BS: First Amendment under attack

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 01:37 PM

I see that having been held in custody since he was arrested in April, Justin Carter was freed on bail on Thursday, after some unknown person came up with $500,000 bail. However when he comes to trial he still faces a possible sentence of ten years in prison.

Another "only in America" story...

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Songwronger
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:03 PM

Terrorism is intended to affect political policy. Justin Carter shouldn't have been charged with terrorism. He is being made an example of. The government must teach you how to cringe before it can teach you how to crawl.

Here are some similar statements, made in connection to the George Zimmerman trial. Taken from Twitter:

"Watching the Zimmerman Trial. If he don't get life ill kill him myself."

"Trayvon Martin need justice ! Gimme me tha pistol ill kill Zimmerman myself."

"If George Zimmerman win I'm gonna kill a fat white boy dat look lik George Zimmerman I swear lol."

Somehow these statements seem more pointed and specific than Carter's sarcastic wisecrack. I don't believe any of the statements are terroristic. They're threatening, hateful and racist, but they don't propose to alter government policy.

The problem with Justin Carter's case is that he was singled out, and he was charged inappropriately. Oh, and he was used to keep the Snitch juggernaut moving. Every couple of days we're fed a story about some new government spying abuse, or a new government snitch program, or someone busted on a "tip." We're being re-educated. We'll be expected to self-police before long and report any criticism of the criminal government to the criminal government.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 03:20 PM

Get a life, Keith. Soon, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 02:58 PM

he just has a pathological need to prove me wrong in every thread.
But, it was you who followed me to this thread Don.
Likewise the cycling thread.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 12:13 PM

Setting off a fire alarm would indeed be just as likely to set off a panic scramble for safety, at least in principle.

Though in fact in my experience when an alarm goes off in most public places, such as a shopping mall, people seem to stroll around assuming it's just that it's just something wrong with the alarm. I imagine if someone shouted "fire!" The assumption would be it was some twit larking about.

I'mm surprised no one has mentioned the Twitter Joke Trial in England when a young man called Paul Chambers, after been inconvenienced by an airport being closed, posted a message saying "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

He was charged with sending a "public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003", and fined £385 with £600 court costs, and also lost his job. After widespread condemnation of the case in the UK media, and a series of appeals, the conviction was overturned and the court ruled that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]"

Which in the end seemed a sensible outcome, and might have been an appropriate opinion for the court to take into account in this American case. Allowing for a different understanding of irony in the USA, perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:52 AM

The point about a fire alarm, is that it sounds throughout the building, and it initiates the building's evacuation procedure.

Not so, a shouting voice, suddenly sounding in the middle of an enclosed venue.

The result of the shout is panic, with people running hither and yon, and staff being overwhelmed and trampled, instead of controlling an orderly evacuation.

For fifteen years, I was responsible for arranging four fire drills a year in a primary school with 300 pupils in ten classrooms. The drills were never scheduled and the only person who knew the exact time of them (other than myself) was the head teacher.

We regularly changed the location of the hypothetical fire, by blocking off the site with signs.

I would be very surprised if theatres and cinemas didn't have at least as efficient a policy for evacuation.

Don't take too much notice of Keith, Elmore, he just has a pathological need to prove me wrong in every thread. I'm quite used to it after several years.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Elmore
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:33 AM

I guess I must also be a silly man, because what KAoH says above makes no sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 07:10 AM

You silly man.
Shouting fire when there is a fire is the exact equivalent of setting off a fire alarm.
That is what you do, and freedom of speech is not remotely an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 07:01 AM

""No you silly man.
The person who discovers the fire may not know all that stuff and has a duty to tell as many as possible as quickly as possible.
Shouting fire is the correct immediate action.
It is certainly not an issue of free speech.""

You confirm the depth of your idiocy!

If you are ever in that situation and act as you suggest, you will have to live with the responsibility for those who are trampled and injured or killed in the stampede that inevitably follows as people run in all directions, not knowing where the fire is or where the safe exits are.

I can only hope that the victims' relatives sue the backside off you. I certainly would!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 03:11 AM

Don.
Threatening behaviour is still an offence in the UK Keith, as far as I know.
Of course it is.
It is not an issue of Freedom Of Speech.
We agree.

It is a very good example, for the reason that doing as you suggest would certainly cause panic and subsequent deaths and injuries, not related ro the fire.
The correct action is to very calmly and quietly ask patrons to leave, specifying which exits are safe to use.

No you silly man.
The person who discovers the fire may not know all that stuff and has a duty to tell as many as possible as quickly as possible.
Shouting fire is the correct immediate action.
It is certainly not an issue of free speech.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 09:45 PM

"I'm going to kill you. Just kidding".

How stupid can you get, ding-dong?

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 12:21 PM

""That "shouting fire" quote is frequently given as an example of a limit to free speech.

It is a bad example for the reason I gave.""

It is a very good example, for the reason that doing as you suggest would certainly cause panic and subsequent deaths and injuries, not related ro the fire.

The correct action is to very calmly and quietly ask patrons to leave, specifying which exits are safe to use.

Shouting "Fire" would be stupid and counter productive in terms of saving lives.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 12:16 PM

Here it is!

""The offence is created by section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -

    (a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
    (b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

This is a summary offence. It is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.[2]""

Also section 5 Public order offences.

""Section 5 makes it an offence to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour" or to display "any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting" within the hearing or sight of a person "likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

Section 5 has been used to arrest and/or prosecute (for example) religious campaigners against homosexuality, a British National Party member who displayed anti-Islamic posters in his window and people who have sworn at the police.""

The government have announced that they are "not minded to oppose" a House of Lords amendment to remove the word insulting from the act.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 11:57 AM

Threatening behaviour is still an offence in the UK Keith, as far as I know.

Try it outside of a nightclub one night when there are plenty of cops around, but have £80 handy when you do!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 01:43 AM

"...the definition of terrorism, whether by individuals, groups, or governments, is that the violence directed at members of the public involves an intention to influence the way people think and behave."

I disagree that that was not a terroristic threat- whether he was making just a stupid comment or if he was just putting into words a fantasy, the very image, never mind the actuality, of what he proposed instills terror.

And it most definitely influenced the way people think and behave. Look at this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Songwronger
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 09:31 PM

No, he didn't threaten that. He sarcastically said he was going to kill, then he even negated the statement with a j/k--"just kidding." He threatened no one. What is it about jackbooted thuggery that appeals to you? Or should I say buggery? Sounds like you're aching to put the "screws" to the kid. I guess I should report you for my suspicions of your violent homosexual ideation.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 07:15 PM

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST will you fucking barrackroom lawyers go and READ THE FUCKING LAW.

"Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war."

THEN -

"Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact."

THINK - the idiot poster in this case threatened an imminent gravely lawless action - A columbine type incident.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Songwronger
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 06:55 PM

Whhatever that stupid message was, it wasn't terrorism nor a threat to commit terrorism.

Essential to the definition of terrorism, whether by individuals, groups, or governments, is that the violence directed at members of the public involves an intention to influence the way people think and behave.

Exactly. This wasn't a terroristic statement. At most it might be prosecutable as a threat to public safety, but definitely not terrorism. That's why this is an attack on the First Amendment. Going back to the original post, as Thurgood Marshall said, "the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content."

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 06:09 PM

Well, I give you an 'A+' for being able to laugh about it!!!

Well, I give you an 'A+' for being able to laugh about it!!!

Well, I give you an 'A+' for being able to laugh about it!!!

GfS

P.S. Did I mention that Well, I give you an 'A+' for being able to laugh about it!!!

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Elmore
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 05:45 PM

GfS: LOL< LOL. (Just gave myself a D- for redundancy).

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 02:03 PM

Ooops...thread drift..sorry!

Now back to our regular programming!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 02:01 PM

Hey..ya' think this might be getting idiotically moronic??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Elmore
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 02:00 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 01:59 PM

Elmore: "GFS. Look up redundant in the dictionary."

I already did, years ago....so to look it up again would be redundant!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Elmore
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 01:59 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 01:58 PM

Elmore: "GFS. Look up redundant in the dictionary."

I already did, years ago....so to look it up again would be redundant!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Elmore
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 01:08 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 12:47 PM

Elmore: "GFS. Look up redundant in the dictionary."

I already did, years ago....so to look it up again would be redundant!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 11:22 AM

How to enforce the ban, Ebbie? More or less the same way you can enforce a ban on driving. You can't directly stop the person breaking the ban, but if they do so and get caught doing it, it's back to court, and probably into jail.

It'd definitely cramp the lad's activities in cyberworld.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:34 AM

I am agreeing with Richard, and therefore you Greg.!

Actually, no, Keith, you didn't and you aren't.

Not only can you not comprehend what others write, you apparently connot comprehend what you have written yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Elmore
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:03 AM

Once again, a thread initiated by trolls to create dissension has elicited cogent, thoughtful, and, in most cases, polite discussion. Human Beings 1, Trolls 0.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 03:20 AM


Keith - what you say is wrong in the UK and wrong in the USA too.

Huh?
I am agreeing with Richard, and therefore you Greg.!

The malicious setting off of fire alarms, its oral equivalent, and this facebook entry are not protected by the first amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 01:51 AM

However, the apparent threat to commit mass murder in the light of recent US history of mass murders can hardly be expected to be without consequences, despite the first amendment. It is IMHO speech that is not protected by the first amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 01:50 AM

"The right thing to do with this young man would have been to ban him from using computers or phones for a yer or so, and give him some kind of fitting community service penalty." McGrath

And you would enforce the ban- how?

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 11:13 PM

Whhatever that stupid message was, it wasn't terrorism nor a threat to commit terrorism.

Essential to the definition of terrorism, whether by individuals, groups, or governments, is that the violence directed at members of the public involves an intention to influence the way people think and behave.

The Boston bombing was terrorism, the use of killer drones is terrorism much of the time. Murders in general, even such as the massacres in Newtown or in Dunblane years ago are not terrorism.

The right thing to do with this young man would have been to ban him from using computers or phones for a yer or so, and give him some kind of fitting community service penalty.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 06:53 PM

"Sooooo... he was detained and this is a tragedy? A violation of his rights?"

I saw an interview with a New Braunfels Detective the other day. He said it was unfortunate that the kid was locked up. but "We have to take this sort of thing seriously." I got the impression that if someone could guarantee medically or whatever that the kid wouldn't do something violent when he got out, the kid would be out.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Elmore
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:36 PM

GfS: You're redundant again. (reredundant?), not to mention off topic and incoherent. Let the grownups talk.

s

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:30 PM

Keith - what you say is wrong in the UK and wrong in the USA too.

Richard, you summed Keith up perfectly in the other thread.

IDIOT.

Clear, succinct, and irrefutable.

'nuf said.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:14 PM

Delete other one..I typed something wrong....

Hey, BTW, MtheGM, you know why the 'detainees' at Gitmo are called 'detainees' instead of POW's??

Because POW means that they are Prisoners of War...and 'war' was never legally declared....but we seem to have most all the 'special powers, as you mentioned, in working order.
I wonder if the first Amendment covers lying to the public about the government's policies...or is it just being attacked for us 'wee' folk peasants, who may use free speech to call that fact to anyone's attention....I guess, it all depends on who's serving who, and for what purpose...legal, lawful or otherwise!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:09 PM

Hey, BTW, MtheGM, you know why the 'detainees' at Gitmo are called 'detainees' instead of POW's??

Because POW means that they are Prisoners of War...and 'war' was never legally declared....but we seem to have most all the 'special powers, as you mentioned, in working order.
I wonder if the first Amendment covers lying to the public about the government's policies...or is it just for us 'wee' folk peasants, who may use free speech to call that fact to anyone's attention....I guess, it all depends on who's serving who, and for what purpose...legal, lawful or otherwise!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: gnu
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:03 PM

I found it after a Google search... did it appear in this thread yet? I kinda looked but gave up... here it is... "I'm f---ed in the head alright. I think I'ma shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them." Then he wrote, "j/k" ("just kidding").

Sooooo... he was detained and this is a tragedy? A violation of his rights?

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 03:49 PM

But surely wartime conditions always bring about a "State of Emergency" or "Clear & Present Danger", during which special powers may be temporarily adopted, and generally observed principles temporarily suspended [eg Habeas Corpus by the provisions of Regulation 18b in UK during WWii].

Without going into the wrongs & rights of the specific case which is subject of this thread, such special provisions would not appear to apply to it, would they?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 03:28 PM

Keith - what you say is wrong in the UK and wrong in the USA too. GO AND READ THE CASE. The Oliver Wendel Holmes opinion was in relation to a prohibited form of political expression.

"Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. "

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: GUEST,Arkie
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 03:11 PM

The right of free speech carries a sense of responsibility and when one's words are perceived to be a threat to someone or a falsehood that can be considered slander one pays or should pay the penalty for those words and when intent to damage is evident there is a price to pay. It is one thing to criticize government or powerful organizations, corporations, or individuals.   Threats and harmful remarks can be prosecuted.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Elmore
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 02:28 PM

GFS. Look up redundant in the dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 01:44 PM

People in government frequently express opinions that incite hatred or violence...usually against some Third World country that has a large amount of oil, lithium, strategically important territory or something else like that which our biggest corporations want. These government statements are rife with threats and deception.

And they ARE allowed to do it. And many people die as a consequence.

It seems a bit hypocritical of them to accuse private citizens of the same thing, but it proves the old adage:

"Steal a little, and they throw you in jail. Steal a lot and they make you a king."

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 01:31 PM

Freedom of speech is the right to express any opinions.
The limits we have come to accept is that you can not express opinions that incite hatred or violence.

It never encompassed threats or deceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 01:28 PM

GfS summed it up perfectly in his post of

07 Jul 13 - 11:51 PM

When he said:

I don't think it's Obama's fault, anymore than Bush's, or Clinton's, or Carter's....or any of them...they all work for the same guys...and the Constitution is in their way...they MUST erode it to accomplish the agenda!!....and we must let them...because you do....you just don't admit to it, but you do....otherwise, they, and their backers would ALL be in prison!...and you wouldn't want that, would you??..One side will scream 'racist bigot', and the other side will scream that you're a socialist....and as long as we keep screaming at each other, they're happily dismantling our country.....

'but don't let it bring you down..
It's only castles burning,
Find some one who's turning,
And you will come around." ~~~Young

'....and they thought it couldn't happen here'~~~ Zappa

*********************

That covers it. If you don't think so, you're:

1. in denial about the growth of fascism in imperial America

2. too busy just attacking the usual individuals you don't like on this forum, because it's an emotional habit you've become addicted to

and/or

3. caught up in the usual partisan politics ("us and them" thinking) which blinds you in exactly the way it is intended to by those who use the 2 big parties to divide and control you and set you against each other. As long as they can keep ordinary people divided, and fighting with each other, they get what they want, which is to rule all of you.

It's a bit like "The Hunger Games" story, only not so overtly obvious or bloody...and you're not good looking teenagers anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:48 PM

Keith, extending your logic to the case at hand, you appear to be saying that the Texas kid would be OK if he meant to shoot up a classroom and eat a kid's heart but since he was joking it was "deliberate deception" and therefor he has to "deal with the consequences."

Is that what you are trying to say? If so you are wrong. Just as wrong and songwronger was in calling this an "attack" on the "First Amendment." The case in Texas is limit on the bounds of acceptable sarcasm. Sort of like the trouble you are given if the TSA agent asks if you have anything illegal in your carry on and you jokingly say, "Just a bomb."

Subject: RE: BS: First Amendment under attack
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:47 PM

Facebook should also be held to investigation for permitting a possible terrorist to use their forum.

All threats must be taken seriously.