[HN Gopher] Released from a gag order regarding a federal invest...
___________________________________________________________________
Released from a gag order regarding a federal investigation into a
silly comment
Author : awnird
Score : 109 points
Date : 2021-07-23 18:47 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techdirt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techdirt.com)
| advisedwang wrote:
| The 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.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| they just wanted a story.
|
| also, its more likely the us marshals were trying to connect
| the dots on more straightforward threats and this comment ended
| up in the drag net.
|
| so if you think internet threats are a big deal, then the
| effort going into documenting those potentiak threats are still
| important and juzt becausw they observed a false-positive
| dowsnt mean the us marshalls went overboard.
|
| the end basically just confirms there was nothin in that
| specific comment.
|
| maybe if they dug deeper, like a journalist would, they would
| illuminate what the actual broader activities were.
| meroes wrote:
| You think as part of some larger dragnet it just happened the
| US Marshals called them the next day?
|
| If it's a a dragnet, they aren't calling about every single
| post in under 24 hours of it occurring unless the
| investigating team is absolutely gargantuan.
|
| Your explanation really doesn't make sense because it's the
| wrong one.
| BryantD wrote:
| I'm fairly concerned about stochastic terrorism, but I'd
| disagree about that comment. Reading it in context, I'd say the
| author has some inaccurate views about how often people will
| turn to murder rather than pay court fees, but... it's not the
| same thing as saying "someone should do X."
| dredmorbius wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur.
| ..
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| > The phrase is commonly used in modern-day contexts to
| express that a ruler's wish may be interpreted as a command
| by his or her subordinates.
|
| I think we can all recall at least one recent incident of
| this happening.
| tekromancr wrote:
| I think I get what you're getting at, but I see a pretty
| big difference between a random internet comment and a
| person of actual power saying "Ayyy, it sure would make me
| happy if so and so just, ya know, got taken care of"
| dredmorbius wrote:
| When the identities of random internet commenters are
| difficult to establish, and may themselves represent
| larger interests or entities, there's some concern with
| that viewpoint.
| jaywalk wrote:
| They 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 wrote:
| do 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 wrote:
| The 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.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "...but its also not unreasonable to interpret it that way."
|
| In the absence of other evidence, I would say that it is
| unreasonable to interpret it as a threat. I mean, what's next,
| arresting people for murdering a video game character on the
| assumption they would do that in real life?
| brundolf wrote:
| I don't think they complained super hard here, and the
| transparency is good regardless.
|
| But I agree: of all the law enforcement oversteps that we see
| in this country, this case barely registers.
| giantg2 wrote:
| How can a small company complain?
|
| Unless you have tens or hundreds of thousands for a multiyear
| lawsuit, you're screwed. I recently had a trooper violate my
| wife's civil rights. I had a lawyer tell me it was a
| violation, but it wasnt worth standing up for ourselves
| because the judges don't care about cases unless there was
| extensive monetary loss.
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| This is why you're supposed to add "in Minecraft" at the end of
| every comment.
| mberning wrote:
| Regardless 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 wrote:
| Similarly, 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.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| People really need to learn how to better express themselves. You
| can express displeasure without wishing for injury or harm on
| another human being.
| djrogers wrote:
| Not 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.
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| When 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 wrote:
| I 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".
| djrogers wrote:
| "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 [1] https://popehat.substack.com
| giantg2 wrote:
| Why 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...
| htk wrote:
| They 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.
| Y_Y wrote:
| In 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 wrote:
| In 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 wrote:
| you 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.
| [deleted]
| narrator wrote:
| It'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.
| qixv wrote:
| Is 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?
| foxyv wrote:
| Most likely prosecution for destruction of evidence if the
| Marshalls could be arsed.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| My read is that the order had both conditions: preserving
| records, and gagging against revealing the order.
| rocqua wrote:
| Thing 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 wrote:
| I don't know the operative law, regulation, or procedure
| here. Though gag orders are certainly imposed with some
| regularity in investigations and legal proceedings.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Discussions 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.
| tekromancr wrote:
| It'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
| oliwarner wrote:
| This 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 wrote:
| What do you propose they should do next to push back harder?
| bogwog wrote:
| So you're saying there's a conspiracy?
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| Unless 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".
| kstrauser wrote:
| Wowsa, 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 wrote:
| >> 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 wrote:
| My 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]
| mulmen wrote:
| As one counter example the Christchurch murderer posted a
| manifesto in advance of his attack then livestreamed it,
| including before the first murder.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| It's one of those scale-dependent things. As a rule,
| history's greatest atrocities didn't originate in secret.
| From the Communist Manifesto to _Mein Kampf_ to the PNAC
| charter, the architects were not shy about telling anyone
| who would listen exactly what they thought should happen
| or what they planned to do. It 's fair to place the
| Christchurch shooter in that category.
|
| At the other end of the spectrum, it seems that people
| who go online and rant about how someone should shoot the
| President or cut a judge's brake lines or whatever are
| the least likely to follow through. They aren't exactly
| the movers and shakers of civilization, more likely just
| thoughtless kids or random loudmouths. Wasting law
| enforcement time on nonspecific threats is the sort of
| thing a government that has too much power tends to do.
| mulmen wrote:
| Wasn't the Christchurch shooter known for ranting online
| in advance of his murders?
|
| Did he not say exactly what he was going to do, then do
| it?
|
| I don't see what scale has to do with it.
|
| I also don't see how an absolute statement like "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." can be believed. It only takes one
| counter example.
|
| This is a thread about anticipating crimes based on
| online commentary, something that could absolutely have
| flagged the Christchurch massacre.
| markdown wrote:
| > Christchurch murderer
|
| Because only brown people are terrorists, amirite?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| paulpauper wrote:
| It's almost as if comments are not worth the trouble
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| Or we need more privacy. Like onion sites.
| swiley wrote:
| At 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.
| xupybd wrote:
| I don't think they are stupid games. It's a policy they are
| forced to enforce. Good intentions turned into law often turn
| into bizarre actions from government departmens..
| Forbo wrote:
| Assuming that chilling effects aren't an objective all their
| own....
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-23 23:00 UTC)