re: Criminal Search Warrant Served for Man Who Posted Fliers Doxxing ICE Agents

You’re a lawyer, do better.

Doxxing ICE agents by distributing their personal information on flyers could be considered dangerous and intimidating, depending on the context and intent. If the act was meant to harass, threaten, or incite harm, it could violate U.S. laws like 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (stalking) or 18 U.S.C. § 875 (threats), potentially leading to charges. Courts would look at factors like the doxxer’s intent, the content of the flyers, and the impact on the agents (e.g., fear for safety). Even if the info was publicly sourced, the act of distributing it to intimidate could still cross legal lines. Prosecutors might argue it endangers agents by exposing them to targeted harassment or violence.

You can’t say clearly protected by the 1A when arguments can be made backed by actual laws. I know you like to play devils advocate here but at least be truthful.

quote:

---

all of our basic info is easily found and available.

---

Yes, but then again there's no need to hand it for to impetuous, hyper-emotional psychopaths and lunatics, is there?

quote:

---

LEO already has the information baw

---

Maybe.

But that doesn't mean other psychos and lunatics hadn't already grabbed the personal info before the info-baw's arrest.

Be interesting how the prosecutors handle it.

quote:

---

es, but then again there's no need to hand it for to impetuous, hyper-emotional psychopaths and lunatics, is there?

---

So your strongly against property records being made available online or being publicly available for people at all?

Why is the guy who posted it on fliers anymore guilty than the local assessors office? The difference is intent of posting it. They need to make a case that his intent was to cause harassment.

quote:

---

This is psychotic. Several armored vehicles, a drone, and what looks like a dozen officers—to arrest a guy for putting up fliers with law enforcement's info,

---

Thus guy must have forgotten all the swat teams sent to arrest many for doing less.

I want a conviction.

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt he wanted to harm or intimidate LEO?

quote:

---

Already covered

---

Yes, by the 1st Amendment. He was prosecuted by the government and sent to jail, anyway.

quote:

---

Doxxing ICE agents by distributing their personal information on flyers could be considered dangerous and intimidating, depending on the context and intent. If the act was meant to harass, threaten, or incite harm, it could violate U.S. laws like 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (stalking) or 18 U.S.C. § 875 (threats), potentially leading to charges. Courts would look at factors like the doxxer’s intent, the content of the flyers, and the impact on the agents (e.g., fear for safety). Even if the info was publicly sourced, the act of distributing it to intimidate could still cross legal lines. Prosecutors might argue it endangers agents by exposing them to targeted harassment or violence.

You can’t say clearly protected by the 1A when arguments can be made backed by actual laws. I know you like to play devils advocate here but at least be truthful.

---

You're adding a bit more than what I posted.

If posting objective, truthful information with no editorializing can be construed to "intimidate" a public official, then the 1A doesn't exist anymore.

If the government can make a poster with "Person A works for ICE and lives at xxx st" (publicly available information) illegal, then anything can be made illegal. One of the points of the 1A is to ensure the citizenry keeps the government accountable. Permitting the government to claim objective facts without editorial comment can "impact the government agent" in a way to make them illegal means literally 2+2=4 can be declared illegal.

Now, if you want to expand my hypo and add things like editorializing or inciting language in addition to the facts, that's a different thing entirely.

Irrelevant!

quote:

---

If all he did was post fliers with truthful information

---

Depends on how he obtained that truthful but potentially private information within the government agencies who have a legitimate interest in protecting the names, identity, addresses etc. of government agents for secrecy in policing, as well as for the safety of the agents and their families. If he broke the law to obtain the information, he's not protected under the 1A.