All the threads are talking about Free Speech, but that ended when the person impersonated an FBI agent.
That is not a protected act and is prosecutable[0].
That is not a protected act and is prosecutable[0].
That makes sense logically. I don’t know anything about the legal argument though.
Also, I'm surprised the NPR ran this article, given the disclaimer at the bottom that it's a party to it. Usually the lawyers just don't let you do that.
That's sophistry and confuses the issue. One is absolutely not acting as an FBI agent when forging FBI documents. There is a clear and common-sense difference between impersonation and forgery, and you seem to be misusing language to willfully misunderstand the difference.
When you're forging the document, you are not pretending to be an FBI agent. You are being a forger. The forger then claims that the FBI made the document.
Saying, "The FBI made these documents and here they are" is fundamentally different than saying, "I made these documents and am with the FBI." They do not collapse into the same thing.
To be honest, I still would hope forging FBI documents is a crime in the same way that impersonating an FBI agent is a crime; however that's a matter of law. It is a matter of fact that forgery and impersonation are different. One is falsifying documents, the other is falsifying identity. If you want to say that both can be reduced to falsification or deception, sure, but that's not a crime. Forgery (falsifying documents) and impersonation (falsifying identity) are crimes, and separate ones.
I think it's fair to say that someone creating a document with FBI letterhead/signatures/etc. is pretending to be an FBI agent.
And if they don't, nobody knows this, so nobody has cause to think that they are an agent. They can't really impersonate an FBI agent to themselves because they know that's not true.
Thus, if nobody thinks they're an FBI agent, how can they have impersonated one?
> Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such
If the twitter account operator(s) claims that a document is an official FBI document, when it is not, then they have falsely exercised the exclusive authority of the FBI to issue statements as the FBI, an agency of the United States. The available evidence meets the criteria highlighted above.
(This centers around the definition of the verb "forge"; to forge a document, you must falsely pretend to be acting with authority to produce that document, or else it wouldn't be forging.)
If the twitter account operator(s) was provided the document by someone else and was misled by the provider, then the operators did not falsely pretend to be FBI, and so the operators would be protected from prosecution. The operators would need to make this claim to the court; they do not appear to have done so at this time.
(Standard disclaimer applies. I am not your lawyer, I have not prepared citations for review, please seek legal counsel before taking any action based upon an HN comment.)
I think we should keep definitions of words consistent. Impersonation is not forgery or a dependency thereof. Those are different words for different terms.
People seriously need to get this pounded into their heads. Read the bill of rights. You do not have a right to free speech on private platforms.
Twitter is the equivalent of you arguing with me in my house. I can tell you to be quiet or I’ll kick you out of my house. You have no free speech rights in private spaces. Twitter is a private company. You have no free speech rights on their platform.
Rather, this is a better analog to shield laws, which can protect media from divulging sources in many cases.
There are two free speech arguments. Keep in mind that "free speech" is not relegated to the 1st Amendment and defenses of that generally lean on supplementary law.
1) The free speech of the user. Again, while it's true that it's not protected within a private entity, it's irrelevant because your protections are limited; in this case when your speech breaks another law.
2) The free speech of the platform. Being compelled to reveal this information really doesn't even touch any free speech argument except a vague interpretation of shield laws. DMCA as it exists provides legal protection against the crime, of course.
1) The Twitter user isn't charged with anything, so no one is trying to restrict their speech.
2) Anonymous speech isn't the same as free speech
3) This is a civil suit. Civil suits have always been able to compel the disclosure of some private information in some circumstances.
The potential for reprisal in expressing your choice or opinion in some circumstances is very high and anonymity is sometimes the only thing that can eliminate the chill of that risk. It is in this way a free speech issue.
On the other hand, if a crime or tort was committed, well that isn't considered free.
Interestingly, this has not always been the case. Elections in the US did not use anonymous voting until nearly the 20th century. And the reason for instituting the secret ballot was apparently less due to free speech concerns, and more because of rampant corruption and bribery to buy votes.
> On the other hand, if a crime or tort was committed, well that isn't considered free.
And this is a tort case
British elections aren’t anonymous - the ballot paper has a unique identifier and this is written beside the voter’s name on the polling station’s list when the ballot is issued by a polling clerk.
The list is sealed when the polling station closes, but can be opened by court order if the election result is challenged.
Ballot papers (votes) and their corresponding number lists (matching voter to ballot paper) are kept for 12 months before destruction, and together allow who voted for who to be known - however - it seems no-one is allowed to inspect this except for the purposes of prosecuting an electoral fraud, so votes are to all intents and purposes private.
Perhaps the top downvote was for pedantry (?), but there is a difference between anonymous and private. The British system could issue ballots without recording to which specific person - that would be anonymous. You’d lose the ability to ask a particular voter if their counted ballot was the one they marked (substitution fraud), but I don’t think this ever actually happens.
I didn't know larping was illegal
Not talking about Twitter here - the individual may not be American (America - the new Rome.)
It really doesn't matter where I am physically to break a law of a different country. Now whether my country is going to extradite me is a different question.