Federal prosecutors buckle on pursuit of blog commenters
We read:
"Last Friday in my blog “Kahre’s Prosecutors Are Going Nutso,” I blogged about the abusive subpoena that federal prosecutors had served on the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The newspaper had published a news story about the trial of Robert Kahre, a Las Vegas businessman who is on trial in federal district court for paying his workers in gold and silver coins at their face value. The feds are prosecuting him for tax evasion notwithstanding the fact that federal law stipulates that the coins are legal tender.
After the article appeared on the newspaper’s website, dozens of people began posting critical comments about the prosecution, the Federal Reserve, inflation, and debasement of the currency.
Those comments obviously upset the prosecutors, who served the newspaper with a grand-jury subpoena demanding that the paper produce the “name, date of birth, physical address, gender, ZIP code, password prompts, security questions, telephone numbers and other identifiers ... the IP address” of the people who posted the comments. (It’s not clear whether the prosecutors secured the permission of the grand jury before issuing the subpoena or whether they simply filled out and issued the subpoena without approval from the grand jury.)
As I suggested in my blog post, somebody needed to get word to these prosecutors that they’re operating here in the United States, not in the Soviet Union or Burma. Here, the fundamental rights of freedom of speech are still recognized, as reflected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Well, somebody might have done that because the prosecutors buckled and issued a revised, much narrower subpoena.
What happened first is that the newspaper announced that it intended to fight the subpoena. Then the ACLU jumped into the fray by announcing that it would be willing to represent for free any of the people who posted the comments in an action to quash the subpoena.
According to a news article in today’s Review-Journal, the prosecutors then reduced the scope of their subpoena to encompass only two people who posted comments. According to the Associated Press, one commentator stated, “The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on the jury who will convict him. They should be hung along with the feds.” The other commentator wagered a bet that one of the federal prosecutors would not reach his next birthday.
Obviously, the prosecutors are feeling that such speech is subject to federal criminal prosecution.
Source
On past precedents both comments would be protected. Expressions of opinion are not incitement to violence.
8 comments:
The ACLU on the right side of something. How strange. Stormewaters
About the only thing they could get him for is not paying the legislated minimum wage.
Big Brother is Watching....
Comments like that go beyond expression of opinion. They are (and should be treated as) threats to life and limb.
Whether intended as such or not, these people threatened others with death. That's a serious thing to do and should carry repercussions.
If someone threatened me with my impending death I'd call the police too and have criminal charges filed. At the very least the person making the threats should be investigated in order to ascertain that there is no actual threat, putting them behind bars for a while would also be a good idea, to safeguard the life of the person they threaten.
Jon, i have to disagree with you on the posted comments made by the two bloggers. Yes, there "may be" a First Amendment issue involved here, but their comments come "very, very" close to physical threats. Threatening violence and/or physical harm, or inciting others to commit such acts is a crime. (like in, "inciting to riot"?)
Annon 3:44 and 5:14... you couldn't be more wrong. Saying someone needs to be hung is a figure of speech. No one would be complaining if I said "Child molesters need to be hung". I am not calling on anyone to go out hanging anyone and I am not saying I intend on hanging anyone. If you 2 are so simple minded that you would hear or read my words and go out and do it....not my problem.
As for the wagering that the prosecutor wouldn't make it to his next birthday...that is just stupid. Again, I could say "I bet that child molester doesn't make it to his next birthday"... THAT IS AN OBSERVATION NOT A THREAT!!! You could come to that conclusion by watching others behavior and come to the conclusion they might off the guy. It certainly is not a threat by the commenter. 3:44, IT IS EXACTLY AN EXPRESSION OF OPINION!!!!
We cannot base the world on the least common denominator otherwise no one could speak at all without the fear of threatening or offending someone.....you 2 are morons....free speech is free speech, it is not free speech until someone gets their feelings hurt!!!!!
Threatening violence and/or physical harm, or inciting others to commit such acts is a crime. (like in, "inciting to riot"?)
As Anon 6:12 pointed out, you couldn't be more wrong. For the charge of "inciting to riot" to stick, the incitement must be immiment and direct. You can incite to riot in a crowd. You cannot incite to riot in a newspaper.
The second point has to be the scope of the subpeona. Notice that the DA went after EVERYONE that made comments in the thread - not just those who made what were perceived as threats. There is no way that such a broad and overreaching subpeona cannot be seen as quelching legitimate speech, even if that speech is anonymous.
If the DA wants to go after those who make threats, then let him. Instead he chose to throw out a large net to try and stop any amd all disagreements with him in this prosecution.
That's not only contrary to the law, but morally and ethically despicable as well.
It seems dangerous let the government punish or even hinder people's freedom for things that were "close to being a threat".
Offering a bet, even making a bet, seems similar to setting up payment for a hit, but the difference is that the person is not being paid to actually commit the murder. Also the person is not claiming he will commit a murder.
Saying that someone "should be hung" is just a statement about one's moral beliefs. It is not a command to anyone to actually hang anyone.
If we start making these types of statements punishable, we lose the fluidity of communication. People should not be afraid to state moral opinions, or even legal opinions that the government does not like.
If we hold our ground will we find that criminals will also hold out, when dealing with other criminals and refuse to agree to a deal without it being explicitly agreed to ? I don't know.
If i am ever in the position of not being likely to make it to my next birthday, I want it to be legal for people to inform me of this fact, as it may save my life. I don't want them to be afraid to warn me, because such statement are wrongly treated as threats by the law enforcement.
The way to fix these problems is to make it so that the law prosecutes and punishes law enforcement EVEN WHEN they make such mistakes in good faith.
The way things are currently run, they simply do not have enough incentive to understand the law.
It seems harsh, but remember such measures will protect a lot of good law enforcement personell too, from their less scrupulous peers.
Post a Comment