Anderson Cooper "Exposing" Newtown Conspiracy Theory 1/11/13

[lupercal]

Lupercal, it would seem 47 USC § 223 is relevant to your question, and even 18 USC § 875 (c), under the right conditions. For starters.

Thanks. Glad to say that no one here is making "Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia" and no one here is attempting interstate extortion. At least, that I'm aware of.





p.s.

[barracuda]

You clearly didn't read the statutes very deeply. Allow me to help you out on the first one:

Whoever in interstate or foreign communications utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person who receives the communications, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Let's see if you can figure out why the second one might apply as well, all by your little onesy.

[MacCruiskeen]

You clearly didn't read the statutes very deeply. Allow me to help you out on the first one:

Whoever in interstate or foreign communications utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person who receives the communications, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Doesn't apply to anyone here, as far as I can see.

without disclosing his identity

Does that also apply to the countless anonymous "law enforcement officials" and media hacks who spread untruths across the globe about Nancy Lanza, Peter Lanza, Ryan Lanza and (I'm guessing) Adam Lanza? I thought not. But why not? Why not, exactly?

It's certainly striking that they made a point of singling out the "social media" while leaving the cops and the corporate media free to carry on spreading unsourced untruths at their liberty.

By the way, and also apropos:

Fuck Anderson Cooper. It was a vile performance. Whatever the merits or demerits of Tracy's blogpost, Cooper did his level best to harrass him out of a job and work up a mob against him.

[barracuda]

Doesn't apply to anyone here, as far as I can see.

I dunno, man. Lupercal annoys the shit outta me sometimes.

[MacCruiskeen]

Well, you annoy the shit outta me too sometimes. I think I will have you arrested and fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

.

[barracuda]

Gee Mac, I would never do that to you.

[MacCruiskeen]

I never said it was justice, buddy. It's just the Law.

[barracuda]

What a handsome fellow Californian. Fortunately, he's just being detained, not arrested.

I don't see anyone here violating those statues, but then I'm not an FBI agent trying to find ridiculous justifications for building files towards possible prosecutions.

Here's a very typical posting among similar thousands on the RIP Emilie Parker Facebook page:

Constantine Paleologos Constantine Paleologos ALL AMERICANS ASSASSINATE THE FAKE VICTIMS OF THESE FAMILIES WHO LIED FOR THE MASONIC NEW WORLD ORDER...... AND WE WILL FIND CHRIS RODDIA THE SEX OFFENDER WHO WAS AT SANDY HOOK AND THE COPS RELEASED... EVEN IF HE DIDNT DO THE SHOOTING THEN THEY WAS SUPPOSE TO KEEP HIM IN CUSTODY FOR BEEN SO MANY FEET NEXT TO A SCHOOL WHICH IS A FELONY FOR HIM, AND HE HAD A SHOTGUN IN HIS CAR WHY WAS HE RELEASED??? bcuz he apart of the conspiracy Constantine Paleologos YOU AMERICANS ARE SO STUPID...... LANZA DID NOT KILL ANYBODY HE ONLY HAD PISTOLS... AND ITS A LIE THEY NEVER FOUND A RIFLE IN HIS CAR BCUZ HIS CAR WAS NOT THERE... THE CAR BELONGED TO A SEX OFFENDER NAMED Chris Roddia what was he doing parked next to a school when he a sex offender??? also the shotgun in his car was the Assault rifle they claimed adam lanza had lol you could see in the video it was a shotgun bcuz the cops taking out the shells not a clip.... Kill mr parker and hos wife i will find you

January 15 at 12:15pm · Like · 2

I wonder how many federal laws were violated in that one passage?

[Perelandra]

Didn't mean to pick the craziest kid out there. If he wants to go after them Masons, then more power to him.

I made a new video presentation which focuses specifically on Eugene "Gene" Rosen which exposes the conflicting stories he's told to the media, as well as his deep masonic connections.

There is no evidence that I can see on this character's blog for any "masonic connection". He found a lodge near the school and Rosen's residence on a map. The guy is a not-too-bright amateur detective. He knows some CT language, but with little comprehension. "Going after the Masons" consisted of reading a few names off a website.

Anyway, god bless Gene Rosen.

[conniption]

A song for Sandy Hook

[barracuda]

^^ Well there you go, Monarch programming in action.

[compared2what?]

I just wanted to convey to you a general sense of why it is I think that rushing out of your way to break federal laws in full view of the federal law enforcement officials who just finished telling you they want to bust people for doing that type of thing

Which federal laws and which agency's officials are you talking about, specifically?

I was thinking of the FBI and the federal statutes mentioned by barracuda. There are some state laws that would probably be more applicable, if the point of the endeavor was arrest, prosecution and conviction. But I don't think it is.

You've been making similar threats for weeks now but this is a discussion board and Sandy Hook strikes me as a perfectly legitimate discussion subject.

Unless you can point me to where I made threats, I'd like you to apologize for accusing me of making them. Because that's a fucking outrageous thing to say. And utterly unsupported.

And unless you can point me to where I said that Sandy Hook was not a perfectly legitimate discussion subject, I'd like you to apologize for implying that was my position on the matter. Because that's also a fucking outrageous thing to say. And utterly unsupported.

I've already explained several times what I think the potential risk is and why I'm pointing to it perfectly clearly, including on this thread. Since I have no way of knowing what part of what I'm saying you don't understand, I suggest that you start by reading this post, right here, and then asking me for further elucidation as required.

________________________________

On a technically separate legal note: There's only been one time so far that I've seen anyone actually indisputably exposing the board and/or self to legal risk in connection with this case. And that was when you posted the Rodia thing. The reason that I didn't say anything about it immediately or feel the need to was basically that I felt that the practical risk to you was slight to non-existent in real terms for circumstantial reasons. And probably lower than that for the board.

But I was worried beyond fucking measure on your behalf anyway, frankly. That was libel per se, at a minimum. And you can't always count on circumstance being your friend. And if you think I'm threatening you by saying that or trying to stifle discussion, you're wrong. You actually don't have a free-speech right to publicly implicate someone in a mass homicide on a whim. And that's not, like, my rule or my opinion or whatever. You just don't. It's not allowable under law.

I also happen to think it's a morally indecent, heartless, inhumane, irresponsible and dangerous thing to do, personally. But that's just me, exercising my free-speech rights. There's absolutely no reason at all for you to let it stop you from continuing to do and say whatever you wish, if you feel otherwise.

[compared2what?]

You clearly didn't read the statutes very deeply. Allow me to help you out on the first one:

Whoever in interstate or foreign communications utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person who receives the communications, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Doesn't apply to anyone here, as far as I can see.

Not for arrest/prosecution purposes, certainly. And probably not for any purposes. I'd estimate the chances of anyone here getting caught up in an online harassment sting or dragnet as a result of anything posted or re-posted here as too tiny to be worth worrying about on their own, in those terms.

The issue is more that the real risk to some individual poster might be higher due to contingencies only he or she would know (eg, also posting at someplace white-power-y enough to be of interest to the feds, Occupy activism, etc.) Because this kind of harassment is inherently comprised of many, repeated videos, posts, threads, and so on around a common theme.

So posting and/or patronizing places that regularly post materials that (taken together) amount to a campaign of harassment against, let's say, Gene Rosen puts the person doing it and all his/her info legitimately within the scope of an investigation into it, even if he or she is at no risk for ultimately being charged.

Which is what I think is likely to be the real goal of the endeavor, anyway. Or hypothetical endeavor, I guess I should say. It does look to me like something of that nature is going on, though. FWIW.

All else aside, it just totally rings all my alarm bells to see this much incitement to lawbreaking for no very clear particular gain. The desire for page hits just isn't enough of an explanation for that. The sensationalism was already working just fine on its own, the illegality doesn't really add anything.

[compared2what?]

Honestly, the rule of thumb is not that complicated:

Don't break the law for no reason when you don't have to. Don't recklessly associate with people who do for no particular purpose or benefit. Don't recklessly endanger others or speak of them publicly without mindfulness of their humanity. End of story.

I wouldn't have thought it was really necessary to elaborate on the wisdom of that in any detail. But live and learn.

[lupercal]

There's only been one time so far that I've seen anyone actually indisputably exposing the board and/or self to legal risk in connection with this case. And that was when you posted the Rodia thing.

Yes, I consider that a threat, which it clearly is: the "legal risk" is obviously ridiculous, or barracuda wouldn't have posted the rattle he just did above, but the threat of getting me kicked off the board is 100% real, and I do and did resent it. And I'd appreciate it if you'd knock that kind of thing off, thanks.