http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ree-speech
Wielding subpoenas demanding information on anonymous commenters, the government is harassing a respected journalism site that dissents from its policies. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York claims these comments could constitute violent threats, even though they’re clearly hyperbolic political rhetoric.
Eh, 1st Amendment, who needs it, right?
More info including text of subpoena:
http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/departmen ... eason-com/
Reason Magazine Subpoena Stomps on Free Speech
Re: Reason Magazine Subpoena Stomps on Free Speech
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/gover ... les-speech
For the past two weeks, Reason, a magazine dedicated to "Free Minds and Free Markets," has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena that court sent to Reason.com.
The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.
Yesterday, after preparing an extensive legal brief, Reason asked the US Attorney's Office to join with it in asking that the gag order - now moot and clearly an unconstitutional prior restraint - be lifted. This morning, the US Attorney's Office asked the Court to vacate the order, which it did. We are free to tell the story for the first time.
For the past two weeks, Reason, a magazine dedicated to "Free Minds and Free Markets," has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena that court sent to Reason.com.
The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.
Yesterday, after preparing an extensive legal brief, Reason asked the US Attorney's Office to join with it in asking that the gag order - now moot and clearly an unconstitutional prior restraint - be lifted. This morning, the US Attorney's Office asked the Court to vacate the order, which it did. We are free to tell the story for the first time.
Re: Reason Magazine Subpoena Stomps on Free Speech
What were their comments? What were they talking about? It was obviously a right wing hate site filled with people that hate our government. I see hate filled comments online all the time. You have to say something juicy for them to come after you like that. I didn't see what they wrote listed anywhere in the story.
Since the text isn't listed I have to make up my own scenario. The guys were talking about killing a judge and discussed how to go about doing it. The Feds were alerted to it or were already keeping an eye on the place and wanted to check these guys out. I can see a gag order to prevent site from tipping off the guys while the Feds investigated.
I see nothing but a few extremists making threats about a judge and authorities wanting to check into it. Suppose they do kill the judge and the Feds did nothing about it before hand even though they knew about the threats? Then it would be Benghazi II and investigation after investigation into how it was possible we allowed a judge to be killed when we knew their were threats against his life before hand. Such incompetence by our government.
There are limits to free speech. Threatening judges is a limit I endorse.
Since the text isn't listed I have to make up my own scenario. The guys were talking about killing a judge and discussed how to go about doing it. The Feds were alerted to it or were already keeping an eye on the place and wanted to check these guys out. I can see a gag order to prevent site from tipping off the guys while the Feds investigated.
I see nothing but a few extremists making threats about a judge and authorities wanting to check into it. Suppose they do kill the judge and the Feds did nothing about it before hand even though they knew about the threats? Then it would be Benghazi II and investigation after investigation into how it was possible we allowed a judge to be killed when we knew their were threats against his life before hand. Such incompetence by our government.
There are limits to free speech. Threatening judges is a limit I endorse.
Re: Reason Magazine Subpoena Stomps on Free Speech
The comments are listed in the Popehat link above and are referred to several times in the various other links. One of them was a sarcastic remark referring to the wood-chipper scene in the movie "Fargo", another literally said, "I hope she burns in hell." Very actionable. 
Here is the legal analysis of Internet "threats" in this aspect:
"True Threats" are those threats that are outside the protection of the First Amendment; they are not mere political hyperbole or bluster. For instance, in 1967, when Mr. Watts said that if he were drafted the first man he'd want in his rifle sights was President Lyndon B. Johnson, that wasn't a true threat: it was conditional political hyperbole. In other words, it was mere angry bluster of the sort no reasonable person would take to be a serious threat.3
What of these comments on Reason.com, then? I submit that they are very clearly not true threats — that this is not even a close call.
True threat analysis always examines context. Here, the context strongly weighs in favor of hyperbole. The comments are on the Internet, a wretched hive of scum, villainy, and gaseous smack talk.4 The are on a political blog, about a judicial-political story; such stories are widely known to draw such bluster. They are specifically at Reason.com, a site with excellent content but cursed with a group of commenters who think such trash talk is amusing.
The "threats" do not specify who is going to use violence, or when. They do not offer a plan, other than juvenile mouth-breathing about "wood chippers" and revolutionary firing squads. They do not contain any indication that any of the mouthy commenters has the ability to carry out a threat. Nobody in the thread reacts to them as if they are serious. They are not directed to the judge by email or on a forum she is known to frequent.
Therefore, even the one that is closest to a threat — "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot" isn't a true threat. It lacks any of the factors that have led other courts to find that ill-wishes can be threats.
Reason is a libertarian site, BTW, LOL. Nice knee-jerk reaction to call it a right-wing hate site. IIRC about 2/3 of their editorial staff voted for Obama in 2008.
Here is the legal analysis of Internet "threats" in this aspect:
"True Threats" are those threats that are outside the protection of the First Amendment; they are not mere political hyperbole or bluster. For instance, in 1967, when Mr. Watts said that if he were drafted the first man he'd want in his rifle sights was President Lyndon B. Johnson, that wasn't a true threat: it was conditional political hyperbole. In other words, it was mere angry bluster of the sort no reasonable person would take to be a serious threat.3
What of these comments on Reason.com, then? I submit that they are very clearly not true threats — that this is not even a close call.
True threat analysis always examines context. Here, the context strongly weighs in favor of hyperbole. The comments are on the Internet, a wretched hive of scum, villainy, and gaseous smack talk.4 The are on a political blog, about a judicial-political story; such stories are widely known to draw such bluster. They are specifically at Reason.com, a site with excellent content but cursed with a group of commenters who think such trash talk is amusing.
The "threats" do not specify who is going to use violence, or when. They do not offer a plan, other than juvenile mouth-breathing about "wood chippers" and revolutionary firing squads. They do not contain any indication that any of the mouthy commenters has the ability to carry out a threat. Nobody in the thread reacts to them as if they are serious. They are not directed to the judge by email or on a forum she is known to frequent.
Therefore, even the one that is closest to a threat — "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot" isn't a true threat. It lacks any of the factors that have led other courts to find that ill-wishes can be threats.
Reason is a libertarian site, BTW, LOL. Nice knee-jerk reaction to call it a right-wing hate site. IIRC about 2/3 of their editorial staff voted for Obama in 2008.
Re: Reason Magazine Subpoena Stomps on Free Speech
IMO Libertarians are extra paranoid Republicans and yes it was a knee jerk reaction. In my mind I am still correct. Bush was so unpopular by the end that his own family probably voted for Obama.
Re: Reason Magazine Subpoena Stomps on Free Speech
This is not a first amendment violation. You could make an argument that it was a fourth, but it the subpoena was legit, then that becomes problematic.
The idiot commenters who were making the disgusting murder fantasy comments are confusing freedom of speech with an imaginary expectation that the Internet is anonymous. They still have the right to fantasize out loud about murdering judges. I wonder if they are as willing to do it when they are actually linked to their comments in real life, or if they are just little net cowards like good old cubby.
As far as the legality of the subpoena, Reason should be protesting about illegal search and seizure. The commenters may not pose a true legal threat, and surely if they were arrested and tried now, the case would be dismissed out of hand. But that didn't happen. The threat doesn't need to be imminent or actionable in order to cause concern. The government has the right to look into any threat against a judge, whether that is a threat in the legal or lay sense.
The idiot commenters who were making the disgusting murder fantasy comments are confusing freedom of speech with an imaginary expectation that the Internet is anonymous. They still have the right to fantasize out loud about murdering judges. I wonder if they are as willing to do it when they are actually linked to their comments in real life, or if they are just little net cowards like good old cubby.
As far as the legality of the subpoena, Reason should be protesting about illegal search and seizure. The commenters may not pose a true legal threat, and surely if they were arrested and tried now, the case would be dismissed out of hand. But that didn't happen. The threat doesn't need to be imminent or actionable in order to cause concern. The government has the right to look into any threat against a judge, whether that is a threat in the legal or lay sense.