Blogging Ethics

In regards to the B&S commenter who was arrested for his comment on B&S, I gave the police his IP address.  I did so without being legally required to do so.  I gave the information when asked without being served with anything.  Was I wrong in doing so? 

I don’t think so.  I feel no obligation whatsoever to protect commenters’ information from law enforcement.  I’m not going to go sending information out to just anyone.  I encourage comments and understand that some people wish to remain anonymous.  I don’t have a problem with that.  But if law enforcement asks for whatever information I have about commenters, they should not be under any illusion that I’m going to lawyer up to protect that information.  I’m not going to take any responsibility for things that I did not write. 

That being said, in this particular case, all I passed on was the IP address.  The commenter’s ISP gave the police his address and name.  Also, given the nature of the comment, I have no doubt that had law enforcement would easily have obtained a warrant for the information anyway, so a refusal by me to provide the IP address would only have delayed the matter and cost me the expense of a lawyer. 

What do you think?  Where is the ethical line for a blogger when it comes to this kind of information?

1. Would you necessarily have to “lawyer up” to refuse to give an IP address without a warrant?

   Posted by Nick on December 01, 2007 at 1242 hrs




2. Read the news story this morning, and came over here to see the other end of things.  In a nutshell, I’m a liberal and support teachers, but what Buss allegedly did was ridiculously stupid, out of line, and discredits any argument that any of us who want to engage in actual discourse can present.  (Gee thanks, James.)

   As for you, Owen, I can say that if the authorities asked for the IP address of anyone who commented to my blog, I would do the same thing.  The Internet is publication, under the law, and if the information of someone’s IP address is involved in order to thus publish, then it’s free for the taking.  Good on you for not making it difficult either for you or for them.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1242 hrs




3. Not necessarily, but I would just to be prudent.

   Posted by Owen on December 01, 2007 at 1243 hrs




4. Does the ethical line for the blogger shift depending on the content of the commenter’s comments?  If the commenter were a trusted member of the community who you’ve developed a relationship with, one whose positions as stated in the comments were not abhorrent to you (OK, maybe abhorrent is a little strong a word—but you get the idea), would that ethical line move a little closer to lawyering up and keeping the information from investigators?

   Posted by Mike on December 01, 2007 at 1416 hrs




5. You did the right thing.  NO doubt about it.

   Posted by Darren on December 01, 2007 at 1426 hrs




6. If it’s any consolation, I believe you did the right thing.  What if you had done nothing, and the guy was a serious whacko who carried out some bizarre vendetta?  Not a good scenario.

   Posted by Kate on December 01, 2007 at 1428 hrs




7. Owen,
   It’s your board, and up to you run it any way you like.  If the commenter’s don’t like it, they a free to go elsewhere.  I would have pushed the issue with the detective as I tend believe that if a judge would have signed so easily, as one obviously did to get the info from the ISP, then I want to see it.  Not to be a jerk about it, but I think the government expects us to follow the rule of law, and thus they should be held to same expectations.  I have always been advised by lawyers that we are provided rights and should not be eager to give them up.  There was a mechanism in place for them to get the information if you had refused.  In the same breath, you have the right to cooperate.  Either way no, no harm, no foul. Just a matter of individual freedom!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1433 hrs




8. I can’t argue with what you did Owen.  It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

   I would like to pose a different senario, and wonder if you would do the same thing.  In this case, whether it was this guy’s real opinion or him posing as a conservative straw man, there was reason for concern based on the tone of the comment.  However, what would you have done if this had been a comment that read by you was clearly sarcastic or in jest and whomever filed the complaint just misread the comment?  Would you have acted differently, or did you not take that into consideration when responding to the police?

   Not making a judgement here, just curious if you would have, or would in the future, use a filter on this request if it was clear in youur own mind that the comment was being misread.

   That question being posed, you bring up a good point on anonymity on the net.  I comment here anonymously for a variety of reasons, but I don’t put up comments I wouldn’t be able to defend or stand behind should the situation arise where they were attributed to me.  Gotta check yourself people,

   As often goes unsaid, thanks for the forum, and the opportunity for a confirmed liberal like me the opportunity to discuss topics with people from a very different perspective.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1442 hrs




9. Normally I would agree with your RottDawg, and I would have demanded a warrant.  However… in the case of an IP address from a website… its a little different IF you use an outside hosting service.

   If you use an outside hosting service, then the police could go directly to your ISP and demand access to your log files to find the information, in which case you lose control over how much information you provide, and how its provided.

   If you run your own server in your own home, then its a different matter all together.

   Posted by Nick on December 01, 2007 at 1443 hrs




10. You might look at this as whether the commenter has a legal expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment such that the police would need a search warrant, or whether they could have obtained the IP address from you with a subpoena.

    One way to analyze it is to compare text messaging with phone numbers.  If the government wants to contents of your text messages, which are saved on a server by your cell phone provider, it clearly will need a search warrant.  But if all the government wants is a list of phone numbers you have called or a list of the numbers who have called you only a subpoena is required.  The text messages are content, the phone numbers are not.  They merely are a record of who you’ve called or who has called you but do not reveal the content of the conversation.

    The IP address is more like phone numbers than text messaging.  It isn’t content but only identifies the owner of the computer that posted the content.  There is probably no reasonable expectation of privacy and probably no fourth amendment protection.

    A case working its way through the system right now in the 9th circuit that deals with some of these issues is United States v. Mcreary.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1459 hrs




11. I agree with Nick, if the IP address is solely located at your home and is not in the hands of a third party, it’s different.  But is usually not the case.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1501 hrs




12. you can run your blog however you like, but I would suggest that you make it clear in every way to your posters that you don’t stand up for their privacy rights. Let everyone know clearly that you don’t have the backbone to simply ask for a court order to protect posters from the rights afforded to them by law. Tell everyone that bloggers rights for free speech are not held up here and there is no expectation for anonymity.  god can you imagine a society where no one stood up for the legal rights of another? I can. Nazi germany.

    If you ever do feel like educating yourself on the legal rights of bloggers check out http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1506 hrs




13. It worked out in retrospect, but a “papers please” policy might be a good idea. Let a judge look over the situation and decide if the cop is over reacting, from a legal point of view.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1533 hrs




14. And if this union teacher had been a nut for real, and had killed one or more union teachers after his post, it would have been people like Proxy and the liberals who would have donounced Owen for not sharing the information. 

    Hey liberal bloggers heres a thought, don’t pretend to be right wing nuts and don’t make threats online and you won’t have a problem with the law.

    Owen was 100% correct and he deserves our support.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1642 hrs




15. Proxy and Phillep was have a better point to make if our criminal justice system were without constitutional procedures for the protection of the rights of the accused.  But if anything the accused have too many rights.  The danger that someone will be denied due process when his identity is discovered is minor so it is less justified for others to help him to hide it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1645 hrs




16. I do not see why it should be Owen and Jed that are responsible to clearly state anything.  It is their site and others here are simply guests.  It should be the responsibility of the guest to “check” themselves.  The ultimate responsibility is on the individual making the post or comment. 
    The thing that I really can’t believe is that the ISP provided the information, or that based on this evidence that the court would have forced them to.  I am not a lawyer, but I have to believe that the ACLU is going to be all over this. 
    If it’s this easy to get a warrant and arrest someone, then why are we having such a hard time getting warrants for terrorists?  With no direct threat from the “whacko” in question here, I am amazed that the police got as far as they did.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1710 hrs




17. >If you run your own server in your own home, then its a different matter all together.

    No, it’s no different.  You still need an ISP to connect you to the Internet, and those logs can and should be checked and verified.  In this case however, the poster did admit to posting it, so further verification was not needed.

    Just because Owen saw the IP address in his blog software does not mean that it wasn’t spoofed.  For that type of tracking, one has to look at the logs of all the routers between both ends.  I would hope that a court of law would not take the entry logged by Technorati as the sole piece of evidence.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1718 hrs




18. Sometimes proxy servers can be your friend.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1723 hrs




19. Oh and one other thing…
    I wonder how the member of the West Bend school board adminstration feels about creating the problems they did for this individual that got arrested… LMAO good for a chuckle at least…
    They had to be thinking they were going nail some “right winger” to the cross and ended up getting one of their own…
    Ironic

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1725 hrs




20. First, there’s a lot of nonsense being posted here.

    1. An IP address can’t easily be spoofed. DNS name, yeah, but the IP address is a tougher nut to crack. The “spoof” thing is defense-attorney octopus ink. Due to the nature of the internet protocol and the underlying transmission control protocol, it’s pretty much a guarantee that the post came from that machine.

    Apart, of course, from the fact that the unbalanced teacher has apparently owned up to his unhinged comment.

    2. People are raving about the “privacy rights” of commenters and Owen’s “duty” to them. Owen doesn’t owe us a blessed thing. These privately owned, publicly displayed internet pages are a public place. If you do not want your comments in a public place to be attributable to you, don’t comment. If you do comment, be aware that all changes on well-run servers are accountable and an audit trail is preserved for a period. 

    3. Right thing or wrong thing? (Ha. I finally get to the real question). Look, the Ron Paul libertarians will argue that you should always stand up to the power, or some such nonsense. The police made a reasonable request with reasonable legal authorization behind it, for information that was (1) clearly germane to the case they were investigating and (2) constrained in scope to only what the case required.

    Could Owen have stood on his rights and demanded the cops go get a warrant? He could. The cops, then, would have left one cop with him and sent the other to the judge to get the warrant. Everybody would have been tied up for houres to get to the exact same outcome. Or maybe a worse outcome—the cops could have persuaded the judge to give them an even larger warrant, perhaps taking a copy of Owen’s hard disk to peruse at their leisure. (Some judges wouldn’t let that go, and some would).

    The loss of a morning, or irritating the town gendarmes who are normal human beings and have normal human reactions to having reasonable requests thwarted, might mean nothing to the average slashdot denizen who views the world from his safe haven in Mom’s basement. In the real world, weighty constitutional questions are weighed in practical terms.

    Giving up the IP was morally right because the poster was using his anonymity to threaten (and, it turns out, to defame others with “black” propaganda). It was legally right because Owen had no duty towards an anonymous (or, for that matter, a named) commenter, but he does have a duty to society to assist in the implementation or society’s laws, in the formation of which he has a role as a voting citizen. And it was practically right, because it was the quickest way to bring the question to its inevitable conclusion with the least disturbance to all.

    Posted by Kevin O'Brien on December 01, 2007 at 1753 hrs




21. Fark has the story now.
    Not yours, but channel 3000’s.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 1908 hrs




22. I agree with Owen that the posted comment did not seem to be a serious threat.  The DA’s conclusion will be interesting.

    Having said that, it is reasonable for Owen to have acceded to the request of the police in this case.  It’s not up to Owen to judge the gravity of the threat, nor the character/disposition of the poster (Buss.)  It’s up to the cop shop and DA.  There are no “privacy” issues here.

    Just as important, Owen’s a member of the West Bend community and someone in that same community thought that they were threatened (real or imagined…).  It would be unseemly and awkward for him to put up blocks to the police in a local matter.

    Posted by dad29 on December 01, 2007 at 1930 hrs




23. Right thing or wrong thing? (Ha. I finally get to the real question).
    Look, the Ron Paul libertarians will argue that you should always stand up
    to the power, or some such nonsense.

    I once again want to make clear that I think Owen was absolutely “in the right” to make the choice that he did! 

    I also want to add that if he had made them get the paperwork from the judge, he would have been “in the right” as well.  I do agree with some of those left of center in their assertion that some on the right (I consider myself on the right) tend to forget about the right to privacy. 

    I don’t dislike LE, but I do think that some of them have inflated ego’s and attempt to cut corners and generally be lazy in their job.  These are possibly some of the same people that were surrounding some of us at the tax payers rally…  shouting “Do your job!” 

    I’m NOT saying all, I’m saying some, just like we have dishonest citizens, we have a very few dishonest cops.

    My point is that while Owen made a choice, and I may have made the same choice, the next person may want to preserve their right to privacy.  If a judge sees a need to trump that right so be it, that’s the law, and I might add, that person better have their ducks in a row.  Is that person wrong to want privacy?  Maybe, maybe not?  Does it make them a Paultard libertarian?  I don’t think so, no more than it makes most of us so for wanting any of our other rights.  The guy had the right to type that comment, or I guess that’s left to be decided.  The individual had the right to make the complaint.  The detective had the right to ask for the IP and Owen had the right to give it to him.  Had he said no, it would not have made a him a bad guy.  He would have just been exercising one of his rights.  Then LE goes to the judge and we are right here where we are. 

    I think that a lot of people look at the television and read blogs and news and see the corruption in LE, like Peterson in Illinois, and that situation that took place last month in Sheboygan… If LE can build a relationship with the community, such as they must have for Owen’s community, people will be much more willing to cooperate.  I just hope that we will always have the right to let a judge decide… 

    In case you couldn’t tell… the Ron Paul thing didn’t sit well with me! 

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 2106 hrs




24. What’s an IP address?

    Posted by elliot on December 01, 2007 at 2130 hrs




25. Idiot Person

    Posted by Owen on December 01, 2007 at 2133 hrs




26. In this case I *think* you did the right thing, though I’m not certain.  The post could have been taken as a threat - if you squint and lean your head to the left.

    It’s certainly possible to imagine a situation where an ethical blogger would destroy his hard disk before turning it over.

    Say an anonymous commenter writes “Chief Wiggins, Judge Hudson and Mayor McFly are on the take.  They are demanding and getting huge payoffs from the developer of the Downtown Mall.  They were with him on a trip to France on his private jet, just before they approved the condemnation of the orphanage and retirement home that refused to sell.  There’s more, I’ll post it as soon as I get this audio file of their conversation converted to MP3”

    Suddenly, the police show up wanting the IP of the commenter.  What are you going to do?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2007 at 2212 hrs




27. Owen,

    As a blogger, I’d say that you did the right thing. People such as “Proxy” are whacked if they believe they have “rights” here on the government invented, monitored, internet.

    Obviously if you have to post anonymously in order to make threats, or pointless drivel, then you deserve to be ratted out like the coward you are.

    HeH

    Posted by David Nick on December 01, 2007 at 2235 hrs




28. You did the wrong thing.  You should have required the police to serve you with a subpoena and given the poster an opportunity to fight the subpoena if he wanted.

    What you did was wrong.  Stand up for the First Amendment, coward!

    Posted by Lisa on December 01, 2007 at 2312 hrs




29. Lisa must be part of the Left Wing conspiracy!!!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 0050 hrs




30. Yes, we left wingers are known for opposing government interference in people’s lives when they haven’t actually hurt someone else   Oh wait, that used to be the right wingers.

    Posted by Lisa on December 02, 2007 at 0100 hrs




31. Seriously, This is much ado about nothing.

    If someone crosses a line(anywhere) of criminal instigation, they should answer for it.

    Buss’s delusions of what the opposition talks about , put him in the spot he’s in.

    One way or the other the continual delusions and machinations of the left will expose their attempts at chicanery, IF people pay attention.

    We can only pray.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 0106 hrs




32. “Pillory” was me having fun!? OK? a little play on words!?

    I know…..........., I should get out more.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 0141 hrs




33. My problem with this. Are the Taxpayers on the hook
    for Buss’s stupidity??

    He is a public employee.

    Will the union cover his debt. And/Or provide his legal talent?

    We all know he’ll be at home with pay.

    Oh That’s right, public malfeasence has no consequences.

    If only Stupidity was painful.

    I’ll be leaving this state as soon as I can.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 0220 hrs




34. The EFF has explored this issue pretty well.  You have the right to run your website the way you see fit.  I would argue that it’s your decision to make.

    That said, here is my opinion.

    I would argue that there *is* a reasonable expectation of privacy on this website regarding the IP address used to submit a post here because; 1.) your registration process does not ask for any personally identifying information and even asks for non-personally identifiable information (screen name), and 2.) that you don’t make all post’s IP addresses public.  I think that if you asked your readership if they expected to have some manner of privacy in both reading and posting on this website, that they would say, “Yes.”

    I would argue that it’s not my/your decision to make if we turn over private information (the IP addresses used to make posts on your website are private because they not available to the public) to the local, state, or federal government—that’s a judge’s decision to make when fulfilling the request for warrant.  For example, did the police do nothing to authenticate themselves other than call you over the phone?  I suspect that is the case based upon your comments.  Fortunately, this appears to be the lesser evil done in this matter.

    Take for example the recent case here in the Phoenix area of a state prosecutor subpoenaing the IP addresses and records of an entire newspaper and website without a warrant and in violation of state rules of a grand jury;

    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2007/11/jud ge_baca_smacks_down_dennis.php

    Imagine the legal problems that this newspaper would be in had they complied with “the law.”  In this case, the state was attempting to do harm.  Did they do the right thing by defying the subpoena?  The run-away prosecutor personally ordered the arrest of the owners of the newspaper when they published the legal misdeeds of the court/prosecutor.  That’s pretty damn scary right there.

    The issue of people behaving badly when they believe that they are anonymous is nothing new—non story.  That’s the Greater Internet Fuckwad theory.  Turning over customer service-provider info without a warrant and arrest on dubious charges?  That’s where the story is here.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 0552 hrs




35. I have no problem with what Owen did.  He was cooperating with the police, and frankly, could have been forced to give them the info. sooner or later, anyways.  People need to learn that what they post on the internet may possible come back and bite them in the butt, simple as that.  Whatever happens to the nut is not Owen’s or anybody else’s fault but his own.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 1433 hrs




36. You should have waited to be served. We are expected to follow by the laws of our nation so should the authority figures follow by the rules the government has created.  We need to stand up for our first amendment rights.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 1612 hrs




37. Owen, do you have a written privacy policy for your blog?

    Have you stated that you will not share information unless required by law in the course of an investigation?

    If not, then there should be absolutely no expectation on the part of any poster that you will protect any personal information.

    Furthermore, as Nick stated above, you don’t have complete control over your records if you use an outside hosting service.  You wouldn’t have the ability to keep information from the police if you tried.

    I don’t think that you should be slammed for treading on the privacy rights of Buss.

    This isn’t a matter of privacy in my view. The real issue is Buss impersonating someone and making what West Bend school officials and the West Bend police deemed to be threatening posts. That wasn’t your call. It was their call.

    I would have cooperated with the police as you did. I wouldn’t want to take on the responsibility of protecting a potentially violent, unstable individual by delaying the police investigation.

    I would question the morality of withholding the information in this case, not giving it up.

    Posted by mary on December 02, 2007 at 1638 hrs




38. As for the ethics of releasing the IP address, I don’t think that’s really a question. Every commenter willingly leaves that calling card every time they visit. If it were a business, or a site with a posted privacy policy, that would be different. But without some promise to protect that information, there is no obligation to do so.

    There is no expectation of privacy.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 1651 hrs




39. Mary,

    We do have a published comment policy.  It’s in the terms of service found here:

    http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/terms _of_service/

    It says:

    Comments and forum posts at this site express the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the owners and administrators of this site. We accept no responsibility for any information or statement published on this site by anyone other than the owners and administrators of this site.

    All comments and forum posts become the property of the site owner(s).

    We reserve the right to remove, edit, or move any comments or forum posts for any reason and without notice. As a general rule, we don’t delete any comments or forum posts other than spam. However, any comments or forum posts we deem to be threatening, unlawful, or the product of trolls and/or sockpuppets, will be deleted, and may result in permanent banning of the author.

    Users who believe that a comment or forum post is in violation of this policy may request that we delete or modify a comment, but the ultimate decision rests with us.

    Posted by Owen on December 02, 2007 at 1657 hrs




40. What’s funny about this situation is the lefty union mook thinks he’s furthering his cause by presenting an impostor character that acts like a buffoon…but he got caught….and now we get to see who the buffoon really is…hah!

    Posted by joeythelovesponge on December 02, 2007 at 1759 hrs




41. Yes, Owen, I read your “terms of service.”

    It’s clear to me that your published comment policy isn’t a privacy policy.

    Thus, when someone CHOOSES to post on your site, they should not assume that you are bound in any way to hold all information in some sort of double super secret lockbox when contacted by law enforcement.

    FACT: You didn’t victimize Buss by cooperating with a police investigation.

    FACT: You didn’t violate a contract or any stated obligation to Buss.

    This isn’t a First Amendment issue at all.

    I think some here are trying to make it one in order to deflect from the utter embarrassment of Buss being exposed as an impostor.

    I completely support your decision.

    Posted by mary on December 02, 2007 at 1853 hrs




42. .
    According to jsonline, police say the writer was “apparently posing as a teacher-hater”... and it seems there is now no difference between words and actions.  I will be interested to see what “criminal charges” are assigned to Mr. Buss in this matter.

    Seems the purpose of Buss’ comments are not clear just yet, but Owen Robinson has suggested Buss intended to affect a political outcome.  Inappropriate as what Buss said may have been, have we actually arrived at the point where such comments should result in Gestapo tactics ?  Teachers, and apparently others, are quick to take Buss’ comments as a threat to themselves, but fail to see the larger threat to their own freedoms?

    I say this as someone who manages discussion forums - forums which make it clear up front that messages of hate are not welcome, and not allowed, and that is not a violation of anyone’s freedom of expression.  What we say is an act for which we are responsible, and many of us need to be reminded of that too often, and need to be encouraged to consider our behaviors and change what is less that appropriate.  What we SAY in an online forum is not the same as speaking in public - it is more akin to being a guest in someone’s home where the guest will ask that we leave if our behavior is not appropriate.

    However, as an action, what we SAY is not equal to what we DO, and I think if we have reached a point where what we say results in our arrest, then we are all in deep trouble, because once that line is crossed, who has the authority to decide what is “acceptable” to say and what is not?

    The question Mr. Robinson has posed here is:
    “Where is the ethical line for a blogger when it comes to this kind of information?” is for the host to decide unilaterally
    ... yet the question of “Where is the ethical line for aiding in criminalizing another person’s speech?” is not asked.

    According to the Journal Sentinel, Mr. Robinson is quoted as saying, “The comments were not a direct threat to teachers.  This is free speech.” ... and I see nothing to indicate any specific threat to harm any individual, so Mr. Owens subsequent actions puzzle me.  If a specific threat to an individual or group appeared in one of the groups I manage, I would take action without waiting to be asked, but in this case, I disagree that providing information voluntarily was appropriate since there was no specific threat.

    If We, The People, who inhabit the “land of the free and the home of the brave” have actually succumbed to such fear, then perhaps it is time all of us were locked up.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 2217 hrs




43. Plain and simple, It’s his site, and he could take all of the records to the police if so desired… what is so hard to understand about that?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 2236 hrs




44. I think everyone acted appropriately here except, of course, Mr. Buss.  Some teachers read the comment and were understandably upset.  Given the recent number of school shootings and the fact that most shooters seem to have given some “notice” of their intentions, it isn’t unreasonable to be fearful.  They notified the police of their fears.  The police contacted Owen to ask for his cooperation.  He chose to give it—the guy was an idiot and didn’t deserve the effort Owen would have had to go through to “protect” him.  Owen was not responsible to ascertain if the threat were serious or not, and cooperating with the police put the responsibility of making that assessment where it belongs. 

    If a similar situation arose again (heaven forbid!) Owen might make a different decision.  That is his right.  It is his blog.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 0723 hrs




45. You did the right thing Owen.

    As usual you are pegging the class-o-meter

    Posted by Fred on December 03, 2007 at 1118 hrs




46. so what happend to the guy? is the DA pressing charges?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1143 hrs




47. The DA has it today.  No word yet on any charges.

    Posted by Owen on December 03, 2007 at 1151 hrs




48. Thank Heavens for commenter Lisa (#28).

    Whatever happened to free speech, people? This guy may be an idiot—his sense of humor certainly isn’t funny—but to be fired and policified for what clearly was an over-the-top sarcastic statement on a blog board? Punishment fit the crime?

    There was no crime. I betcha he gets off ... as he should.

    Feel free to trace my IP. Like, I couldn’t send this from the public library?

    (p.s. Note that this board doesn’t even require a valid e-mail address for commenters… (or so it seems to indicate below).

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1207 hrs




49. If it was me I would have declined to provide the IP address.

    If I personally had believed it was a threat, I would provide the IP address because I wouldn’t protect someone who did something that I thought was wrong.

    Since I personally don’t believe it was a threat, I wouldn’t have provided the IP address without a warrant because I would want to put every layer of review/scrutiny between the police and the poster.

    FWIW I think the poster is an idiot and deserves all of the shame in the world. I just don’t think he did anything illegal, and as such, I wouldn’t want to aid in what I believe to be unjust prosecution of someone.

    I know he hasn’t been charged, and hopefully he will not be charged and common sense will prevail. 

    Since I don’t have faith that common sense would prevail given the state of hysteria and victimization in society today, I would rather have had a judge look at the situation beforehand in order to get a warrant to obtain that IP address, rather than hope the DA does the right thing and lets this guys embarassment and shame be his punishment.

    I’d like to see the guy held accountable for misrepresenting himself in the court of public opinion, but not punished for supposedly making a threat, which I don’t think he did.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1222 hrs




50. Mr. Buss got his freedom of speech. He said what he wanted to say, and there was no prior-restraint.

    Now he gets his chance in court (if the DA does anything) to defend his right to free speech (vs falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater).

    Now, if you guys don’t trust the DA—well that is a big problem in the US… The DA can make your life miserable.

    If you don’t trust the courts to correctly decide a First Amendment constitutional argument on a public statement—then what gives you confidence that the courts would rule (correctly) on a “privacy” of IP address case (I have looked before, and IIRC there is no mention of privacy in the Constitution or its amendments).

    And given the rules for a warrant are less strict than for a conviction (probably cause)—other than spending time and money, and possibly finding a more obsinate judge, what good would there have been in having Owen spending time and money (as well as the police, DA, and courts) wasting time and money to stand up for anonymous poster who never would have made this comment if he knew his named would be attached to it—Mr. Buss is the gutless wonder here.

    Owen could assert his right to require a constitutional search (warrant or whatever)—or he could choose to give any and all information in his hands to the police. And the police could probably have argued for probable cause based on the public statement by the unknown (at the time) commenter.

    Whether the IP address pointed to Mr. Buss’ home, work, or a library computer (by the way, I have to use my library card to log into my local library’s computers—not very anonymous)—Owen has every right to give any and all information in his hands to the police based on his personal desires.

    In the end I am behind Owen in his choice (I would also have backed him even if he decided to push for a court order—although I would have thought an order would have been unneeded).

    What interests me more, is if Mr. Buss should be criminally prosecuted for his statement.

    My first thought was it was a stupid comment not directed towards anyone in particular.

    My second thought is that it was on a post about local schools and somebody thought it a threat. The police needed to investigate the possible threat.

    They did. Does an investigation always need to turn into a criminal (or civil) action—No… Should this one—probably not.

    Will he get different treatment because he is a union teacher vs some right wing nut job—-hmmmm….

    But it is a wonderful case of schadenfreude towards a sock-puppeteer…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1348 hrs




51. The next thing I knew about this was when I read this news story saying that the commenter had been arrested….
    He did confirm that no other evidence was found at the man’s home and that the charges are based on the comment he left here at B&S;. 

    So first off, you didn’t know the investigation was based solely on that one blog comment.  For all you knew, that comment could have been part of a larger pattern of comments and behavior that was raising a well-founded fear of violence.

    Secondly, you didn’t expect an arrest based on just the comment.

    So it sounds like you trusted your local police to act reasonably, and they may have disappointed you a bit.  Whether you should continue to trust their good sense in the future ... well, I’m sure there are lots of more important data going into that decision than just this one incident.

    Thirdly and most importantly:

    I saw the email at about 7:30 AM on the 17th while I was sitting in my deer stand.

    It sounds like you had to make this blog-comment-related decision while it was distracting you from far more important things.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1405 hrs




52. It’s not free speech if the police break down your door and arrest you after you say it.

    And prior restraint isn’t the only issue when it comes to free speech.

    Posted by elliot on December 03, 2007 at 1405 hrs




53. So first off, you didn’t know the investigation was based solely on that one blog comment.  For all you knew, that comment could have been part of a larger pattern of comments and behavior that was raising a well-founded fear of violence.

    A valid point Ralph. (for me at least)

    Had the police said to me “we are trying to track a possible crime, can’t give you details but we need an IP address of someone who posted on your blog”

    I probably wouldn’t have given it a second thought and provided the IP address.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1429 hrs




54. I think it is generally a good policy to request a subpoena before disclosing information that is not publicly available.  Consider what is probably going to happen next, the idiot is going to sue the cops for violating his rights to free speech, you are probably going to be named in the lawsuit.  It is unlikely that you are going to be liable for any damages because you had no duty to safegard information that voluntarily given to you.

    The police were definitly out of line here, you not so much.  But having said that it is poetic justice (but not real justice) that the idiot trying to make you and your legitimate commentors look bad got hauled to jail and embarrassed.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1445 hrs




55. Whether one cooperates or demands a warrant in such a situation depends on assumptions one makes about the honesty and competence of the police.  Do you consider them a hostile occupying force to be impeded, or a beneficial public service to be cooperated with (like, say,  the folks who plow the roads.)

    This will obviously vary with locale.  In my town I’d go with “reasonably competent & trustworthy.”  If I lived in Durham NC I’d go with “hostile occupying force.”

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1507 hrs




56. It is free speech… He got to say what he wanted to say.

    The fact that there are consequences to free speech is a different question.

    People have consequences from free speech all of the time.

    The question for Mr. Buss is whether this was a threat or not.

    Craig Kilborn asked for “snipers” over a photograph of the president. People threaten public officials all of the time—and they are investigated. Certainly not all responsible for these utterances have been ever been charged with a crime (as far as I know, Kilborn/CBS was never charged/convicted).

    I don’t think a crime was committed here. But since there was a complaint, an investigation was warranted of the “anonymous” threat to determine if this was a real nut or not.

    The crime(s) that was charged are a load of BS…

    From Ann Althhouse’s blog:

    Unlawful use of computerized communication systems? Are you wondering about the scope of that crime (in case you might want to rein in your comments around here)? It’s part of the law against stalking, here. (Wisconsin statute, § 947.0125 — scroll down to “Unlawful use of computerized communication systems”). It’s not limited to threats of violence. It even covers a person who “[w]ith intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message and in that message uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act.” That’s a tad overbroad. It’s a Class B forfeiture if someone “[w]ith intent solely to harass another person, sends repeated messages to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system.” Apparently, repeating yourself is a crime around these parts.

    In this case, it appears to be another law “The State” has created which criminalizes bad or boorish behavior.

    Whether or not Mr. Buss is convicted under state, go after the PC laws and the legislature/governor that have created/supported these laws in the first place (and vote for originalist judges—and the executives that appoint them—instead of those that believe in an ever changing constitution).

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1553 hrs




57. Getting arrested for what you say is NOT free speech.

    Sure, people can experience consequences from exercising their freedom of speech. They can be fired. They can be ostracized. They can be sued.

    They cannot, however, be arrested by agents of the state and then prosecuted for what they wrote/said and still be said to be enjoying free speech.

    By your definition, China is a bastion of free speech because every person rotting in prison in Beijing for saying something the Communist Party didn’t like was able to say the thing that got them into trouble in the first place.

    Posted by elliot on December 03, 2007 at 1613 hrs




58. The sad thing is that China and Iran are, in some ways, freer than we are here in the US today…

    I have family living/working in China—and I was a tourist in China ~22 years ago (immediate in-laws left in 1948) and have a friend from Iran (who was put in prison for months for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, finger and toenails pulled, etc. in Tehran at ~16 years of age ~30 years ago) all telling me that there are much less government rules and regulations in general—and if you don’t cause explicit problems for the government, they don’t care about you.

    In the US, we are drowning in bad laws (IMHO)...

    I will be very clear—I don’t like the law that Mr. Buss was charged under and, I would hope, it will be found unconstitutional (if Mr. Buss fights the charges). However, until either somebody, like Mr. Buss, gets arrested and charged and fights/wins—or—until the bums are voted out of office and the laws changed, these are the only two methods that I know of to challenge/change a bad law (in California, we also have referendums).

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1628 hrs




59. Sure, people can experience consequences from exercising their freedom of speech. They can be fired. They can be ostracized. They can be sued.

    They cannot, however, be arrested by agents of the state and then prosecuted for what they wrote/said and still be said to be enjoying free speech.

    exactly

    
    kinda scary (in general) how people misunderstand rights or are ignorant of theirs etc.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2007 at 1651 hrs




60. I find it interesting that many of the post fault everyone except the dishonest teacher who made the post.  Do I think it was a crime? No. Do I think he should be exposed for this his stupid attempt to deceive the public? Yes. 

    But the one thing that everyone is missing is that from a law enforcement view that posting could have been a early warning of some dangerous event to come and they needed to investigate.  If they had not and something bad had happened they would have had to suffer the results.  This involved schools and police need pay attention to these matters.  We look back now and say their was no threat, but the police did not know that then. Owen did the right thing!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2007 at 0838 hrs




61. Anyone that wants to post anonymously needs to use an anonymizer like those listed at

    http://www.free proxy.ru/en/free_proxy/cgi-proxy.htm .

    You choose one of the proxys and then browse to whatever site you want to post anonymously on.

    Are you guys going to attempt to put the IP address in jail or at some point are you going to ask the DA to see if he can prove who was using the IP at the time that the “threat” was made? ROFLMAO

    Posted by Anonymizer101 on December 04, 2007 at 1251 hrs




62. Wikepedia:

    Risks of using anonymous proxy servers
    In using a proxy server (for example, anonymizing HTTP proxy), all data sent to the service being used (for example, HTTP server in a website) must pass through the proxy server before being sent to the service, mostly in unencrypted form. It is therefore possible, and has been demonstrated, for a malicious proxy server to record everything sent to the proxy: including unencrypted logins and passwords.

    By chaining proxies which do not reveal data about the original requester, it is possible to obfuscate activities from the eyes of the user’s destination. However, more traces will be left on the intermediate hops, which could be used or offered up to trace the user’s activities. If the policies and administrators of these other proxies are unknown, the user may fall victim to a false sense of security just because those details are out of sight and mind.

    The bottom line of this is to be wary when using proxy servers, and only use proxy servers of known integrity (e.g., the owner is known and trusted, has a clear privacy policy, etc.), and never use proxy servers of unknown integrity. If there is no choice but to use unknown proxy servers, do not pass any private information (unless it is properly encrypted) through the proxy.

    In what is more of an inconvenience than a risk, proxy users may find themselves being blocked from certain Web sites, as numerous forums and Web sites block IP addresses from proxies known to have spammed or trolled the site.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2007 at 1325 hrs




63. To me, free speech, to me is being ABLE to say anything - no matter how stupid.
    IT IS NOT doing so withour repercussions from your peers.
    Proxy, lisa and all the rest of you that think that Owen did “the wrong thing” need to realize that Owen was not the one that lied, inflamed and was generally a turd bucket with his comments - the poster was.
    That is why we have laws that deal with libel and slander.
    Owen had the RIGHT to dispense with him as he pleased. Anonimity is not is NOT protected in a public forum.
    Just ‘cause this idiot was too stupid to understand that, it doesnt make it a constitutional issue.

    Posted by still Unreal... on December 04, 2007 at 1354 hrs




64. One other thought-
    I have no problem if you’d behave differently depending on whether the cops are asking for info on one of your favorite old timers or an annoying troll like this guy.

    He was abusing your hospitality, and so had no reason to expect you to go out of your way for him.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2007 at 1525 hrs




65. I do not believe owen did the wrong thing, in the same way I do not believe posting opinions on a blog is grounds for arrest. Owen is merely the most recent pawn in the fight against free speech. He is happy because his site’s publicity has only gone up since this story broke. What does he pay TMJ for all that free publicity?

    Regarding getting information out of freeproxy.ru , have you ever attempted litigation in Russia? Good luck getting anything out of a site based in Russia. And I really do not fear Russians knowing my IP as much as I, apparently, should fear owen having it.
    How many people do you think are sharing the same IP I am using through freeproxy.ru right now? So anyone tracing it back to freeproxy AND able to get freeproxy to give them the list of incoming IPs that were connected to freeproxy at the time a message was posted on a message board would still have no way of determining which of those incoming IPs posted the offending message on the message board under freeproxy’s IP. Please tell me how you get around that one? Because then I will tell you about the wireless router I have connected to my modem that allows anyone in my neighborhood to access the internet via my ISPs IP address. Would they be spoofing?

    Lastly, why do you think this messageboard is configured specifically to not allow freeproxy.ru to be posted as a URL? Free speech is not encouraged here.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2007 at 1600 hrs




66. Well this story is national, so getting someone arrested for what they posted looks like a good move for you all. I can’t say I believe someone should be arrested for saying what was said, but there should be some repercussions, especially for someone in a teaching position. That person should be fired, not arrested, scorned, not oppressed. There was no threat made as far as I can tell, so it’s not the same as yelling “fire” in a theater. It was just a stupid comment, and a knee-jerk reaction that followed it.

    Posted by RealTrue on December 04, 2007 at 1640 hrs




67. If I worked at the school he did, I would be more than a little uncomfortable working there after that comment.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2007 at 1816 hrs




68. You are a bit of a pussy, unfortunately. At times, men are unwilling to stand up for men. They rat them out. The Man is becoming less tolerant of dissent. We The People stand between a repressive, free speech hating oligarchy and democracy.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 0027 hrs




69. In regards to the B&S;commenter who was arrested for his comment on B&S;, I gave the police his IP address.  I did so without being legally required to do so.  I gave the information when asked without being served with anything.  Was I wrong in doing so?

    I don’t think so.  I feel no obligation whatsoever to protect commenters’ information from law enforcement.  I’m not going to go sending information out to just anyone.  I encourage comments and understand that some people wish to remain anonymous.  I don’t have a problem with that.  But if law enforcement asks for whatever information I have about commenters, they should not be under any illusion that I’m going to lawyer up to protect that information.  I’m not going to take any responsibility for things that I did not write.

    That being said, in this particular case, all I passed on was the IP address.  The commenter’s ISP gave the police his address and name.  Also, given the nature of the comment, I have no doubt that had law enforcement would easily have obtained a warrant for the information anyway, so a refusal by me to provide the IP address would only have delayed the matter and cost me the expense of a lawyer.

    What do you think?  Where is the ethical line for a blogger when it comes to this kind of information?

    I think you should consult an attorney.  Mr. Buss was entitled to a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when he posted his comment on your blog and it was illegal for you to disclose any information about Mr. Buss to anyone, including a law enforcement agent, without be served with a valid warrant. 

    The recent decision by the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals (Warshak v. United States) the court ruled that individuals who engage in spatial technology have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Warshak concerned what steps a government agency must take in order to compel   information in connection with a criminal investigation under the 1986 Stored Communications Act. Sections 2703(b) and 2705 of the Act state in part that the government can compel such information, without notice to the customer, if “there were specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records of other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”  In effect, the court found that in order for the government to compel disclosure of personal information, like an IP address, it must have probable cause, i.e. a warrant.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 0501 hrs




70. Ask them why they want the IP.  Ask for 72 hours.  Make them tell you the matter is urgent and life or death.

    If they don’t, then use the 72 hours to email or call the EFF and ask for advice.

    If everyone acted as an agent of the State, the BOR would be meaningless.

    You are not obligated to protect your commenters.

    But, you are obligated as a citizen not to act as an agent of the state without the state first proving its case.  You are not obligated legally, you are obligated as part of your own personal debt to our founders and to your fellow citizens.

    I think you failed your debt as a citizen.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 0927 hrs




71. I don’t get it. A reasonable expectation of privacy in a public forum?

    A warrant/subpoena etc are only required if Owen does not voluntarily give up the info. Owen is under no obligation to demand a warrant/subpoena.

    There is no doubt in my mind many of you piling on Owen for giving up the IP would be piling on Owen for defending right-wing-nuts had the guy been shielded and carried through on his threat.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on December 05, 2007 at 1019 hrs




72. “Ask them why they want the IP.  Ask for 72 hours.  Make them tell you the matter is urgent and life or death. “
    Only if it’s a long time commenter whose contributions you value.

    Spammers and trolls like Buss deserve to be thrown to the wolves.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1137 hrs




73. I have just one question for you, Ralph:

    Bad boy, bad boy, wa’cha gonna do when they come for you?

    Each of us has ideas, thoughts, statements that can be misconstrued ... or that fall beneath the majority’s bar. If I recall, even we liberals were willing to let the Nazi sympathizers march in Skokie ... lest the next time Free Speech would be stomped on, it would be ours.

    Still, this is an interesting debate— more regarding the teacher’s fate than whether an IP address was too easily given up. (Which it was, IMHO.)

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1150 hrs




74. Haven’t read the whole thread… started to, but was afraid of getting roped into a bunch of “blah, blah, blippety blah”.

    In answer to Owen, I don’t see why there are people who are up in arms over giving a IP address to the police.  Anyone with half a brain, a program, and five minutes free time can get an IP address.  Making the police get the warrant might have showed some of the lunatic fringe that you’re “down with them”, but in this case it would’ve been pretty much pointless.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1201 hrs




75. To those that think Owen was wrong to turn over the IP address, repeat the following to yourself as many times as it takes to sink in:

    There is no privacy on the internet.

    There is no privacy on the internet.

    There is no privacy on the internet.

    And Owen owes the people who post comments on his blog absolutely nothing.

    Posted by elliot on December 05, 2007 at 1219 hrs




76. “Bad boy, bad boy, wa’cha gonna do when they come for you? “

    When the police come looking for my in someone elses house and he’s trying to decide whether to help me hide, I’ll have the advantage of not having just pissed on his carpet.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1250 hrs




77. Sorry, Ralph, I lost you after “76”

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1257 hrs




78. Would the blog host have complied so readily if a policeman asked for the the return address on a specific blue or brown or pink envelope that the policeman happened to know that the host received in the postal system mail the other day?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1303 hrs




79. Why, jbarth, did you send Owen something we might want to be concerned about?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1410 hrs




80. did the DA press charges yet?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1624 hrs




81. Mr Buss created what he thought was a believable character with the intention of making readers think that the illiterate violent caracature exemplifies Republicans or conservatives who oppose school tax hikes.  Unfortunately for him, he did his job a little too well and there was at least one person who thought his characterization was very real and as a result felt endangered by him.

    At that point she did what any rational person would do when they perceive a real threat of violence, she called the police.

    Criminals or doers of violence (and there was no evidence to prove Buss otherwise) are not entitled to be abetted by people like Owen. In fact he well understood his responsibilty which was to cooperate if he believes he may have information that will prevent a crime.  Buss is no different than any hoaxer who crosses over into threatening violence.  His intention is immaterial.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1750 hrs




82. And the voice of reason shines… Glad to hear from someone with roots firmly grounded in the real world.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1929 hrs




83. DA REFUSES TO CHARGE TEACHER

    Story in Journal-Sentinel Wednesday.

    West Bend - Washington County District Attorney Todd Martens has decided not to charge Oak Creek high school teacher James Buss for online comments he made on Nov. 16, facetiously saying the 1999 Columbine High School killers “knew how to deal with overpaid teacher union thugs” when they opened fire on students and staff.

    “I find the content of the blog offensive and disgusting,” Martens wrote in a letter to West Bend School District Superintendent Patricia Herdrich, who filed a complaint against Buss.

    “But to find the content illegal, it must have been directed to inciting imminent lawless action and have been likely to do so. I cannot so find,” Martens wrote.

    The 46-year-old Buss, who lives in Cudahy, posted the comments on the “Boots and Sabers” conservative weblog, apparently posing as a teacher-hater.

    Buss is past president of the Oak Creek School District’s teachers union. He was suspended from his job as a teacher at Oak Creek High School.

    Sara Larsen, superintendent of the Oak Creek-Franklin School District, said today that she will review the police report with Buss and then decide on what discipline to apply.

    Buss will be able to appeal her decision to the Oak Creek-Franklin School Board, she said.

    http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date;=12/5/20 07&id;=32684

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 2127 hrs




84. “Criminals or doers of violence (and there was no evidence to prove Buss otherwise)”

    Presumption of guilt, until proven not?  Dang, I’ve had it backward for so long.

    And, nevertheless, that DA gave up! I’m so confused.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 0222 hrs




85. “Criminals or doers of violence (and there was no evidence to prove Buss otherwise)”

    Presumption of guilt, until proven not?  Dang, I’ve had it backward for so long.

    Sure all one would have to do for your point to be correct is forget Busses own threatening statements.

    In any case youre talking about a standard for conviction, not probable cause.  Law enforcement is not required to allow someone to act on their threats of violence before they step in.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 0231 hrs




86. You did the absolute right thing, doing as you were told by the cops and letting them hunt down a man for posting something that offended the mainstream.  You have dutifully dealt a blow to free speech, crushing those that would dare to question, talk sarcastically, or have an unpopular opinion.  Remember that when they send you to gitmo for expressing your own opinion.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 0427 hrs




87. Blah, blah, blippety blah…  The rhetoric is so deep in here, I need hip waders.

    The was held, he wasn’t charged.  He made threatening statements that he was personally able to act on.  The police investigated, found out he wasn’t a psycho, just an asshole.  There’s no law against being an asshole (obviously or B&S;would be short a few commenters).

    Owen cooperated in a lawful investigation, and didn’t give out any info that anyone couldn’t have gotten with a program and a few minutes free time.

    The Right to Free Speech doesn’t come without some responsibility.  If you say something that might be actionable, not just offensive, you do it with the understanding that you could be shooting yourself in the foot.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 1057 hrs




88. You have dutifully dealt a blow to free speech, crushing those that would dare to question, talk sarcastically, or have an unpopular opinion.  Remember that when they send you to gitmo for expressing your own opinion.

    This is a silly characterization of what Buss did.  He did not “dare to question”. And if it was sarcasm, then Buss has never been taught how to do it right as sarcasm is typically self evident.

    I suspect you wouldn’t feel the same way if it was your ox which was gored.  Doubly ironic I think that it was someone on his side, someone who thought like him that people who oppose school tax hikes are illiterate and violent who made the first move to deny him his “free speech”.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 1238 hrs




89. I, myself, am a huge fan of irony…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 1322 hrs




90. So Cage, how about a comment on the rights of prisoners?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 1346 hrs




91. And why would I comment on the rights of inmates in a thread about blogging ethics?  Don’t get me wrong, I can talk about that all day, but just don’t think anyone on this thread wants to hear it.

    Just out of curiosity, pjr, what is it you’re trying to lure me into?  We haven’t agreed on much in the past, so what’s the hook here?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 1418 hrs




92. I, myself, am a huge fan of irony…

    Just a little more satire, relax.

    What, of substance, have we disagreed on Cage?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 1607 hrs




93. Of substance?  Not much that I can readily pull to mind.  There seem to be any number of people I tend to conflict with around here.  And I came to this blog to share opinions with like-minded people…. go figure

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 1700 hrs




94. And I came to this blog to share opinions with like-minded people

    And I did not. Go figure.

    What I have found is a lot of broad brush posturing that when challenged results in laughable assumptions of who I am and the role I think the government should play in our lives and the world around us.

    That’s where my concept of the “RoboCon” came from.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 1757 hrs




95. “I suspect you wouldn’t feel the same way if it was your ox which was gored.”

    I’m from colorado, I know people who’s friends died and I attended a school that got threats of the same in the aftermath.  I was one of those outcast kids who they looked at differently thinking ‘what if that freak i picked on is gonna kill me now’, and I got hit by the full state of fear that forced us to wear student IDs around our necks.

    Do not presume the ideals of free speech are lessened out of dissagreement, The amendment protects what you DO NOT want to hear.  If you thought that what he wrote was a ‘threat’ you have no understanding of what a threat is.  If you turn a man into the cops for speaking his mind, be it calling murderers heroes, denying the holocaust (im jewish so dont start on that one), or telling you the most abyssmal idiocies, you are the scum of orwell’s nightmares.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 1833 hrs




96. What I have found is a lot of broad brush posturing that when challenged results in laughable assumptions of who I am and the role I think the government should play in our lives and the world around us.

    GASP!  Me too!

    If you thought that what he wrote was a ‘threat’ you have no understanding of what a threat is.

    One aspect of threatening behavior is quite often the encouragement of those who have behaved violently, possibly prompting other potential whack jobs.

    You sound like you are a reasoning mammal, Track Me.  Don’t ruin that image by riding the high horse of self-righteousness because you think that “no one can possibly understand what I’ve gone through”.  No one on this blog knows anyone else well enough to make judgements on whether or not we are “the scum of Orwell’s nightmares.”

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 2007 hrs




97. If you thought that what he wrote was a ‘threat’ you have no understanding of what a threat is.  If you turn a man into the cops for speaking his mind, be it calling murderers heroes, denying the holocaust (im jewish so dont start on that one), or telling you the most abyssmal idiocies, you are the scum of orwell’s nightmares.

    Perhaps you should talk to his accuser.  A teacher like him.

    Speaking one’s mind is protected speech.  But occassionally rights come into conflict.  You argue that his viewpoint being sarcasm was self evident.  Not to the West Bend teacher.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2007 at 2140 hrs




98. Owen, I wouldn’t have been so courageous if I were in your place. Ain’t you afraid? Maybe the commenter will be released and he’ll come searching for you. It’s a small world and it’s round, this means it’s bound to run into each other at a certain point in time. I admire you and I wish you good luck in all your future plans!

    Posted by drug treatment on February 15, 2008 at 0729 hrs