Website Atracts the Attention of the FBI

[Jeff White]

Think before you post....There have been many posts here and even threads that have crossed the line that seems to have been drawn with this case.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...3F816C85A030950A862571C1000B0AD1?OpenDocument

Web site attracts attention of FBI
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
08/05/2006

KIRKSVILLE, MO.

Federal authorities have been investigating a Kirksville man who said on his Web site that killing a Canadian judge would be "an act of patriotism," the Adair County prosecutor said.

Prosecutor Mark Williams said Friday he met with agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and representatives from the U.S. district attorney's office this week regarding Alex Linder's Web site, the Vanguard News Network.

Federal officials shut down the Web site last week for one day after Linder allegedly made the posting about Federal Court of Canada Justice Konrad W. von Finckenstein and Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.

Linder told the Kirksville Daily Express that he had not broken any laws.

"I'm here, I'm not in jail and I didn't do anything," he said. "Essentially, you have foreigners messing with our First Amendment rights."

Williams said the FBI would discuss the case with the U.S. attorney's office in St. Louis to decide if any laws were broken, and if so, which ones.

He said federal officials were leading the investigation because it crossed national boundaries. But the U.S. attorney's office would not say if Linder was under investigation.

"We don't confirm the existence of investigations," said Jan Diltz, spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office. The FBI also would not comment, said Peter Krusing, spokesman for the FBI in St. Louis.

 

[Phetro]

Saying something about a foreigner "crosses national boundaries?" Give me a break. They are merely trying to silence someone for speaking out against the system.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

He didn't "say something about a foreign official" he said killing a Canadian judge would be "an act of patriotism." I'm guessing that threatening the lives of officials of neighboring countries "crosses national boundaries."

More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, making such statements on the Internet shows poor judgement regardless of where the object of the animus is located.

 

[RealGun]

Federal officials shut down the Web site last week for one day

I am waiting to hear on what grounds and under what authority. I would also like to know which web host cooperated.

 

[Car Knocker]

Buncha Cubans in Florida have opined on the Internet and other public locations that Fidel Castro should be assassinated. Wonder if the Feebs are going to investigate them?

 

[TallPine]

yeah, and how many on THR have made comments not overly concerned with the health of Saddam Hussein ...?

 

[Erebus]

You're only allowed to threaten people the government doesn't like.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

So there's no difference between someone saying publicly that their nextdoor neighbor should die and that some serial killer in jail should die? Are you saying that there's no difference between saying that Osama bin Ladin should die vs. the Prime Minister of the U.K. or a judge in Canada? Didn't the Supreme Court rule that although we have the freedom of speech, we can't call up someone on the phone and say that we're going to kill them, neither can we yell "Fire" in a movie theater because the freedom of speech is meant to express our opinions and expose injustices, not incite violence? Making a satire of the president and then putting it on one of those late night shows is legal and is included in your rights if you so chose to do that, talking about what you want to do to him physically is not. I'm quite for freedom of speech (like when those cattle companies wanted to sue Oprah Winfrey because she had some things to say about beef, that was rediculous), but if someone's talking about how someone needs to die (other than Osama bin Ladin or maybe someone convicted of murder) and posts it on the web, shouldn't law enforcement at the very least at least investigate it?

 

[Erebus]

One of the Air America people got in trouble for a bit that basically said someone needs to shoot the president. Had sound effects of a gun firing and everything. Somehow no legal action though.

 

[1 old 0311]

Heck I have believed the sites were monitored since the dawn of the internet. Mind your P's and Q's.

 

[Sindawe]

Web forums being "Monitored"?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So I say to all you spooks and spies, all you who watch and catalog and make lists. Leave my fellows and I in peace and we shall all enjoy a long life. Do it not, and all your days are numbered. No writ of law, no force of arms, no tyrants boot can forever subjugate a people who's birthright is LIBERTY! We taught this lesson to our supposed betters once more than 200 years ago, and if need be we shall teach it to you again.

 

[Phenom]

A guy on another forum threatened to kill me and now is MIA due to the actions of IC3.

 

[Soybomb]

While probably being a generally distasteful fellow I wouldn't get along with, I fail to see what law the man has violated.

 

[MechAg94]

There are specific laws dealing with threatening to kill the president.

I could understand the web host thinking the comments were outside their standards, but I am also curious under what authority the feds shut down the web site.

If he was able to publish a book talking about the same thing, would they stop printing and distribution?

 

[Pilgrim]

You're only allowed to threaten people the government doesn't like.

http://www.konformist.com/2000/assassination/assassination.htm

 

[Car Knocker]

There are specific laws dealing with threatening to kill the president.

Granted.

But what law, exactly, states that offering the opinion that killing a judge in another country would be a patriotic act is illegal? There's been a large number of American politicians who have offered, over the last decade, the public opinion that the death of Saddam Hussein would be a good thing for the world. I fail to see any substantive difference.

 

[SomeKid]

There is nothing wrong (legally) with saying someone needs to die.

GWB and HRC need to die. The boundry is saying you will kill someone.

 

[justashooter]

advocating the murder of an elected or appointed representative of the US government is specifically outlawed. advocating (conspiracy to commit in the absence of an enactor) or planning the murder of anyone is outlawed, in fact.

there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a fellow, or advocating that he should be removed by legal means, but a threat or incitement involving a specific person is another matter.

this is not a case of "if a guy...i would". this is a case of incitement to commit a felony crime against a specific person. if the incitement occured on US soil, US law applies, regardless of the location of the intended victim.

 

[gunsmith]

but prostitution across State & Country lines are ok at this "progressive" webite?

Progressive superstar Craig Newmark hates gunowners and
bans sale and most discussion of guns on his website
www.craigslist.org
Yet he allows prostitution! Going on a trip to SF or Toronto
or NY or Dublin? get your child sex slave on craigslist They allow notorious asian "massage" parlors that are fronts for
illegal alien sex slavery.
When A (move on org) guy ranted about killing the POTUS i REPORTED IT TO BOTH the FBI and www.craigslist.org and I got banned for it

 

[stevelyn]

One of the Air America people got in trouble for a bit that basically said someone needs to to shoot the president.

Does anyone besides me notice the irony here? Air America's editorial policy advocates disarming all American citizens, but they'd be willing to forego gun control briefly so someone could carry out their wish.

 

[bumm]

There's a pretty hazy line somewhere here. I can't imagine any rational person saying that it wouldn't have been a good thing if Adolf Hitler had been assassinated. However, it doesn't speak any better of us gunners to advocate murdering public officials anywhere than it does of liberals to advocate killing GWB.
If we speak of having some liberal activist judge killed, it's not going to help convince the fence sitters out there we'd like to win over. We just look like a bunch of dumb yahoos, just like the Brady Bunch wants us to.
Whether rants on internet newsgroups warrant investigation by the FBI is debatable, but I can see the logic. These are public forums, and there are thousands of dangerously mentally unbalanced people out there.
Marty

 

[ilbob]

I can't imagine any rational person saying that it wouldn't have been a good thing if Adolf Hitler had been assassinated.

Why would you say that? It may well have been his insane strategies that caused the Germans to lose. There is a good chance if Hitler was out of the picture that the Germans might well have won the war, or at least have been able to negotiate some kind of peace settlement. Since they basically owned all of western Europe, it would have been very hard not to just settle with them.

Who knows where any of that would lead.

 

[Derby FALs]

From what i read it seems he is being harassed for an opinion.

 

[bumm]

>Why would you say that? It may well have been his
> insane strategies that caused the Germans to
> lose.

OK, was looking for an example to trot out to illustrate the grey area. Being able to look back at the broad sweep of world history, Hitler may have served some positive purpose in helping to destroy his own cause. Maybe he could have been killed before he won power? Who knows how things may have unfolded.
My main point is though, that it makes us gunners look very bad to advocate the murder of anti-gun public figures.
Marty

 

[ccwolff]

My main point is though, that it makes us gunners look very bad to advocate the murder of anti-gun public figures.

I fully agree, It should be all or none.

Information Design for Governmental Accountability.

I am going to have to remember this one.

Hey, Pilgrim thanks for that link.Good stuff.