Discussion for article #237379
Don’t think this rises to the level of real threats. Sounds like the Feds want to sit them down and make it clear they are now on the radar and because of their foolishness they now have a dossier that can be added to. That should be enough for most of these weasels. Will say there is a savage streak about (T)Reason … been there … won’t go back.
5 Likes
We’ve seen people sanctioned and/or lose their jobs for running off at the mouth on social media sites, having objectionable or downright reprehensible opinions about racially charged incidents like the most recent in Texas. Free speech is a bedrock principle. However, I was taught growing up that words and deeds have consequences. I can hear my Mother possibly dishing out a stern admonishment, “Young man, it’s OK to be mad at Bobby, but running around yelling he should be shot for pissing you off is uncalled for and won’t be tolerated!” Damn people, exercise some common sense. Just because you think it doesn’t mean it needs aired in public. These days everyone wants to stand on their roof with a bullhorn (or keyboard) and let the world know what they think, consequences be damned. STFU and count to ten once in awhile.
8 Likes
If the Feds want to start going after internet trolls we’re going to need a hell of a lot more jail cells.
7 Likes
Maybe not. Law enforcement is damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Say this judge gets shot. The perp is traced back or connected to one of these posters. It’s revealed the comment section was brought to the Feds attention before the shooting, and even conservatives and libertarians will come crawling out of the woodwork screaming the Obama administration can’t be trusted to protect us from domestic terrorists.
12 Likes
Is it OK to say someone should shove a banana up Sean Hannity’s tailpipe and break it off?*
*Insert your own metaphor if you like. 
1 Like
What this story proves is that the quickest and surest way to expose the vile fascist underbelly of a libertarian is to say or do something with which they disagree. Because: freedumb.
12 Likes
“It’s judges like these that will be taken out back and shot,” wrote another user, Alan.
I fail to see the explicit threat.
That sounds like an opinion to me. A vile, violent one, but an opinion nonetheless.
“I’m going to kill you”, or “I would like to take them out back and shoot them” would be an explicit threat.
1 Like
Really? Seems to prove to me that Libertarians paranoia about an over reaching police state may not be paranoia at all.
There is no explicit threat in any of the comments that I read.
1 Like
Still not clear which end that is…but otherwise sure.
3 Likes
So much for g-dview.
If the recourse of the so-called libertarian is to call for the assassination of a judge with whom they disagree, to me, they certainly exhibit the behavior of a fascist. If you prefer to use the word terrorist, I can get along with that: it’s the propensity to resolve political disagreements with violence either way.
What if I replied by saying ““It’s people like these that should be taken out back and shot” to which another replied “It’s people like these that will be taken out back and shot,” and another “Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse." You would in no way think I and the other responders were behaving like fascists for calling for your execution merely because we disagree? There’s nothing in our history that kind of thinking brings to mind? Really?
Well, OK, then… we definitely disagree.
10 Likes
I don’t know about fascists, but their comments are stupid, violent, hateful and whatever adjective I can think off to express my disgust with them. We agree on that.
They aren’t explicit threats that are criminal in nature.
Fascism is when the State prosecutes people who are anti-government for no particular reason than the government wants to make of example of people who are anti-government.
I think where we disagree is what constitutes a political prosecution versus a criminal prosecution.
1 Like
Guy sits in a rough biker bar. Let’s everyone know his wife is a bitch and he’s had it up to here with her.
“Boy, it sure would be nice if somebody…ahem…knew somebody that might see to it she goes to sleep for the last time, like soon. Ahem…just sayin’… somebody?” Now, there’s no specific threat. But we read occasionally next thing you know this guy is getting popped for slipping a fake hit man working under cover $5000 to do the deed. And how did it come to that? Because someone reported to the cops the guy was running off at the mouth about wanting his wife taken out. Not specifically, no definitive call to kill her sitting there on that bar stool. Some here say give the online commet guys a pass, they didn’t specifically make a threat. Neither did the guy in the bar. But he merited attention for just the general tenor and words he spewed. And once in awhile police involvement stops a hit on a person. Are some here advocating ignore the guy on the barstool, he’s just mouthing off? Really? Tell that to the wife that got saved because the cops intervened and planted a fake hit man to ensnare the jerk.
4 Likes
At Reason, they don’t call them “Trolls.” They call them “regular, valued commenters.”
12 Likes
If someone said those things about you or your spouse or your child, you wouldn’t find them a sufficiently explicit threat to think they needed looking into?
8 Likes
“Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” Henry II
And we all know how that turned out.
10 Likes
I would expect the champions of freedom at Reason to refuse to hand the information on principle. But no, in order to avoid trouble to their business, the rats will give the feds all they want and more.
Compare this reaction to the case of the “rap artist” Anthony Elonis who posted multiple explicit, very violent threats concerning his estranged wife and a female FBI agent. While the jury thought his internet outpourings left a “reasonable person” sure of specific threats, that didn’t arise to the level of conviction the Supreme Court deemed necessary. That court ruled that intent had to be proven. By that standard, it’s highly unlikely this group of blow-hard grousers is guilty of anything. By that standard, convening a grand jury on the subject is a waste of time and money. Oh, wait, those are judges being threatened, not an estranged spouse.
4 Likes
It’s not that charges are the end game here. Intelligence agencies are acting akin to politicians building a mailing list. They want these names if for no other reason than to enable monitoring the people a bit more closely than they do others. They’re building a list. If you want on that list run off at the mouth about wishing a judge would get shot on the steps of the courthouse. Kinda difficult to sympathize with them ending up on the Fed’s radar if that’s how they want to talk.
1 Like