Teen jailed for Facebook comment learning prison is not so much fun

[phillybear 364]

You can't make terroristic threats, nor say anything that will incite a riot. That is for the good of the general public and isn't censorship. This hasn't changed since the First Amendment was drawn up.

FIRE!! FIRE AT FFT!!! Quick, everybody run outside, break sh!t, and steal stuff!!

 

Your move.

[NewbieJr 540]

FIRE!! FIRE AT FFT!!! Quick, everybody run outside, break sh!t, and steal stuff!!

 

Your move.

I'll take the victory. Thanks

[The Moz 69]

FIRE!! FIRE AT FFT!!! Quick, everybody run outside, break sh!t, and steal stuff!!

 

Your move.

Reported sorry PB got to send ya to jail for 10 years................ good lucks

[phillybear 364]

I'll take the victory. Thanks

What victory. It's all bullsh!t. Everything is up for interpretation and it's all arbitrary. Free speech should be entirely free, no exceptions. Now you have a government spying on our every word, changing the intent of free speech by passing stupid laws to limit free expression of opinions. Hate speech, bullying, can't boo the other team, stand up comics can't make certain jokes, blah, blah, blah.

 

Insanity. And some people actually want this sh!t. Unfockingbelievable.

[phillybear 364]

Reported sorry PB got to send ya to jail for 10 years................ good lucks

I guess that I better start downloading episodes of Prison Break.

[cbfalcon 824]

I wonder what the free speechers would be saying had the police looked at his remarks, ignored them, then the next week the kid killed 15 five year olds.

 

 

I'm glad he was arrested. I just skimmed the story, but I assume he has been investigated since? If he has access to any weapons he needs to spend a couple years in jail. If he doesn't, then less time in jail.

[NewbieJr 540]

What victory. It's all bullsh!t. Everything is up for interpretation and it's all arbitrary. Free speech should be entirely free, no exceptions. Now you have a government spying on our every word, changing the intent of free speech by passing stupid laws to limit free expression of opinions. Hate speech, bullying, can't boo the other team, stand up comics can't make certain jokes, blah, blah, blah.

 

Insanity. And some people actually want this sh!t. Unfockingbelievable.

The examples you're giving aren't about free speech. The government doesn't punish Imus for calling the Rutgers women's B-Ball team a bunch of knappy headed ho's. The Gov't doesn't penalize the Food Network lady for saying the N-word. That's an issue of political correctness that has gone WAY too far and all the advertisers being scared of being boycotted if they support any of these people. It's a whole other issue and I agree with you 100% that it's bullsh!t.

 

The terroristic threats and inciting a riot clauses are very just and need to be there. You're talking apples and oranges.

[The Moz 69]

I guess that I better start downloading episodes of Prison Break.

Yeah better start getting that elaborate tattoo now.

[parrot 789]

 

The terroristic threats and inciting a riot clauses are very just and need to be there. You're talking apples and oranges.

 

The riot clauses you cite demand that the speech be intended to incite some "imminent" unlawful action, AND be "likely" to result in that action. Exactly what imminent unlawful action was he looking to incite here? And what would you say was the likelihood of it actually occurring? Just because they "need to be there" doesn't mean they apply to this case.

[The Pope 8]

 

Reagan advocated for prayer in school which is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Why did Reagan hate the Constitution?

Because Hamelton didn't leave any room for Ronny to sign it.

[phillybear 364]

I wonder what the free speechers would be saying had the police looked at his remarks, ignored them, then the next week the kid killed 15 five year olds.

 

When you are making omelets, you gotta crack some eggs.

 

When you give away rights for a false sense of security, everybody loses.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

The riot clauses you cite demand that the speech be intended to incite some "imminent" unlawful action, AND be "likely" to result in that action. Exactly what imminent unlawful action was he looking to incite here? And what would you say was the likelihood of it actually occurring? Just because they "need to be there" doesn't mean they apply to this case.

I would need to see a transcript of what led to it. And know the kid's history. There was obviously a judge who had way more facts than you or I, who thought this was a serious offense. And as I said, if nothing was done about it and the kid did end up shooting up a school or coming after someone, then there would have been lawsuits out the ass.

[phillybear 364]

The examples you're giving aren't about free speech. The government doesn't punish Imus for calling the Rutgers women's B-Ball team a bunch of knappy headed ho's. The Gov't doesn't penalize the Food Network lady for saying the N-word. That's an issue of political correctness that has gone WAY too far and all the advertisers being scared of being boycotted if they support any of these people. It's a whole other issue and I agree with you 100% that it's bullsh!t.

 

The terroristic threats and inciting a riot clauses are very just and need to be there. You're talking apples and oranges.

I did say blah, blah, blah. There are thousands of example of how our overall freedom of speech has been cut off at the knees.

[NewbieJr 540]

When you are making omelets, you gotta crack some eggs.

 

When you give away rights for a false sense of security, everybody loses.

Freedom of Speech NEVER allowed for terroristic threats.., Ever. This isn't giving up rights. You never had a right to do that, nor should you.

[phillybear 364]

I would need to see a transcript of what led to it. And know the kid's history. There was obviously a judge who had way more facts than you or I, who thought this was a serious offense. And as I said, if nothing was done about it and the kid did end up shooting up a school or coming after someone, then there would have been lawsuits out the ass.

I'm positive that there will be lawsuits coming out of this situation.

 

Whatever happened to the mantra of I'd rather let 100 guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail?

[phillybear 364]

Freedom of Speech NEVER allowed for terroristic threats.., Ever. This isn't giving up rights. You never had a right to do that, nor should you.

You mean, other than the time between 1791 (Bill of Rights) and 1917, when that interpretation of the law was enacted.

[NewbieJr 540]

I'm positive that there will be lawsuits coming out of this situation.

 

Whatever happened to the mantra of I'd rather let 100 guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't innocent. They know he typed those words.

[NewbieJr 540]

You mean, other than the time between 1791 (Bill of Rights) and 1917, when that interpretation of the law was enacted.

So in 1916 you could tell a cop you were going to kill him? Or yell fire in the proverbial crowded theater?

[phillybear 364]

So in 1916 you could tell a cop you were going to kill him? Or yell fire in the proverbial crowded theater?

Sure.

[parrot 789]

I would need to see a transcript of what led to it. And know the kid's history. There was obviously a judge who had way more facts than you or I, who thought this was a serious offense. And as I said, if nothing was done about it and the kid did end up shooting up a school or coming after someone, then there would have been lawsuits out the ass.

 

For starters, you should stop presenting the false dilemma of doing this, or doing nothing. I don't think anyone has a particular problem with this kid being brought in and/or investigated to see if there in anything to the threat, and possibly being charged with a lesser misdemeanor. It's the felony charge and the huge bail amount that cause me issue.

Maybe there's more to the story. Maybe the judge has more facts that would justify this. Or, then again, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he's a hard-core Texas law and order type in a time of hyper-sensitivity over the issue of school shootings. I'm remarking on the facts as presented, which is really all we can do. If there is more to the story that might change my interpretation, but until I hear more it seems like gross over application of the cited law.

[NewbieJr 540]

Sure.

 

And you think that's how it should be now, too, right?

Thank God asswholes like you have zero say in the lawmaking process.

[phillybear 364]

 

I don't think anyone has a particular problem with this kid being brought in and/or investigated to see if there in anything to the threat, and possibly being charged with a lesser misdemeanor.

Well, I do have a problem with that.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

For starters, you should stop presenting the false dilemma of doing this, or doing nothing. I don't think anyone has a particular problem with this kid being brought in and/or investigated to see if there in anything to the threat, and possibly being charged with a lesser misdemeanor. It's the felony charge and the huge bail amount that cause me issue.

Maybe there's more to the story. Maybe the judge has more facts that would justify this. Or, then again, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he's a hard-core Texas law and order type in a time of hyper-sensitivity over the issue of school shootings. I'm remarking on the facts as presented, which is really all we can do. If there is more to the story that might change my interpretation, but until I hear more it seems like gross over application of the cited law.

I've stated multiple times that the penalty seemed too harsh. Not sure why you are having trouble grasping that.

 

I'm debating that retard, phillybear who thinks anyone should be allowed to make any threats they want because otherwise, it's a violation of freedom of speech.

[rholio 339]

the title of this story should be:

 

Internet Tough guy gets pounded in the ass

[parrot 789]

I wonder what the free speechers would be saying had the police looked at his remarks, ignored them, then the next week the kid killed 15 five year olds.

 

 

I'm glad he was arrested. I just skimmed the story, but I assume he has been investigated since? If he has access to any weapons he needs to spend a couple years in jail. If he doesn't, then less time in jail.

 

A. I would say "That was dumb to ignore a guy who had made threats like that."

 

2. So you're going to apply the law differently based on whether someone has "access to any weapons" or not? That doesn't seem like much of a slippery slope.

[phillybear 364]

 

And you think that's how it should be now, too, right?

Thank God asswholes like you have zero say in the lawmaking process.

I believe in the Constitution so of course that's how it should be now.

 

So, as a voter and a citizen, I have zero say in the lawmaking process? Really?

[NewbieJr 540]

I believe in the Constitution so of course that's how it should be now.

 

So, as a voter and a citizen, I have zero say in the lawmaking process? Really?

Not voting for fringe candidates who pull in less than 1% of the vote.

 

Also, you obviously don't agree with all of the constitution. Or you'd know you can't say "anything you want'. The fact that you're too dimwitted to understand the first amendment doesn't mean anyone's giving up their rights.

[parrot 789]

I've stated multiple times that the penalty seemed too harsh. Not sure why you are having trouble grasping that.

 

I'm not having any trouble grasping that. I'm having trouble grasping why you say that then continue to talk about stuff like riot clauses and whatnot when this case has little resemblance to the scenarios those types of laws are intended to prevent.

[Phurfur 70]

You can't make terroristic threats, nor say anything that will incite a riot. That is for the good of the general public and isn't censorship. This hasn't changed since the First Amendment was drawn up.

Hook, line and sinker.

 

What a Dork!

[phillybear 364]

Not voting for fringe candidates who pull in less than 1% of the vote.

 

Also, you obviously don't agree with all of the constitution. Or you'd know you can't say "anything you want'. The fact that you're too dimwitted to understand the first amendment doesn't mean anyone's giving up their rights.

I just pointed out that your always been there "yell Fire" example was established less than 100 years ago. Ergo, yes, our right to free speech has been diminished.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

I'm not having any trouble grasping that. I'm having trouble grasping why you say that then continue to talk about stuff like riot clauses and whatnot when this case has little resemblance to the scenarios those types of laws are intended to prevent.

You don't think that threatening to shoot up a kindergarten would fall under making terroristic threats?

[phillybear 364]

You don't think that threatening to shoot up a kindergarten would fall under making terroristic threats?

If you are standing in between the monkey bars with a bazooka right outside the cafeteria doors, maybe.

 

If you are playing video games and talking sh!t, of course not. Common sense.

[The Moz 69]

Newbie how was what this kid said an actual terrorist threat? He says something for shock value and then gets put in the clink for 10 years -- sorry but come on man

[NewbieJr 540]

I just pointed out that your always been there "yell Fire" example was established less than 100 years ago. Ergo, yes, our right to free speech has been diminished.

There are obscenity clauses, defamation clauses, incitement to crime clauses, true threats clauses, national secrets clauses......

 

Freedom of Speech is NOTHING like you think it is or think it should be. Thank God

[parrot 789]

You don't think that threatening to shoot up a kindergarten would fall under making terroristic threats?

 

Applying his generic statement as quoted to the law cited on page 1, not really. It certainly doesn't seem to meet the felony provisions with which he has apparently been charged (which I realize you agree with).

 

Some good commentary on the case:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352432/free-justin-carter-now-charles-c-w-cooke

 

 

 

In free countries such as the United States, one is permitted to be a fool. The keystone of our virtuous departure from the damnable norms of human history is the axiom, so memorably put by Chesterton, that “to have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” Americans may scream racial epithets, attack others’ deeply held beliefs, and communicate whatever vile and cretinous things pop into their heads. And they may do this not because they are “allowed to” by a state that grants privilege but because the state has never been granted the permission to intervene. The heirs to the constitutional settlement of the late eighteenth century are as entitled to its bounties as were its architects — idiot boys included.

 

Notice the bolded. Yes, we have restrictions on our speech, but they are narrow and defined. It's not enough to say "NOT ALL SPEECH IS PROTECTED!" and pretend that is the end of it. You have to be able to show why THIS speech is NOT protected.

[NewbieJr 540]

Newbie how was what this kid said an actual terrorist threat? He says something for shock value and then gets put in the clink for 10 years -- sorry but come on man

Dude, please tell me you're just pretending to be this stupid.

 

I'm going to say this for the fifth time now. I'll say it in caps. Please read it slowly so you don't miss it again.....I FEEL THE PUNISHMENT WAS TOO HARSH.

 

Should I type it out once more? Just to make sure you really got it? Ok....

.....I FEEL THE PUNISHMENT WAS TOO HARSH.

 

Am I clear now about the fact that I think the punishment was too harsh?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

My main question is how do they prove that he intended to "(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service." From an offhand Facebook comment?

The thing here is the bond amount. They know that they have nothing on him, so they are placing an outrageous amount of bond until he eventually goes to court and the whole thing is dropped. They are making an example of him.

[The Moz 69]

Dude, please tell me you're just pretending to be this stupid.

 

I'm going to say this for the fifth time now. I'll say it in caps. Please read it slowly so you don't miss it again.....I FEEL THE PUNISHMENT WAS TOO HARSH.

 

Should I type it out once more? Just to make sure you really got it? Ok....

.....I FEEL THE PUNISHMENT WAS TOO HARSH.

 

Am I clear now about the fact that I think the punishment was too harsh?

I know you say that - then you seem to go on about how it is just that this is a real crime! You seem to think he deserves some kind of punishment for this... granted - you think what happening is "too harsh" . So then what punishment would you of given him? if indeed you feel what he did was a crime - which seems to be the sentiment of your argument.

[NewbieJr 540]

I know you say that - then you seem to go on about how it is just that this is a real crime! You seem to think he deserves some kind of punishment for this... granted - you think what happening is "too harsh" . So then what punishment would you of given him? if indeed you feel what he did was a crime - which seems to be the sentiment of your argument.

You're asking me to play judge when I have one sentence to go by? I don't know this kid's mental state or his past behaviors. I don't know what led to that statement or what followed it. I do think that threatening to shoot up a kindergarten and drink the blood is worthy of legal punishment of some kind. And to even say such a thing indicates that he has some issues. But to ask me to dole out the penalty with only about 10% of the info that the judge had is kind of dumb.

[MDC 5,877]

As a member of the Geek Club, I like to form and vehemently defend opinions even when I have almost no facts to go on, based on nothing but my knee jerk assumptions.