4 ms·

I don't really understand how you're connecting these dots, so I suspect that I'm getting trolled here, but your comparison makes no sense. Paula Deen spouting

I don't really understand how you're connecting these dots, so I suspect that I'm getting trolled here, but your comparison makes no sense. Paula Deen spouting racist nonsense does not show anything about "interpretation of speech" unless she claims that her racist nonsense was somehow misinterpreted. Was she being sarcastic with her slave-themed event? Seems shockingly implausible (and she certainly hasn't suggested as much.) But you're correct, there is a vast difference between corporations showing her the door (though while you call it "political correctness" I would call it "the free market rejecting some old racist speech") and this kid who very likely didn't mean what he said literally.

mpyne 13y ago
Well racist thoughtcrime is still "only speech", just like violent thoughtcrime is "only speech", no matter how you interpret it. What you can say about Deen vs. this gamer is that a business is free to do what they want, but the government must respect the First Amendment. But at the same time making threats against others has also been considered wrong to do. I personally wouldn't actually press charges against this guy (despite the spattering of school shootings recently) but I also wouldn't fault the state for taking a very close look at whether he was serious or not.