We Are Being Spied Upon and Freedom of Speech is Gone

a reply to: DJW001
We mostly agree. But don't you think authorities should have been able to determine that these were not sincere threats? I begrudgingly accept that a cursory investigation may have been warranted in this case, but criminal charges?? That's where it starts looking less like police work and more like muzzling to me.

It's no stretch to say millions of Americans could be imprisoned using this as precedent.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

I don't see any mention of criminal charge actually being filed. If they are, it is to send a message that the Justice Department looks after its own, so don't make stupid threats against it.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

For someone to comment that someone should be taken out back and shot is encouraging violence against judges, and could also certainly be interpreted at the very least as a veiled threat, if not a direct threat. I would say people do have the freedom of speech but if while using their freedom of speech, they directly put someone at risk of being harmed, its fair to take action against the person putting them at risk of harm. In this case the judge directly participated in harming a person very severely, so it may be a bit hypocritical to then go after someone else for merely mildly increasing the risk of harm for another person. I believe the comment was generally fair to say, but the action taken against it was also fair due to the circumstance that the judge actually believed his own nonsensical and barbaric actions are the moral high ground.

I agree with the posts saying it is a waste of resources to pursue the commenter, especially when the worst case is that the commenter will just repeat the same remark only for millions of people to hear it on TV if they chose to stand by the remark instead of retracting it. What Reason and the government parties involved would best do is simply have the comment deleted, which probably already happened. By perusing this further than that, it can only play into political opponents of the judge. But, not on grounds of freedom of speech, but just on the grounds of pointing out how immoral the judge was when he sentenced someone to life for pressing buttons on a keyboard in a way that brought people the products they wanted and have a human right to consume in any way they see fit.

a reply to: wayforward

Your position is very reasonable, but, again, the real issue is about setting a precedent. The Internet is an entirely new world, and it has no natural or established laws. Silk Road was not an ordinary enterprise, it served to connect individuals with organizations engaged in criminal activities beyond merely supplying contraband. These organizations frequently committed murder and trafficked human beings, so the judge was consciously trying to extend international law into the virtual world.

Saying "someone should be taken out back..." is not a threat--it is an
opinion. Saying "I am going to take somebody out back" is a threat.

Still, not a very good example of protected speech, as it could be charged
as "incitment to do harm or riot".

It is sad, but also inevitable, that our US Bill of Rights is morphing right
before our very eyes--just like the wall on Orwell's Animal Farm.

One day it will be gone...and we will be a nation of sheep shorn to the
short hairs and awaiting the slaughterhouse