back
78 comments
Wowsa, I know I’ve made comments like the one the US Marshal service investigated, along the lines of “I wouldn’t be surprised if ${victims of some injustice} didn’t start seeking vigilante justice”. Cory Doctorow wrote a whole novella (“Radicalized”) about the premise. It doesn’t mean I want someone to, because I’ve been to law-free places and hell if I wanna live in a Might Makes Right society. It means that I’ve read about the French Revolution and would prefer we identify when we might be going down that road so we can avoid it.
>> It doesn’t mean I want someone to...

It means the thought crossed your mind with enough strength for you to post it. In almost all cases that's a big nothing, but it's a tiny breadcrumb that might start to look like something if there are a lot of them, or if you were to rant on about it in a thread. Its interesting to think about automating searches for actual threats or patterns that might be indicators.

Not necessarily. It means at least that in the mental model they have of other people they think those other people might do something. Importantly, that mental model does not need to be correct or accurately model any real person or group for that to be expressed.

For an example (a silly one so people don't make a useless tangent arguing irrelevant details), if I for some reason believed that all Chevrolet drivers were fanatics and psychotics, and after someone made a disparaging comment about Chevrolet vehicles, I might say "I wouldn't be surprised if Chevy drivers assaulted someone over this". This doesn't mean I think that should happen, as it's an expression of what I think other people might do. It also doesn't actually express that other people might do this, because my mental model of those people is obviously incorrect. The only thing you can actually infer from that statement is what I think about that subgroup of people, whether I'm one of them or not, and that's just opinion.

My guess is that this comment was flagged by an automated system and only once someone reviewed it did they say "nah, this is nothing."

> it means the thought crossed your mind...might start to look like something if there are a lot of them

This doesn't make any sense. Thinking about worst case scenarios is normal. The person who is going to rob you is the one person who is definitely not going to tell you in advance that you're going to be robbed.

"To be clear, we have no legal department, let alone a subpoena compliance section of it. However, what we thankfully have is a very helpful Ken "Popehat" White on speed dial"

Beautiful. For anyone not familiar with Mr White, his blog is worth a read. I can't imagine someone I'd rather not face off against as a gov't official making spurious demands.

[0] https://www.popehat.com [1] https://popehat.substack.com

This is deliberate, no?

"This website's agitating negative feelings towards the Federal judiciary! Let's tie them up for three months. It'll fester in their staff's minds. Maybe they'll see it's easier to say nothing in future..."

It's intimidation. I hope they push back harder than just writing about the incident. The initial investigation was entirely meritless.

What do you propose they should do next to push back harder?
Resist the preservation order? FOI the comms leading up to the preservation order?

They'd probably shrug both off, but I guess there's an outside chance you get a good judge who sees right through the BS and orders them to fess up.

I could tell you but then HN would get the subpoena.
I would be surprised if instead of going through discovery they... wait, no, no no no no no no no no
So you're saying there's a conspiracy?
It's almost like the Marshals saw the comment, knew it was likely NOT a real threat; but sent a "Hey, hold on to that guy's info for a bit, just in case" letter.

I am thinking if something HAD happened to that particular judge within 90 days of the comment being posted, they would be VERY interested in having a conversation with the commentor

Agreed. It may not have been a direct threat but it was threatening.
The order was time limited, narrowly scoped. The comment was by no means a clear threat, but its also not unreasonable to interpret it that way.

I don't really think techdirt has much to complain about here.

They have one very good thing to complain about: the comment very clearly violated no laws. TechDirt had the burden of preserving records and a gag on their speech placed upon them for absolutely no reason.
"...but its also not unreasonable to interpret it that way."

In the absence of other evidence, I would say that it is unreasonable to interpret it as a threat. I mean, what's next, arresting people for murdering a video game character on the assumption they would do that in real life?

I'm fairly concerned about stochastic terrorism, but I'd disagree about that comment. Reading it in context, I'd say the author has some inaccurate views about how often people will turn to murder rather than pay court fees, but... it's not the same thing as saying "someone should do X."
they just wanted a story.

also, its more likely the us marshals were trying to connect the dots on more straightforward threats and this comment ended up in the drag net.

so if you think internet threats are a big deal, then the effort going into documenting those potentiak threats are still important and juzt becausw they observed a false-positive dowsnt mean the us marshalls went overboard.

the end basically just confirms there was nothin in that specific comment.

maybe if they dug deeper, like a journalist would, they would illuminate what the actual broader activities were.

I don't think they complained super hard here, and the transparency is good regardless.

But I agree: of all the law enforcement oversteps that we see in this country, this case barely registers.

At risk of attracting the attention of the US Marshals (whom I previously held in high regard): These kinds of stupid games will end in all political discussions happening over TOR with all the implications that entails.
I don't think they are stupid games. It's a policy they are forced to enforce. Good intentions turned into law often turn into bizarre actions from government departmens..
Is it really a gag order if it is a “preservation letter” from the US Marshalls? No court gave any order here, as far as I can read the article.

What would have happened had they not complied?

My read is that the order had both conditions: preserving records, and gagging against revealing the order.
It might have been an application of [18 U.S.C. §2705-a-1-B](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2705):

> where an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury subpoena is obtained, delay the notification required under section 2703(b) of this title for a period not to exceed ninety days upon the execution of a written certification of a supervisory official that there is reason to believe that notification of the existence of the subpoena may have an adverse result described in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

This would seem to sync up with what the story said:

> With help from Ken, we soon received a "preservation letter" demanding that we preserve for a period of 90 days "any and all records and other evidence, [...] In addition, the letter effectively gagged us, saying that we were not to disclose the existence of the letter "in any manner that could alert the user" of the account.

Most likely prosecution for destruction of evidence if the Marshalls could be arsed.
People really need to learn how to better express themselves. You can express displeasure without wishing for injury or harm on another human being.
Not sure if you read the same comment I did, but there was nobody 'wishing for injury or harm' here - it was an observation that someone might choose that path.
When standards applied to TechDirt also apply to Twitter, then the world will be in upheaval. Until then, it's just a way to dox malcontents unsatisfied with the regime.
An excellent example of overzealous prosecution over internet blog/article comments is the Reason magazine 'woodchipper' debacle. This WSJ article is a good place to begin reading, although Popehat did a lot of great work, and Reason covered the story a little bit after the gag orders and subpoenas had died down.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/reason-magazine-subpoenaed-...

Discussions of merits of the investigation, burden of information retention and gag, and the threat-level imposed by the comment in the first place, what's highly evident to me is that gag + retention + investigation result in a much larger audience for an incidental comment then if no such orders had been placed.

Streisand sings again.

In my home country you have the constitutional right to visit a judge at their home to plead particular kinds of cases.

All the same, threatening the judiciary is one of the most anti-social things you can do, and should be strictly policed. I don't know if trawling news comments is an effective way to do that, but I'm glad to know they're making an effort. A few false positives (appropriately handled) is a good sign of sufficiently high sensitivity.

It's great that we have these laws and the U.S Marshalls to enforce them since a lot of jerks wind up in civil litigation because civil litigation is how one can deal non-violently with jerks who try and screw with people's businesses, and cause damage and harm. These jerks are used to getting what they want through intimidation and well... being jerks. Without this kind of protection, there'd be nothing to stop these jerks from getting their way through continuing their pattern of intimidation.
In my home country (that I share with the US Marshalls) you have the constitutional right to express a desire for harm to come upon anyone or anything, regardless of whether it's a federal judge or not. It's worrying that a federal agency would do anything in regards to comments that are clearly protected by the constitution.
They had the chance to remove the comment, and they didn’t. Calling a comment that suggests “murdering the corrupt” silly doesn’t help their case.
Regardless of personal political leanings everybody should be concerned about the increasingly authoritarian actions of our government. What’s equally concerning is there is no shortage of people that will come out and defend this stuff, as long as it is being wielded against the proper target. Or in defense of a favorable entity.
Similarly, I think there should also be concern about the increase in political violence. In this case against those holding high offices.

The fact that both are going up is not a good sign. It actually really worries ne now that I think about it.

It's almost as if comments are not worth the trouble
Or we need more privacy. Like onion sites.
This is why you're supposed to add "in Minecraft" at the end of every comment.
Preserving 90 days worth of data could cost a lot of money in hard drives, backups, technical changes etc. Techdirt might have these resources, but a small blog might not. Hell, eventually somebody might decide that it’s cheaper to pay a hitman to just cut a brake line or something than go through the data preservation process for the US marshals.
I would like to see first amendment protections that limit what judges and courts can do. Since this doesn’t require Congress to “make no law”, while failing to limit the reach of the government.

As a side note, I would also like to see greater protections for “commercial speech”.

Why don't we address the incompetence and and misconduct rife in the judicial branch? That will cut down on the threats.

One major issue is that everything is considered so secret that you can't subpoena past complaints even if they contain exculpatory evidence. That's right, they will protect the image of the judiciary even if it means letting an innocent person be found guilty. They reason that secrecy is the best way to preserve public trust in the judicial system. As anyone knows, that's just BS - transparency, or at least allowing subpoenas, would be the best way to ensure the proper actions are being taken.

You can probably tell, but I've had some bad experiences with a magistrate and judge recently. Magistrates in my state aren't even required to be lawyers nor pass the bar...