4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoIt 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 agoYes exactly. It's the difference between "I'm so angry I could kill someone right now!" and "I'm so angry I could kill so-and-so neighbor right now!"
- einhverfr 13y agoThere's also a huge difference between screaming the latter to unrelated people and screaming it to the so-and-so neighbor.
- watty 13y agoNot exactly. He didn't say he "could" shoot up a kindergarten, he said he was going to. Is there a difference between naming a specific kindergarten? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean only one of them is a threat.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoIn my example, both use the 'could.' I really don't think that someone should be charged with 'making terroristic threats' - nor any kind of threats - with just a vague statement of intent.