5 ms·
How the Government Stifled Reason's Free Speech
- normand1 11y agoThis story has huge implications for the internet. Even if you don't agree with Reason's politics the outcome of this case may affect you in the future.
- ikeboy 11y agoTangentially related because it's mentioned in the article: >Gillespie noted that Forrest "more than threw the book" at Ulbricht by giving him a life sentence, which was a punishment "beyond even what prosecutors...asked for." https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/266723681?access_key=key-8ofmA9JPKsBtU2QwNWE5&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/266723681?access_key=key-8... >Given the enormous quantities of drugs sold on Silk Road, in combination with other aggravating factors, Ulbricht’s recommended sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines is life imprisonment, with a 20-year mandatory minimum due to his conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 848. The Probation Office, too, recommends life imprisonment, finding “no factors that could overcome the severity of the instant offense.” (PSR at 38). As set forth below, in light of the seriousness of the offense and the need for general deterrence, the Government believes that a lengthy sentence, one substantially above the mandatory minimum, is appropriate in this case. You could sort of read that as saying they recommended a life sentence.
- asift 11y agoIs it normal for sentence recommendations to be that vague? I certainly see your point, but why say "substantially above the mandatory minimum" if your recommendation is actually the maximum?
- asift 11y agoFor anyone looking for more analysis of the alleged threats, Popehat's article is a good read. http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/department-of-justice-uses-grand-jury-subpoena-to-identify-anonymous-commenters-on-a-silk-road-post-at-reason-com/ http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/department-of-justice-uses-gra...
- cactusface 11y ago> "Its (sic) judges like these that should be taken out back and shot." And, "Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first." These are not clear death threats, but what benefit to society is there from speech that advocates murder?
- asift 11y agoThe government already oversteps their bounds in issuing subpoenas to investigate "threats" that aren't truly threats. It's hard to say where they would draw the line if given authority to police general hyperbole.
- cactusface 11y agoSo we need to allow murder advocacy because the government might make a mistake in identifying it?
- mikerichards 11y agoIt's questionable that these comments were murder advocacy as opposed to political hyperbole. But in any case, the slippery slope of interpretation would be a stifling of free-speech.
- cactusface 11y agoIronically, "slippery slope" is the name of the logical fallacy you are making by not admitting a middle ground.
- nate_meurer 11y agoFortunately, the First Amendment doesn't limit its protection to speech that "benefits society". For then the question would become, who decides which speech benefits society? The answer to that question is not likely to be you, or anyone you can trust.