Judge Approves Warrant For “Antifa” User Data From Anti-Trump Website, by Tyler Durden

SLL ideologically has no brief with Antifa, but a case involving an Antifa website has important Constitutional implications. Allowing the government to access user and subscriber data on the basis of an alleged link to rioting is constitutionally suspect. (How long before that precedent was applied to the other side of the political spectrum?) From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

A District of Columbia Federal Judge has approved a government warrant seeking information about users and subscribers to an anti-Trump website which has been linked to rioting during the presidential inauguration in Washington, D.C., but he added protections to safeguard “innocent users.”

Chief Judge Robert Morin ruled that DreamHost, an LA-based web-hosting company, must turn over data about visitors to the website disruptj20.org, which is a home to political activists who organized protests at the time of Donald Trump’s inauguration as U.S. president in January, many of whom have since morphed into the controversial “antifa” movement.

 Morin, who will oversee review of the data, also said the government must explain what protocols it will use to make sure the data of “innocent users” is not seized by prosecutors, according to Reuters. Bloomberg adds that prosecutors would have to tell the judge which data it intended to seize.
“I’m trying to balance the First Amendment protections and the government’s need for this information,” Morin said. “My view here is that this best protects both legitimate interests.”
In the closely watched case, which could have a material chilling effect on similar activist website, the DOJ said it sought the records connected to the site amid concerns that it helped facilitate the planning of protests on Inauguration Day in which more than 200 people were arrested for rioting and vandalizing businesses in downtown Washington.

DreamHost resisted the original July 12 warrant, saying the scope of the warrant was too broad and trampled on the rights of 1.3 million visitors to the site, many of whom were simply exercising their First Amendment rights to express their political views. It also said the warrant would expose the identities of the 1.3 million people who had visited the site.

To continue reading: Judge Approves Warrant For “Antifa” User Data From Anti-Trump Website

Advertisements

4 responses to “Judge Approves Warrant For “Antifa” User Data From Anti-Trump Website, by Tyler Durden

  1. ” the DOJ said it sought the records connected to the site amid concerns that it helped facilitate the planning of protests on Inauguration Day in which more than 200 people were arrested for rioting and vandalizing businesses in downtown Washington.”
    I initially read “it helped facilitate” that the “it” referred to the DOJ. Silly me. How about the CIA, FBI and/or others?

    Like

  2. I don’t like this. Not at all.

    Like

  3. I agree this is a bad move by the courts and this judge.
    There is no way that usernames, IP addresses and real identities of people should be given to any police agency based on they could have taken part in rioting. It should require a seperate warrant for each individual, a warrant based on actual evidence- not guesses.
    This is nothing more than a fishing expedition.
    As much as I despise antifa and their tactics- I have to side with protecting these people from a .gov stormtrooper fishing expedition.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. There was a time when Americans believed in freedom.

    The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.

    Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty-five years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.

    Nanny state laws don’t make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don’t need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don’t need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a mobile phone is illegal. People don’t investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.

    The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.

    Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.

    Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.

    Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?

    Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren’t there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn’t people educate or talk to people who bother them? Couldn’t people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn’t people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn’t attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Do people have consciences? Having no laws doesn’t mean actions have no consequences.

    If there is no victim, there is no crime.

    We don’t need thousands of laws when we only need 10.

    Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?

    Where does it end?

    If one state can have self-serve gas stations, why can’t every state have them? If sodas were legal 20 years ago, why can’t they be legal now?

    Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.

    Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn’t banning everything sound like the opposite of liberty?

    Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don’t people realize that freedom is a two way street?

    If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.

    If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.

    If you allow others to swear then you can, too.

    If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.

    Who wants to live in a prison?

    Think. Question everything.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s