Idaho police warn of 'criminal charges' for web sleuths engaged in 'harassing' amid 'misinforma

I've heard this alluded to a couple of time now, and I have to ask about something, purely out of interest.

What exactly could a general public member, commenting on an event publicly say that could possibly affect the prosecutions' case?

They only have access to the information they are given access to. Thier utterances are all opinion and supposition. Their "sleuthing" is all theoretical and - by definition - not germane to any legal process. They have no information that isn't completely available to anyone. There is no 'evidence' to be gathered about the crime from an open conversation about the crime.

People often unleash their zeal and passion online. But it is not the same as writing in a newspaper or magazine article; where your words are presented for consumption based upon a sponsoring authority. Are we to believe it reasonable that now there is something to be feared from communicating with other people? Could this not be the seed which will germinate and lead to "No unauthorized speaking allowed?"

More effective still might be "disallowing" the dissemination of any information which pertains to law enforcement's unresolved crimes. No more news stories about crimes... hmmm. Perhaps crimes should never be made into a public spectacle - to be consumed as "news" like a show. I wonder how that would be received. How about any time the world of the law operates we establish a registry of licensing for those who wish to speak of it.

Some officials and lawyers appear to be "triggered" by the discussions they "choose to monitor." Shall we now protect them from the experience? That is what I fear this foreshadows.

My chief objection in here is the characterization that random people (no matter how we choose to characterize them) apparently aren't allowed to be "wrong on the internet" without some official needing to fret publicly about it.

And some "reporting business" making 'outrage inducing statements' as in "Idaho police warn of 'criminal charges' for web sleuths engaged in 'harassing' amid 'misinforma[tion]," as if harassment and misinformation were obvious components of what they call 'sleuthing.'

Exactly who is claiming harassment? Have there been complaints registered to that effect? What is the misinformation? How about "correcting" it, or at least not fanning the flames of suspicion while providing no attempt to actually bring light to the ignorance we are being led to believe is another perennial component of this kind of 'sleuthing.'

I understand the 'giving them a chance to do their job' approach to any public service. But is their job really evaluating public communications?

a reply to: Maxmars
Coming soon "thought police" .. but if Yuval Hariri and the world economic Forum get their way we won't have that issue .. no thoughts of our own "

Wouldn't worry too much about it, the times will change soon...

a reply to: nugget1

Honestly this is twofold. Live in Boise, but have been following this on reddit. First issue is what you mentioned is that they are making the investigation difficult. The other thing is, this literally has hundreds of thousands of people following this. People are dropping names, and those people get pretty much doxxed. It is ruining the current life of a lot of people that are getting dragged into wild theories.

People are posting IG/Facebook/email addresses / pictures of all of these people who then get all sorts of web sluths spreading their names out and these people who are getting named are having quite a difficult time of it.

a reply to: Maxmars

Maybe Idaho law enforcement will accomplish what the FBI makes up excuses for failing to do. That is, prevent a mass shooting.

It's their own Damn fault for publicizing and glorifying the whole case with their own wild ass speculations and warnings plastered all over the MSM. What were they expecting anyway?

Now they blame "The Public" roflol 🤣🤣

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: nugget1

.... First issue is what you mentioned is that they are making the investigation difficult. The other thing is, this literally has hundreds of thousands of people following this....

I need some help to understand. Neither you nor I had anything to do with this crime, right? What can possibly we say to each other that can possibly "interfere" with or make the "investigation" more difficult? Neither of us is subject to inquiry, has any special access to information, nor have anything to do with any unnamed suspects or the victims. Lacking any knowledge and relying only on the information the police themselves provide my proposition is that the police are not using their time efficiently if it includes monitoring random civilian communications (unless they are withholding information regarding that aspect of the environment around the case.

People are dropping names, and those people get pretty much doxxed. It is ruining the current life of a lot of people that are getting dragged into wild theories. People are posting IG/Facebook/email addresses / pictures of all of these people who then get all sorts of web sluths spreading their names out and these people who are getting named are having quite a difficult time of it.

But that is an entirely separate an unconnected matter. All those activities - be they crimes or not - have nothing to do with the crime directly, they are incidental to the crime they hint is being "interfered with." People talking about something isn't 'interfering." It's people talking about something.

If they engage in illegal behavior online while talking about a crime ... they aren't affecting the investigation or it's undertaking. The status of the crime isn't logically relevant to the actions of a bystander simply observing after the fact. The investigation isn't subject to the 'ego knee-jerk' of whoever in the official position wants to rail against other people displaying "wrong-think' on the internet.

Perhaps the idea of basking in the glory of public attention includes "controlling the chatter" in their minds... but that is obviously not realistic. If someone is out there ruining folks with doxing or harassment that is separate matter entirely, one that the law provides means to address.