DoJ Narrows Warrant Seeking #DisruptJ20 Info From DreamHost

Status
Not open for further replies.

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
i'm pretty sure political protests are covered by the Constitution. Explicitly no less. can't imagine how this even got approved the first time around and sure hope the courts wake up and shut this down when they get a second look.
 

Sveg

Distinguished
May 16, 2008
14
0
18,510
0
Your privacy rights end the moment someone gets hurt, or property damage goes beyond the scope of a simple random accident.

You can advocate all the vile crap you want. But the moment you rally a group that directly causes damage or harm, your privacy ENDS, and the rights of the people in harms way or with damaged property supersedes.
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
37


Problem here is, the DoJ is assuming guilt by association. Just simply accessing or participating in the site (creating association), doesn't make someone responsible for the actions of protestors. The DoJ is asking for the records with intent to prosecute people that violated laws. The problem here is the fact that not everyone that would be identified, committed a crime and as such, still have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Under law, the only ones that can be prosecuted are those that committed criminal acts and those that acted in such a manor as to promote the criminal acts. Simply accessing or participating in such a site doesn't prove promotion of criminal acts nor does it imply guilt in any way. Based on actual laws, which only permit those suspected of committing a crime to be investigated or prosecuted, the subpoena from the DoJ is a vast overreach.
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
915
1
18,990
1

What a refreshing post by someone who actually gets it. Freedom of speech ends when there is a clear basis that any particular speech is likely to lead to violence. If there is no such indication, then freedom of speech cannot be hampered. As you said, if the DOJ had evidence that any visitors to this site they would be well within the law to seek the data that pertains only to those they suspect. Right now, this sounds like a fishing expedition with a political basis, IMO.
 

All talks about privacy, freedom of speech, right to assemble - I don't have any memories of "violence" during DJT' inauguration.
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
37


Nor do I.

This unconstitutional move by the DoJ is far too similar to that of the (unconstitutional) voter fraud commission that was requesting vital records and complete voting history for every US citizen. The only reason to request the information that the DoJ and the "Voter Fraud Comission" have requested, is purely for voter suppression. Courts have already ruled that an IP address can not be used to identify a person. In this case, the DoJ is trying to use IP addresses to identify 1.3 million people that they can't prove committed a crime. It's an authoritarian move.....
 

Rob1C

Reputable
Jun 2, 2016
69
2
4,635
0
> "It seems like the scope of the original warrant could be attributed more to ignorance than to malevolence." .

That is irrelevant. If you are ignorant, mentally deficient, deaf and blind, stupid, forgetful, whatever your excuse then you had better hope that the other person didn't have reason to suspect that you are wrong - it's old Case Law, don't know don't do but the one charged has the weight of the Law slightly favored towards them.

EG: Your car alarm goes off, you look out the window and see someone walking down the street, you attempt to detain that person; they don't have to inquire about anything and are entitled to attack you without warning and do enough damage to ensure that you don't repeat what they presume to be your error - because surely they will be charged if they injure you most severely, and that makes the argument slightly in their favor over whatever you thought you were doing.

Similarly getting blanket info about people who might have visited a website due to a mis-click, viral program/clickjack/clickbait AD, or did visit purposefully with no INTENT of wrongdoing are not to be subjected to State Surveillance (in North America, in other countries you could be hung for littering).

The reason we have such Rights has been tested in the Courts of Canada and the United States frequently. Here's one example: http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2015/01/15/when-victims-become-criminals .

The Right to speak, even about stupid/wrong things is protected, it's really only an extension of the Right to defend oneself and one's home.

Being physically present during a Riot isn't illegal until the Police give a speech officially declaring it a riot and ordering everyone to disperse.

People not enjoying North America Laws waste their thoughts on deaf people protesting in this Forum. Go to your Lawyer or pay for Law School and undo decades of Case Law - otherwise: decide not what you know not.

It's like people who wouldn't go out at night but they know it's safe on the Internet night or day, your ignorance can't save you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS