Be careful: "Post online comment? Feds want your name"

[SgtJES]

Big Brother out of control?....here they come!
"A federal prosecutor in Nevada is trying to get the names, telephone numbers, IP addresses and possibly even the credit card numbers of newspaper readers who participated in a forum about a tax protest case... "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101348

[Vaard]

actually no..... the correct title should have read:

"Post online comments threatening violence against the government and govenrment employees? Feds want your name"......

for some reason, the feds take violent threats against their emplyees seriously........

[CrusaderFrank]

Post a comment stating your desire to defend you life, liberty and property...

[zantax]

actually no..... the correct title should have read:

"Post online comments threatening violence against the government and govenrment employees? Feds want your name"......

for some reason, the feds take violent threats against their emplyees seriously........


Gee, that didn't used to be the standard and is not supported by case law, last time I checked a threat was not actionable unless someone had taken concrete steps to carry it out, otherwise it's just free speech.

[SgtJES]

actually no..... the correct title should have read:

"...the feds take violent threats against their emplyees seriously........

Feel free to quote a threat from the article.

[avergbear]

Post a comment stating your desire to defend you life, liberty and property...

There will be two IRS agents at your home tomorrow morning. Please have your last 5 years tax records, and supporting documentation, ready for examination.

[pattyk]

go to a Tea Party......

[animalnut]

Gee, that didn't used to be the standard and is not supported by case law, last time I checked a threat was not actionable unless someone had taken concrete steps to carry it out, otherwise it's just free speech.

Exactly. That's why they couldn't do anything about the whacko that killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum last week. He had threatening statements on his website, and a lot of hate, but an agent said they could not do anything about it for the reason you stated.

[Residential Bob]

Gee, that didn't used to be the standard and is not supported by case law, last time I checked a threat was not actionable unless someone had taken concrete steps to carry it out, otherwise it's just free speech.Very soon, we will not be able to post what we want to on line, as this case indicates.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

actually no..... the correct title should have read:

"Post online comments threatening violence against the government and govenrment employees? Feds want your name"......

for some reason, the feds take violent threats against their emplyees seriously........
Thread killed in second post. That's getting pretty common around here.

[Vaard]

Feel free to quote a threat from the article.

The time will come for WAR against this criminal US Government. They have changed the laws for their own good. I call out to all our Military branches to take over our government now!

[avergbear]

go to a Tea Party......

I’ll guarantee you there are cameras with facial recognition capability monitoring these events.

[simssk]

"hinted" threats of action - sounds like the "hinted" threats of terrorism at the tea parties from those wicked, violent right wing conservatives.

This is just the beginning. Those who mock... lets see what you say in the next couple of years.

[Mike88]

actually no..... the correct title should have read:

"Post online comments threatening violence against the government and govenrment employees? Feds want your name"......

for some reason, the feds take violent threats against their emplyees seriously........

Gee, where the hell were they during the 8 years of Bush? Did you ever see what was written daily at the DU? Wait, of course you did since you are a long time member there.

They could have arrested every member of that forum at one point or another with open calls for the assassination of Bush, which the DU mods would delete posts by people saying its not a good idea to talk about assassinating Bush. (clarify: the mods deleted the posts of people disagreeing with the assassination of Bush. the post about assassinating Bush were not deleted).

[Mike88]

Thread killed in second post. That's getting pretty common around here.

Far from it slappy. Go back to playing dolls or something.

[zantax]

from http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-01/43-threats-of-violence.html

Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

But I knew this was coming, this adminsistration can't afford free speech be allowed.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Far from it slappy. Go back to playing dolls or something.

Perhaps you people should actually do a bit of research before posting idiot threads.

[Residential Bob]

actually no..... the correct title should have read:

"Post online comments threatening violence against the government and govenrment employees? Feds want your name"......

for some reason, the feds take violent threats against their emplyees seriously........The title of the OP is sufficient. Some people posted on-line comments. Now someone from the federal gubmit thinks the federal gubmit ought to have their names.

[zantax]

The time will come for WAR against this criminal US Government. They have changed the laws for their own good. I call out to all our Military branches to take over our government now!


Guess what, you just typed that, by your reasoning you just broke the law, or can you point to an exemption for it not being an original statement?

[Impenitent]

joe the plumber was never investigated

booooooooooooooooooossssssssssssshhhhhhhh!!!

[zantax]

Justice Stewart in the Watts case...

While our Alien and Sedition Laws were in force, John Adams, President of the United States, en route from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Quincy, Massachusetts, stopped in Newark, New Jersey, where he was greeted by a crowd and by a committee that saluted him by firing a cannon.

A bystander said, "There goes the President and they are firing at his ass." Luther Baldwin was indicted for replying that he did not care "if they fired through his ass." He was convicted in the federal court for speaking "sedicious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States" and fined, assessed court costs and expenses, and committed to jail until the fine and fees were paid. See J. Smith, Freedom's Fetters 270-274 (1956).

The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters, and I had thought we had done with them forever.

[zantax]

Sorry Vaard...I just read the article. No threats....lots of pondering "what if's"....certainly nothing implying an actual threat.....lots of obvious humor...

I am curious Vaard...this is noit a partisan issue......you are OK with a government official using his or her position to get private info on people that wrote what I just read in the article?

DO you not see that as a major step toward loss of freedom of speech...seeing as much is based on how this is perceived and not at all based on obvious threats?


I wonder if it is retroactive to every liberal who said anything similar over the previous eight years because well, would there even be a democratic party left at all?

[Tulsa]

To protect everyone, looks like Sean needs to move his server to the Bahamas.

Then he could write off the trips as maintenance! :D

[Jíbaro]

Big Brother out of control?....here they come!
"A federal prosecutor in Nevada is trying to get the names, telephone numbers, IP addresses and possibly even the credit card numbers of newspaper readers who participated in a forum about a tax protest case... "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101348

Isn't it amazing, how Leftists are always overeager to enforce SPEECH RESTRICTIONS?
It is no accident.

[zantax]

See Brandenburg V. Ohio

Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who "advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence "as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who "justify" the commission of violent acts "with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism"; or who "voluntarily assemble" with a group formed "to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime [395 U.S. 444, 449] in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action. 3
Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. 4 Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.


Was this overturned? I think not.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I won't get into discussing the law here, because there isn't much of anything to establish precedence

I will, however, point out that NO ONE FROM THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE has mentioned that the eeeeeeeviiiiiiiiiillllllllllllll ACLU is defeding the FORUM POSTERS

The ACLU of Nevada was outraged, posting a comment on the same forum: "In the ACLU of Nevada's view, the subpoena violates the important First Amendment rights of anonymous commenters. We at the ACLU of Nevada have always fought for the fundamental right to engage in anonymous political speech and we want to protect the rights of anonymous commenters."

[zantax]

I won't get into discussing the law here, because there isn't much of anything to establish precedence

I will, however, point out that NO ONE FROM THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE has mentioned that the eeeeeeeviiiiiiiiiillllllllllllll ACLU is defeding the FORUM POSTERS

Not much precedence? On the first amendment? Are you serious?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

So you have no problem with gpovernment taking what you say, interpetting it other than the way you meant it, and thereofre being allowed to come to yoiur house and question you.

In other words...you have no problem with having to be careful with every word you use.

LMAO....the hypocrisy....you are not held responsible for signing a contract you dont read....but you are responsible for someone else mistakenly reading into what you say.

Interesting.

Try this...go out to a park, shout out that you're going to kill the president, and see how long it takes for the Secret Service to show up.

[zantax]

Good thing liberals weren't in charge at the beginning of this country, Poor Richard (Ben Franklin)would have been thrown in jail.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Not much precedence? On the first amendment? Are you serious?
Not much precedence as it relates to "internet speech"...and I WOULD point out that whoever runs the board would be well within their rights to turn over any information requested. It IS, after all, a private message board, just like this one.

[CutRunSurrender]

actually no..... the correct title should have read:

"Post online comments threatening violence against the government and govenrment employees? Feds want your name"......

for some reason, the feds take violent threats against their emplyees seriously........

actually no...... the correct title should have read:

"Cite WorldNet Daily? The state medical board sends you to the funny farm."

[zantax]

Try this...go out to a park, shout out that you're going to kill the president, and see how long it takes for the Secret Service to show up.

Really? I just finished watching two song videos, "Die Bush Die" and "George Bush Must Die' on youtube, I'd link them but some of the comments are unsavory. I wonder if the posters names were subpoenaed? I didn't read about it anywhere.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Really? I just finished watching two song videos, "Die Bush Die" and "George Bush Must Die' on youtube, I'd link them but some of the comments are unsavory. I wonder if the posters names were subpoenaed? I didn't read about it anywhere.

I don't know if they were publicly subpoenaed, but I'm sure the Secret Service probably paid them a visit.

[nebcon]

Gee, where the hell were they during the 8 years of Bush? Did you ever see what was written daily at the DU? Wait, of course you did since you are a long time member there.

They could have arrested every member of that forum at one point or another with open calls for the assassination of Bush, which the DU mods would delete posts by people saying its not a good idea to talk about assassinating Bush. (clarify: the mods deleted the posts of people disagreeing with the assassination of Bush. the post about assassinating Bush were not deleted).

Gee where were all of you when some of us were saying the same thing about the PA and other expansions of government power....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?_r=2&hp

Whatever...

[nebcon]

Sorry Vaard...I just read the article. No threats....lots of pondering "what if's"....certainly nothing implying an actual threat.....lots of obvious humor...

I am curious Vaard...this is noit a partisan issue......you are OK with a government official using his or her position to get private info on people that wrote what I just read in the article?

DO you not see that as a major step toward loss of freedom of speech...seeing as much is based on how this is perceived and not at all based on obvious threats?

See my previous post....

[zantax]

Gee where were all of you when some of us were saying the same thing about the PA and other expansions of government power....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?_r=2&hp

Whatever...


Because wiretapping terrorists and locking up Americans for legal free speech is the same thing...

[nebcon]

Because wiretapping terrorists and locking up Americans for legal free speech is the same thing...

I take it you didn't read the article before posting that.

[PSBandit]

I am sure the ACLU will protect us... :eek:... :sick:... :)) :liar: :))

[zantax]

I take it you didn't read the article before posting that.

Sure I did, they can collect those posting to their hearts content, using them to prosecute anyone is a different kettle of fish all together.

[nebcon]

Sure I did, they can collect those posting to their hearts content, using them to prosecute anyone is a different kettle of fish all together.

What I meant was the article link I posted. All of the concerns over civil liberties and government power expressed about these posters, sounds very familiar. and no it should be crystal clear by now that it wasn't and isn't just terrorists.

[SgtJES]

actually no...... the correct title should have read:

"Cite WorldNet Daily? The state medical board sends you to the funny farm."

That's queer, WND simply reports news from other sources.