View Full Version : Be Careful What You Say ON THe Internet
BushMasterBoy
08-26-2010, 18:16
did not
gnihcraes
08-26-2010, 20:18
wow.
OneGuy67
08-26-2010, 20:19
FBI informant...yeeeaaahhhh...sure.
Still think Obama sux. And his wife is a Wookie.
Still think Obama sux. And his wife is a Wookie.
I heard they got more photos of bigfoot. I was getting pretty excited, then I looked at the location, thinking it coupld possibly be here in the rockies....pictures ended up being taken right on the white house lawn...and it has a dog!!!![ROFL1]
http://imeanwhat.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/gal_michelle_obama_05.jpg
this country is really fucked up
Byte Stryke
08-26-2010, 21:21
I heard they got more photos of bigfoot. I was getting pretty excited, then I looked at the location, thinking it coupld possibly be here in the rockies....pictures ended up being taken right on the white house lawn...and it has a dog!!!![ROFL1]
http://imeanwhat.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/gal_michelle_obama_05.jpg
who is walking who?
Hitman 6
08-26-2010, 21:22
1st amendment was the first to go, it's only natural. What was number 2 again?
We know that freedom of speech only applies to the PC crowd everyone else they have a special name/category for that denies them of this right.
Definition of PC.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
SA Friday
08-27-2010, 00:09
"These Judges must die," is a statement covered by the first ammendment?
Uh, no. It's enciting an act of murder. Not covered... [Bang]
Is it okay to say that you hope someone will kill their self? Or that you want two people to kill each other?
SA Friday
08-27-2010, 01:34
Is it okay to say that you hope someone will kill their self? Or that you want two people to kill each other?You are ok with the first, and the second would probably depend on the context of the conversation.
Why would you wish either, much less want to have a serious conversation on a blog about it? (rhetorical)
"These Judges must die," is a statement covered by the first ammendment?
Uh, no. It's enciting an act of murder. Not covered... [Bang]
Murder? I know his demeanor wasn't exactly in good nature but I seem to have missed that part...
And his wife is a Wookie.
[ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3]
If he had of used the term" in my opinion" he probably would have been fine, I cannot remember the case but a fed judge ruled everyone has a right to their opinion. Case dismissed.
CrufflerSteve
08-27-2010, 08:56
It was an exceedingly foolish thing to say. Saying it on the internet really sealed it.
The authorities react harshly to anything that looks like a death threat, especially if the person belongs to a different political group. When its also a public emotional situation - really watch your phraseology! After Columbine, some teen trash talked on an online bulletin board he went to jail.
I assume most everybody here owns guns. If we say bad stuff about somebody it can very quickly be seen as a threat. At work I really watch my mouth and watch my email even closer. My trash talk there is pretty much, "He is really an unpleasant person." of "I question his competence." When I great really mad I say, "I hope his life is filled with lawyers."
Steve
trlcavscout
08-27-2010, 09:00
Definition of PC.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
I am gonna print that out and hang it up at the office!! That is funny.
And please no more wookie pics guys my stomach cant take it.
OgenRwot
08-27-2010, 09:14
Start looking up "Incitement to Violence".
Basically what this guy did was threaten their lives. If you do that, you get in a little trouble, and rightfully so. Same as if somebody threatened you with death you could easily get a restraining order against them. There was a case where a guy threatened to kill somebody and just showed up at the same place as the person they threatened, unintentionally I believe. The threatener was killed and the person that shot them got off because they were using self defense solely based on the fact that they had been threatened earlier. I'm looking for the case but can't find it right now.
You can't openly call for someone's murder and expect for it to be all rainbows and unicorn farts.
You can't openly call for someone's murder and expect for it to be all rainbows and unicorn farts.
The authorities react harshly to anything that looks like a death threat,
Steve
"These Judges must die," is a statement covered by the first ammendment?
Uh, no. It's enciting an act of murder. Not covered... [Bang]
Someone once posted a link to a blog that is like 200 pages long of 100's of pictures of protesters with signs saying stuff like "I'm here to kill Bush." "I want Bush to die." and other very obvious things like that and no one ever did anything to any of those people. What is the difference?
There is still No proof of unicorns farting.
OgenRwot
08-27-2010, 09:27
Someone once posted a link to a blog that is like 200 pages long of 100's of pictures of protesters with signs saying stuff like "I'm here to kill Bush." "I want Bush to die." and other very obvious things like that and no one ever did anything to any of those people. What is the difference?
People speed everyday, people smoke pot, people do crack, people J-Walk, people CCW without a permit etc etc etc...doesn't mean it's not illegal or make it right. As far as the signs go, yeah, not ok either. Nobody is saying that it was.
I'm sure the fact that the guy was a "respected" blogger (YMMV) and had people that listened to him and commented on the blog saying it was a good idea and what not had a lot to do with the prosecution. Obviously this one could have gone either way, twice there was a hung jury and they had to change venue. He wasn't so lucky, but what he said, online for all to see, was absolutely retarded.
Ahh, here we go. http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 (you have to scroll down a ways for the pictures)
What is the difference between all these people and this blogger? I don't agree with, or take any of these people (blogger included) seriously.
SA Friday
08-27-2010, 09:58
Someone once posted a link to a blog that is like 200 pages long of 100's of pictures of protesters with signs saying stuff like "I'm here to kill Bush." "I want Bush to die." and other very obvious things like that and no one ever did anything to any of those people. What is the difference?
Ok...
This would fall under the Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions on the 1st Ammendment derived from the SC runing of US v O'Brien There's a 4 part litmus test from this ruling applied to the assembly to determine if it's the Govt is illegally violating their rights. This would also fall under the "Speech that lies beyond the Realm" of the 1st Ammendment: Defamation, Words that Incite Immanent Lawlessness, and Obscenity. This falls into the category of words that incide, otherwise known as 'Fighting words' and The relevant SC cases for this are Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).
The case Mountain Man is probably talking about with 'in my opinion' thing is The New York Times CO. v Sullivan (1964) and has to do with defamation, not incitement.
This thread is clearly about inciting immanent lawlessness. It's NOT a violation of his first ammendment rights, and relating that it is clearly shows just how people like to make laws say what they want, not what they mean. The 1st ammendment has picked up a LOT of clarification along the way since it's writing. It's damn important to understand the ammendment and the governing ruling about it.
References used above: Ferdico, John; Fradella, Henry; Totten, Christopher; Criminal Procedure: for the Criminal Justice Professional, Tenth Edition, 2008.
Thanks FA was searching for it but now you found it.
We can always count on you to do your home work and make great posts. Thanks.
*When is your next technical thread coming out anyway?
OneGuy67
08-27-2010, 10:03
I can't say with authority what the law is in that particular state, but here in Colorado if you make a threat, law enforcement has to determine how credible the threat is before acting on it.
How credible are the threats on the poster boards? Probably zero. Would the words on the poster boards cause someone to act on them? Probably not.
Did the blogger advocate for the deaths of the three judges? Yes. Could his words prompt someone of like mind to act on them? Maybe.
That's were the courts have been putting the line between free speech and inciting.
So I guess that begs the question of the difference between words painted on a sign and words posted in a blog. Perhaps years of the homeless and/or crazy people holding 'End of the World' signs, has ruined the credibility of all sign holders as anything but a mentally handicapped person with no real motive or power to accomplish anything more than sign writing. Which might explain why I never pull over for car washes or lemonade stands.
SA Friday
08-27-2010, 10:31
So I guess that begs the question of the difference between words painted on a sign and words posted in a blog. Perhaps years of the homeless and/or crazy people holding 'End of the World' signs, has ruined the credibility of all sign holders as anything but a mentally handicapped person with no real motive or power to accomplish anything more than sign writing. Which might explain why I never pull over for car washes or lemonade stands.
There is no distinction between verbal, written, or acts of communication in the 1st ammendment. They are all considered speech per se. The difference is in the validity of the communication. Although offensive, the validity of the signs as acutal threats was probably not believable. Where as the blog postings in questions probably had more information to them. The SC ruling that applies to the potection of offensive material is Texas v Johnson (1989). I suspect this was the defense used in the threads original posting took in court. The problem is the President of the United States is considered a public figure (celebrities and politicians), and being famous results in a proving a 'higher standard' in court for both defamation and fighting words. In the case of the judges, they are not at a level of fame along the lines of most politicians and celebrities. So, the standard is lower. I would even take it a step further and surmise that since the POTUS has 24/7 highly trained bodyguards, the sign carriers were probably checked out and found to not be a credible threat. So, the signs were merely considered offensive.
The case Texas v. Johnson's key quote from the ruling states: "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the FA, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea because society finds the idea offensive. We can imagine no more appropriate repsonse to burning a flag than waving one's own."
Someone once posted a link to a blog that is like 200 pages long of 100's of pictures of protesters with signs saying stuff like "I'm here to kill Bush." "I want Bush to die." and other very obvious things like that and no one ever did anything to any of those people. What is the difference?
In the United States?
H.
Ahh, here we go. http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 (you have to scroll down a ways for the pictures)
What is the difference between all these people and this blogger? I don't agree with, or take any of these people (blogger included) seriously.
Yeah that's fucked up, calling for someones death shouldn't be permitted. I did notice the top sign in small prints "my opinion" lol.
H.
theGinsue
08-27-2010, 22:11
Someone once posted a link to a blog that is like 200 pages long of 100's of pictures of protesters with signs saying stuff like "I'm here to kill Bush." "I want Bush to die." and other very obvious things like that and no one ever did anything to any of those people. What is the difference?
What's the difference? Politics; pure and simple. I saw a lot of anti-Bush things in the news during the Bush administration that clearly crossed the line of legality and I'm 100% certain that no action was ever taken.
It all comes down to politics.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.