3857

Eh, he’s just a lawyer. I don’t tend to fault lawyers for defending pieces of shit.

3858

I’m always torn on approaches like this because… I often ask myself, how many of the Civil Rights leaders fall into statements like this back when anyone who was black and spoke was considered inciting something. Fortunately, most of them didn’t hide. They got went to the cameras to push change.

3859

I think the civil rights leaders understood they were breaking the law (when they were) and were prepared to pay the consequences for it. That was the essence of their courage.

You don’t have a free speech right to conspire to break the law. You may have a moral right - if the law in question is unjust - but it’s still a crime.

3860

You are correct, but I don’t think what they were doing, in general, should have been considered illegal in the first place, not then and not now.

I just think we need to be very cautious and narrow in holding people accountable, legally to what they say online, no matter the platform. Linking this to a crime that they helped orchestrate, well that probably keeps it pretty narrow.

3861

This is pretty much where I’m at.

3862

Yeah, I have to agree. I recall something about “excited utterance” stuff from when an old friend was going through law school, and I wonder if online stuff may sometimes fall under that. (IANAL, if that’s not obvious)

3863

I generally agree, but a criminal conspiracy is a criminal conspiracy regardless of the communications medium. Just because e.g. you and I use WhatsApp to plan our bank robbery rather than meeting in a bar to do it doesn’t change the nature of our act. It’s a crime.

3864

Well that why I added that second sentence. If the reason they can and are approaching it the way they are is because it is linked to an actual crime, and this person is part of or suspected of orchestrating that crime, then they are keeping that pretty narrow.

3865

No, which is probably why the judge said he can’t.

Generally speaking? No. He’s getting worse about it, to the point that other first amendment lawyers like Popehat are calling him on it. Turns out hanging out with people like Jones and Cernovich makes you dumber. That said…

This is a very much the truth. He’s a lawyer and you defend your clients. Everyone deserves representation and a lawyer doing everything they can for a client isn’t something I’ll fault someone on in 99% of cases.

Also this.

3866

Exactly this, because that is how our legal system works. Both sides get to make their best arguments, and that includes having counsel advocating for them. We have to protect that process.

3867

That’s not really the issue here. The issue is, if someone accuses you of conspiring to incite violence, can they demand that you give up your anonymity in order to prove the accusation?

Accusation is not proof, after all. People make them all the time. For instance, Trump accuses random people of all kinds of things. Is he entitled to dox his targets in order to try to prove his case?

Keep in mind that the right to anonymity is closely tied to freedom of speech, particularly in politics.

3868

It’s not people though right, it’s the judicial system. I would hope the courts have to have something more than just I woke up today and want my supporters to rally to demand someone’s identity.

I also think if they have enough to demand it, get it, and they’re wrong… that information should be sealed and not accessible to anyone.

3869

The order originated from a prosecutor, which means it could originate from Jeff Sessions, and by extension from Trump.

As for whether the courts need something more than “I just woke up today” - I hope so too. But the job of actually asking, “Do you guys have anything to support this request”? falls to the defense attorney. In that sense, Randazza is just doing his job.

3870

Yeah I don’t blame the lawyers involved, and my word of caution remains… despite my distrust of the legal system and those in it right now, I have to believe they’ve got to have more than just hey maybe that one kind of approach. There’s been attempts in the past in other cases where they were denied that info.

So again, just as long as they proceed with caution and not every idiot angry with our current administration, whether I like that party or not, isn’t uncovered and hauled off we should be… okay. If we ever get to the grey area, I say no, don’t unearth them, find another lead to get them. I doubt Discord will be the only thing these people used.

3871

Actually, I misspoke.

This is not a criminal trial for conspiracy. This is not a criminal trial at all. This is a civil lawsuit.

So yeah, if this user is doxxed, then basically anyone could potentially sic their lawyers to dox anyone else.

Of note, this user being doxxed isn’t even a defendant in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs just want to know her name in order to sue some other people.

3872

If it’s civil then I can’t say I’m remotely in favor of it.

3873

Why not? It’s an interesting question, not sure how I feel about it.

They already have the content of some of her messages because those messages were leaked by someone in the conversation. Her messages are pretty damning:

“Based on leaked chats, plaintiffs in the Virginia case say, the user kristall.night advised other people to bring shields and a helmet but not weapons they were not experienced with, while recommending that flagpoles could be used as spears and clubs.”

So the plaintiffs have some messages, thanks to leaks, but not all of them. They’ve subpoenaed the app service for all of them plus the IDs of the senders, because they have to have the IDs if they want to subpoena people as witnesses. Given the plain evidence of this person’s participation in a conspiracy to commit violence, why should her identity be protected so as to shield her from a subpoena and from liability for her actions?

It’s not like they have no evidence of wrongdoing or liability on her part.

3874

Carrying a weapon is not a conspiracy. Nor is telling someone else how to use weapon.

3875

It can be an element of one. The leaked chats don’t prove a conspiracy, but they’re certainly evidence of one.

If what they had were leaked voice recordings, it would be sufficient evidence for them to subpoena any other relevant existing recordings, and it would be sufficient evidence for them to subpoena witnesses who could identify the speakers on the recordings. How not?

3876

For one thing, she has not been charged with conspiracy.

For another, bearing arms and anonymous expression are both pretty fundamental rights. You shouldn’t be able to toss them aside to make a case that the DA won’t make.

Let’s pretend that Betsy DeVos sued you for defamation.

Since you communicate with Timex and you hold similar political opinions, they want to dox Timex. They don’t have anything at all from him that is defamatory, but maybe they can dig something up from his Facebook posts.

This would strike me as unconstitutional. But it’s analogous to the facts here.