8 ms·

It's bizarre to see the number of comments on places with normally great discussion (Ars Technica being a prime example) who talk about how this kid should "onl

It's bizarre to see the number of comments on places with normally great discussion (Ars Technica being a prime example) who talk about how this kid should "only" get community service or a small fine. He made a joke. An obvious joke, seemingly devoid of any real malice. The idea that he should invoke any punishment for this is insane. His speech is protected by the First Amendment, and morally he did absolutely nothing wrong.

SagelyGuru 13y ago
I remember the days, my friend, when people got charged with what they did rather than with what they said. I am feeling very old suddenly. The combination of introducing new thought and speech crimes, while recording everything everybody says and writes, brings us squarely into an unchartered new era of despotism. No doubt this case figures prominently in the handful of statistics of "prevented terrorism attacks", used to justify the NSA activities. There is a danger here of a vicious downward spiral, whereby such cases are energetically pursued because they are interpreted as successes of the surveillance, used to boost the surveillance and thus to create even more such cases.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Those days never existed, people just got worked up about different stupid shit. Also: what's the point of bringing the NSA into this? Some Canadian lady saw his Facebook post and called the police.
  - cloverich 13y ago
    > Also: what's the point of bringing the NSA into this? Some Canadian lady saw his Facebook post and called the police Because its easy to draw a line between: 1. Some lady see's stupid thing you posted, you go to jail. 2. NSA Analyst finds some stupid thing you posted (at any point in the past?), you go to jail.
  - acuozzo 13y ago
    > Some Canadian lady saw his Facebook post and called the police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian,_Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian,_Texas
    - droidist2 13y ago
      Wow, that's quite a setup for confusion. Who named that town, Abbott and Costello?
- criley2 13y ago
  History bias. If you're a boomer, then you were alive during the Cold War and the red scare, periods where surveillance and crimes of "words" were arguably as bad or worse. If not before that, then you're greatest generation, and you're obviously not Japanese because you would be singing a very different tune about American civil liberties and being charged for "crimes" had you lived through internment. These examples go back as long as there is civilization... I don't buy your "things used to be better" nostalgia. Everything looks better decades later, but it doesn't make it true...
  - SagelyGuru 13y ago
    >I don't buy your "things used to be better" nostalgia. Everything looks better decades later, but it doesn't make it true... Of course things were better. The "laws" under which this boy is being hounded did not exist. Plus many other similar new laws.
    - criley2 13y ago
      Again, your mypoia to history does not make today worse. Widespread, blatant, unmonitored wiretapping has occurred in our history many times. Whether during the Cold War, or before, in the earlier days of telephony when checks and balances were quite literally impossible, the government has absolutely taken full advantage of the prevailing technology without respect to Constitutional rights. You can argue that the technology makes the scale worse, but the same people are making the same decisions they always have.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
>> "An obvious joke" Not that obvious. The only thing that makes it clear this was a joke was the addition of 'jk'. A lot of people won't know when that means and even though I know what it means I'd still be worried after reading the post and probably have it looked into. There are some things normal people don't even joke about - this is one of them. Edit: I might be wrong on the last point. There will be some people who joke about these types of things. But his post wasn't funny. It was just a sick statement.
- Myrmornis 13y ago
  Rubbish. It's perfectly normal to joke about killing kindergarten kids; it's perfectly normal to joke about all sorts of unpleasant things. Young peoples' culture and the culture of people who don't lead very sheltered lives does push the boundaries of good taste quite a bit, and that is normal.
  - visarga 13y ago
    I can attest that while I was a kid, in my country (Romania), "I'm gonna kill you!" was just an emphatic variant of "I'm gonna beat you!" (which itself was not meant, just a verbal threat) and it came up quite frequently between boys under 15. They also say "Shall my mom die if what I say is not true!" just to put emphasis, short version is "My mom die, I just found something interesting!" Weird? Everyone knows not to take that literally. A variant is "I should die, look here what I found!" In the countryside there is a threat that sounds like "I'ma kill you and then do something else" (implying a beating) just as a funny way to scold a child. Almost no usage of the word "kill" in conversation is literal. It's just a way to project aggression, get attention or just joke around.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      A little south of the border - Bulgaria. In the north parts of the country the Christmas slaughtering of a pig is called killing (without specifying the species). So a Bulgarian invites Romanian relative to come visit for the killing (mostly brutal overeating on various pig parts with few gallons of wine for drink). Some cops intercept that and mount a full force investigation, wasting money and man hours, arrest the guys etc ... then release them of course, but this would have been avoided if just the cops has asked someone from that part of the country about the jargon used.
cinquemb 13y ago
People who choose to live their lives by fear will be engulfed by their own flames. If the mere utterance of words can drive people to punish fellow beings to any extent, then it is only a matter time before they are stricken with their own gavel…
lkozma 13y ago
I wonder what would happen if thousands would coordinate to post similar jokes, thereby swamping the legal system and pointing out the absurdity - similarly to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
- DanBC 13y ago
  Or what would happen if people reported every similar "threat" they heard on Xbox live and similar?
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    The difference between the GP's and your suggestion is who takes the risk. Both protests would risk getting a few people in nasty situations with the authorities. In the GP's plan that risk lies with the protestors themselves, in your plan it's the random xbox playing kids you are suggesting to report on. Making the problem worse before it gets better and possibly introducing a chilling effect causing the opposite of what you intend to accomplish.
- kps 13y ago
  A blogger has proposed a “Quote Justin Carter” day for August 1. http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/07/08/i-propose-a-quote-justin-carter-on-social-media-day-because-his-imprisonmnt-is-a-disgrace-to-our-nation/ http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/07/08/i-propose-a-quote-justin-...
rayiner 13y ago
Its bizarre to see the number of comments turning this into some dire constitutional issue. No court has said he isn't protected by the first amendment. He said something online, some uptight woman saw it and told the police, now the police are charging him to cover their asses in case he becomes the next Dylan klebold. The constitution doesn't protect you from having to endure stupid shit like this and you're looking at history through rose colored glasses if you think small town Texas sheriffs ever stopped and said "gee, this is a violation of this kid's first amendment rights." Its an awful injustice and the guy posting the bond is a hero. But people have been prosecuted for stupid shit like this since time immemorial. Heck, at least the kid is white. It would make your skin crawl to read the kind of prosecutions small towns have engaged in against black people.
- CapitalistCartr 13y ago
  "now the police are charging him to cover their asses in case he becomes the next Dylan klebold. The constitution doesn't protect you from having to endure stupid shit like this and you're looking at history through rose colored glasses if you think small town Texas sheriffs ever stopped and said 'gee, this is a violation of this kid's first amendment rights.' " Yes, the point of the Bill of Rights is to protect against exactly this sort of thing, to prevent the government from shutting people up. That it has happened before, especially based on race, doesn't at all make it right, ethical, or legal. The whole point here is that freedom of speech isn't fought at Michelangelo's David, its fought at Larry Flynt's Hustler.
- adventured 13y ago
  There are numerous cases just like this one going on around the country at the same time. This is not an isolated case, as such it is in fact a dire constitutional issue. Failure to properly defend against these trial balloons will see the definition of freedom of speech radically altered in the span of a single decade. Governments rarely give back ground that they take.
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    Well, but you make it sound as though the Government is some monolithic Man. It isn't. What's different now is that when the sheriff in some podunk town in Texas throws a mouthy kid into jail unjustly, the entire country hears about it on the Internet. That's a game-changer.
corresation 13y ago
The comments (and moderation) on here overwhelmingly lean towards the "it was all a joke...freedom!" angle, so I'm not sure which HN you're reading. The very few counterpoints are in light gray. The police dispute whether the "jk lol" part happened. The only person who vouches for that is his father. Is his initial threat credible? Perhaps not, but it absolutely does deserve a visit from police (many school shooters have made the same sort of at-the-time humorous comments beforehand), and I doubt many who claim otherwise would stick to their positions had he actually then moved to violence. What the police actually discovered we don't know, but apparently it was enough to make the police, the prosecutor, and a judge escalate the situation.
- Simple1234 13y ago
  I would stick to my position if it escalated to violence. The best strategy to counter terrorism is not to give up freedom. Giving up freedom is society acting as if it is terrorized. Acting terrorized is exactly what terrorist want. Whether he wrote a song, a poem, a joke, a virus infected his computer and posted it, a friend wrote it while he wasn't looking, a hacker got in and wrote it, or any one of a million ways it could have come into existence or be interpreted, the government does not have to right to suppress his speech, set excessive bail, and seize his person. That is why we have the 1st, 4th, and 8th amendments. If all speech was happy-go-lucky speech, it wouldn't need to be protected. I would rather die in a terrorist attack, then live without liberty. Look up the number of deaths caused by smoking, cars, alcohol, and obesity and then compare them to the deaths from terrorist. Then explain to my why we can't risk having a kid express himself. When did we become the land of the oppressed and the home of those scared by words? "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Really think about that. Think about what it means, why it was said, what the logic is behind it, what the philosophy is behind it. Say it over and over to yourself. Say it to friends and family. Memorize it. Live by it. It is the quintessential wisdom for our time, and for all time.
  - corresation 13y ago
    There have always been restrictions on speech -- specifically as it relates to threatening others -- for time eternal, having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. I'm actually Canadian, and here we have limits on hate speech, and I'm entirely for that. We all need to live together, and rote recitations of absolute rights -- cast as if it's stark choices of blacks and whites -- doesn't match a reality that the world is a series of grays, and that your rights are perpetually in conflict with the rights of others (the rights of someone to make ill-conceived threats, versus the right to live peacefully and safely). I also find it remarkable how many people cast this individual as a "kid". He is 19. At 19 many of us were living on our own, attending university, and there was no absurd notion that threats to schoolchildren would be treated as a joke, lol jk rofl. Neither of us know why the police, judge and prosecutor decided to treat this so seriously, and it may absolutely be a gross overreach of the law, but at the same time the reflexively opposite reaction that holds his as an innocent joke of constitutional protected threats seem ill considered.

SagelyGuru 13y ago

I remember the days, my friend, when people got charged with what they did rather than with what they said. I am feeling very old suddenly. The combination of introducing new thought and speech crimes, while recording everything everybody says and writes, brings us squarely into an unchartered new era of despotism. No doubt this case figures prominently in the handful of statistics of "prevented terrorism attacks", used to justify the NSA activities. There is a danger here of a vicious downward spiral, whereby such cases are energetically pursued because they are interpreted as successes of the surveillance, used to boost the surveillance and thus to create even more such cases.

rayiner 13y ago
Those days never existed, people just got worked up about different stupid shit. Also: what's the point of bringing the NSA into this? Some Canadian lady saw his Facebook post and called the police.
- cloverich 13y ago
  > Also: what's the point of bringing the NSA into this? Some Canadian lady saw his Facebook post and called the police Because its easy to draw a line between: 1. Some lady see's stupid thing you posted, you go to jail. 2. NSA Analyst finds some stupid thing you posted (at any point in the past?), you go to jail.
- acuozzo 13y ago
  > Some Canadian lady saw his Facebook post and called the police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian,_Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian,_Texas
  - droidist2 13y ago
    Wow, that's quite a setup for confusion. Who named that town, Abbott and Costello?
criley2 13y ago
History bias. If you're a boomer, then you were alive during the Cold War and the red scare, periods where surveillance and crimes of "words" were arguably as bad or worse. If not before that, then you're greatest generation, and you're obviously not Japanese because you would be singing a very different tune about American civil liberties and being charged for "crimes" had you lived through internment. These examples go back as long as there is civilization... I don't buy your "things used to be better" nostalgia. Everything looks better decades later, but it doesn't make it true...
- SagelyGuru 13y ago
  >I don't buy your "things used to be better" nostalgia. Everything looks better decades later, but it doesn't make it true... Of course things were better. The "laws" under which this boy is being hounded did not exist. Plus many other similar new laws.
  - criley2 13y ago
    Again, your mypoia to history does not make today worse. Widespread, blatant, unmonitored wiretapping has occurred in our history many times. Whether during the Cold War, or before, in the earlier days of telephony when checks and balances were quite literally impossible, the government has absolutely taken full advantage of the prevailing technology without respect to Constitutional rights. You can argue that the technology makes the scale worse, but the same people are making the same decisions they always have.

k-mcgrady 13y ago

>> "An obvious joke" Not that obvious. The only thing that makes it clear this was a joke was the addition of 'jk'. A lot of people won't know when that means and even though I know what it means I'd still be worried after reading the post and probably have it looked into. There are some things normal people don't even joke about - this is one of them. Edit: I might be wrong on the last point. There will be some people who joke about these types of things. But his post wasn't funny. It was just a sick statement.

Myrmornis 13y ago
Rubbish. It's perfectly normal to joke about killing kindergarten kids; it's perfectly normal to joke about all sorts of unpleasant things. Young peoples' culture and the culture of people who don't lead very sheltered lives does push the boundaries of good taste quite a bit, and that is normal.
- visarga 13y ago
  I can attest that while I was a kid, in my country (Romania), "I'm gonna kill you!" was just an emphatic variant of "I'm gonna beat you!" (which itself was not meant, just a verbal threat) and it came up quite frequently between boys under 15. They also say "Shall my mom die if what I say is not true!" just to put emphasis, short version is "My mom die, I just found something interesting!" Weird? Everyone knows not to take that literally. A variant is "I should die, look here what I found!" In the countryside there is a threat that sounds like "I'ma kill you and then do something else" (implying a beating) just as a funny way to scold a child. Almost no usage of the word "kill" in conversation is literal. It's just a way to project aggression, get attention or just joke around.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    A little south of the border - Bulgaria. In the north parts of the country the Christmas slaughtering of a pig is called killing (without specifying the species). So a Bulgarian invites Romanian relative to come visit for the killing (mostly brutal overeating on various pig parts with few gallons of wine for drink). Some cops intercept that and mount a full force investigation, wasting money and man hours, arrest the guys etc ... then release them of course, but this would have been avoided if just the cops has asked someone from that part of the country about the jargon used.

cinquemb 13y ago

People who choose to live their lives by fear will be engulfed by their own flames. If the mere utterance of words can drive people to punish fellow beings to any extent, then it is only a matter time before they are stricken with their own gavel…

lkozma 13y ago

I wonder what would happen if thousands would coordinate to post similar jokes, thereby swamping the legal system and pointing out the absurdity - similarly to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy

DanBC 13y ago
Or what would happen if people reported every similar "threat" they heard on Xbox live and similar?
- tripzilch 13y ago
  The difference between the GP's and your suggestion is who takes the risk. Both protests would risk getting a few people in nasty situations with the authorities. In the GP's plan that risk lies with the protestors themselves, in your plan it's the random xbox playing kids you are suggesting to report on. Making the problem worse before it gets better and possibly introducing a chilling effect causing the opposite of what you intend to accomplish.
kps 13y ago
A blogger has proposed a “Quote Justin Carter” day for August 1. http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/07/08/i-propose-a-quote-justin-carter-on-social-media-day-because-his-imprisonmnt-is-a-disgrace-to-our-nation/ http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/07/08/i-propose-a-quote-justin-...

rayiner 13y ago

Its bizarre to see the number of comments turning this into some dire constitutional issue. No court has said he isn't protected by the first amendment. He said something online, some uptight woman saw it and told the police, now the police are charging him to cover their asses in case he becomes the next Dylan klebold. The constitution doesn't protect you from having to endure stupid shit like this and you're looking at history through rose colored glasses if you think small town Texas sheriffs ever stopped and said "gee, this is a violation of this kid's first amendment rights." Its an awful injustice and the guy posting the bond is a hero. But people have been prosecuted for stupid shit like this since time immemorial. Heck, at least the kid is white. It would make your skin crawl to read the kind of prosecutions small towns have engaged in against black people.

CapitalistCartr 13y ago
"now the police are charging him to cover their asses in case he becomes the next Dylan klebold. The constitution doesn't protect you from having to endure stupid shit like this and you're looking at history through rose colored glasses if you think small town Texas sheriffs ever stopped and said 'gee, this is a violation of this kid's first amendment rights.' " Yes, the point of the Bill of Rights is to protect against exactly this sort of thing, to prevent the government from shutting people up. That it has happened before, especially based on race, doesn't at all make it right, ethical, or legal. The whole point here is that freedom of speech isn't fought at Michelangelo's David, its fought at Larry Flynt's Hustler.
adventured 13y ago
There are numerous cases just like this one going on around the country at the same time. This is not an isolated case, as such it is in fact a dire constitutional issue. Failure to properly defend against these trial balloons will see the definition of freedom of speech radically altered in the span of a single decade. Governments rarely give back ground that they take.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  Well, but you make it sound as though the Government is some monolithic Man. It isn't. What's different now is that when the sheriff in some podunk town in Texas throws a mouthy kid into jail unjustly, the entire country hears about it on the Internet. That's a game-changer.

corresation 13y ago

The comments (and moderation) on here overwhelmingly lean towards the "it was all a joke...freedom!" angle, so I'm not sure which HN you're reading. The very few counterpoints are in light gray. The police dispute whether the "jk lol" part happened. The only person who vouches for that is his father. Is his initial threat credible? Perhaps not, but it absolutely does deserve a visit from police (many school shooters have made the same sort of at-the-time humorous comments beforehand), and I doubt many who claim otherwise would stick to their positions had he actually then moved to violence. What the police actually discovered we don't know, but apparently it was enough to make the police, the prosecutor, and a judge escalate the situation.

Simple1234 13y ago
I would stick to my position if it escalated to violence. The best strategy to counter terrorism is not to give up freedom. Giving up freedom is society acting as if it is terrorized. Acting terrorized is exactly what terrorist want. Whether he wrote a song, a poem, a joke, a virus infected his computer and posted it, a friend wrote it while he wasn't looking, a hacker got in and wrote it, or any one of a million ways it could have come into existence or be interpreted, the government does not have to right to suppress his speech, set excessive bail, and seize his person. That is why we have the 1st, 4th, and 8th amendments. If all speech was happy-go-lucky speech, it wouldn't need to be protected. I would rather die in a terrorist attack, then live without liberty. Look up the number of deaths caused by smoking, cars, alcohol, and obesity and then compare them to the deaths from terrorist. Then explain to my why we can't risk having a kid express himself. When did we become the land of the oppressed and the home of those scared by words? "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Really think about that. Think about what it means, why it was said, what the logic is behind it, what the philosophy is behind it. Say it over and over to yourself. Say it to friends and family. Memorize it. Live by it. It is the quintessential wisdom for our time, and for all time.
- corresation 13y ago
  There have always been restrictions on speech -- specifically as it relates to threatening others -- for time eternal, having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. I'm actually Canadian, and here we have limits on hate speech, and I'm entirely for that. We all need to live together, and rote recitations of absolute rights -- cast as if it's stark choices of blacks and whites -- doesn't match a reality that the world is a series of grays, and that your rights are perpetually in conflict with the rights of others (the rights of someone to make ill-conceived threats, versus the right to live peacefully and safely). I also find it remarkable how many people cast this individual as a "kid". He is 19. At 19 many of us were living on our own, attending university, and there was no absurd notion that threats to schoolchildren would be treated as a joke, lol jk rofl. Neither of us know why the police, judge and prosecutor decided to treat this so seriously, and it may absolutely be a gross overreach of the law, but at the same time the reflexively opposite reaction that holds his as an innocent joke of constitutional protected threats seem ill considered.