App Can't Hide Identity Of Woman Accused In Planning Charlottesville Rally

[Rogue Valley]

Judge: App Can't Hide Identity Of Woman Accused In Planning Charlottesville Rally

Members of white nationalist groups and neo-Nazis at a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

8/7/18
A federal judge in California has ruled that a confidential messaging app must release the identity of a user who is accused of helping plan violence at a white nationalist rally last year in Charlottesville, Va. The unnamed woman is one of dozens of people accused of using the gamer chat app Discord to organize violence at that event. Lawyers representing victims of that violence have subpoenaed the app for more information on those conversations. But the woman, known as "Jane Doe" in the court case and "kristall.night" on the app, attempted to quash the subpoena. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the Northern District of California has allowed the subpoena to move forward, ruling that the user's right to anonymity is outweighed by the importance of investigating a possible violent conspiracy. But the real name of the user should be revealed only to a small circle of people involved in the court case, Spero said. Doe's lawyer, Marc Randazza, tells The Washington Post that he has not decided whether to appeal.

Good. Conspiracy to commit violence should not be allowed to hide within a HTTPS app.

Related: Subpoena for app called ‘Discord’ could unmask identities of Charlottesville white supremacists

 

[phattonez]

Judge: App Can't Hide Identity Of Woman Accused In Planning Charlottesville Rally

Members of white nationalist groups and neo-Nazis at a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.



Good. Conspiracy to commit violence should not be allowed to hide within a HTTPS app.

Related: Subpoena for app called ‘Discord’ could unmask identities of Charlottesville white supremacists

I'm concerned by this quote: "a possible violent conspiracy." So if I'm understanding this, there is no proof that she conspired to commit violence. Why should she lose her anonymity without any proof of wrongdoing?

What happens if her anonymity is lost and then she's found to have done no wrong? What is the penalty to the prosecution if all that they're doing with this case is trying to dox their political opponents?

 

[Rexedgar]

Looks like some sort of medieval re-enactors convention........wtf happened to America? Left will blame right and right will blame left. If you show up with helmets and shields, there will be blood...........

 

[phattonez]

Looks like some sort of medieval re-enactors convention........wtf happened to America? Left will blame right and right will blame left. If you show up with helmets and shields, there will be blood...........

I see no problem going to a protest with helmets and shields given Antifa's history.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I'm concerned by this quote: "a possible violent conspiracy." So if I'm understanding this, there is no proof that she conspired to commit violence. Why should she lose her anonymity without any proof of wrongdoing?

There was enough proof presented to satisfy a judge and obtain a subpoena.

 

[Rexedgar]

I see no problem going to a protest with helmets and shields given Antifa's history.

Of course you don’t......

 

[phattonez]

There was enough proof presented to satisfy a judge and obtain a subpoena.

Weird, because the article still refers to it as a "possible violent conspiracy." I'm skeptical.

And let's look at the lead lawyer for the plantiffs, Roberta Kaplan. She argued in front of the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA. She's also a lesbian. Do you think there might be some political motivation in what she's doing?

It seems pretty clear that this is nothing more than malicious prosecution, and I'd like to see Kaplan go down if nothing is found.

 

[phattonez]

Of course you don’t......

People who have a reasonable suspicion that they're going to be attacked shouldn't take precautions to protect themselves?

 

[Rexedgar]

People who have a reasonable suspicion that they're going to be attacked shouldn't take precautions to protect themselves?

Maybe stay home?

 

[phattonez]

Maybe stay home?

In other words, shut up and don't practice your constitutionally guaranteed 1st amendment rights?

 

[Rexedgar]

In other words, shut up and don't practice your constitutionally guaranteed 1st amendment rights?

No, put your hockey gear on and show up at the counter rally and exercise the hell outta your 1st A rights. Don’t whine if you get “stove in!”

 

[KevinKohler]

Of course you don’t......

You would prefer swords?

 

[KevinKohler]

Maybe stay home?

Threat of violence curtailing free speech. You support this?

 

[Rexedgar]

Threat of violence curtailing free speech. You support this?

You are going to need to be more specific. If you go some place expecting trouble, you are probably going to find it.

 

[phattonez]

No, put your hockey gear on and show up at the counter rally and exercise the hell outta your 1st A rights.

What does this mean? Nazis don't get a right to free speech?

Don’t whine if you get “stove in!”

Weren't you just calling for an end to political violence?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Weird, because the article still refers to it as a "possible violent conspiracy." I'm skeptical.

And let's look at the lead lawyer for the plantiffs, Roberta Kaplan. She argued in front of the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA. She's also a lesbian. Do you think there might be some political motivation in what she's doing?

It seems pretty clear that this is nothing more than malicious prosecution, and I'd like to see Kaplan go down if nothing is found.

Lol. Your bigotry knows no bounds.

:failpail:

 

[phattonez]

You are going to need to be more specific. If you go some place expecting trouble, you are probably going to find it.

It's incredible how you're here blaming the people who are protecting themselves and not the attackers.

 

[phattonez]

Lol. Your bigotry knows no bounds.

:failpail:

Oh yeah, you know those scores of lesbian alt-righters.

 

[nota bene]

No, put your hockey gear on and show up at the counter rally and exercise the hell outta your 1st A rights. Don’t whine if you get “stove in!”

Just secure a permit first.

 

[Xelor]

Judge: App Can't Hide Identity Of Woman Accused In Planning Charlottesville Rally

Members of white nationalist groups and neo-Nazis at a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.



Good. Conspiracy to commit violence should not be allowed to hide within a HTTPS app.

Related: Subpoena for app called ‘Discord’ could unmask identities of Charlottesville white supremacists

Cowardice rightly understood begins with selfishness and ends with shame.
-- José Rizal, Noli Me Tángere​

The woman, known as "Jane Doe" in the court case and "kristall.night" on the app, attempted to quash the subpoena [that sought to remove the cloak of anonymity, but the judge] has allowed the subpoena to move forward, ruling that the user's right to anonymity is outweighed by the importance of investigating a possible violent conspiracy. But the real name of the user should be revealed only to a small circle of people involved in the court case.

1. Red:
   Again we are given a demonstrable manifestation of the cravenness of racists, wrongdoers and their abettors.
2. Blue:
   I think the judge should have required the woman's name and role as organizer be posted on a billboard in the city of her current residence.

I don't have a procedural problem with the woman's having availed herself of the app and it so happens that the app masked her identity. I have a problem with her, upon being called to account for the actions she incited and/or organized using the app, rather than stand-up and "own" her actions and role, defending herself in civil court.



From the article:

Doe's lawyer, Marc Randazza, told the [Washington Post] that the subpoena was seeking to "out" members of the alt-right, saying that in today's political environment, "you have to be hounded out of your apartment, out of your job, out of whatever it is you have, if you have the audacity to have an unpopular political belief."

The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud.
-- Coco Chanel​

Pink:
Seriously? I'm going to consign that remark to the attorney merely doing his job.

Yes! If one who would be a leader of others having unpopular political beliefs such as one does and that one is of a mind to with them express, both having and expressing it may have consequences and facing them is among the forms of courage one must have. Sometimes the consequences include being "hounded out of your apartment [or]...job." In other instances, that out of which one may be "hounded" is more of the "whatever" genre.

Ask the Kennedys, Kings, Evers, Tills, Milks, countless men and women, along with all the American leaders who had the "audacity" to unpopularly believe was that a whole host of classes of folks should be treated in the same manners as (apparently) heterosexual white males and, in turn, express their unpopular belief by leading efforts to thus aid those classes of individuals in obtaining such treatment and consideration....Ask the families and friends of the ones who are now dead for having their unpopular beliefs and airing them.

Did those leaders know the risks they were assuming by expressing their unpopular beliefs? Goddamned right they did. White nationalists have exactly the same ability to express themselves, and fittingly, they must face the same risks. So, yes, "Ms. Doe," upon having her identity and role as a leader of a white supremacists' event revealed, may like so many before her have to bear the same risks as any other social leader.

One of those risks is the manifested disapprobation of other citizens who don't share her view. One'd hope that no physical harm befall "Ms. Doe" as it did the likes of Moore, Milk, King, and Kennedy. Lesser consequences are, however, just part of the game. Eggs and cake, you know...

In a word, I was too cowardly to do what I knew to be right, as I had been too cowardly to avoid doing what I knew to be wrong.
-- Charles Dickens, Great Expectations​

 

[phattonez]

Cowardice rightly understood begins with selfishness and ends with shame.
-- José Rizal, Noli Me Tángere​

1. Red:
   Again we are given a demonstrable manifestation of the cravenness of racists, wrongdoers and their abettors.

Racism isn't against the law, and it certainly isn't grounds to deny your anonymity.

Blue:
I think the judge should have required the woman's name and role as organizer be posted on a billboard in the city of her current residence.

On what basis?

I don't have a procedural problem with the woman's having availed herself of the app and it so happens that the app masked her identity. I have a problem with her, upon being called to account for the actions she incited and/or organized using the app, rather than stand-up and "own" her actions and role, defending herself in civil court.

You have a problem with her defending herself? Ooooookay.

Pink:
Seriously? I'm going to consign that remark to the attorney merely doing his job.

Yes! If one who would be a leader of others having unpopular political beliefs such as one does and that one is of a mind to with them express, both having and expressing it may have consequences and facing them is among the forms of courage one must have. Sometimes the consequences include being "hounded out of your apartment [or]...job." In other instances, that out of which one may be "hounded" is more of the "whatever" genre.

Ask the Kennedys, Kings, Evers, Tills, Milks, countless men and women, along with all the American leaders who had the "audacity" to unpopularly believe was that a whole host of classes of folks should be treated in the same manners as (apparently) heterosexual white males and, in turn, express their unpopular belief by leading efforts to thus aid those classes of individuals in obtaining such treatment and consideration....Ask the families and friends of the ones who are now dead for having their unpopular beliefs and airing them.

Did those leaders know the risks they were assuming by expressing their unpopular beliefs? Goddamned right they did. White nationalists have exactly the same ability to express themselves, and fittingly, they must face the same risks. So, yes, "Ms. Doe," upon having her identity and role as a leader of a white supremacists' event revealed, may like so many before her have to bear the same risks as any other social leader.

One of those risks is the manifested disapprobation of other citizens who don't share her view. One'd hope that no physical harm befall "Ms. Doe" as it did the likes of Moore, Milk, King, and Kennedy. Lesser consequences are, however, just part of the game. Eggs and cake, you know...

In a word, I was too cowardly to do what I knew to be right, as I had been too cowardly to avoid doing what I knew to be wrong.
-- Charles Dickens, Great Expectations​

This is nonsense. You want to destroy freedom of speech and the right to anonymity simply because you disagree with the rhetoric.

What happened to the left?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Comply with the subpoena or face the consequences.

Don't white nationalists and neo-Nazis believe in the law?

 

[phattonez]

Comply with the subpoena or face the consequences.

Don't white nationalists and neo-Nazis believe in the law?

We should all believe in the law upheld without partiality. This is clearly a case of a malicious prosecutor using this lawsuit as a means to dox political opposition.

 

[Rogue Valley]

We should all believe in the law upheld without partiality. This is clearly a case of a malicious prosecutor using this lawsuit as a means to dox political opposition.

No. It's uncovering a conspiracy to foment violence. Criminal actions need to be brought out into the light of day.

 

[phattonez]

No. It's uncovering a conspiracy to foment violence. Criminal actions need to be brought out into the light of day.

Okay, so where is the lawsuit against antifa for conspiring to commit violence? They had people there with flashlights, guns, and even a flamethrower. Shouldn't they also be investigated?

Further, the possibility of a conspiracy is not grounds to deny anonymity. Again I'll ask, what is the punishment for a prosecutor if there is no conspiracy and thus we find out that this was nothing more than an attempt to dox political opponents?