Internet and the Judicial Threat

“Those who are able to adapt and change in accord with the enemy and achieve victory

are called divine…”

-Sun Tzu

In June of 2006 Judge Chuck Weller in Reno, Nevada was shot in the safety of his judicial chambers. An angry litigant of Judge Weller, fired a single rifle bullet from over 170 yards away in a nearby parking garage that quickly shattered not only glass but quickly pierced the façade of security on local judges. While Judge Weller was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, he informed law enforcement that he believed he had been attacked by the same man that had began an internet attack campaign against him – Darren Mack.

Before Darren Mack had fired his single bullet, a small dark space on the Internet was raging about how unfair and unjust Judge Weller conducted himself in court. Judge Weller was being referenced on the Internet as Hitler, Monster, and Tyrant, not exactly pleasant compliments, but also not illegal. Whether Darren Mack initiated or participated in attacking Judge Weller in the sphere of the Internet is irrelevant, what is relevant were that these comments and demonization of Judge Weller were out there for all to see.

The Internet postings on Judge Weller had the potential to reinforce online individuals with the same perceptions of Judge Weller and even fan their own individual flames of grievances against him. To others in the online world it could have been viewed as just one more place on the web where a bunch of unjustified bitter crackpots pontificated. However, those Internet postings can be much more sinister as Michael Prout, Assistant Director of Judicial Security for the USMS, recently stated in the National Law Journal.

  “Unlike a letter or an e-mail, comments posted on an Internet Web site have the potential to be viewed by a countless number of persons. Internet postings that are hyper-critical and contain restricted personal information of the protectee, such as a home address or Social Security number, can create a large number of potential threateners virtually unknown to the USMS.”[i]

In the ‘old’ Internet days, court security threat assessment professionals focused primarily on websites and blogs for potential threats to their judiciary but now websites are becoming passé. Social networks, such as Myspace, Facebook and Twitter are the now  ‘new’ hot things. These rapidly expanding social networks are not just for kids. According to a recent study by iStrategylLabs, Facebook users aged 35 to 54 are among the fastest growing demographic on the web. These social networks allow for like-minded individuals spread out geographically to come together in cyperspace to further their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and actions in a free flow of information sharing – which may not always be for the betterment of society! 

It is hard not to notice the potential impact this new Internet dynamic of social networks coupled with the power of ‘Internet Information’ has upon court security judicial threat assessment practitioners. The fluidity in sharing of information by individuals and groups that are not friendly to the judiciary are a concern, especially if that information is personal, such as a home address. The Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 has added some new tools for our federal counterparts in addressing the concern of posting personal judicial information on the Internet. However, those tools are only applicable to the federal judiciary. Most states, as many Sheriffs’ are aware, having nothing to its equivalent. Furthermore, unlike the federal judiciary, most judges at the state and local level campaign for their office. This directly translates to judicial campaign websites.

Campaign websites have many purposes one of which is to personalize the individual running for office. The politician humanizes him/herself by showing pictures of their family, where they practice their faith, how strong his/her ties are to the community and even what neighborhood they live in. Without stating the obvious issues, this is problematic for an elected judiciary and those of us charged with their protection.

A colleague of mine relayed an incident to me of a politician that had come to him concerning threatening letters he had received. The politician was extremely concerned about how the subject, who had been sending him threatening letters, knew all this personal information about him and his family. He demanded from my colleague to immediately get to the bottom of how his family’s personal information had been disclosed to this threatener! My colleague, being the professional he is, politely pulled up the politicians’ election website and gently showed him all the information the subject referenced. To say the least, the politician immediately modified his campaign website.

To help combat these evolving Internet social networks, the court security threat assessment professional must engage with their counterparts in the field. We must share (what is legally permissible) with one another and ensure that we have a free flow of information to counter the threats that are being posed/posted out in cyber space and our local community. We must create our own ‘social networks’. Further we need to take advantage of the Internet and harness its information for our primary purpose, protecting the judiciary. Individual acts of subscribing to Internet news alerts, such as www.google.com/alerts helps us at a minimum to be aware of what is occurring currently out in cyberspace.

The idea that court security starts and ends in the courtroom is starting to fade. There are still pockets in our profession that maintain this perspective, but they are rapidly receding. The Internet communities are knocking loudly on our doors and forcing us to take notice.

The age of the Internet and its unabridged torrent of information has forced individuals, professionals, businesses and governments to seek new methodologies and paradigms to stay relevant in an era of constant change. In addition, the evolution of the Internet is becoming so rapid that it is difficult for Information Technology personnel to stay current yet alone those of us in the field of judicial threat assessments. Regardless we must. The Internet Genie is out of the bottle and our judiciary and communities need us to maintain our vigilance and intercept the next Darren Mack – whoever that may be….

[i] Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal, March 19, 2009