4 ms·

Well, people have children. The protection they feel must be absolute, and here is someone who threatening them. If someone came up to me on the street and sc

Well, people have children. The protection they feel must be absolute, and here is someone who threatening them. If someone came up to me on the street and screamed I'm going to fucking kill you, I wouldn't argue for his freedom of speech.

vinkelhake 13y ago
He didn't run up to someone in the street. But even so, would you argue for 8 years in prison for screaming at someone?
- einhverfr 13y ago
  The thing is that a true threat, something that is directed and credible, and forces someone to actually protect themselves against it, can be rightly criminalized by the states. In other words, it isn't screaming at someone, it is a true and credible threat, that might be worth punishing relatively harshly. Let me put this another way. Suppose instead of screaming at someone the individual went up to the home of a black family and burned a cross on their sidewalk (so no tresspassing) at 2am, and left a piece of cardboard on their door saying "Watch out. We are coming for you!" That's a pretty classic terroristic threat in US history. It may consist entirely of expressive acts and no real property crime. Certainly that's worthy of significant punishment. Now this case doesn't even come close to that hypothetical and I think the differences are illustrative. It isn't specific. It isn't a threat directed at the target. It isn't disruptive by itself. So if the individual isn't taking any steps to make it happen, I think it really should fall in the category protected by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Indeed, if you read footnote 1 of that case, you will see that the speech at issue here was a lot less likely to cause imminent lawless action, was a lot less terroristic, and was a lot less credible than the speech found protected in that case.
NhanH 13y ago
And that's why context is important. This case is more similar to someone comes to the middle of a crowded park and just yell to the sky.
will_brown 13y ago
I am probably instigating a flame ware...but I strongly disagree. >here is someone who threatening them. Threatening them, who is them? As deplorable as his speech was, it was not an identifiable threat of some imminent danger to some specific victim. (ie. I would have a different opinion if he identified a school by name). A counter-argument to my opinion is that we could have people making very real, but vague threats and police could not take action until after it is to late. However, there must be a balance between right to free speech and police powers, I just tend to err on the side of rights over government power. >If someone came up to me on the street and screamed I'm going to fucking kill you, I wouldn't argue for his freedom of speech. Your example is good because it can highlights where the law can strike a fair balance better rights and powers. First, I agree in your example I would not argue for right to free speech, but the declarant in the story is more akin to someone on the street screaming "I want to fucking kill someone" not directed at anyone and otherwise not posing an immanent threat. If this kind of speech is to be punished with 8 years prison or 10 years probation, police just need to log onto Xbox Live and have a field day with all the threats...in fact one of the statements from the thread in this story "go drink bleach", I have only heard before on Xbox Live and I have heard it many times from various players - though this example is not a threat there are plenty to be found...mostly involving mothers.
- watty 13y ago
  I don't follow your first remark. Are you trying to say that because he said "kindergarten" instead of naming a specific kindergarten that it's no longer threatening or a threat?
  - will_brown 13y ago
    It is still a threat under the definition, but because he said "kindergarten" instead of naming a specific kindergarten I am saying it is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. There are exceptions, but generally, it is not criminal to discuss committing a crime, in order to constitute a crime there usually needs to be a substantial step in furtherance of committing the crime.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
lotsofmangos 13y ago
He didn't threaten anyone's children. He threatened children as a concept in order to shock. Is the difference between shouting at someone that you are going to kill them and shouting that you could kill someone. The first is a specific threat, the second is the sort of thing that is said after a bad day at work. If you took everyone seriously when they threatened non-specific murder, you would have to jail everyone who makes jokes about how many points you get for running over different kinds of pedestrians while driving, which at least in the UK seems to be around half of all drivers.
chc 13y ago
You just said "I'm going to fucking kill you." If context does not matter (which is the entire premise of this case), then you are just as guilty as Justin. Are you still so eager to police speech?
- nostrademons 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distinction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distinction
  - chc 13y ago
    This distinction is entirely a matter of context. Which is the point — it is not the words themselves that are outlawed, but the act of threatening.
einhverfr 13y ago
> Well, people have children. The protection they feel must be absolute, and here is someone who threatening them. Meh.... While I was driving my two kids to school today (in Jakarta), my youngest climbed on my lap. Where I am there are no laws against that, so I just kept driving. I think it is interesting that the people I know who have no kids fit your view of looking for absolute protection more than the actual parents I know. There's a certain point where, as a parent, you come to terms with the fact that the world is a dangerous place. > If someone came up to me on the street and screamed I'm going to fucking kill you, I wouldn't argue for his freedom of speech. This would be true especially if you knew the person and had reason to believe that the individual really intended to do that. On the other hand, if it was one of your bowling buddies you were slated to play with the next day and he came up to you and said, "Tomorrow, I am gonna fucking kill you with a 300!" I would totally say "free speech" and I wouldn't think he was going to bring over the elite Spartan guard and kill you with Greek swords or something..... So these things require context.

vinkelhake 13y ago

He didn't run up to someone in the street. But even so, would you argue for 8 years in prison for screaming at someone?

einhverfr 13y ago
The thing is that a true threat, something that is directed and credible, and forces someone to actually protect themselves against it, can be rightly criminalized by the states. In other words, it isn't screaming at someone, it is a true and credible threat, that might be worth punishing relatively harshly. Let me put this another way. Suppose instead of screaming at someone the individual went up to the home of a black family and burned a cross on their sidewalk (so no tresspassing) at 2am, and left a piece of cardboard on their door saying "Watch out. We are coming for you!" That's a pretty classic terroristic threat in US history. It may consist entirely of expressive acts and no real property crime. Certainly that's worthy of significant punishment. Now this case doesn't even come close to that hypothetical and I think the differences are illustrative. It isn't specific. It isn't a threat directed at the target. It isn't disruptive by itself. So if the individual isn't taking any steps to make it happen, I think it really should fall in the category protected by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Indeed, if you read footnote 1 of that case, you will see that the speech at issue here was a lot less likely to cause imminent lawless action, was a lot less terroristic, and was a lot less credible than the speech found protected in that case.

NhanH 13y ago

And that's why context is important. This case is more similar to someone comes to the middle of a crowded park and just yell to the sky.

will_brown 13y ago

I am probably instigating a flame ware...but I strongly disagree. >here is someone who threatening them. Threatening them, who is them? As deplorable as his speech was, it was not an identifiable threat of some imminent danger to some specific victim. (ie. I would have a different opinion if he identified a school by name). A counter-argument to my opinion is that we could have people making very real, but vague threats and police could not take action until after it is to late. However, there must be a balance between right to free speech and police powers, I just tend to err on the side of rights over government power. >If someone came up to me on the street and screamed I'm going to fucking kill you, I wouldn't argue for his freedom of speech. Your example is good because it can highlights where the law can strike a fair balance better rights and powers. First, I agree in your example I would not argue for right to free speech, but the declarant in the story is more akin to someone on the street screaming "I want to fucking kill someone" not directed at anyone and otherwise not posing an immanent threat. If this kind of speech is to be punished with 8 years prison or 10 years probation, police just need to log onto Xbox Live and have a field day with all the threats...in fact one of the statements from the thread in this story "go drink bleach", I have only heard before on Xbox Live and I have heard it many times from various players - though this example is not a threat there are plenty to be found...mostly involving mothers.

watty 13y ago
I don't follow your first remark. Are you trying to say that because he said "kindergarten" instead of naming a specific kindergarten that it's no longer threatening or a threat?
- will_brown 13y ago
  It is still a threat under the definition, but because he said "kindergarten" instead of naming a specific kindergarten I am saying it is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. There are exceptions, but generally, it is not criminal to discuss committing a crime, in order to constitute a crime there usually needs to be a substantial step in furtherance of committing the crime.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago

lotsofmangos 13y ago

He didn't threaten anyone's children. He threatened children as a concept in order to shock. Is the difference between shouting at someone that you are going to kill them and shouting that you could kill someone. The first is a specific threat, the second is the sort of thing that is said after a bad day at work. If you took everyone seriously when they threatened non-specific murder, you would have to jail everyone who makes jokes about how many points you get for running over different kinds of pedestrians while driving, which at least in the UK seems to be around half of all drivers.

chc 13y ago

You just said "I'm going to fucking kill you." If context does not matter (which is the entire premise of this case), then you are just as guilty as Justin. Are you still so eager to police speech?

nostrademons 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distinction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distinction
- chc 13y ago
  This distinction is entirely a matter of context. Which is the point — it is not the words themselves that are outlawed, but the act of threatening.

einhverfr 13y ago

> Well, people have children. The protection they feel must be absolute, and here is someone who threatening them. Meh.... While I was driving my two kids to school today (in Jakarta), my youngest climbed on my lap. Where I am there are no laws against that, so I just kept driving. I think it is interesting that the people I know who have no kids fit your view of looking for absolute protection more than the actual parents I know. There's a certain point where, as a parent, you come to terms with the fact that the world is a dangerous place. > If someone came up to me on the street and screamed I'm going to fucking kill you, I wouldn't argue for his freedom of speech. This would be true especially if you knew the person and had reason to believe that the individual really intended to do that. On the other hand, if it was one of your bowling buddies you were slated to play with the next day and he came up to you and said, "Tomorrow, I am gonna fucking kill you with a 300!" I would totally say "free speech" and I wouldn't think he was going to bring over the elite Spartan guard and kill you with Greek swords or something..... So these things require context.