US feds subpoena names of anonymous web commenters

Anonymity is not a right

Requesting information on every commentard was obviously too broad, as most of them said nothing of interest. However, death threats are not protected free speech. The ACLU is generally good, but they go too far sometimes.

I am not a Lawyer...

..., let alone a US Lawyer, but...

If I remember correctly, First Amendment rights do not cover incitement to riot, etc, etc... If the prosecution can show the comments to be inflammatory, then a judge may well give them the injunction they seek.

On the other hand, I don't believe the injunction/subpoena should cover *every* bloger - only those who breached their First Amendment.protection.

Viva Las Vegas

I love my home town - it's about the only place left in the US where personal liberty is still important and adults are allowed to say and do things without thinking of the children. Our mayor is a former mob lawyer who played himself in the movie Casino, and we love him. So, we have some nutters - what else would you expect to find in the Review-Journal comments section? Our local newspaper combines the reporting quality of the Sun with the paranoia of the Daily Mail and an editorial board that considers Rush Limbaugh a dangerous liberal. I buy it myself sometimes, though not often, as my cat refuses to use the litter box if it notices.

Well it's after 5pm, I'm off to practice with my machine guns in case I see one o' them Yankee revenooers on my land.

@ Competition

Umm, you got that backwards. They actually started it. Look up "Echelon"

Homeland Security has lots of free time

Frankly, neither comments seem intelligent or particularly meaningful.

Taking a hanging threat seriously is especially dumb. How many murders get committed by someone hanging someone else, let alone 12 others? Sounds like some dumb hick venting. Mature? No. Sociable? No. Somebody you'd like to have a beer with, just to chuckle at? Maybe.

Would "I'd like to see them rot in hell" also be taken literally?

I hope Osama and Co. are otherwise seriously incapacitated if the Feds are this easy to distract, 'cause this ain't helping nab them one wee bit.

Death Threats Aside

what this really shows, is the private sector is fed up with the public sector.

The Public Sector is taking too much, and the argument that taxation is a mechanism by which the central banking systems maintains control over a country has a ring of truth.

There is no opt out from taxation or public services, no one signed a contract. You will sometimes see people claim that no one wants zero taxation, well they are wrong, I would support that move in a microsecond. The public sector is broken, there is no virtue in it, they take more than they could possibly give, it is pretty much the same way a protection racket works.

License vs freedom

Leaving aside the issue whether the authorities are acting heavy-handedly in this particular case, I do not like to see anyone threatened, especially those performing a public duty. It IS important to allow jurors, judges, prosecutors, but also police officers, ambulance staff, etc., do their work without fear of abuse, threats, or worse.

Yes, these people do seem like complete morons, and it is the inalienable right of each and every human being to make a fool of themself in public, but if you are at the recieving end of such comments you might not think of it so lightly.

Of course you should have freedom to express your thoughts. Others have the right to call you to account IF you threaten people. Threatening jurors is no joke. These people should be made aware of this. I do not think a full-blown prosecution would be required, but I would not object to questioning them about their motives and intentions.

Maybe, just maybe, they will start thinking before posting

....... NAH, unlikely!

"death threats"

damn, if that's a death threat I must have made thousands, "I hope that Jackie smith gets what comming to her" "All the lawyers need shooting" "The only good Politico is a dead politico" "Gordon can join the Bankers against the wall when the revolution comes" I mean they arn't threats - just hopes and feelings. Darn the revolution one is treason! Holy crap I'm a rebel!! >.> Or not.

"The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on the jury who will convict him. They should be hung along with the feds,"

If you see that as a threat you're a retard and "deserve to be hanged along with the jurors and feds."

Bet if the threats were saying "Sad thing is they're all commies. They should be hanged along with the terrorists" there wouldn't be so many folk wetting themselves.

Am I the only one who noticed...

"I'd hate to be the guy who refused to tell the feds Timothy McVeigh was buying fertilizer," Why? When did buying fertilizer become illegal?

I am not condoning what McVeigh did, but no system can completely deal with nutters unless the rest of us are willing to accept that we have no rights or privacy at all. And every now and then, the nutters are right - think of Thomas Jefferson or William Wilberforce, both dangerous anti-establishment figures in their day, heros in our day.

Yet another IANAL

Yes, the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects free speech. No, it doesn't provide a license to incite revolt or riot. Yes jurors should be protected from intimidation, and prosecutors should be able to pursue finding anyone who has made a clearly intimidating threat against any member of any jury.

Now, applying these to the postings that are cited in this article, I don't think any reasonable person can interpret those words as a clearly directed threat of an intimidating nature. Of course the problem with my last statement is that these days the phrase "reasonable person" seems to automatically exclude lawyers (and therefore judges) of all kinds. And given the manner in which lawyers have subverted jury selection, it is unlikely that a "reasonable person" will be sitting on jury either. Which is why so many of my fellow citizens are so solidly with The Bard on this issue.