Have a look at some of the media sites in Canada (where "hate speech", very broadly defined, can get you fined big bucks). Then ask yourself if you really want to see all sites like the Gulch either shut down or forced to become like that.

True, they're very polite -- at least unless you offend one of their favored groups. Then you might as well be the Devil.

Victims need to be allowed to prosecute their own cases. Otherwise if you're in an unpopular group (or the perp is someone with connections) you don't get justice.

Yes, it is forever, but there are ways to insulate yourself against this sort of investigation. Just register for websites using throwaway accounts on Hotmail or Yahoo, and connect to them using proxies (if not Tor). That way even under subpoena, the site owner can't tell the law how to find you because he doesn't know.

Of course I only advocate using these methods at sites that permit it. But a lot do. And I suspect Reason will soon be one of them, if it isn't already.

I'm sure that we are individually reasonable for what we say here. I neither write or condone violence against a person. I do warn of societal situations that might occur due to what our government tries to legislate. I do poke fun at the govt with facts to backup my statements, as I have done in the post about the Strange Clouds. I believe the executive branch is mashing the Constitution into the ground. Especially the First Amendment, I receive email from the NRA since I'm a member, that now there is is some govt control over the internet; that the're substanciated rumors that BHO with pen and phone will make illegal any talk,wriitten word or videos regarding guns. Again, a First Amendment violation. As many have said that BHO hates America and the Constitution.

Emotional discourse VS intellectual discourse:
There is an abundance of the first and an utter dearth of the second, THEREFORE the useful idiots can't discern the difference.

I am an American that respects the law and understands the Constitution. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. That an entity, or person decides to interpret it in a way that they think would justify their actions against me, consider my opening remarks, then act as you must - I will.

While I certainly think that this subpoena is inappropriate, it would not break my little heart if the Internet were a venue of poise and courtesy.

Jan, being a bit imaginative today...

I have the impression that anonymity is treasured
on many blogs -- is this right? . in my case, since
I carried the clearances for so long and have been
tracked tightly since youth, I consider it impossible. -- j
.

"Don't look at me," snapped Wesley Mouch. "I can't help it. I can't help it if people refuse to co-operate. I'm tied. I need wider powers."

At least the Reason subpoena was not one of those modern "pocket subpoenas" which are ever so popular

The Grand Jury system should be done away with. I had brief exposure to how the system works, and I was threatened with indictment if I didn't perjure myself to help build the government's case against the defendant. When I told the judge about the attempt to suborn perjury, which should have automatically shut the case down, she simply asked the Federal prosecutor if my claim was true, who of course denied it and the judge directed the case to proceed. In retaliation for my refusal to give false testimony, I was named an "unindicted co-conspirator" with no evidence to back it up, and it took threats of taking the issue to Congress for an investigation to get the charge removed. Government abuses the concept of justice in almost every Grand Jury action I've investigated, and it's hard to convince a jury that you're innocent after a Grand Jury decides the evidence points to culpability.

A more than equal elite better Demorat running for president and one who dwells in the Royal House of Clinton is Teflon above the law. .
The corrupt media condones with its silence while the DOJ just smirks.
But you know that.

I don't approve of making threats, idle or otherwise. But I suspect the government is using this as an excuse. Floyd Ferris would have loved this sort of thing.

What is also interesting to note is that the Supreme Court just handed down a verdict regarding threats not a week ago stating that in order for it to be a "threat", the individual identified had to be able to reasonably conclude it was a threat and not just "expression".

Dear Gulch webmaster,
I do not hold you responsible for any of my comments here. They are mine and mine alone.

A not-so-subtle reminder that what we say on the Internet is, in fact, forever.

On another note, it's interesting that this subpoena can be handed down in a little over a week, and months go by and the courts can't seem to get a glimpse of Hillary's unlawful server.