Is this not a standard tactic for moving the bar of what's acceptable? Similar to the San Bernardino case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...), it makes sense for LE/Government to cherry-pick cases with defendants who have committed terrible crimes to create precedent for their new methods, as it's harder politically to take a position "defending" them. Defence of holistic rights can be painted as defence of a terrorist/racist/paedophile etc to score points.

If you know this is true then you don't need to subpoena a year's worth of all his data.

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison also had "extreme" views

It's clear you have made up your mind without the facts. Note the Tribune's reticence to come to that conclusion based on the actual evidence? I have zero opinion about it.

Separate to that this comment has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the parent comment, whether you agree with the parent or not. Rights should exist for everyone, not just everyone you happen to like. Whether this warrant has gone too far as the parent suggests and it is necessary to take countermeasures or not is the argument, not your feelings about someone accused of something which frankly have no baring on anything in such a discussion.

Is there anyone, anyone at all, who disputes that he made a false report?

I have little idea and care even less, myself.

The source material, ie article published by the Tribune, was completely unwilling to come to that same conclusion in the story. So to me it seems more likely that it is in dispute on that basis rather than that is is indsiputable due to wholly unsupported comments here.

But again it doesn't matter at ALL. It has zero relevance to this discussion. None. No really.

Rights are especially important when they relate to people you dislike doing things you also dislike. That situation is exactly when you lose your rights. Like maybe think about if that's is what is happening here.

It matters in that if no one is contesting the accusations, they are, in fact, facts. That he staged the thing is a fact. Period.

Repeated assertion is no substitute for evidence. Good Soviet technique that one.

The Tribune refusing to come to the conclusion that such is a fact is a conspiracy? Something stranger? Could be, I guess. A less likely than an alternate interpretation of the evidence I've seen here. But i don't care at all about it. Zero.

It still has absolutely no baring at all on the discussion of rights erosion.