- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Criminal Search Warrant Served for Man Who Posted Fliers Doxxing ICE Agents
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:16 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:16 am to SlowFlowPro
Did you swill a few appletinis lastnight?
1
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:19 am to Jbird
quote:
Did you swill a few appletinis lastnight?
No.
Nothing in the post to which you replied was confusing, either.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Never suggested it was James.
Nothing in the post to which you replied was confusing, either.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:29 am to Jbird
I remember where there was a police investigation for whoever put up the "Islam is right about women" posters.
But they never caught the person.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:33 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I remember where there was a police investigation for whoever put up the "Islam is right about women" posters.
But they never caught the person.
I don't think there was any any criminal investigations into those matters.
Here is one example
quote:
The messages on the flyers “are of course fully protected by the First Amendment” regardless of how offensive they are, according to UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment expert who previously poured cold water on UConn’s aggressive response to the N-word shouts.
In a blog post Monday, Volokh said he confirmed with the university that the only messages concerned white people, Islam and women. It’s not even clear that the latter message was “meant (or will likely be understood) literally,” but in any case, any of the conceivable meanings of “Islam is right about women” are “constitutionally protected,” he said.
People can ask for help by LEO or for LEO to investigate and it doesn't mean that an actual criminal investigation begins. The story in OP clearly has a criminal investigation underway.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:35 am to ChanceOfRainIsNever
quote:
I don’t understand how the first amendment applies here
I swear SFP would defend somebody yelling fire in a crowded theater at this point
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This reminds me of people trying to criminalize videotaping LEO, using similar arguments. We got into it recently on here for a (likely illegal) new law restricting filing LEO and requiring a buffer zone.
Different argument. You can certainly say filming the police in public is in the public interest and transparency. How is posting personal information in public of ICE agents in the public interest?
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
Well there is a difference that the Islam related posters were clearly an opinion. That's a pretty easy first amendment matter.
I suppose there may be some local ordinances against putting up flyers on light poles or telephone poles. But it never got to that stage.
This one is not merely an opinion. It looks like factual information in the context of an ongoing law enforcement operation. It could be bringing about questions related to aiding and abetting illegal immigrants.
It may well be protected speech but I don't know enough details. This one could fall either way.
I suppose there may be some local ordinances against putting up flyers on light poles or telephone poles. But it never got to that stage.
This one is not merely an opinion. It looks like factual information in the context of an ongoing law enforcement operation. It could be bringing about questions related to aiding and abetting illegal immigrants.
It may well be protected speech but I don't know enough details. This one could fall either way.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 8:56 am to dafif
quote:
SFP would defend somebody yelling fire in a crowded theater at this point
FALSELY yelling fire.
If there was an actual fire it would be perfectly legal.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:04 am to dafif
quote:
SFP would defend somebody yelling fire in a crowded theater at this point
First question: is there actually a fire ?
I'd defend someone yelling it if there was a fire in a theater (a truthful statement) all day.
Not that this scenario is in anyway comparable to the illegal version.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:04 am to ChanceOfRainIsNever
quote:
How is posting personal information in public of ICE agents in the public interest?
How is it not?
You think LEO identities should be withheld from public?
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:07 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Well there is a difference that the Islam related posters were clearly an opinion. That's a pretty easy first amendment matter.
Again, truthful statements are quite protected as well.
quote:
It looks like factual information in the context of an ongoing law enforcement operation. It could be bringing about questions related to aiding and abetting illegal immigrants.
It is in no way aiding and abetting illegal immigrants.
The argument is almost assuredly going to be in the context of harassment, but you're going to have a hard time arguing that posting truthful information without context (again, we need to read the warrant but in a fit of irony, they're withholding that as well as the identity of the defendant) or editorializing is intended to be harassment.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:13 am to Jbird
If we are to believe the report at 'X', names, photos, phone numbers, & locations of ICE agents were posted.
As a big 1A proponent at first it seems like a 1A issue -- until you realize there are violations of privacy and potential charges for incitement, intimidation, targeting & threats against LEOs.
As a big 1A proponent at first it seems like a 1A issue -- until you realize there are violations of privacy and potential charges for incitement, intimidation, targeting & threats against LEOs.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:15 am to EphesianArmor
quote:
until you realize there are violations of privacy
If the information is found in a public directory, do you consider it a violation of privacy?
quote:
and potential charges for incitement, intimidation, targeting & threats against LEOs.
You think this is justified simply for posting names, addresses, and phone numbers? No other information or commentary is needed?
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Well the SCOTUS unfortunately upheld hate speech. Maybe they can use that.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You think LEO identities should be withheld from public?
That’s not what I said at all. Why is where an LEO lives and his or her personal information in the public interest? Why should anyones personal information be the public’s business? Last time I checked as Americans we all have a right to privacy. It’s not a huge leap in logic that what this person did was done to threaten, harass and intimidate these agents.
This post was edited on 5/4/25 at 9:31 am
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the information is found in a public directory, do you consider it a violation of privacy?
You think this is justified simply for posting names, addresses, and phone numbers? No other information or commentary is needed?
Context matters.
Can you or I stand in front of each other's house or on busy intersection holding up signs with all our respective vital ID info?
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You think this is justified simply for posting names, addresses, and phone numbers? No other information or commentary is needed?
Wait, are you giving people permission to dox you?
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You think this is justified simply for posting names, addresses, and phone numbers?
No. We either have 1a or we don’t.
That said, I don’t like ‘public indoxication’ and believe it is different than videoing leo in public.
Posted on 5/4/25 at 9:41 am to Azkiger
Posting the info if its true has nothing to do with it.
They posted it with intent to cause harm to the individuals, there could be no other reasonable conclusion.
Childish to argue 1st amendment rights.
They should be arrested and their mug shot and personal info posted and planted on the WH lawn
They posted it with intent to cause harm to the individuals, there could be no other reasonable conclusion.
Childish to argue 1st amendment rights.
They should be arrested and their mug shot and personal info posted and planted on the WH lawn
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News