Justice Department Orders Website To Turn Over Names of Commenters…

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS

DOJ_gavel(Via Vice)  The Department of Justice has ordered libertarian website Reason.com to turn over the information of six commenters after they made threats against the federal judge who presided over the Silk Road trial.

Ken White of the blog Popehat obtained the grand jury subpoena issued by the Department of Justice last week, which demands “any and all identifying information” the website has pertaining to the threatening commenters. This includes email addresses, telephone numbers, IP addresses, and billing information associated with the accounts.

The subpoena targets users who commented on an article published on May 31st regarding a letter from Ross Ulbricht, the creator of online drug market Silk Road, pleading for leniency ahead of his sentencing for charges surrounding the site. The comments appeared after Judge Katherine Forrest gave Ulbricht two life sentences for his crimes.  (read more to see the threats)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Big Stupid Government, Death Threats, Dept Of Justice, Police action, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to Justice Department Orders Website To Turn Over Names of Commenters…

  1. BobNoxious says:

    While concerning (and I believe the Supreme Court just ruled on a similar case re: arrests for Facebook threats), it’s never advisable to threaten a federal judge. Just don’t do it. Federal judges have been killed in the past by psychos, so I understand the concern- although the privacy issues are also a concern.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Daniel says:

      Okay, you’re safe. No one will ever read anything else you’ve written online right?

      To know precisely the nature of the “threats” would be useful to know. There are lots of ways government can define threats and not all of them would I agree with. “I’m gonna kill XYZ” sure — that’s a kind of threat. Not quite sure where it would be on the spectrum of things. I saw a pretty disgusting picture of one of those beheadings where Obama’s face was put into the picture — cannot be unseen. It was pretty horrifying. As awful as it was, a part of me wondered “…if he saw it and what he thought of it?” I mean that image might be considered a threat even though I tend to liken it to “hey, what if you were in THEIR position? How would you like it then? You insensitive uncaring bastage!”

      But I agree. It’s idiotic to state your wishes, thoughts or intentions like that. But criminals tweet their crimes all of the time. It defies the mind how stupid people can be.

      Like

      • michellc says:

        That’s why I said that about taking out to the wood shed or tarred and feathered. I doubt seriously anyone who has ever said either had plans to go grab a congresscritter and take them out back to the wood shed or was going to tar and feather them, but it could be considered a threat.

        Like

      • BobNoxious says:

        Read the article and you can judge the threat for yourself…..

        Like

        • bertdilbert says:

          They do not look like serious threats to me at all, just people expressing their thoughts. Shame tax dollars are being wasted on this and LE time. To me it would have to contain something more specific to follow through on.

          The tweets on the McKinney pool do however warrant further investigation because they were more specific beyond thought expression.

          Liked by 4 people

          • czarowniczy says:

            Bureaucrats reinforcing their power positions never consider $$ spent on doing so a waste. Even if they lose they scare the hell out of those who watch the attempted lynching.

            Like

            • bertdilbert says:

              I am guessing they must have more serious threats that they are trying to tie to somebody by using the data.

              Like

              • czarowniczy says:

                Or just have inferences that can be stitched together with thin threads that they can use to shut someone up. They don’t have to actually have a hammer, just make you believe they’ll smack you with one. Everyone’s got some piece of dirt in his/her background and they don’t have to have it, just enough pieces of dust to make you think they might.

                Like

      • ImpeachEmAll says:

        Brings to mind some people associated with Baltimore.

        Like

      • Kitty Smith says:

        It all depends on who is being ostensibly threatened. Nothing is done about threats to maligned individuals like George Zimmerman, Officer Wilson because they’re not part of the protected elitists. The panthers can threaten lots of people and nothing is done. Voters can be threatened and nothing is done. But make semi-threatening jests about someone in the ruling class and suddenly such things become serious and worthy of investigation. It’s sickening. Nobody should seriously threaten a judge, and telephoning anyone or their staff or mailing it to someone would make it a legitimate threat. But the people of that forum were just blowing off steam indirectly. This is ridiculous. There’s no indication of a direct, real threat.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      Bob, I concur with your post concerning Federal Judges. Though, these Judges are part of the political class, it’s not wise, or healthy to threaten Federal, State, and Local Judges. Now as for my exercising my 1st Amendment Rights, I always direct my comments towards those who deceive the electorate during their quest for re-election, or election promising a chicken in every pot.

      Like

    • MouseTheLuckyDog says:

      How dare you suggest that we not be allowed to threaten judges?
      Don’t we want a judiciary as high quality as Mexico’s or Colombia’s?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Exactly. Judges are the backbone of civilization – even (or maybe especially) the softies. The murder of judges is a threat to everything the founders stood for. Even a realistic threat of attack degrades respect for law and order unacceptably, to those of us who think twice about trips to Mecico.

        That much said, if I was a judge, I’d laugh like h377 at some libertarian geezer saying I should be thrown into a wood chipper. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the First Amendment spinning true.

        I trust judges – even Clinton appointees, in all their long-haired foolishness. I don’t trust any DOJ under this administration.

        Like

        • Josh says:

          I believe MouseTheLuckyDog forgot the /sarc tag.

          “I trust judges …” With any respect that is due, my friend, I say that is a very foolish statement.

          Liked by 1 person

    • archer52 says:

      There is a line and people should be aware of it. Sadly, with technology and the feds total disregard for legal limits I am afraid this will not be the last time you see this. Eventually, we will all be living is some version of the Hunger Games.

      Right now, the ability to isolate and target is in the government’s favor, but even it has limits- as several recent events have proven. They rule only because a civil society allows them to rule. It is a pretty elastic relationship allowing for a lot of abuse. But sooner or later, it will be the sixties all over again, but this time it won’t be the hippies in the street it will be mom and pop Kettle and their ilk.

      Especially when the voice of dissent is destroyed. People should always be allowed to complain. Shut that down, stop listening and they get real frustrated real quick.

      Then it will get real interesting.

      Liked by 6 people

      • QuadGMoto says:

        That reminds me of some dialog from Serenity (the Firefly movie):

        Mal: “Define ‘interesting'”

        Walsh: “Oh God, oh God, we’re all going to die?”

        That’s why it’s so crucial to try to fix these problems before we get to “interesting”.

        Like

  2. manickernel says:

    Got a feeling this is going to backfire.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Watch out people..

    Liked by 2 people

  4. michellc says:

    How many of us have ever said a congresscritter needs to be taken out back to the woodshed or tar and feathered? I guess that is a threat now.

    I just read something in my e-mail that a bill signed into law in 2002 makes it possible for the government to charge you with a crime for deleting browsing history.

    Like

  5. stella says:

    I would definitely not approve a comment threatening anyone – whether credible or not – and I would delete any I saw after they were posted. Putting aside the privacy issues, please THINK before you hit the “Post Comment” button.

    Am I surprised that blogs are being monitored? No, I am not.

    Liked by 9 people

    • Sentient says:

      It’s ok to wish that xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, right?

      Like

      • stella says:

        NO.

        Liked by 1 person

      • yankeeintx says:

        According to the recent Supreme Court ruling, that is not a threat unless you actually intend to strike him with lightening. Wishing and threatening are not the same 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

        • czarowniczy says:

          Yes, but that doesn’t stop the DoJ from judge-shopping to find one who’ll sign a warrant to get the names of all on the blog – or even putting up a ‘trap’ to snare the readers who do not comment. A little whipping through grand jury and suddenly you’re contributing to the Clinton or (watch this spot for future announcements) Obama Foundations and writing songs to honor their accomplishments. The judge makes the initial determination of whether it’s wishing or threatening (‘Yo honor, might a ‘wish’ be a disguised ‘threat’?) and a grand jury determines if the Sanhedrin gets a crack atcha.

          Like

        • QuadGMoto says:

          IMHO, it’s okay to hope that God acts to remove an evil person, or that the evil person is removed via legal means. That’s a desire for justice. It’s an entirely different and illegitimate thing to desire to take the law into your own hands and commit your own act of evil.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Burnt Toast says:

    Please at least skim the Popehat link.

    And, too that I have to add,

    delete…

    delete…

    Further comment withheld as I am feeling a bit chilled.

    Like

  7. wizzum says:

    Does the 1st amendment mention anything about anonymity? I would not post anything that I would not gladly stand up and say in public.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. PatriotUSA says:

    Reason.com is an interesting site. You can bet DOJ will not stop with just Silk Road blather. Feel safer now comrades, hail the stasi!!! Red diapers in sizes for all.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. sundance says:

    Notice too who is seemingly not concerned about this DOJ demand. The liberal left.

    Hands down, democrats and far-left liberals are some of the most violent people on the internet, without question. Yet from them? Nothing.

    Why? Because they are totally ok with government control of comment content. It’s part of their DNA strain. The left is also in power; this is a Democrat DOJ directive – so they cannot go against Dear Leader’s authority.

    Everything you ever needed to know about liberals, their ideology, and their beliefs carried out to their logical progressive conclusions, is encapsulated within this story.

    Liked by 8 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      And, the CTH. Continues to champion the law. Regardless of the media spin. There is no other refuge left. Now the CTH becomes the last refuge of law and order. Law and Order.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      As Ms. WeeWeed would say: “Thread Winner”!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hitler was a saviour to a great vocal majority of Germans. Those who were not so stupid soon learned that to keep their mouth shut was to preserve their lives and the lives of their families.
      The Progs ARE the new SS. 100%, Sundance, 100%.

      Liked by 2 people

    • yankeeintx says:

      And any names given out can also expect to be audited by the IRS, expect a visit from the ATF, and the FBI. Just ask Catherine Engelbrecht.

      Liked by 3 people

    • czarowniczy says:

      That’s because the liberals see this as a personal victory – they’re too flat out dumb to realize the ‘progressive elite’ who are doing this would/will use it against them when.if the need be. The bait never sees itself as a possible main course.

      Liked by 1 person

    • MouseTheLuckyDog says:

      Actually the left has been paying attention, but it’s not the black lives matter and they should get all free stuff left. it’s more the high-tech, superlibertarian, all drugs should be legal stoner left that has been making noise. So it’s not surprising TCTH would not see much of it.

      Like

  10. Hank Rearden says:

    Nothing quoted in that story was a threat. They were all (hyperbole) opinions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • QuadGMoto says:

      IMHO, they were dancing really close to the line. That they did so in defense of internet communications intended to facilitate even highly illegal (and immoral) activities clearly didn’t help.

      Like

  11. doodahdaze says:

    The DOJ is in panic mode.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. doodahdaze says:

    Like

  13. cozmosss says:

    This is bad news for the commenters there, but AWESOME news for all of the hate comments at the Huffington Post, Salon.com, and all the other liberal hate sites. They can now file orders to get the IP’s of the people that threatened conservatives.

    Like

  14. doodahdaze says:

    Then when all seems lost… Ya never know. Have we been kast out? Or are we Outkasts.WE ARE THEM AND THEY ARE US. THIS WHOLE RACE THING SUCKS. WE HAVE TO JUST BE GOOD PEOPLE. Obama is dividing us. I have had my butt saved by blacks in other country. They are not bad people. I hate this division. I HATE it.

    Like

    • canadacan says:

      Then when all seems lost you never know good for you Doodah.
      You must stick to the fight when your hardest hit especially then you must not quit.
      I have to remind myself constantly

      Like

    • Sharon says:

      Just yesterday you said that they were all communists and needed to be dealt with as such.

      To quote you:

      Blacks are communists. Blacks are communists! Repeat 1000 timesYes, they are. Until this is realized….welll. notahproblem.

      There is no reason to make everything about race.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. thesouthwasrght says:

    Eventually we’ll all get that dreaded knock……or flash-bang. Be it tax issues, “hate speech” violations, associations, farting thus causing global warming, refusing to install a device in our vehicles or a chip in our bodies we are all in line. Given the current direction of the country it is inevitable.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Stephen says:

    Remember back when the Democrat-socialists pretended to be so sensitive on the topic of free speech that they’d knit their brows over even the possibility of a “chilling effect”?

    Ahhhhh, the good old days!

    Liked by 2 people

  17. czarowniczy says:

    Uh hu, they look for reasons ti ID, threaten and silence those who don’t toe the propaganda line. Problem is that the definition of the term ‘threat’ is more subjective than objective, you see the word ‘threat’ one way and the Star Chamber royals quite another. All it takes is a pliable judge who agrees that something someone said when looked at in just the right light at just the right angle, especially when viewed in light of the Fed’s self-serving needs is a threat. That trail may not result in a guilty conviction but the huge monetary costs it ran the hapless target are ruinous, if not close to. Doesn’t end there either, your family, friends and neighbors are all subject to guilt by association and harassed top pieces.
    The power to govern is the power to destroy unless the governed retain control of their government. People who wouldn’t think twice about controlling their dogs just let their elected officials run wild – go figure. Don’t be surprised if the dogs gone feral bite the hand that feeds it.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Ross Ulricht’s mother did an interview with Reason.tv and discussed the Constitutional violations surrounding her son’s prosecution for establishing Silk Road. Ulricht was sentenced to life in prison. It is pertinent to this discussion. Ross was an ardent libertarian. Whether he was actually guilty of what the government accused him is irrelevant. How the government prosecuted his case, in part, is not.

    I think it is a cautionary tale, and well heeded. Be aware.

    Like

  19. mihipte says:

    How many times do we have to see this play out? High school kids keep getting hit with this on Facebook. The commenters might as well have called in requesting a subpoena.

    Who was reading libertarian sites and decided this was out of bounds? Is this a day job? Is Judge Forrest obsessed with comments? Hi, Your Honor!

    And what’s Reason’s reaction? I hope they find a way to legally say no.

    We need a way to put data beyond the reach of the long arm of the law. Encryption and foreign storage help, but good luck getting all the companies on board with that.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Wizardman says:

    Any “threats” against Scalia, Thomas, or Alito on “progressive” websites after Citizens United Supreme court decision??? I would surmise multiple- but were any of them investigated, and were the websites subpoenaed???

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Mr. Right says:

    Anyone remember this public speech from a gang leader, that went like this

    “Burn this bitch down, BURN THIS BITCH DOWN!!!”

    And not 10 minutes later the city is burning at the end of the people that listened to him….

    That guy was untouched by the FBI or local police.

    So, if those guys are Black gang leaders, I don’t think they have anything to worry about.
    Because it would be racist to go after them, since they are just expressing their feelings.

    But if they are white, they are clearly terrorist, and should be ready for multiple lifetime sentences ?

    Like

    • Depends. Who is a greater threat to the current regime? [Bats eyes and grins, her does, lol]

      Emotive, snarky and violent are shades of the new “green”. Logic is so passe. /s

      Like

  22. Les says:

    Like

  23. Attorney says:

    You. Shall. Comply.

    Like

  24. D S Craft says:

    I’m disappointed you would characterize the commenters statements as threats against the judge. They were not. Statements such as ‘she should be taken out back and shot’ clearly do not indicate an intent by the commenter to find the judge, take her out back, and shoot her, ie. a threat. Reason should tell Justice to go pound sand on First Amendment principles and let it go to court. They should easily win.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Stephen says:

    “Reason Magazine Subpoena Stomps on Free Speech”
    By Virginia Postrel (past Reason editor)

    …Venting anger about injustice is not a crime. Neither is being obnoxious on the Internet. The chances of one of these commenters being convicted of threatening the judge are essentially nil. Conviction isn’t the point. Crying “threats” just makes a handy pretext for harassing Reason and its commenters.

    Full article: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-09/reason-magazine-subpoena-stomps-on-free-speech

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Pingback: Justice Department Orders Website To Turn Over Names of COMMENTERS… | The Silent Soldier

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s