Cheney Defies Bush Order; Endangers National Security

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ming


Frankly... I have found far worse on the internet. I see no need to delete the thread... and NO NEED to ban Oerdin just because you don't approve of his political positions. Again, no law has been broken here, contrary to what you might think, but can't prove

How about you go check out his immigration thread?

[Drake Tungsten]

Again... prove it's a federal offense... so far, nobody has.

I already cited the relevant federal statute. If you want to ignore it and tempt fate, be my guest. I guess you're too busy with your personal vendetta against Asher to actually look out for the good of your own site...

[Ming]

And I already pointed out the "relevant" federal statute you posted didn't apply.

And why did you have to add a personal jab on the end... ? I thought I said enough with personal crap.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Unless you can cite a specific law giving Apolyton a safe harbor for that sort of content, it's not protected.

See Blumenthal v. Drudge.

[Drake Tungsten]

And I already pointed out the "relevant" federal statute you posted didn't apply.

Yes, it does.

The Secret Service has traditionally interpreted this statute to also cover any online source, whether email, web pages, blogs, etc., and have investigated cases accordingly. While actual prosecutions are rare (most "threats" are judged to be either misunderstandings, jokes, hyperbole, or other sorts of non-threatening compositions) investigations are common; stories can be easily found online through simple searches. Even if you are ultimately exonerated, the problems associated with a law enforcement entity's investigation are numerous and best avoided.

[Ming]

No... he does not make any kind of threat what so ever, all he does is give an opinion. So it doesn't apply.

I'll give Koyaanisqatsi some credit for bringing up Blumenthal v. Drudge. Because that case shows that a website can be held liable for what is posted on it.

However, the post itself is not in violation of any law, so there is no concern about liability.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Ming
I'll give Koyaanisqatsi some credit for bringing up Blumenthal v. Drudge. Because that case shows that a website can be held liable for what is posted on it.

Er. It shows that it can be sued randomly, but it is not legally liable. AOL was removed from the suit, and subsequent cases have backed it up. At this point any suit on the provider would be laughed out of court.

[Ming]

Good point... in the end, the site would be cleared... but it shows that we could be as you say "randomly sued", and that would not be a good thing.

[Drake Tungsten]

No... he does not make any kind of threat what so ever, all he does is give an opinion. So it doesn't apply.

Saying the VP should be drug out in the street and shot, for the good of the world, isn't a threat? Are you serious? Do you think a Secret Service agent is really going to let that slide just because Oerdin said it "should" be done instead of definitively saying that he "would" do it?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Saying the VP should be drug out in the street and shot, for the good of the world, isn't a threat? Are you serious?

Yep... as serious as you are. So I guess we can agree to disagree. Because I see no violation of Federal Law here.

No threat has been made... you are welcome to disagree, but no longer in this thread.

Let's get back on topic, and if you have any other discussions on a personal desire to ban somebody or the breaking of federal laws, feel free to contact me via PM.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Ming
Good point... in the end, the site would be cleared... but it shows that we could be as you say "randomly sued", and that would not be a good thing.

I was going to reply and say that I doubted the Secret Service would be all that interested in civil harassment suits that they know will be rejected, but...oops.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yep... as serious as you are. So I guess we can agree to disagree. Because I see no violation of Federal Law here.

Your call. Good luck if the Feds do find this; somehow I don't think your extensive legal knowledge is going to do you much good.

edit: Yep, totally not a crime...

Anthony Cimasko was shocked when he learned the United States Secret Service wanted to talk to him about his computer use.

Why, the agents asked, had the doctoral candidate penned online diatribes urging President Bush's assassination? Why had he typed offensive messages about mutilating national leaders in reaction to the Iraq war?

Cimasko did not write the Internet postings, and eventually he learned another doctoral student in his Purdue University apartment complex in West Lafayette had hijacked his identity and used it to post them, according to testimony Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Hammond.

The other student, Vikram Buddhi, is on trial this week on 11 counts of threatening the lives of national leaders and their families and urging the destruction of American infrastructure.

In court Tuesday, Cimasko said he would not know Buddhi if the two of them were in the same room, as in fact they were at that moment.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Philip Benson says Buddhi used Cimasko's online identity to make the threats because it's clearly illegal to post such messages in public.

Buddhi's lawyer, John Martin, said his client never intended to carry out the threats himself and never believed that someone else would. And the Secret Service agreed, he said.

Shortly after Buddhi admitted to writing the messages in a Jan. 18, 2006, interview, Special Agent Wade Gault wrote in an internal report that Buddhi "does not appear to present a threat to Secret Service protectees at this time."

Buddhi was admonished not to post "things like that" and released without any travel restrictions or monitoring. The Secret Service did not interview any of Buddhi's professors or fellow students, Gault said.

Yet three months later, on April 13, Buddhi was arrested and had search warrants executed on his apartment. In recent e-mails to prosecution witnesses, Gault wrote, "This case is very important and it could lay a new foundation of what is free speech and what is not."

Buddhi has argued his comments are political protest and protected by the First Amendment.

Gault said the law is clear that such threats against the president's life are illegal.

"Those are statements that as far as I know have always been prosecuted by the Secret Service," Gault said in court Tuesday. "If it was determined by this court that you could say those words and not be prosecuted, that would be something new."

At issue are five messages Buddhi posted to Yahoo! financial message boards in December 2005 and January 2006, three of which bore the headline, "Call for the assassination of GW Bush."

Gault said the long delay in arresting Buddhi came because Yahoo was slow in responding to subpoenas, and because Purdue computer experts had to take time to unravel Buddhi's method of disguising his identity.

http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070627/NEWS03/706270322/1152/NEWS

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Yep... as serious as you are. So I guess we can agree to disagree. Because I see no violation of Federal Law here.

Your call. Good luck if the Feds do find this; somehow I don't think your extensive legal knowledge is going to do you much good.

And you have more extensive legal knowlege?

Again... enough of this subject... back on topic please.

[Drake Tungsten]

And you have more extensive legal knowlege?

I'm not the one risking a legal showdown with the Secret Service based on my questionable interpretation of federal law.

Now, I'm done if you are.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
See Blumenthal v. Drudge.

I read the opinion, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't cover Apolyton. At the very least Apolyton can be required to remove the material.