100 ms·

It sort of sounds like they want to put every individual that posted in that thread on a watchlist.

dsl 7y ago
Watchlist? Jail. Material support to an act of terrorism. Edit - from the search warrant application: "will be found evidence of violations of federal law, namely, intentional obstruction, by force or threat of force of persons in the free exercise of religious belief, resulting in death, in violation of 1 S U.S.C. § 247(a)(2), willfully causing bodily injury to persons through the use of a firearm because of the actual or perceived religion of said persons, resulting in death, in violation of 1 S U.S.C. § 249(a)(l), and damage to religious property, in violation of lS U.S.C. § 25 247(a)(l )" Edit 2: Lots of legal eagles on HN today that are upset at the word "material." Sorry? If you read the full search warrant it sounds like he torched a synagogue, and was encouraged to follow up with a shooting.
- nyolfen 7y ago
  what material?
- userbinator 7y ago
  Even those saying no and telling him not to do it?
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Even those saying no and telling him not to do it? Would this be an example of the dry irony the chans are so well known for?
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Its unlikely that he read any of the comments given the necessarily short time interval between announcement and perpetration.
- meowface 7y ago
  As disgusting as it is, it isn't a crime to say you agree with a terrorist's message or like what they're doing. Unlike in New Zealand, you can't be imprisoned for expressing thoughts or spreading information (like the shooter's manifesto). That said, there's nothing stopping them from putting such people on a watchlist, and if there was anyone deserving of being on a watchlist, it'd definitely be the people on 8chan /pol/ worshiping the shooter (so nearly all of 8chan /pol/).
  - lsiebert 7y ago
    I think it can become illegal in the US if you are encouraging people to do criminal acts imminently. That's arguably incitement, but I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
    - mrep 7y ago
      case in point, the girl that convinced her boyfriend to commit suicide: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/calls-and-texts-urging-suicide-can-be-manslaughter-court-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/calls-and-texts-...
    - flyingfences 7y ago
      It has to be both imminent and likely - if you saw somebody posting something like that, would you think they were actually going to do it? Nah, it'd blend in with all the other larping and shitposts.
      - shaki-dora 7y ago
        "It" did actually happen, shortly after the post, and was therefore both imminent and likely. This was also the second such incident within just a few weeks. Knowledge about Christchurch should maybe have informed these "shitposters'". Can't really claim it's all just a joke after people have died.
- bendbro 7y ago
  How was material support provided?
- microcolonel 7y ago
  The word material in material support is crucial.
ineedasername 7y ago
It does sound like that, but it also seems like they would have good reason to do so.
- CriticalCathed 7y ago
  I don't see how they have good reason at all. If you take a reasoned look you will see that there is in fact no impetus to do so. It's blatant overreach. Don't lick those boots too much or you might hurt your tongue.
  - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
    > I don't see how they have good reason at all. I believe it's called "intelligence gathering" and "law enforcement". How do you think it works?
    - iratewizard 7y ago
      Mass surveillance is also called "information gathering" and "law enforcement".
      - kl4m 7y ago
        But it's not mass surveillance at all. Specific people, specific circumstances, warrant.
        ShorsHammer 7y ago
        Mass surveillance would be far more likely to find co-conspirators here than an internet thread full of edgelords. Would you support it in that case?
        crazypyro 7y ago
        My argument would be that it isn't nearly specific enough. Simply commenting on a thread shouldn't be enough probable cause.
enraged_camel 7y ago
Why not? At least the ones that cheered the shooter on should be put on a watchlist, since there is good reason to believe that one of them might one day attempt something similar.
bilbo0s 7y ago
Don't kid yourself, the feds have already put those people on a watchlist. This is all part of the parallel reconstruction of evidence that will be used against them should the need arise.

dsl 7y ago

Watchlist? Jail. Material support to an act of terrorism. Edit - from the search warrant application: "will be found evidence of violations of federal law, namely, intentional obstruction, by force or threat of force of persons in the free exercise of religious belief, resulting in death, in violation of 1 S U.S.C. § 247(a)(2), willfully causing bodily injury to persons through the use of a firearm because of the actual or perceived religion of said persons, resulting in death, in violation of 1 S U.S.C. § 249(a)(l), and damage to religious property, in violation of lS U.S.C. § 25 247(a)(l )" Edit 2: Lots of legal eagles on HN today that are upset at the word "material." Sorry? If you read the full search warrant it sounds like he torched a synagogue, and was encouraged to follow up with a shooting.

nyolfen 7y ago
what material?
userbinator 7y ago
Even those saying no and telling him not to do it?
- krapp 7y ago
  >Even those saying no and telling him not to do it? Would this be an example of the dry irony the chans are so well known for?
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Its unlikely that he read any of the comments given the necessarily short time interval between announcement and perpetration.
meowface 7y ago
As disgusting as it is, it isn't a crime to say you agree with a terrorist's message or like what they're doing. Unlike in New Zealand, you can't be imprisoned for expressing thoughts or spreading information (like the shooter's manifesto). That said, there's nothing stopping them from putting such people on a watchlist, and if there was anyone deserving of being on a watchlist, it'd definitely be the people on 8chan /pol/ worshiping the shooter (so nearly all of 8chan /pol/).
- lsiebert 7y ago
  I think it can become illegal in the US if you are encouraging people to do criminal acts imminently. That's arguably incitement, but I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
  - mrep 7y ago
    case in point, the girl that convinced her boyfriend to commit suicide: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/calls-and-texts-urging-suicide-can-be-manslaughter-court-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/calls-and-texts-...
  - flyingfences 7y ago
    It has to be both imminent and likely - if you saw somebody posting something like that, would you think they were actually going to do it? Nah, it'd blend in with all the other larping and shitposts.
    - shaki-dora 7y ago
      "It" did actually happen, shortly after the post, and was therefore both imminent and likely. This was also the second such incident within just a few weeks. Knowledge about Christchurch should maybe have informed these "shitposters'". Can't really claim it's all just a joke after people have died.
bendbro 7y ago
How was material support provided?
microcolonel 7y ago
The word material in material support is crucial.

ineedasername 7y ago

It does sound like that, but it also seems like they would have good reason to do so.

CriticalCathed 7y ago
I don't see how they have good reason at all. If you take a reasoned look you will see that there is in fact no impetus to do so. It's blatant overreach. Don't lick those boots too much or you might hurt your tongue.
- amanaplanacanal 7y ago
  > I don't see how they have good reason at all. I believe it's called "intelligence gathering" and "law enforcement". How do you think it works?
  - iratewizard 7y ago
    Mass surveillance is also called "information gathering" and "law enforcement".
    - kl4m 7y ago
      But it's not mass surveillance at all. Specific people, specific circumstances, warrant.
      - ShorsHammer 7y ago
        Mass surveillance would be far more likely to find co-conspirators here than an internet thread full of edgelords. Would you support it in that case?
      - crazypyro 7y ago
        My argument would be that it isn't nearly specific enough. Simply commenting on a thread shouldn't be enough probable cause.

enraged_camel 7y ago

Why not? At least the ones that cheered the shooter on should be put on a watchlist, since there is good reason to believe that one of them might one day attempt something similar.

bilbo0s 7y ago

Don't kid yourself, the feds have already put those people on a watchlist. This is all part of the parallel reconstruction of evidence that will be used against them should the need arise.