Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Stop Posting Radical Things

drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:23:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So we supposedly have to prove that we're not a terrorist? If I'm ever asked that, I'll ask them to prove that they are not a terrorist.

And what happened to freedom of speech? Did it get replaced by fearmongering or jingoism or something?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:57:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
""This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It"s just the way it is," Mullins adds."

Lol
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 10:40:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 9:23:40 AM, drhead wrote:
So we supposedly have to prove that we're not a terrorist? If I'm ever asked that, I'll ask them to prove that they are not a terrorist.

And what happened to freedom of speech? Did it get replaced by fearmongering or jingoism or something?

There has never been a blanket freedom of speech. Threats to harm individuals or property has always been illegal. There has always been a subjective measurement on the validity of a stated threat. One would expect that subjectivity to migrate towards a conservative definition after acts of terrorism.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 11:54:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 10:40:41 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:23:40 AM, drhead wrote:
So we supposedly have to prove that we're not a terrorist? If I'm ever asked that, I'll ask them to prove that they are not a terrorist.

And what happened to freedom of speech? Did it get replaced by fearmongering or jingoism or something?

There has never been a blanket freedom of speech. Threats to harm individuals or property has always been illegal. There has always been a subjective measurement on the validity of a stated threat. One would expect that subjectivity to migrate towards a conservative definition after acts of terrorism.

No, they actually have to find EVIDENCE that you are ACTUALLY PLANNING to do something (with the notable exception of threats toward the President).

"Those who give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and shall lose both" - Benjamin Franklin

I think we should listen to him.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 1:53:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 12:04:41 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
If you threaten to kill someone, why wouldn't law enforcement take that seriously?

Because we have a little legal concept here called "innocent until proven guilty". It might be enough probable cause to warrant an investigation if there is additional information relating to some sort of motive, but not enough to constitute a felony on its own.

Plus, when we say we want to kill someone, it doesn't always mean we plan to carry through with that threat. We are often emotionally driven to say things we don't mean, especially given the shroud of anonymity provided by the Internet (see "Internet Tough Guy").
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:14:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 1:53:08 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/6/2013 12:04:41 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
If you threaten to kill someone, why wouldn't law enforcement take that seriously?

Because we have a little legal concept here called "innocent until proven guilty". It might be enough probable cause to warrant an investigation if there is additional information relating to some sort of motive, but not enough to constitute a felony on its own.
But you are guilty. Threatening to harm others is against the law

Plus, when we say we want to kill someone, it doesn't always mean we plan to carry through with that threat. We are often emotionally driven to say things we don't mean, especially given the shroud of anonymity provided by the Internet (see "Internet Tough Guy").

So people on the internet should be allowed to say what they want? I should be able to message people and tell them I'm going to rape them and the police should say "welp he hasn't done it yet so...."?
#BlackLivesMatter