- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 113,001
- Reaction score
- 60,576
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And I was pointing out that your example doesn't fit because of the propensity of actual harm to occur, which is the reason that limit on speech is in place, does not exist in simply making threatening speech. :shrug:
:naughtyWhich has exactly nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, which is that words have to be considered in context.
:naughty
It puts your point into proper context as having no meaning to "threats".
Not sure what you all think of this, but my personal feeling is that the authorities should stay the hell out of monitoring what people say on mediums like Facebook unless they have some kind of specific threat to follow up...As much as I disagree with bullies, and thugs on the internet, I must defend their right to free speech because someday it may be extended further down in ugly ways...Thoughts?
:naughtyIt has become abundantly clear you are talking about something entirely different from what I was. Best bet is to just let it go, as you are not going to take the effort to read what I wrote in the context I wrote it.
:naughty
No, your point was irrelevant as shown.
If you want to let it go, do so. You do not need to talk about it to do it.
No it wasn't, as already shown.No, my point was relevant to what I was discussing with another person, and relevant to this case in that way. Just accept you are not seeing the point, that you do not understand it, and that you cannot actually address it.
No it wasn't, as already shown.
:naughtyWell no. What has been shown is my point went over your head.
So... authorities should stay away from what people say ... when they're threatening violence against others? You don't have a right to threaten anyone.
If this is the case I remember, the government wasn't "monitoring" anything. Correct me if I'm wrong but this case started with the individual left his ex-wife "friended" on Facebook and then posted the content in question. The wife then contacted authorities because she felt threatened. Not a case of the government "monitoring" Facebook, but exactly what you requested - a response to a specific perceived threat.
>>>>
You want the government monitoring what you say in places like that? What's to stop them from monitoring you in here?
You don't realize that nobody was monitored right? It's almost like you don't know what happened in the case.
What in your mind constitutes a threat?
The Ninth Circuit concluded that a “true threat” is “a statement which, in the entire context and under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted by those to whom the statement is communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon that person.”995 “It is not necessary that the defendant intend to, or be able to carry out his threat; the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly communicate the threat.”996
In my mind? Lol:
Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
A wife being threatened violence by a husband and then that husband carrying out the threat a hurting/murdering his wife? Unheard of. :roll:
I don't know where your snark is coming from, maybe your just a miserable individual, who knows? But that's what this court is deciding now is it not? What constitutes a threat?
As such, I have stated what my idea of a threat constitutes. That you believe you have a right to threaten individuals is another matter entirely. Clue: You don't.
Point out where I said that?
Do you understand what this case is about? You just stated this case was about free speech. Threats aren't covered under free speech.
Yes, I understand...Still waiting for you to point out where I said what you just said I did....Otherwise admit you just made it up.
You want the government monitoring what you say in places like that? What's to stop them from monitoring you in here?
The government found the posts in response to a complaint made to them. Since, under the commonly used standard, those posts reported to them could be considered complaints, they continued to investigate. Do byou somehow think the police should not be able to check facebook in response to a complaint of threats from some one?
He's just anti-government. He doesn't really understand what this case is about or how it developed. At the center of it is whether he meant to carry out the act. To be honest, I don't think it makes a difference because the context for any sort of artistic expression simply wasn't there. It was clear that he meant to intimidate his wife and make her fear for her life. That's simply unacceptable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?