Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
Lets try again since I know this is hard for you to follow since I didn't make a youtube out of it.
So yeah, its probably bluster but finding out whether it is or not is a proper role of the state.
Again, in your imaginary land of make believe you can make whatever rules up that you want to your hearts content.
Quote:
The US Attorney's Office says they're seeking evidence connected to a violation of 18 USC Section 875, the federal law against interstate threats. That's the law that was just considered by the Supreme Court, which held that a 31-year-old man who threatened his ex-wife on Facebook must be given a new trial, because the government didn't prove that Anthony Elonis had a "subjective intent to threaten."
A separate statute, which bars threats against federal judges, isn't mentioned in the subpoena.
In White's view, the Reason comments aren't "true threats" in the legal sense, but only "hyberbole" and "bluster," which remain protected speech under the First Amendment.
"They do not offer a plan, other than juvenile mouth-breathing about 'wood chippers' and revolutionary firing squads," White states. "The comments are on the Internet, a wretched hive of scum, villainy, and gaseous smack talk. They are on a political blog, about a judicial-political story; such stories are widely known to draw such bluster."
Despite his view that the posts are "clear bluster," the government "can probably abuse the grand jury subpoena power this way," White says, citing a 2012 case regarding a Twitter account called "Mr. X" that made juvenile statements about then-presidential candidate Michelle Bachman. A judge in that case said the government's interest in protecting a presidential candidate outweighed the Twitter user's right to speak anonymously.
White's post, worth reading in full, also describes his interactions with Niketh Velamoor, the Assistant US Attorney who issued the subpoena, whom White believes may have been trying to intimidate him into not publishing the subpoena.
Luckily for you, courts agree, Lols.
Unluckily for you, you're a member of the same "wretched hive of scum, villainy, and gaseous smack talk" that exists on the intarmawebs.
Basically, government can do whatever it likes. ("Dun' liek it? TUFF!")
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard M. Nixon
Oh, when the President [Government] does it, that means that it is not illegal.