How the Government Stifled Reason's Free Speech

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/government-stifles-speech

by acheron • 11 years ago

22 17 11 years ago

normand1• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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...

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.

asift3• 11 years ago

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?

asift3• 11 years ago

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...

cactusface7• 11 years ago

"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?

asift3• 11 years ago

The government already oversteps their bounds in issuing subpoenas to investigate "threats" that aren't truly threats. It's hard to say where they would draw the line if given authority to police general hyperbole.

cactusface7• 11 years ago

So we need to allow murder advocacy because the government might make a mistake in identifying it?

nate_meurer4• 11 years ago

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.

cactusface7• 11 years ago

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.

How the Government Stifled Reason's Free Speech

Related Stories