Hi Special Agent Shayne, or more accurately, hi Shayne’s handler. I expect that Shayne will have to take one of those HR classes on how to not friend request the target or the target’s friends under your real name. To the rest of you who have not ascended from the depths of the Federal Government: I typically avoid reporting on my friends. Because either I’m talking to the internet about them “behind their backs” or I’m getting a story together with the topic of the story, and that’s just bad journalism regardless of how much the corporate media does it. Then it occurred to me that I’m not a journalist; I’m a reporter and a commentator. And generally I don’t know why anyone would care what I think about my friend’s case, but in this case I’ll tell you why you should care.
I know that its technically not case law yet. But I also know that appellate judges don’t give a fuck what I think, and most people reading this won’t get to be appellate judges. What many of you will get to do is be on a jury, and all of you will have the ability to decide whether or not to egg on the State while it is making human sacrifices to appease the masses with the thinly veiled goal of fucking us all with new and exciting legal precedents. You don’t have to like Chris or anyone else, but what you should realize is that case law applies to everyone, not just people you hate. THE STATE IS AWARE OF WHO IS HATED and can use that information to decide who to target when it wants to push something through that would otherwise be widely objected to. Its the opposite side of what the ACLU does when they strategically pick sympathetic plaintiffs or defendants as to have the best chance of creating good caselaw, as they should. There was a cop in Louisiana who got busted with drugs and was successfully able to argue a medical privacy defense, because she was a cop. I personally was able to use this caselaw to get cases dismissed on people who got arrested on the bullshit Sudafed law- whether they were actually cooking meth or whether they just had a family with colds and needed more than one box of Sudafed- because caselaw applies to everyone.
The State itself agrees with me. “Hard cases make bad law” is a saying in the field. Which is one hell of an admission, but there it is. And people will grave dance their way into complete totalitarianism because almost no one can comprehend the difference between hating someone and it being justifiable to take action against someone.
“You wanted in, and now you’re here, driven by hate, consumed by fear.” What does “here” look like? Here are the highlights of things that can and will be applied as precedent in the next case, because they were allowed to happen to Chris. He was denied bail in large part because he is not computer illiterate. They attempted to push through remote video testimony, but they lost that one. CheddarMane, who lives neither in New Hampshire nor within 100 miles of the Federal Courthouse in New Hampshire found himself subpoenaed. So get ready to buy plane tickets every time someone says something mean to you on the internet, even if you want nothing to do with the case. What was and wasn’t said on Radical Agenda up to at least five years ago was a main line of argument from the State. It is in no way relevant, but now anything you’ve ever said on the internet is liable to be put in front of a jury. It will not be as prominent or quite as egregious when they use the new rules of evidence against you, but it will be as harmful. You better hope you live in a district where everyone agrees with you politically, religiously, and socially.