agoThe comment in question was: "Hell, eventually somebody might decide that it’s cheaper to pay a hitman to just cut a brake line or something than go through discovery in that judge’s court." It was in reply to a story about the founder of Silk Road being arrested for, among other things, hiring a hitman. In the Ulbrecht case, the hitman was a FED and was paid by Ulbrecht after giving staged photographic evidence of a murder. It looks like they were investigating whether this person was doing anything in furtherance of such a plot beyond just angry comments and wanted them to keep quiet while they investigated.
- shadowgovt 5y agoThat's a pretty standard burden for any org that hosts third-party speech to expect to have occasionally. I've worked at two places that had a legal hold SOP.
- brundolf 5y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoPeople really need to learn how to better express themselves. You can express displeasure without wishing for injury or harm on another human being.
- djrogers 5y agoNot sure if you read the same comment I did, but there was nobody 'wishing for injury or harm' here - it was an observation that someone might choose that path.
- owisd 5y agoIf a mob boss you owed gambling debts to tells you “Nice house, it would be a shame if something happened to it.” he can’t use the defence that it couldn’t possibly be interpreted as a threat because the precise syntactic reading of that statement is that it’s merely an observation.
- readflaggedcomm 5y agoWhen standards applied to TechDirt also apply to Twitter, then the world will be in upheaval. Until then, it's just a way to dox malcontents unsatisfied with the regime.
- vmception 5y agoI would like to see first amendment protections that limit what judges and courts can do. Since this doesn’t require Congress to “make no law”, while failing to limit the reach of the government. As a side note, I would also like to see greater protections for “commercial speech”.
- qixv 5y agoIs it really a gag order if it is a “preservation letter” from the US Marshalls? No court gave any order here, as far as I can read the article. What would have happened had they not complied?
- dredmorbius 5y agoMy read is that the order had both conditions: preserving records, and gagging against revealing the order.
- rocqua 5y agoThing is, can that gag order be imposed without a judge in the mix? It seems reasonable to require lawful gag orders to be confirmed by the judicuary, not just issued at will by the executive.
- dredmorbius 5y agoI don't know the operative law, regulation, or procedure here. Though gag orders are certainly imposed with some regularity in investigations and legal proceedings.
- cat199 5y agoIANAL but if the executive (e.g. police) can charge someone with obstruction of justice, i'd imagine they could reasonably issue an unofficial gag order irrespective so long as there is something under investigation..
- zerocrates 5y agoSo, there's another similar case mentioned here, but related to a Reason comment: with that one the government went and got a gag order from a judge. In this case, they just sent that "preservation letter" and in the letter said not to alert the user: Techdirt (somewhat reasonably) is portraying that as "effectively" a gag order. They didn't go on even to issue a subpoena here, and so they also didn't go get an actual gag order, but it's something they've been known to do.
- paulpauper 5y agoIt's almost as if comments are not worth the trouble
- brutal_chaos_ 5y agoOr we need more privacy. Like onion sites.
- djrogers 5y ago"To be clear, we have no legal department, let alone a subpoena compliance section of it. However, what we thankfully have is a very helpful Ken "Popehat" White on speed dial" Beautiful. For anyone not familiar with Mr White, his blog is worth a read. I can't imagine someone I'd rather not face off against as a gov't official making spurious demands. [0] https://www.popehat.com https://www.popehat.com [1] https://popehat.substack.com https://popehat.substack.com
- dredmorbius 5y agoDiscussions of merits of the investigation, burden of information retention and gag, and the threat-level imposed by the comment in the first place, what's highly evident to me is that gag + retention + investigation result in a much larger audience for an incidental comment then if no such orders had been placed. Streisand sings again.
- giantg2 5y agoWhy don't we address the incompetence and and misconduct rife in the judicial branch? That will cut down on the threats. One major issue is that everything is considered so secret that you can't subpoena past complaints even if they contain exculpatory evidence. That's right, they will protect the image of the judiciary even if it means letting an innocent person be found guilty. They reason that secrecy is the best way to preserve public trust in the judicial system. As anyone knows, that's just BS - transparency, or at least allowing subpoenas, would be the best way to ensure the proper actions are being taken. You can probably tell, but I've had some bad experiences with a magistrate and judge recently. Magistrates in my state aren't even required to be lawyers nor pass the bar...
- oliwarner 5y agoThis is deliberate, no? "This website's agitating negative feelings towards the Federal judiciary! Let's tie them up for three months. It'll fester in their staff's minds. Maybe they'll see it's easier to say nothing in future..." It's intimidation. I hope they push back harder than just writing about the incident. The initial investigation was entirely meritless.
- gtirloni 5y agoWhat do you propose they should do next to push back harder?
- praptak 5y agoI could tell you but then HN would get the subpoena.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- oliwarner 5y agoResist the preservation order? FOI the comms leading up to the preservation order? They'd probably shrug both off, but I guess there's an outside chance you get a good judge who sees right through the BS and orders them to fess up.
- mrcartmenez 5y agoI would be surprised if instead of going through discovery they... wait, no, no no no no no no no no
- bogwog 5y agoSo you're saying there's a conspiracy?
- AmericanChopper 5y agoUnless the facts in the article are fabricated, we can say for sure that members of the US Marshal service conspired to interfere with tech dirt’s business. Conspiracies happen all the time. It’s not a synonym for “something that isn’t real”.
- layoutIfNeeded 5y agoThis is why you're supposed to add "in Minecraft" at the end of every comment.
- mberning 5y agoRegardless of personal political leanings everybody should be concerned about the increasingly authoritarian actions of our government. What’s equally concerning is there is no shortage of people that will come out and defend this stuff, as long as it is being wielded against the proper target. Or in defense of a favorable entity.
- rocqua 5y agoSimilarly, I think there should also be concern about the increase in political violence. In this case against those holding high offices. The fact that both are going up is not a good sign. It actually really worries ne now that I think about it.
- logicchains 5y agoThe nation was founded on the principle "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". The question is whether an increase in political violence reflects negatively on the citizenry or negatively on the ruling class; political violence isn't necessarily immoral if the ruling class is sufficiently corrupt/authoritarian.
- krapp 5y ago>The nation was founded on the principle "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". No, it wasn't. That is a quote by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote about Shay's Rebellion - one man's opinion, not a foundational legal or moral principle, and not every founding father agreed with him. While Jefferson was sympathetic to the spirit of revolution that brought Shay's Rebellion about, he also condemned it as having been the result of ignorance. As is often the case with pithy quotes from the founding fathers, the speaker and their opinions are a lot more nuanced than the quote, stripped of all necessary context, is meant to imply[0]. As to whether an increase in political violence reflects negatively on the citizenry or negatively on the ruling class, Jefferson (a member of the ruling class, mind you) would likely have seen it reflecting negatively on the citizenry, as reading the letter in which the "tree of liberty" quote appears[1], it's clear that Jefferson draws a distinction between the necessity for the potential of rebellion and the commission of political violence itself. In fact, just before the quote you provided, Jefferson says the answer to such rebellions is to "set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them," not to support them on principle. [0]https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tree-liberty-quotation https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tre... [1]https://www.huffpost.com/entry/thomas-jefferson-and-the_b_273800 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/thomas-jefferson-and-the_b_27...
- tekromancr 5y agoIt's almost like the Marshals saw the comment, knew it was likely NOT a real threat; but sent a "Hey, hold on to that guy's info for a bit, just in case" letter. I am thinking if something HAD happened to that particular judge within 90 days of the comment being posted, they would be VERY interested in having a conversation with the commentor
- mrcartmenez 5y agoAgreed. It may not have been a direct threat but it was threatening.
- htk 5y agoThey had the chance to remove the comment, and they didn’t. Calling a comment that suggests “murdering the corrupt” silly doesn’t help their case.
- lapsed_pacifist 5y agoAn excellent example of overzealous prosecution over internet blog/article comments is the Reason magazine 'woodchipper' debacle. This WSJ article is a good place to begin reading, although Popehat did a lot of great work, and Reason covered the story a little bit after the gag orders and subpoenas had died down. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/reason-magazine-subpoenaed-over-reader-comments-on-silk-road-judge-1433865907 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/reason-magazine-subpoenaed-...
- zapdrive 5y agoPreserving 90 days worth of data could cost a lot of money in hard drives, backups, technical changes etc. Techdirt might have these resources, but a small blog might not. Hell, eventually somebody might decide that it’s cheaper to pay a hitman to just cut a brake line or something than go through the data preservation process for the US marshals.
- 101_101 5y agoLOL what a joke. That's why you should always use a VPN. also, judges are corrupt.