Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Free Speech

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 3:40:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

People should certainly be able to criticise the police online, with the exception of death threats.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 3:45:57 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

Death threats have warranted arrest for quite a long time.

Also, please refrain from making fun of Charlie Hebdo. Quite a lot of innocent civilians were killed that day.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:25:17 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:40:56 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

People should certainly be able to criticise the police online, with the exception of death threats.

So would you also want to arrest the people who make death threats towards Obama? There are plenty of them on Facebook as well, but to my knowledge none have been arrested yet.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:30:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:45:57 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

Death threats have warranted arrest for quite a long time.

So you'd be all in favor of rounding up those who have made death threats on Facebook towards Obama? He's the nation's commander in chief.

Also, please refrain from making fun of Charlie Hebdo. Quite a lot of innocent civilians were killed that day.

Charlie Hebdo is a garbage publication that makes money off of drawing disgustingly offensive stereotypes and peddling them for racists to gawk and laugh at. They reaped what they sowed, and I'll mock their idiocy any day of the week.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:36:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

'In New Jersey, Rolando Medina was arrested and charged with cyber harassment. He allegedly posted on an unidentified form of social media that he would destroy local police headquarters. In Louisiana, Kemonte Gilmore was arrested for an online video where he allegedly threatened a police officer. He was charged with public intimidation.'

Yes, I'm opposed to this. I've also been telling the more soft-minded variety of liberals for ages that, when they passed stupid 'cyber-harassment' laws, they were making a rod for their own back. Now the lash is falling, and I don't see why you're coming after free speech advocates, who warned everyone that this would happen if they eroded the safeguards on free speech in order to make the internet a more cuddly place for the weak-willed.

'Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.'
- A Man For All Seasons -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:38:57 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM, someloser wrote:
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

If that post is defined as a threat to kill police, then there's at least 10 million ignorant hillbillies who need to be arrested and charged as well. Don't act like you haven't read hundreds of variations on the following Facebook post: "All I know is if Obama/the Feds come for my guns, I will use them to defend myself."

If you are charging people for describing a hypothetical scenario, then you no longer believe in free speech. And that's totally fine, you don't have to. Just don't trot the 1st amendment out again and act like it's the end of the world when some college kids protest a controversial speaker or something.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:43:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:36:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

'In New Jersey, Rolando Medina was arrested and charged with cyber harassment. He allegedly posted on an unidentified form of social media that he would destroy local police headquarters. In Louisiana, Kemonte Gilmore was arrested for an online video where he allegedly threatened a police officer. He was charged with public intimidation.'

Yes, I'm opposed to this. I've also been telling the more soft-minded variety of liberals for ages that, when they passed stupid 'cyber-harassment' laws, they were making a rod for their own back. Now the lash is falling, and I don't see why you're coming after free speech advocates, who warned everyone that this would happen if they eroded the safeguards on free speech in order to make the internet a more cuddly place for the weak-willed.

That's great, I respect your consistency. Notice how you are the only one in this thread so far who is actually opposed to this. That is exactly why I made this thread. You are not the problem in this scenario. They are the hypocrites, not you.

For what it's worth, I don't think this is so problematic. I see no reason why we should tolerate threats of violence online more than we do irl. However, it does need to be consistent. So these cowardly cops better get out there and start booking all the Jethros and Bubbas rambling about shooting the guvmint agents and Obama.

'Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.'
- A Man For All Seasons -

Cool quote.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:47:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:30:51 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:45:57 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

Death threats have warranted arrest for quite a long time.

So you'd be all in favor of rounding up those who have made death threats on Facebook towards Obama? He's the nation's commander in chief.

Death threats are illegal, especially against the President. So yes, I am in favor of following the law, as this law is not unjust.


Also, please refrain from making fun of Charlie Hebdo. Quite a lot of innocent civilians were killed that day.

Charlie Hebdo is a garbage publication that makes money off of drawing disgustingly offensive stereotypes and peddling them for racists to gawk and laugh at. They reaped what they sowed, and I'll mock their idiocy any day of the week.

No, Charlie Hebdo is a famous French satirical publication that equally mocks Islam and Christianity. The response to drawing Muhammad in a secular nation should not be terrorist action. If you think that they deserved to be blown up for exercising their rights to free speech and expression, then you are a morally deprived individual.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:51:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:38:57 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM, someloser wrote:
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

If that post is defined as a threat to kill police, then there's at least 10 million ignorant hillbillies who need to be arrested and charged as well. Don't act like you haven't read hundreds of variations on the following Facebook post: "All I know is if Obama/the Feds come for my guns, I will use them to defend myself."

If you are charging people for describing a hypothetical scenario, then you no longer believe in free speech. And that's totally fine, you don't have to. Just don't trot the 1st amendment out again and act like it's the end of the world when some college kids protest a controversial speaker or something.

That's legally not considered a viable threat.

If you were to state "I am going to kill President Obama..." then you might be investigated by the FBI if they see it as a credible threat. If you mail someone and state "I will kill you" then you might be investigated as well if it's a viable threat.

However, saying "if you come for my property, I will defend myself" is not a viable threat, thus you cannot be legally prosecuted.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:53:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:47:22 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:30:51 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:45:57 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

Death threats have warranted arrest for quite a long time.

So you'd be all in favor of rounding up those who have made death threats on Facebook towards Obama? He's the nation's commander in chief.

Death threats are illegal, especially against the President. So yes, I am in favor of following the law, as this law is not unjust.
Great, in that case the cops have a lot of arresting to do. Don't get me wrong, blatant death threats should be punished, but the low bar set by some of these cases is laughable. That one woman was describing a hypothetical scenario, for crying out loud.

Also, please refrain from making fun of Charlie Hebdo. Quite a lot of innocent civilians were killed that day.

Charlie Hebdo is a garbage publication that makes money off of drawing disgustingly offensive stereotypes and peddling them for racists to gawk and laugh at. They reaped what they sowed, and I'll mock their idiocy any day of the week.

No, Charlie Hebdo is a famous French satirical publication that equally mocks Islam and Christianity. The response to drawing Muhammad in a secular nation should not be terrorist action. If you think that they deserved to be blown up for exercising their rights to free speech and expression, then you are a morally deprived individual.

What a coincidence that all their "muslim" caricatures have grotesquely large noses, beards and turbans. Given that I haven't noticed a similar racial trend with their Christian cartoons, that's not equal mocking. And no I don't think they deserved to be blown up for being disgusting racists, but I do think they got what they asked for. The man who goes up to a sleeping tiger and yells loudly in its ear doesn't deserve to die, but he certainly shouldn't have been surprised by its reaction.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:55:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:51:03 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:38:57 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM, someloser wrote:
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

If that post is defined as a threat to kill police, then there's at least 10 million ignorant hillbillies who need to be arrested and charged as well. Don't act like you haven't read hundreds of variations on the following Facebook post: "All I know is if Obama/the Feds come for my guns, I will use them to defend myself."

If you are charging people for describing a hypothetical scenario, then you no longer believe in free speech. And that's totally fine, you don't have to. Just don't trot the 1st amendment out again and act like it's the end of the world when some college kids protest a controversial speaker or something.

That's legally not considered a viable threat.

If you were to state "I am going to kill President Obama..." then you might be investigated by the FBI if they see it as a credible threat. If you mail someone and state "I will kill you" then you might be investigated as well if it's a viable threat.

However, saying "if you come for my property, I will defend myself" is not a viable threat, thus you cannot be legally prosecuted.

Did you even read the article? That's literally what the woman in question did, and the police still arrested her. She said that if a cop pulls her over, she'd be willing to shoot them before they shoot her.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:59:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

You should post the substance of the article... so I'll do it here

FOUR MEN IN DETROIT were arrested over the past week for posts on social media that the police chief called threatening. One tweet that led to an arrest said that Micah Johnson, the man who shot police officers in Dallas last week, was a hero. None of the men have been named, nor have they been charged.

"I know this is a new issue, but I want these people charged with crimes," said Detroit Police Chief James Craig. "I"ve directed my officers to prepare warrants for these four individuals, and we"ll see which venue is the best to pursue charges," he said.

Five police officers were killed in the Dallas shootings, constituting the highest number of police casualties in an attack since September 11. And as a result, law enforcement officials everywhere are suddenly much more sensitive to threats against their lives.

But one result has been that several police departments across the country have arrested individuals for posts on social media accounts, often from citizen tips " raising concerns among free speech advocates.

"Arresting people for speech is something we should be very careful about," Bruce Schneier, security technologist at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, told The Intercept.

Last weekend in Connecticut, police arrested Kurt Vanzuuk after a tip for posts on Facebook that identified Johnson as a hero and called for police to be killed. He was charged with inciting injury to persons or property.

An Illinois woman, Jenesis Reynolds, was arrested for writing in a Facebook post that she would shoot an officer who would pull her over. "I have no problem shooting a cop for simple traffic stop cuz they"d have no problem doing it to me," she wrote, according to the police investigation. She was charged with disorderly conduct.

In New Jersey, Rolando Medina was arrested and charged with cyber harassment. He allegedly posted on an unidentified form of social media that he would destroy local police headquarters. In Louisiana, Kemonte Gilmore was arrested for an online video where he allegedly threatened a police officer. He was charged with public intimidation.

"Certainly, posting that kind of thing on social media is a bad thought," professor Larry Dubin of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law told the Detroit News. "But having a bad thought isn"t necessarily a crime."

The policing of online threats is hardly a new issue. The Supreme Court set a precedent last year when it ruled that prosecutors pursuing a charge of communicating threats need to prove both that reasonable people would view the statement as a threat and that the intent was to threaten. Elonis v. United States dealt with a man who had posted violent rap lyrics about his estranged wife; the court reversed his conviction.

"After Dallas, threats may seem more threatening to police officers around the country," said Daniel Medwed, professor of law at Northeastern University. "We might be seeing more arrests right now because the police will interpret that they have probable cause to make the arrest," he said. "But that doesn"t mean in the end that this will result in convictions," he added.

Schneier urged that law enforcement use caution."This is complicated," he said. "We don"t know how to do this " we"re doing it pretty badly and we should to it better."

But he said it was a sign of the times. These days, almost all communications are recorded in some capacity. "This new world where things aren"t forgotten is going to be different," Schneier said. "And you"re seeing one manifestation of it in casual comments that are resulting in arrest."
Tsar of DDO
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:00:10 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:53:19 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:47:22 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:30:51 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:45:57 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

Death threats have warranted arrest for quite a long time.

So you'd be all in favor of rounding up those who have made death threats on Facebook towards Obama? He's the nation's commander in chief.

Death threats are illegal, especially against the President. So yes, I am in favor of following the law, as this law is not unjust.
Great, in that case the cops have a lot of arresting to do. Don't get me wrong, blatant death threats should be punished, but the low bar set by some of these cases is laughable. That one woman was describing a hypothetical scenario, for crying out loud.

It's legally difficult to determine and prosecute for threats. It hinges on the territory of free speech vs violence, so it's somewhat of a nuanced topic for prosecution. That's why it goes on a case by case basis when it comes to intricacy.


Also, please refrain from making fun of Charlie Hebdo. Quite a lot of innocent civilians were killed that day.

Charlie Hebdo is a garbage publication that makes money off of drawing disgustingly offensive stereotypes and peddling them for racists to gawk and laugh at. They reaped what they sowed, and I'll mock their idiocy any day of the week.

No, Charlie Hebdo is a famous French satirical publication that equally mocks Islam and Christianity. The response to drawing Muhammad in a secular nation should not be terrorist action. If you think that they deserved to be blown up for exercising their rights to free speech and expression, then you are a morally deprived individual.

What a coincidence that all their "muslim" caricatures have grotesquely large noses, beards and turbans. Given that I haven't noticed a similar racial trend with their Christian cartoons, that's not equal mocking. And no I don't think they deserved to be blown up for being disgusting racists, but I do think they got what they asked for. The man who goes up to a sleeping tiger and yells loudly in its ear doesn't deserve to die, but he certainly shouldn't have been surprised by its reaction.

If you bothered to look at the actual publications, you would notice that they make fun of stereotypical notions of each group, and that includes arrays of religion and ethnicity. Regardless, they have full legal authority to depict anyone as they would like, in addition to their ability to freely voice their satirical views without having violent repercussions.

Of course, it's definitively no surprise that Muslims would resort to terrorism when they are angered by nonsensical cartoons. They're somewhat adamant on their prophet Muhammad not being depicted as the rapist that he was.

Also, I forget where the term racist applied to making fun of Muslims. Did I miss the time when Islam became a racial group?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:01:04 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:55:45 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:51:03 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:38:57 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM, someloser wrote:
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

If that post is defined as a threat to kill police, then there's at least 10 million ignorant hillbillies who need to be arrested and charged as well. Don't act like you haven't read hundreds of variations on the following Facebook post: "All I know is if Obama/the Feds come for my guns, I will use them to defend myself."

If you are charging people for describing a hypothetical scenario, then you no longer believe in free speech. And that's totally fine, you don't have to. Just don't trot the 1st amendment out again and act like it's the end of the world when some college kids protest a controversial speaker or something.

That's legally not considered a viable threat.

If you were to state "I am going to kill President Obama..." then you might be investigated by the FBI if they see it as a credible threat. If you mail someone and state "I will kill you" then you might be investigated as well if it's a viable threat.

However, saying "if you come for my property, I will defend myself" is not a viable threat, thus you cannot be legally prosecuted.

Did you even read the article? That's literally what the woman in question did, and the police still arrested her. She said that if a cop pulls her over, she'd be willing to shoot them before they shoot her.

It all depends on the prosecutors ability to prove intent and so on. Like I said, it's an intricate issue.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:04:32 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:59:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

You should post the substance of the article... so I'll do it here

Is there a new rule or etiquette that I'm unaware of? It used to be common practice to simply post a link to an article as short as this one, if people want to read it fine and if not then that's fine too.

I didn't want to summarize it because it's really pretty self explanatory. But thanks for posting the article, I will be sure to do it in the OP next time, if that's something that's required now.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:05:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 5:04:32 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:59:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

You should post the substance of the article... so I'll do it here

Is there a new rule or etiquette that I'm unaware of? It used to be common practice to simply post a link to an article as short as this one, if people want to read it fine and if not then that's fine too.

I didn't want to summarize it because it's really pretty self explanatory. But thanks for posting the article, I will be sure to do it in the OP next time, if that's something that's required now.

Dude... chill out.

You've made a post on a really factually specific issue and then just kind of dropped the ball. But w/e.
Tsar of DDO
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:16:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 5:00:10 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:53:19 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:47:22 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:30:51 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:45:57 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

Death threats have warranted arrest for quite a long time.

So you'd be all in favor of rounding up those who have made death threats on Facebook towards Obama? He's the nation's commander in chief.

Death threats are illegal, especially against the President. So yes, I am in favor of following the law, as this law is not unjust.
Great, in that case the cops have a lot of arresting to do. Don't get me wrong, blatant death threats should be punished, but the low bar set by some of these cases is laughable. That one woman was describing a hypothetical scenario, for crying out loud.

It's legally difficult to determine and prosecute for threats. It hinges on the territory of free speech vs violence, so it's somewhat of a nuanced topic for prosecution. That's why it goes on a case by case basis when it comes to intricacy.

Got it, so it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that these police officers don't care about applying the law consistently. Let's face it, either they had a knee jerk reaction and wanted some kind of vengeance because they were butthurt about getting humiliated by one guy in Dallas, or they are so cowardly that they actually feared these people would follow through on their online tough guy threats. What a coincidence that literally none of the people making Obama FB threats got arrested.


Also, please refrain from making fun of Charlie Hebdo. Quite a lot of innocent civilians were killed that day.

Charlie Hebdo is a garbage publication that makes money off of drawing disgustingly offensive stereotypes and peddling them for racists to gawk and laugh at. They reaped what they sowed, and I'll mock their idiocy any day of the week.

No, Charlie Hebdo is a famous French satirical publication that equally mocks Islam and Christianity. The response to drawing Muhammad in a secular nation should not be terrorist action. If you think that they deserved to be blown up for exercising their rights to free speech and expression, then you are a morally deprived individual.

What a coincidence that all their "muslim" caricatures have grotesquely large noses, beards and turbans. Given that I haven't noticed a similar racial trend with their Christian cartoons, that's not equal mocking. And no I don't think they deserved to be blown up for being disgusting racists, but I do think they got what they asked for. The man who goes up to a sleeping tiger and yells loudly in its ear doesn't deserve to die, but he certainly shouldn't have been surprised by its reaction.

If you bothered to look at the actual publications, you would notice that they make fun of stereotypical notions of each group, and that includes arrays of religion and ethnicity. Regardless, they have full legal authority to depict anyone as they would like, in addition to their ability to freely voice their satirical views without having violent repercussions.
Yes, they make fun of many groups. Yes, they have the legal right to do so without violent repercussions. Just like I have the legal right to leave my front door unlocked with a plasma screen and jewelry in full sight.
Of course, it's definitively no surprise that Muslims would resort to terrorism when they are angered by nonsensical cartoons. They're somewhat adamant on their prophet Muhammad not being depicted as the rapist that he was.

Also, I forget where the term racist applied to making fun of Muslims. Did I miss the time when Islam became a racial group?

You literally admitted that Charlie Hebdo makes fun of ethnic stereotypes. Arab is one of those ethnicities. All Muslims are not Arabs. All Arabs are not Muslim. The two groups are not interchangeable. You know this, I know this. Why can't you understand that Charlie Hebdo drawing every single Muslim as a racial caricature of an Arab is racist?

It would be like an American newspaper drawing cartoons of criminals, and making them black every single time. With giant lips and wearing a dewrag. There are some criminals who look like that. There are some people who look like that but are not criminals. But depicting blacks = criminals = huge lips and dewrag is racist. Come on man.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:21:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 5:05:49 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/13/2016 5:04:32 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:59:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

You should post the substance of the article... so I'll do it here

Is there a new rule or etiquette that I'm unaware of? It used to be common practice to simply post a link to an article as short as this one, if people want to read it fine and if not then that's fine too.

I didn't want to summarize it because it's really pretty self explanatory. But thanks for posting the article, I will be sure to do it in the OP next time, if that's something that's required now.

Dude... chill out.

You've made a post on a really factually specific issue and then just kind of dropped the ball. But w/e.

You misunderstand, I'm not upset at you. I was asking because a while back I did see one member (don't remember who, may have been you or not) flip out because somebody posted a link without any background. In that particular instance, I can see why they were upset, because it was just a massive article, and the only word was "Discuss" or something. So when you said I should post the substance of the article, I remembered that interaction and wondered whether there was a sitewide initiative about this type of thing, or something like that.

In this case, I didn't think this article was long enough to warrant summarizing or commenting on, beyond my sentence implying that I think it's kind of ridiculous. If you disagree that's totally cool, I might even change my mind if you explain why. But it's not a big deal to me either way so no worries.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:21:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:59:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:

To be clear, the fact that there isn't outrage on this site at every instance of police abuse doesn't mean that people aren't outraged, or that people support what the cops are doing.

FOUR MEN IN DETROIT were arrested over the past week for posts on social media that the police chief called threatening.

It's a fine line, but absent an imminent threat with the reasonable means to carry it out, there is no "threat" in any legal sense. The problem is the culture we live in. If these people do something stupid (which you and I both agree is highly unlikely), and there were prior instances of ominous social media post, then the public and media are going to be like "why didn't you prevent this?" So, the police are violating people's rights to free speech to prevent what they regard as a greater harm. I agree this i unacceptable conduct on their part.

"I know this is a new issue, but I want these people charged with crimes," said Detroit Police Chief James Craig. "I"ve directed my officers to prepare warrants for these four individuals, and we"ll see which venue is the best to pursue charges," he said.

The police chief is violating the first amendment. I'll make a more substantive post about this later, but clearly, here, what's going on is improper.

Now, the people are making these statements are obviously engaged in idiocy of the highest caliber, but the first amendment protects idiocy, too.
Tsar of DDO
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:39:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:38:57 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM, someloser wrote:
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

If that post is defined as a threat to kill police, then there's at least 10 million ignorant hillbillies who need to be arrested and charged as well.
Under the precedent set by the article in OP, yes. I don't agree with it (at least in many cases), and it isn't a new issue.

Don't act like you haven't read hundreds of variations on the following Facebook post: "All I know is if Obama/the Feds come for my guns, I will use them to defend myself."

If you are charging people for describing a hypothetical scenario, then you no longer believe in free speech. And that's totally fine, you don't have to. Just don't trot the 1st amendment out again and act like it's the end of the world when some college kids protest a controversial speaker or something.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:41:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:25:17 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
So would you also want to arrest the people who make death threats towards Obama? There are plenty of them on Facebook as well, but to my knowledge none have been arrested yet.
Lol, they should be. Some part of me thinks it may be due to the insane amount of times it happens.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 5:43:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:43:46 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:36:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:03:58 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
https://theintercept.com...

Where are all the anti-PC warriors? Champions of the first amendment? #JeSuisCharlie?

Anyone?

'In New Jersey, Rolando Medina was arrested and charged with cyber harassment. He allegedly posted on an unidentified form of social media that he would destroy local police headquarters. In Louisiana, Kemonte Gilmore was arrested for an online video where he allegedly threatened a police officer. He was charged with public intimidation.'

Yes, I'm opposed to this. I've also been telling the more soft-minded variety of liberals for ages that, when they passed stupid 'cyber-harassment' laws, they were making a rod for their own back. Now the lash is falling, and I don't see why you're coming after free speech advocates, who warned everyone that this would happen if they eroded the safeguards on free speech in order to make the internet a more cuddly place for the weak-willed.

That's great, I respect your consistency. Notice how you are the only one in this thread so far who is actually opposed to this. That is exactly why I made this thread. You are not the problem in this scenario. They are the hypocrites, not you.

For what it's worth, I don't think this is so problematic. I see no reason why we should tolerate threats of violence online more than we do irl.

We actually tolerate threats of violence irl to a pretty high degree. You won't get convicted of threatening violence in most cases if it can't be shown that you were actually planning to carry that violence out (a so-called 'true threat') or that the threat otherwise had a serious intent behind it, or if it was highly targeted (telling one person over and over again that you are going to kill them). This case, and any other case like it, should spark an investigation at most, not an arrest, as it definitely wouldn't pass any of the tests typically used, under which people have been able to say that they would shoot the president and not get in any trouble.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 12:15:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 5:01:04 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:55:45 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:51:03 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:38:57 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM, someloser wrote:
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

If that post is defined as a threat to kill police, then there's at least 10 million ignorant hillbillies who need to be arrested and charged as well. Don't act like you haven't read hundreds of variations on the following Facebook post: "All I know is if Obama/the Feds come for my guns, I will use them to defend myself."

If you are charging people for describing a hypothetical scenario, then you no longer believe in free speech. And that's totally fine, you don't have to. Just don't trot the 1st amendment out again and act like it's the end of the world when some college kids protest a controversial speaker or something.

That's legally not considered a viable threat.

If you were to state "I am going to kill President Obama..." then you might be investigated by the FBI if they see it as a credible threat. If you mail someone and state "I will kill you" then you might be investigated as well if it's a viable threat.

However, saying "if you come for my property, I will defend myself" is not a viable threat, thus you cannot be legally prosecuted.

Did you even read the article? That's literally what the woman in question did, and the police still arrested her. She said that if a cop pulls her over, she'd be willing to shoot them before they shoot her.

It all depends on the prosecutors ability to prove intent and so on. Like I said, it's an intricate issue.

Don't you threaten liberals all the time? Calling them retarded degenerates who should be rounded up and executed?
lannan13
Posts: 23,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 3:27:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
You should be able to say as you pleased, but the SCOTUS ruled that you cannot say something that would endanger someone's life. Sending death threats are definately not protected under the constiution.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:53:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 12:15:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/13/2016 5:01:04 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:55:45 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:51:03 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:38:57 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM, someloser wrote:
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

If that post is defined as a threat to kill police, then there's at least 10 million ignorant hillbillies who need to be arrested and charged as well. Don't act like you haven't read hundreds of variations on the following Facebook post: "All I know is if Obama/the Feds come for my guns, I will use them to defend myself."

If you are charging people for describing a hypothetical scenario, then you no longer believe in free speech. And that's totally fine, you don't have to. Just don't trot the 1st amendment out again and act like it's the end of the world when some college kids protest a controversial speaker or something.

That's legally not considered a viable threat.

If you were to state "I am going to kill President Obama..." then you might be investigated by the FBI if they see it as a credible threat. If you mail someone and state "I will kill you" then you might be investigated as well if it's a viable threat.

However, saying "if you come for my property, I will defend myself" is not a viable threat, thus you cannot be legally prosecuted.

Did you even read the article? That's literally what the woman in question did, and the police still arrested her. She said that if a cop pulls her over, she'd be willing to shoot them before they shoot her.

It all depends on the prosecutors ability to prove intent and so on. Like I said, it's an intricate issue.

Don't you threaten liberals all the time? Calling them retarded degenerates who should be rounded up and executed?

That's not a threat. If I were to say "I'm going to kill all you liberals" and you can prove intent as well as the means to carry it out, then it's a threat.

Although, most liberals should definitely be executed for heresy.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 12:19:16 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
My facebook account was temporarily suspended when I shared a picture of a painting someone drew, of a cop getting their throat cut.....Freedom is a myth.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 12:20:16 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 4:53:34 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 12:15:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/13/2016 5:01:04 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:55:45 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:51:03 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:38:57 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM, someloser wrote:
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

If that post is defined as a threat to kill police, then there's at least 10 million ignorant hillbillies who need to be arrested and charged as well. Don't act like you haven't read hundreds of variations on the following Facebook post: "All I know is if Obama/the Feds come for my guns, I will use them to defend myself."

If you are charging people for describing a hypothetical scenario, then you no longer believe in free speech. And that's totally fine, you don't have to. Just don't trot the 1st amendment out again and act like it's the end of the world when some college kids protest a controversial speaker or something.

That's legally not considered a viable threat.

If you were to state "I am going to kill President Obama..." then you might be investigated by the FBI if they see it as a credible threat. If you mail someone and state "I will kill you" then you might be investigated as well if it's a viable threat.

However, saying "if you come for my property, I will defend myself" is not a viable threat, thus you cannot be legally prosecuted.

Did you even read the article? That's literally what the woman in question did, and the police still arrested her. She said that if a cop pulls her over, she'd be willing to shoot them before they shoot her.

It all depends on the prosecutors ability to prove intent and so on. Like I said, it's an intricate issue.

Don't you threaten liberals all the time? Calling them retarded degenerates who should be rounded up and executed?

That's not a threat. If I were to say "I'm going to kill all you liberals" and you can prove intent as well as the means to carry it out, then it's a threat.

It's pretty much impossible to prove intent online.

Although, most liberals should definitely be executed for heresy.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 12:21:01 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 12:20:16 AM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:53:34 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 12:15:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/13/2016 5:01:04 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:55:45 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:51:03 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 4:38:57 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:52:48 AM, someloser wrote:
It's not a PC issue. It's an issue with l'etat.

All the individuals arrested had made threats to kill police. It's not a new speech issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

If that post is defined as a threat to kill police, then there's at least 10 million ignorant hillbillies who need to be arrested and charged as well. Don't act like you haven't read hundreds of variations on the following Facebook post: "All I know is if Obama/the Feds come for my guns, I will use them to defend myself."

If you are charging people for describing a hypothetical scenario, then you no longer believe in free speech. And that's totally fine, you don't have to. Just don't trot the 1st amendment out again and act like it's the end of the world when some college kids protest a controversial speaker or something.

That's legally not considered a viable threat.

If you were to state "I am going to kill President Obama..." then you might be investigated by the FBI if they see it as a credible threat. If you mail someone and state "I will kill you" then you might be investigated as well if it's a viable threat.

However, saying "if you come for my property, I will defend myself" is not a viable threat, thus you cannot be legally prosecuted.

Did you even read the article? That's literally what the woman in question did, and the police still arrested her. She said that if a cop pulls her over, she'd be willing to shoot them before they shoot her.

It all depends on the prosecutors ability to prove intent and so on. Like I said, it's an intricate issue.

Don't you threaten liberals all the time? Calling them retarded degenerates who should be rounded up and executed?

That's not a threat. If I were to say "I'm going to kill all you liberals" and you can prove intent as well as the means to carry it out, then it's a threat.

It's pretty much impossible to prove intent online.

Exactly.


Although, most liberals should definitely be executed for heresy.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.