Posted on 06/10/2015 5:18:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Libertarians are up in arms this week after the Justice Department served subpoenas to Nick Gillespie’s Reason Magazine over comments left on their web site by anonymous readers. The commentariat buzz in question erupted over an article dealing with the life sentence imposed on Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. This has prompted some outraged cries from observers such as Bloomberg contributor (and former Reason editor) Virginia Postrel, who described the move as stomping on free speech. Powerline’s Steven Hayward (coincidentally also a former contributor to Reason) wonders aloud whether the Justice Department attorneys are just stupid or possibly working in league with Rand Paul.
When we look a bit deeper into the details of the case, however, the outrage might be just a tad premature. The comments in question seem to go a fair ways beyond the normal opinions – or even blatant trolling – that you find in comment sections across the web. Keep in mind that the subject of their ire is a federal district judge. And the “criticism” of her included suggestions that she be fed into a wood chipper or taken out back and shot.
The question here is whether these nasty missives constitute a “true threat” to the life of the judge. For a reliably expert look at the situation, we can check in with Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy for the details. He and Ken White start off by concluding that it’s probably not a case of a true threat, but rather the typical, acidic venom which is frequently spewed by upset, anonymous readers.
For reasons White explains, the comments almost certainly do not qualify as “true threats” against the judge. They are, rather, the kind of nasty and stupid vitriol that is all too common in anonymous comments on the internet. For example, one of the commenters wrote that “judges like these… should be taken out back and shot,” another opined that “I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman,” and a third replied that “I’d prefer a hellish place on Earth be reserved for her as well.”
Nasty stuff, indeed. To put it mildly, comments such as these are hardly valuable contributions to public discourse. But if federal prosecutors investigated every similar anonymous comment on the internet, we could probably devote the entire federal budget to hunting down these types of blogosphere trolls, and still not find them all.
Fair enough. But he goes on to note that you can’t just turn a blind eye, either.
White also notes that, under current judicial precedent, federal prosecutors likely have the authority to seek a subpoena in cases like this. But even if this practice is legally permissible, it is still ill-advised. In addition to wasting substantial resources that could better be devoted to investigating real crimes, it is unlikely that this power will be used in an even-handed way
Both Somin and White go on to talk about the potential “chilling effect” on free speech and I won’t discount that entirely, but we seem to be rushing past a few key points here. First and foremost is the fact I pointed out above. We’re talking about a federal judge here. And while it would be nice to pretend that our system of justice treats everyone in the nation as a society of equals, we all know that’s not true. You can make threatening sounding comments like that about the idiot who cut you off in traffic or one of the writers here at Hot Air, (thanks, guys!) and you probably won’t find the Men in Black knocking on your door. But if you write anything that sounds like a threat against the life of the President, you’ll find yourself in line for some very special attention. There’s a reason we ban anyone here who does that and this policy is fairly uniform across the professional side of the web.
Further, there’s actually a valid reason for this. Taking any human life is evil, but when you go after an elected official, a cop or a judge, you are attacking the system of justice and the rule of law which keep us from falling into anarchy and oblivion. It’s a serious thing and law enforcement treats it as such.
I also have to wonder how much some of these protests are grounded in the way we tend to poison the well of free speech protection based on who the speakers are threatening. Would we all be rushing to the defense of both the magazine and the rights of the commenters making the threats if they were implying that they were going to go chop off Pamela Geller’s head? Assuming the writer turned out to have no history of violence, is that just free speech? Or were they possibly on the cusp of having been turned to the dark side by jihadist web sites and videos? That’s a pretty tough call to make for the layman, but would you deny the DoJ the chance to figure out who they were and how serious there intents might be?
Apparently the Silk Road founder is a rather sympathetic figure in Libertarian circles. (And that’s for reasons which completely escape me.) But that shouldn’t matter. If you did some digging I wouldn’t be surprised if there had been threats from enraged community organizers leveled against the judge who found Officer Brelo not guilty in Ohio last month . And if there were, should we decry a subpoena issued to investigate the people penning them?
Threatening to feed somebody into a wood chipper isn’t free speech. And every once in a while the person writing it will actually turn out to own a wood chipper. Perhaps we shouldn’t be setting our hair on fire over these subpoenas just yet.
Clearing browser cache could indeed be obstruction of justice, but the standard should be very, very strict. The government should not only have to prove the cache contained evidence of a crime, but the user cleared the cache with the clear intent of hiding said evidence. Problem is, the government is going after people who weren’t even knowingly obstructing justice.
I also think the nonsense about lying to a government official needs to be ruled unconstitutional. Freedom of speech covers lies, too.
Unless you always use it from a public wifi area, the recorded IP address in Facebook's log files will point back to your home or office (or wherever you post from).
Yeah. I don’t do it to hide from the government. I do it to hide from nutcases. If one wants to hide from the government it’s a simple process, but I suspect it would be hard to have the discipline to actually DO. It would go something like this:
1. Pay cash for a laptop with wifi, new or used.
2. Get a full set of clothes (and maybe a pillow to enhance your “gut” under your shirt). Also, “Buddy Holly” style glasses, with or without lenses.
3. Use a free wi-fi connection not near your home to set up any accounts you need, using bogus info for all of them. If you drive there, do not park within two blocks of it (minimum).
4. Store the clothing, the laptop and any other hardware at a storage facility.
5. Avoid using the same wi-fi spot twice and randomize the paths to the various wi-fi locations.
6. Never, EVER access any of the online info with any of your “real” computers, and never, EVER access any of your real information with this laptop. The mindset would be that the owner of the laptop is somebody that does not even know you or hang around the circles you do.
7. Change your vernacular - the way you communicate. Don’t use phrases you normally use. Mix it up.
And for extra credit, if you are REALLY paranoid, park a couple of miles from the free wi-fi and bicycle, hitchhike or use public transportation. And changing your clothes somewhere in transit is even better.
The above steps completely prevent you from being traced both electronically and physically. The “disguise” even prevents you from being tracked on various surveillance cameras. And if you are attracting “their” attention, you probably want to change costumes from time to time. Even a “fake” beard and wig may be in order.
But you would have to be up to something really bad to have to go through all that trouble. I bring up this list only to point out just how vulnerable we are to someone that is crazy enough to be really serious about all this stuff.
The hard part would be the discipline. And it would be. Most criminals are caught because they can’t keep their mouth shut.
Except that nuances always exist, and laws must address them. Do you agree that free speech isn’t unlimited? If communicating a threat is considered limited speech, how does one determine what is and is not a threat? That’s where you get into nuances.
According to the article, this wasn’t just one comment posted in a moment of anger. It was a series of posts. At some point, I think a reasonable person would feel threatened—honestly scared for their life. Would you be OK if posts like that were about you and your family? I wouldn’t, and frankly, I don’t know why conservatives would waste any time defending scumbag posters like that.
So? She is a judge. That does not make her immune to criticism or even over the top rhetoric. In fact this is the very reason freedom of speech is listed in the bill of rights. To criticize judges and other political animals.
If the comments were as presented then they do not, according to the police in any city I have lived in, constitute a threat.
Threatening to feed somebody into a wood chipper isn’t free speech.
"She should be fed into a wood chipper" is different then "I am going to feed her into a wood chipper".
One is a threat, one is free speech.
If you can not tell the difference then you need to go back to journalism school.
Just to be clear, I’m talking only about keeping crazy liberals from finding me. If it really was the Gov I was worried about, I’d do what I describe in the post above this one.
I have nothing to hide from “them” however.
Stasi.
Libertarian, but I completely understand your confusion. Libertarians aren't astute enough to realize Libertarian policies evolve into Liberal policies.
Bkmrk.
I already told you my opinion on what represents a threat and what does not.
And none of the vitriolic statements listed in the article struck me as rising to the level of an actual threat.
I also did not see anything in the article that indicated a single person had made a “series” of threatening posts. If I simply missed it, perhaps you would be kind enough to post the part of the article in which such a claim is located?
I “defend scumbag posters like that” because I believe in REAL freedom of speech - but please do not make the mistake of assuming that my defending them means I agree with what they are saying.
I clear everything every time I shut down,daily.Just a habit
Pay cash for the storage facility.
why not drive around and look of un unsecured home net work?
Nasty stuff, indeed. To put it mildly, comments such as these are hardly valuable contributions to public discourse. But if federal prosecutors investigated every similar anonymous comment on the internet, we could probably devote the entire federal budget to hunting down these types of blogosphere trolls, and still not find them all.
...
Jazz left out the worst comment.
Once they tie the computer to the storage facility, it doesn’t matter how you paid for it. It’s game over.
But they will not be able to ties the storage facility to you.
What was the worst comment?
why not drive around and look of un unsecured home net work?
It was when we had recently moved and were waiting for the cable guy to install our internet connectivity.
The only concern I’d have with the neighborhood option is there are more and more security cameras at private residences.
if you don’t secure your network its fair game security cameras or not signal is floating around in the atmosphere
But they will not be able to ties the storage facility to you.
The KEY to this being “foolproof” is that the laptop is not connected to the storage facility. Well, that and you follow all the rules regarding electronic connectivity.
It’s why you turn the laptop OFF after use.
Oh, and there is one thing I forgot: DO NOT take your cell phone with you. It’s the easiest way for them to track you.
If they know that a certain post was done at Starbucks at 4th and Jones at a specific time, they can subpoena the cell tower records for that area and get the phone number of every phone that was pinging the tower. The second place you do it from will nail you because they will do it again and compare the cell phone number lists. Any numbers that are on both lists will be their “short list”. And one of those numbers will be yours.
And if the two locations are far apart or in lightly populated areas, yours may be the ONLY number that comes up.
If you have to use a cell phone, use what drug dealers use: a Trakfone. They actually throw them away after only a little use. At least the guys at the top do.
BTW, the reason I know this is that I worked with the law enforcement relations part of a major cell phone company. Nothing I’ve posted is “secret”. It’s just not commonly known.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.