
How the Government Stifled Reason's Free Speech - acheron
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/government-stifles-speech
======
asift
For anyone looking for more analysis of the alleged threats, Popehat's article
is a good read.

[http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/department-of-justice-uses-
gra...](http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/department-of-justice-uses-grand-jury-
subpoena-to-identify-anonymous-commenters-on-a-silk-road-post-at-reason-com/)

------
normand1
This story has huge implications for the internet. Even if you don't agree
with Reason's politics the outcome of this case may affect you in the future.

------
ikeboy
Tangentially related because it's mentioned in the article:

>Gillespie noted that Forrest "more than threw the book" at Ulbricht by giving
him a life sentence, which was a punishment "beyond even what
prosecutors...asked for."

[https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/266723681?access_key=key-8...](https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/266723681?access_key=key-8ofmA9JPKsBtU2QwNWE5&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll)

>Given the enormous quantities of drugs sold on Silk Road, in combination with
other aggravating factors, Ulbricht’s recommended sentence under the United
States Sentencing Guidelines is life imprisonment, with a 20-year mandatory
minimum due to his conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise
in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 848\. The Probation
Office, too, recommends life imprisonment, finding “no factors that could
overcome the severity of the instant offense.” (PSR at 38). As set forth
below, in light of the seriousness of the offense and the need for general
deterrence, the Government believes that a lengthy sentence, one substantially
above the mandatory minimum, is appropriate in this case.

You could sort of read that as saying they recommended a life sentence.

~~~
asift
Is it normal for sentence recommendations to be that vague? I certainly see
your point, but why say "substantially above the mandatory minimum" if your
recommendation is actually the maximum?

------
cactusface
> "Its (sic) judges like these that should be taken out back and shot." And,
> "Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly.
> Especially if you feed them in feet first."

These are not clear death threats, but what benefit to society is there from
speech that advocates murder?

~~~
nate_meurer
Fortunately, the First Amendment doesn't limit its protection to speech that
"benefits society". For then the question would become, who decides which
speech benefits society? The answer to that question is not likely to be you,
or anyone you can trust.

~~~
cactusface
So advocating murder doesn't bring any benefit to society? Then why do we need
to be able to do it? I'm not talking about any kind of speech besides murder
advocacy. Note: you cannot advocate terrorism. Further, you cannot make an
explicit death threat.

As far as I can tell, your claim is that we need to be able to do something
bad, because otherwise somebody would have to decide what the good and bad
things are.

~~~
nate_meurer
What I'm saying is that "benefit to society" is not and has never been a valid
test for lawful expression in the U.S.

And yes, we allow people to do many things you might consider "bad", such as
garish hyperbole (as is the case here), and much worse things like advocating
for the overthrow of the government (e.g., by impeachment, prosecution,
election, mass protests, etc.) Angry speech against government officials and
entities is a vital, fundamental right, a key to liberty in democratic
societies.

~~~
cactusface
I think there's a misunderstanding. I wasn't questioning what the law is or
how it works. I was questioning the benefit of allowing for murder advocacy
under the law. That is, why is free speech ever useful, in the specific case
of murder advocacy? If murder advocacy is never beneficial, why do we need to
protect it? I'm not disputing that there's a benefit to angry speech.

~~~
nate_meurer
> "If murder advocacy is never beneficial, why do we need to protect it?"

If tasteless hyperbole isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

If offensive comedy or idle chatter on facebook isn't beneficial, why do we
need to protect it?

If pornography (which includes nudity in classic artwork to some people) isn't
beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

If insulting the Prophet Mohammed isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect
it?

If advocating for the overthrow of the government isn't beneficial, why do we
need to protect it?

I hope you see the point here, because I'm running short on ways to explain
it. I couldn't give a shit whether woodchipper-murder fantasies are a "benefit
to society", and guess what? The constitution doesn't give a shit either. It's
protected speech because, in the absence of a clear threat, harassment, or
defamation (or espionage, etc.), we as a society have decided that it's none
of our business whether your speech is "beneficial" by any criteria.

~~~
cactusface
No, I don't see the point. I never said anything about tasteless hyperbole,
idle stupid chatter on facebook, criticizing others' religions, or advocating
for sedition. Obviously there are times where those things are beneficial.
(Since my reply you added some other things that I never brought up. Include
them as well.)

I was just wondering, is it ever beneficial to advocate for murder? If it is
not beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

So far as I understand you, your answer is: we need to protect it because it's
the law. I know that it's the law. I am asking, why do we need that law, when
it comes to advocacy for murder? Are you saying that if we ban advocacy for
murder, soon we'll be banning other things that do have some arguable benefit?
If that is what you are saying, why is there no middle ground where we can
just stop at banning advocacy for murder?

Note (again): in the specific case of advocacy for terrorism, we did ban
advocacy for murder.

~~~
nate_meurer
> "Are you saying that if we ban advocacy for murder, soon we'll be banning
> other things"

Yes.

> "Why is there no middle ground where we can just stop at banning advocacy
> for murder?"

Because "murder advocacy" is just something that you're hung up on. There are
many more people who are hung up on offensive speech, hate speech,
pornography, blasphemy, etc. And the reason those aren't illegal is that the
first amendment doesn't judge expression based on its "benefit".

If this weren't the case, then every successive government regime at every
level would seek to apply it's own agenda to your speech, and all those things
I listed above and plenty more would be at risk. Because while you have your
own opinion about "murder advocacy", there are many more powerful people who
have their own little opinions about other speech that you might actually
value. Once again, the only reason you don't have to worry about those people
is that the constitution doesn't allow them to judge your speech by the rules
you're proposing here. Sort of ironic huh?

~~~
cactusface
You're making a (fallacious) slippery slope argument by refusing to admit a
middle ground.

Further, every law exists for (some portion of) society's benefit. What else
are laws for? That's why I keep asking, if the application of a law doesn't
have any benefit to anybody, why do we need it? Because then we might scrap
other laws, or other applications of the same law? Again, slippery slope.

