Justice Department Takes Aim At Mean Commenters
Attention mean commenters: watch what you say or the Justice Department will hunt you down. Seriously! The U.S. Attorney in Nevada subpoenaed the Las Vegas Review-Journal to reveal the identities of two anonymous commenters whose statements could be read as mildly threatening to jurors involved in a tax case, if you've never read internet comments before.
The LVRJ originally received a federal grand jury subpoena on June 2 asking for the identities of every single commenter on a particular article posted to the newspaper's website. The article was about a federal tax fraud case against a local business owner, Robert Kahre, and a number of the comments on the story alluded to (or directly described) physical violence against those who might convict Kahre.
"The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on the jury who will convict him. They should be hung along with the feds," reads one comment on the story. Another commenter wagered a bet that one of the prosecutors would not live to see his next birthday. Newer comments, such as one posted today, read "Death to the taxman. Death to the jury.
The Justice Department says the subpoena was sought "out of concern for juror safety."
Despite the clear first amendment violation, we find this perfectly acceptable, and would gladly trade our banhammer for subpoena power. But this is why we don't work for the Justice Department. Oh well!
Feds want paper to cough up identifying data on commenters [Ars Technica]
(Photo: left-hand)
Post a comment
Comments:
Yes, the Justice Department takes death threats against federal juries as a serious matter... it isn't funny and has consequences. The "prosecutor will not live to see his next birthday" and "death to the jury" have definitely crossed the line.
@fantomesq: Yeah - the success of a criminal plan often hinges on telling as many people as possible as quickly as possible in as public a forum as possible.
Sorry Consumerist, you are wrong on this one. This is not a first amendment violation in the least. Just as you have no first amendment right to shout fire in a theater, you have no right to threaten a jury or prosecutor with death. Are the threats serious? Probably not. But if I was a juror on this case, I would be relieved these precautions were being taken. Especially since they legally won't even find out any of this was going on until after the trial is over and a verdict rendered.
It's not as if they are asking for the name of every commenter that disagreed with the case, just the commenters threatening violence.
Welp, I'm boned.
a clip of MTV's the State where they use the phrase "Wouldn't it be cool if somebody killed the president" (or an equivalent) and are then accosted by en in suits would be rather appropo here.
I LOVE THE GOVERNMENT AND ALL THE GOOD THINGS IT DOES FOR US.
@sirwired: According to the article, the Justice Department did ask for information on all posters and the paper said they would object on First Amendment grounds. Only then did the government tailor its request to the two commenters who threatened physical violence. I agree with the government here. If someone threatens to harm a juror or the prosecutor, that threat has to be taken seriously.
Wait till they find 4chan...
Roz the Comments Tzar eyes this article with particular interest and a feral gleam in her eye...
@fantomesq: Yeah, until reading the quotes, I thought that it was typical overreaction to the normal internet blowhard's yammering. But it wasn't.
Making specific threats to juries, officers of the court (or the President) has consequences. Especially these days where you've got idiots running around actually murdering people for half-cocked political "reasons".
@fantomesq: But the first comment? They should all be hung? That's a wish for harm against them, but that particular one isn't a direct threat against anyone. I guess I'm splitting hairs, but anyone agree?
@Jeremy82465: You'd trust beaurocrats to accurately assess your comment's level of sarcasm and arbitrairily determine your threat level to justify hauling you off to prison for a joke?
*note: this comment is not meant to be discriminatory or inflamatory in any way, please don't take me to prison!*
@sirwired:
You are completely right. You are not protected by the 1st Amendment when your speech threatens the safety of others.
@TheDayIsMine: Maybe the commenter meant "They should all be [a] hung [jury]", you know, so it'd be a mistrial.
@Trai_Dep: Ha! So true. One misstep, I tells ya...one misstep. Bam! Disemvowled. But I don't know how to do that in a print newspaper. Maybe they could disemvowel the comments in the next issue. Kind of like when they issue corrections and whatnot.
Oddly enough, the article makes it sound like the man's clearly guilty:
"A self-made entrepreneur, Kahre, 48, paid his workers in gold and silver coin, and said they could go by the coins' face value -- rather than the much higher market value of their precious metal content -- for federal tax purposes. He did not withhold taxes from their wages, and he provided the same payroll system to 35 outside clients, which were other local businesses."
@sirwired: Funny, I'm pretty sure not only do movies shout "fire!" in the theatre, but I have said the words "fire," "bomb," "help," and "run" during conversations prior to a movie's start time. So, since I've never been arrested for that, do first amendment rights just cut off at a certain decibel level?
No, you're very wrong on this. No one in the article threatened anyone. Saying "the jury should be hung" or saying you wonder if a jury member would survive to their next birthday does not constitute as a threat. How many people wondered if Obama would not be the target of an assassination attempt if he won the election? Should all those people be arrested too?
But whatever, please feel free to start your own branch of the Justice Department, the Overreaction and Bravado Agency. Your newly created OBA can be there to arrest drivers who get cut off in traffic and tell their fellow driver to drive off a cliff, or to quickly apprehend video game players who yell a heated message at a fellow gamer who betrays them in Halo. Hell, arrest the betrayer too, just for schnitz-in-giggles.
Are we still allowed to call people assholes?
There is also a recent case involving users on the discussion site, Topix.net, though the site itself is not blamed. A couple were charged with sexual assault and a torrent of posters made lewd and false remarks about drugs, bestiality and rape among others. The couple have successfully obtained the posters' names and brought the case to court.
The line between what you can or can't say is a thin one, but still clearly defined. For example (neither represents my view):
Not allowed: "People who kill their kids should be strung up, castrated, and executed with chainsaws, not guns. Save us the expense of having a trial."
Allowed: "People who kill their own kids should be tried, convicted and locked away for the rest of their lives, and executed if the law allows."
Unfortunately, some people try to push the limits of what can be said, and make insinuations while claiming it's an opinion.
@P_Smith: Following your lead, let me add my disclaimer that the following example statements don't necessarily reflect my opinions.
As a reader, I don't find statements about what should happen to be threats. They can be ugly, but they lack directness that would imply follow through (hence the threat).
Marvin says: "Drunk drivers should be shot."
vs
Marvin says: "I'm going to go out and shoot drunk drivers."
.
I find some of the comments in the OP unsettling, but others seem to be blown out of proportion. I take "the judge won't make it to his next birthday," to be a speculation. @Morte42 brought up Obama. How many people have said they suspect he will be assassinated during his presidency? Have they all threatened the POTUS?
@kateblack: The second hypothetical statement I posted is suggesting things be done within the law, which could never be misconstrued as a threat except by the most paranoid or demented mindset.
"Drunk drivers should be shot" could very well be taken as a threat or an elicitation for others to commit violence, or encouragement to do it by those who agree, especially in light of Scott Roeder's murder of George Tiller and the rhetoric of those called him "Tiller the killer" and a "murderer" for years before Tiller was murdered.
Only a few days after Tiller was murdered, a nutball fundamentalist preacher named Willy Drake openly said, "people should pray that 'god' kills Barack Obama". The argument will be "I wasn't advocating people kill him, only for 'god' to do it!" if some nutcase were able to assassinate Obama.
And yet, Richard Humphreys spent three years in prison for talking about a "burning bush", without actually advocating or threatening Bush, back in 2003....
@Coles_Law: Actually, I read the same article and got the complete opposite slant (from 'clearly guilty').
It would seem that what he was doing was technically legal. If one of our corporate overlords did this, we wouldn't even be hearing of it.
R.I.P. First Amendment.
@sirwired: You seriously don't see this as a First Amendment thing?
OK, then at what point does someone muttering "I ought to kill the bum" lose its 1st Amendment protection?
When I yell it at a football game?
How about after someone cuts me off on the road? No? But then if I go home and blog about it?
@H3ion: What bothers me is the initial request for the identity of everyone who posted. There is no reason to be hunting down someone who made a benign comment. That is the bothersome portion of this. Going after the ones who made specific threats is another issue.
Saying "x" needs to go to PMITA prison for life, deserves to be tortured by tiny kittens for the rest of their life is an opinion. Though a rather extreme one.
Stating something bad is going to happen to "x" or your going to do something to "x" is a more clear threat.
The justice department would have fallen over from exhaustion if they went after everyone who expressed ill will for Bush over the previous 8 years.
What I find more bothersome is the idea tossed around about trying to make everyone on the internet use their real name.
@Coles_Law: This would be the core of the whole issue. They business owner involved is likely a tax protester. The paying for things in certain alternate currencies is a common tactic they use. So the threatening comments in the article were likely from fellow tax protesters. Certain groups of these people have become a bit too crazy and are falling over the line towards violence. Many of the people in the tax protesters are also in the militias, tea party/patriots or waaay out there violent anti-abortion groups. The feds are a bit concerned because these groups in some places are cooperating and ratcheting up the rhetoric and violence.
My guess is the feds are all over this due to the above rather than going all brown shirt on internet commenters in general.
18 USC 1503 & 1504 cover this. Yes, you do have the right to free speech. You also have the RESPONSIBILITY to use it wisely.
§ 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is-
(1) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(2) in the case of an attempted killing, or a case in which the offense was committed against a petit juror and in which a class A or B felony was charged, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this title, or both; and
(3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.
§ 1504. Influencing juror by writing
Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.
Like roads, bridges, defense, the troops, weather service, cops, schools, teachers, air control, product safety, fire departments, protecting the environment, helping the poor and disable and aged, mail delivery, jails for dangerous people...you mean terrible things like that? Oh, I see.
@Steve McKnelly: Aw, why end the fun with all those facts n stuff? I was hoping to read more interpretations of the first amendment by the "IANAL, but" set.
I guess I should go cut the lawn now.
@P_Smith: Oh, I've been in some heated debates about Roeder (and O'Reilly) after the assassination of Dr. Tiller.
With incidents like that, there was an ongoing harassment/stalking which is more threatening than a flippant remark. There's also a difference of how seriously an audience will take such a remark -- is it the audience of someone with a nationally syndicated radio show, or the audience of disinterested commuters passing some nutjob on a subway soapbox?
I don't want threats to be culturally sanctioned, but some of these interpretations of what constitutes a threat alarm me. Freedom of speech exists to protect unpopular speech, not the speech that everyone finds comforting and noncontroversial.
One or more of those comments (e.g. predicting that the prosecutor won't live to see his next birthday) don't appear to be threats; they are acknowledging from the average citizen's point of view, that organized crime is alive and well in NV, and may well impact the outcome of that trial. The DOJ may not appreciate comments speculating on its failure to control organized crime, but the fact is, the threat comes from organized crime; not the commenter.
I agree that each one of those comments was stated irresponsibly--even when interpreted in the best light possible. However, if you are an average citizen who feels the jury or prosecutors could be harmed or even murdered, how DO you say it, without having someone in government interpret it as a veiled threat?
Government intrusion on free speech. although the people that make these types of statements are not that bright anyway. Most of us disagree with government interference in our lives, I can agree that stupid statements made by
stupid people should be questioned esp. in a public forum.
This is like hurting someone then bragging about it to your bar buddies. Smart people do what needs to be done then forget it happened........The tax people have to much power and should be more accountable to the public that pay them their salary........
@P_Smith: Why can't someone say the first one? It's a generalized opinion, not a direct threat against a person.
@H3ion: I noticed that as well . The authorities should just asked for the posts in question . And that's another problem . I think at least one of the 2 posters is actually hoping for the elimination of taxes and that people who don't agree with that are ignorant - which is their right as disagreeable as the comment may seem .
How many times has somebody shook a fist in anger say somethig like " I could kill em " or " I am gonna do certain things in one of your orafices " and yet this is accepted .
@Morte42: saying them in conversations is different than screaming at the top of your lungs, "FIRE!" when there is no fire....see panic ensues, people get trampled, etc etc etc.
I think it's one of those NOTHING on the internet is private things. You want to joke about killing juries over some beers in your back yard, fine. Put it on the internet, not fine.
The Justice Department is like a lot of government agencies. They do the opposite of what their name says.
@savdavid: your husband hits you, but he's nice to kittens and helps old ladies cross the street.
so *that's* all right!
@fantomesq: I agree. You can't take a cell phone into court in my jurisdiction (federal or state) on the off chance you might snap a picture or a juror and use it to threaten them. Lawyers generally are allowed their phones, but in high-profile cases, they even confiscate them from the lawyers.
@TheDayIsMine: I think you're right about the first comment, but the feds are very touchy on the topic. Once I was running some documents to the federal courthouse, and I didn't have my bar card and had forgotten I was carrying my phone. They asked me at security if I had any electronic devices (to turn over/put in the lockers before I went in) and I said, "Oh, crap, I forgot I do have my phone" and reached for my pocket ... and got guns pulled on me. (Now this was a couple days after a particular security alert for threats on this courthouse, but I didn't fit the profile and I really don't look threatening.) They take this shit seriously.
And honestly, I find it hard to feel *real* bad for people who use the anonymity of the internet to be a douchebag and make threats/racist comments/whatever that they'd never dare to say in public, with their name attached, or to someone's face. Cowards.
Well I'm not sure the Las Vegas paper is going to be able to supply anything other than the IP address where the posts originated. If it's like my local paper, they ask for a name and email address before you're allowed to post comments on articles, and we all know how real those need to be.
So they'd also have to go after the ISPs to track down the source. Even then they're dealing with businesses and households full of adults and kids all sharing the same IP and maybe the same computer. Course that doesn't stop the RIAA, does it?
@sirwired: It really needs to be added that the "fire in a crowded theater" thing dates from an era before effective fire departments, fire codes, etc., when stages were lit with oil/kerosene lanterns, theater fires were common and extremely deadly (because theaters often had only one door for the public and one for the actors, and these were typically locked during the performance), and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater typically led to several deaths by trampling.
Go shout "fire" in a crowded theater today and people will move in a somewhat panicked but generally orderly fashion towards the clearly marked and well-lit fire exits, having participated in mandatory fire drills for their entire lives. Someone will pull the alarm, the fire department will come automatically, and the sprinkler system will kick on. You're still going to get in trouble for criminal mischief and property damage (from the sprinklers) and the false call to the fire department, but it's really, really, REALLY not the same thing as when the court used the phrase originally.
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Or they'll look around, see no evidence of fire and just one idiot who's annoying the rest of the patrons by shouting "fire!"
@Trai_Dep: For once I agree with you. I tend to think that you wouldn't view this issue the same way three years ago, however.
If someone suggests that they'd like to see a hung jury, does that count as a threat?
@Bobby Smith: I would agree. However, it appears the comments have been removed from the original article. So we don't have a way to see if there was a genuine threat, or a misinterpretation.
@Coles_Law: That sounds like an interesting hair to split - it's illegal to pay for things (and I assume labor as well) using gold however, if memory serves, and I would guess that's where the charges are coming from.
I for one, welcome the S.W.A.T. teams dragging trolls out of their dimly lit dens.