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?
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.
A few decades ago, this guy could have been convicted for "obscenity" and no one would have said a word. The question of whether he intended anyone actual harm might never have come up.
It's a sign of progress that we now frown on imprisoning people explicitly for being icky and weird, and thoughtcrime prosecutors are forced to gin up more serious charges.
It's democracy, right? So then I would suggest rallying people to your cause, and trying to force some sort of adhoc vote/referendum from your leaders. If you get some sort of majority with you to participate in a concerted effort, and still your leaders deny you your voice. Well, then, you're not in a democracy, my friend. Not even a representative one.
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."
> "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. :/
The problem is that if you are the type who knows how to get out of jury duty it's likely you'll never be selected for a jury.
I was told by several lawyer friends that my chances of being selected for a jury were in the neighborhood of 0% recently when my name came up in the pool to serve. Basically one side or the other will be spooked by my profession. They like teachers and people in retail or food service, that's about it. As a result, I saved everyone the time while still contributing to the community by identifying a terrifyingly high number of vulnerabilities with the online jury duty registration and management site. Note: don't do this without written permission. Playing with a system of the court without their authorization is likely the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. I got permission by making some initial observations which didn't require anything remotely resembling an intrusion attempt like pointing out the "F" they got in the Qualys SSL Labs tool. It was so bad that the local court had to scrap what they had and find another vendor to provide the service.
To avoid serving I ended up using a process vulnerability in the law to get my call-up number near the end of the candidate pool. The law states that anyone called up for jury duty must complete the juror questionnaire. I refused to fill it out because the website hosting the form was SQLi vulnerable and it was possible to get all the completed questionnaires. As it turns out the law states that while everyone must complete the juror questionnaire, if they don't, there are no criminal penalties. They'll simply be required to fill it out on paper at the court if their number is called up. If they refuse at that time then they can be held in contempt, but only after going in front of a judge to work out the issue. Out of practicality, the local court doesn't want to deal with individuals who failed to complete the questionnaire so they assign those individuals call-up numbers at the end of the queue. My name was fifth from the end and I was never called to serve. Your state and local laws may vary.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
22 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 51.9 ms ] threadIt's a sign of progress that we now frown on imprisoning people explicitly for being icky and weird, and thoughtcrime prosecutors are forced to gin up more serious charges.
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."
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. :/
Two words: jury selection.
Don't.
I was told by several lawyer friends that my chances of being selected for a jury were in the neighborhood of 0% recently when my name came up in the pool to serve. Basically one side or the other will be spooked by my profession. They like teachers and people in retail or food service, that's about it. As a result, I saved everyone the time while still contributing to the community by identifying a terrifyingly high number of vulnerabilities with the online jury duty registration and management site. Note: don't do this without written permission. Playing with a system of the court without their authorization is likely the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. I got permission by making some initial observations which didn't require anything remotely resembling an intrusion attempt like pointing out the "F" they got in the Qualys SSL Labs tool. It was so bad that the local court had to scrap what they had and find another vendor to provide the service.
To avoid serving I ended up using a process vulnerability in the law to get my call-up number near the end of the candidate pool. The law states that anyone called up for jury duty must complete the juror questionnaire. I refused to fill it out because the website hosting the form was SQLi vulnerable and it was possible to get all the completed questionnaires. As it turns out the law states that while everyone must complete the juror questionnaire, if they don't, there are no criminal penalties. They'll simply be required to fill it out on paper at the court if their number is called up. If they refuse at that time then they can be held in contempt, but only after going in front of a judge to work out the issue. Out of practicality, the local court doesn't want to deal with individuals who failed to complete the questionnaire so they assign those individuals call-up numbers at the end of the queue. My name was fifth from the end and I was never called to serve. Your state and local laws may vary.
[1] https://www.law.ucla.edu/academics/clinical-and-experiential...
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/in/banister
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?
Your muslims vs christians doesn't come in here.
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.
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.
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.