This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The government is arguing to a court that you can lose your constitutional rights because of what someone, somewhere, at some point might do.
It is a report at Revolver News that is warning of the extreme measures to which prosecutors are going in a case triggered by a blogger’s memes about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
WND reported earlier on the extreme positions prosecutors were adopting in the case of Doug Mackey.
The Biden administration is trying to put him in jail for the memes he posted. It was in 2016 when Clinton became a two-time loser in the presidential sweepstakes.
It’s been called the “most important First Amendment case you’ve never heard of,” and Revolver explained how he had posted anti-Hillary memes that were based on the age-old joke that members of the “other” party, in this case, Democrats, “are so stupid they’d probably believe someone telling them election day is Wednesday.”
“At the risk of being tedious, we will explain: memes promoting incorrect election dates are old hat. People have been making them online and in print since at least 2000, and who are we kidding, probably well before that. They’re either a humorous indication of one’s desire to win a race or else a political in-joke,” the report explained.
Mackey’s social media statements said, “Avoid the line. Vote from home. Text ‘Hillary’ 59925.”
Now the DOJ is demanding that the messaging “merits a prison sentence of up to ten years, for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241,” the report said. That’s the Ku Klux Klan Act and the feds claim he was “systematically acting to strip Americans of their civil rights.”
Revolver now is reporting that the prosecutors’ agenda just got much worse.
“Newly unsealed documents … reveal new, sinister depths to the DOJ’s agenda,” the report said.
That’s the feds’ claims about “stochastic terrorism.”
“Basically, ‘stochastic terrorism’ is the idea that, when somebody on the right criticizes somebody, they aren’t really just making a political argument. Instead, they are trying to ‘stoke hatred’ in the expectation that some random third party will be ‘radicalized’ and then commit political violence on their behalf,” Revolver reported.
That’s the charge against Mackey. The feds claim “conservatives or anyone liberals don’t like, harbor a hidden inner desire to inspire violent attacks. Any complaint about the liberals or, more importantly, the Regime, in any venue, can now be dressed up as ‘violent’ speech deserving no constitutional protection,” the report said.
The argument means that the DOJ is refusing to disclose a “person who is now working with the FBI as a federal informant” who also is part of the evidence against Mackey.
“In the Mackey case, the Biden DOJ asserts that its witness’s identity must be hidden because if not, he might face, wait for it… harassment on the Internet!” the report said.
“The government anticipates that, if the CW’s [the confidential source’s] true identity were to become known, then those with whom the CW associated online would likely engage in such behavior towards the CW. Revealing the CW’s true identity would also likely lead to the public exposure of the CW’s physical whereabouts. This could in turn subject the CW to more than simply online harassment and could very easily jeopardize the CW’s safety,” the report explained the government’s arguments claim.
But Mackey never has been convicted of a crime.
“Yet now, the government claims that Mackey’s Sixth Amendment rights can be nullified because of the vague possibility a witness against him might face ‘harassing behavior.’ In essence, Mackey loses his constitutional rights, because if he benefited from them, it might result in ‘stochastic witness intimidation.'”
The report added, “In other words, if a witness’s testimony might aggravate right-wing people on the Internet, it justifies providing that witness special treatment that is denied even to witnesses against MS-13 or the Sinaloa Cartel.”
The threat, the report said, is that “If the DOJ’s argument is allowed to carry the day all the way to Mackey’s conviction and incarceration, then this playbook will be available for prosecuting an unlimited number of dissidents. They can be slapped with anonymous allegations of criminal plots, and denied the full chance to defend themselves, on the flimsy grounds that anybody who irritates the dissident right will face ‘harassment.'”