
The Need for Care with “Thoughtcrime” - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/need-care-thoughtcrime
======
byuu
Thankfully the district court judge was the only person in the courtroom
besides the defendant capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.

Now if only he could have levied criminal sanctions against the prosecutor in
this case.

It's terrifying how these juries think. It really is as simple as, "Have any
of you played Grand Theft Auto? Does that make you all car thieves? Have you
watched Saw? Does that make you serial killers? No? Then why are we here?"

That people will vote to convict a man simply because they don't like what he
thinks about, and that these cases can get this far in the first place, is
absolutely terrifying. People really have become too stupid for a jury of
one's peers to result in a fair trial.

What do you think these people would do if this man had an impossible fetish,
like petrification or gigantism? "Your honor, clearly the defendant had
conspired to turn a woman in real life into a 50-foot tall statue. We must
lock him up before he is able to do so."

~~~
thaumasiotes
> "Your honor, clearly the defendant had conspired to turn a woman in real
> life into a 50-foot tall statue. We must lock him up before he is able to do
> so."

Without disagreeing with you, I think most people "like this" would accept
that argument. But there's no urgency there, because he'll never be able to do
so.

My mother advanced to me once the opinion that someone with a foot fetish
should be legally barred from going into podiatry. I was shocked that people
could think that way. :/

~~~
croon
Indeed. Clearly you can't separate work and play and cure breast cancer if
you're into boobs. /s

------
impossiblegame
The NYMag article linked within describes exactly why rational people should
be scared of those who state obsessive desires to torture and kill people,
especially when they've chosen their targets. Two close friends of the
profiled from their torture forum: "[Robert] Asch [former school librarian,
previously accused of molesting four boys] brought with him a bag containing a
Taser, meat hammer, skewers, and a dental retractor." There are few times I'm
happy to see intervention by a federal agent but imminent torture and murder
is one. His buddy and accomplice arrested for the same scheme, Richard Meltz,
is a police chief who used his access to gather data about potential victims.

Valle himself is a cop who stalked his intended female victims on paid time
using police resources. He described graphically how he wanted to torture,
dismember, and kill them. One was his wife and several were women he knew
previously who didn't reciprocate his sexual interest. He gave out their
identifying details, which he obtained using his position of authority, to a
bunch of psychopaths who are clearly willing to act.

These are all specific, credible threats of murder. If the power dynamics were
different I wonder how this thread would go down? If, instead of a message
board for men wishing to kill women, it were a message board for Muslims
wanting to kill Christians, would you react the same way? What if specific
people have been targeted - would you defend the aggressor's right to free
speech over the targeted's right to live? What if the aggressor's friends were
found carrying everyone they needed to torture and kill the targeted? Would
you really defend that free speech?

~~~
tomjen3
Read the story. It specifically says that nobody was targeted and no offline
activity took place.

Your muslims vs christians doesn't come in here.

~~~
rayiner
It's not a story, it's a press release. And EFF is more creative with the
facts in their press releases than I'm comfortable with.[1] See:
[http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/cannibal-faces-life-
guilty...](http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/cannibal-faces-life-guilty-
conspiracy-kidnap-illegal-databases-article-1.1286075).

He did use the NYPD police database to access information about a high school
girl, and was convicted of it based on records of the access. He did send
another member a file documenting the murder of one of his friends just before
meeting her in person. He did talk about murdering and eating his wife.

I still don't think there was the required "overt act" but it wasn't just
abstract fantasizing like the EFF is making it out to be.

[1] Public interest organizations can be just as bad as cops in this regard
(ACLU is an exception). I stopped getting Public Citizen emails when they
described an a teenager who had just been with a group of friends when someone
else shot someone, and was sentenced to life. They failed to mention the kid
was with a gang of other teenagers who brutally robbed and murdered a pizza
delivery driver while his wife and child sat in the back seat. If you mention
the facts, people might get outraged at the guy you're defending.

~~~
true_religion
I guess they're point is... in the interrests of law, even unseemly people
should be treated just like ordinary citizens.

Even if you're a gross, brutal, horns-upon-head criminal you should be jailed
for the crimes you actually commited, not the ones you _fantasized_ about
committing, or the ones you were merely in the vicinity of.

~~~
rayiner
These aren't irrelevant prejudicial background facts--they're legally
relevant. If you're with a gang committing felony robbery, the law holds you
responsible if the situation escalates and someone gets murdered. If you
describe the conviction leaving out the robbery, you're actively misstating
the facts of the crime. And in this case, at some point fantasizing turns into
conspiracy. It's incredibly misleading to leave out the facts of what happened
outside the chatroom that might have convinced the jury that this guy crossed
that line.

------
paulsutter
Mad props to Scott & Cyan Banister whose First Amendment Clinic at UCLA[1]
funded part of this effort. Scott[2] was with IronPort, PowerSet, Slide, among
many other companies, and is setting a great example for other entrepreneurs.

[1] [https://www.law.ucla.edu/academics/clinical-and-
experiential...](https://www.law.ucla.edu/academics/clinical-and-experiential-
programs/the-clinical-experience/banister-first-amendment-clinic/)

[2]
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/banister](https://www.linkedin.com/in/banister)

------
Potando
Talking about committing a crime isn't thoughtcrime. It's perhaps better
called a "speechcrime". It's already illegal for all sorts of things.
Conspiracy of course is one way. There's also incitement and threats, as well
as "intent". That last one is more of a true thoughtcrime. The real world
effect of manslaughter is the same as murder, but the distinction lies with
what the person was thinking.

------
spiritplumber
This is what happens when people actively try to get out of jury duty. The
smart ones succeed. The derp ones less so.

~~~
pekk
The smart ones get out of jury duty anyway, because the lawyers select them
out if they are honest enough to show signs of critical thinking. And smart
Machiavellians have no reason to waste their time on it.

------
escherize
It seems like our freedoms are being eroded more every day. I would like to
see a discussion about the best actionable steps we can take to stop. Is
donating to the eff the best I can hope for?

~~~
cbd1984
If you think this, your perspective must be limited to a pre-1970s worldview,
or you must not know much about how much freedoms were stomped on before
things like _Roe v Wade_ and the current notion of a strong freedom of speech
protection.

~~~
verbin217
You've just expanded the time horizon until something was apparently worse
than the present. That doesn't refute a local decline.

------
angdis
I basically agree with the judge throwing out the verdict.

However, I don't like the usage of the word "thoughtcrime" here. This was not
"thoughtcrime." It was a very creepy freak who wrote online, at length, about
performing some extremely disgusting violent crimes. Such behavior outside of
the right context is going to raise alarm and cause people to start snooping
around. And of course getting identified should rightfully trigger termination
for a police officer.

------
masmullin
I find this terrifying. It makes me want to scream and cry at the same time.

