Supreme Court Deciding Whether Facebook Threats Are Free Speech

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
With all the important issues in our country currently solved, the Supreme Court is moving on to more important issues...like Facebook threats.

Victims of domestic violence and champions of unfettered free speech on the Internet will be pitted against each other Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court debates whether to make it harder to prosecute those who post threats directed at their ex-spouses or others on Facebook.
Click to expand...
 
Threats shouldn't ever be free speech so it is strange this is even a question ... I think SCOTUS likes to take a few gimme cases to pad their docket
 
This should be a non-issue. Is it illegal to threaten someone IRL, then it is illegal doing it over internet.
Having different standards just because it is online will send a very dangerous message IMO.
 
Agreed with Wolfkin. Words spoken/typed to inflict bodily harm made in person, via phone or online should be deemed threatening and appropriate charges should be filed against the person who made such threats.
 
Steve said:
I thought we already determined threats are threats are threats. :confused:
Click to expand...

.......... isn't it?

The only difference is validity, I guess. Because people online seem to say a lot of stupid shit without any thought about what they say. There's always the big chance that they don't have a clue where the other is, to even carry out the threat.
 
I think the issue is whether it was a threat or just venting. As I recall, it was on his FB page, which amounts to bitching to your "friends" about shit. I think the threat to his wife is a more plausible threat than the FBI agent, who likely never saw the post....guess it could have been globally visible, but if it was back when the default was global, then he could argue he didn't realize it was globally visible and didn't intend for everyone to see it.
 
Everyone start posting similar threats against the president or vice president, let's just see how 'freedom of speech' it is after that :)
 
Darunion said:
Everyone start posting similar threats against the president or vice president, let's just see how 'freedom of speech' it is after that :)
Click to expand...

The feds will certainly visit, but that doesn't mean you're going to jail. I'm pretty sure Ted Nugent (or some famous conservative) made a "threat" against Obama and he was interviewed, but no charges were brought.
 
You have to be a monumental idiot to post a threat online to be saved for all eternity on a server easily retrievable by court order. You just made the prosecutors case a slam dunk.
 
Threats are not threats.

Threats have to be taken in context and applied to common sense as to whether or not the threat was sincere and meant to be applied.

If someone in an online game says he's going to rip out my eyeballs and skull-f me, is there a good chance that the random person online really means to carry out that threat? No? Then put your big girl panties on and go on with your life.
 
Threatening someone on Facebook is ASSAULT. And the last time I checked, ASSAULT is not FREE SPEECH. How did this make it all the way to the Supreme Court? Incredible.
 
amddragonpc said:
Threatening someone on Facebook is ASSAULT. And the last time I checked, ASSAULT is not FREE SPEECH. How did this make it all the way to the Supreme Court? Incredible.
Click to expand...

So if my wife, is Alice and I yell "One of these days... POW!!! Right in the kisser!" or "BANG, ZOOM! Straight to the moon!" I've assaulted her and therefore should go to jail?

Context matters. My guess is you're right in this case, but the fact that 5 SCOTUS justices voted to take the case tells me it's not that clear. There are a lot of consequences if you say that anything you write on FB is grounds for Assault. It could be a real threat. It could be a bad joke or it could be the writer, like Ralph Kramden, is full of hot air and the threat is empty.
 
I didn't post that your honor, someone must have hacked my account. Denial right to the end.
 
Oh good now I can sick the FBI to raid that guy that wants to "snap my pencil neck" in game.
 
nilepez said:
So if my wife, is Alice and I yell "One of these days... POW!!! Right in the kisser!" or "BANG, ZOOM! Straight to the moon!" I've assaulted her and therefore should go to jail?

Context matters. My guess is you're right in this case, but the fact that 5 SCOTUS justices voted to take the case tells me it's not that clear. There are a lot of consequences if you say that anything you write on FB is grounds for Assault. It could be a real threat. It could be a bad joke or it could be the writer, like Ralph Kramden, is full of hot air and the threat is empty.
Click to expand...

/Thread winner for invoking Ralph Kramden.
 
Context would be the only dispute? An online short story or parody could have a threat which could be claimed to be fiction. This was more of a song which isn't necessarily fiction and likely not in this case but often is. There are more than a few pieces of 'art' where people fantasized about George Bush being killed. Should they all be arrested?
 
I guess are we creating a double standard where 'art' on the internet is less protected than 'art' in movies or songs and books from established publishing houses even though their claims of 'fiction' might be equally thin?
 
Look, use common sense.
"I'd like to kick his ass" is venting.
"I'm going to kick his ass" is a threat.
A kid posts "I'm bringing a knife to school, cutting off his head and rub his blood all over my body" and the kid should be removed from the school, removed from a pc, removed from his Xbox and jammed in a little room by himself with a stack of books for 6 months to contemplate their actions.
 
Ducman69 said:
Threats are not threats.

Threats have to be taken in context and applied to common sense as to whether or not the threat was sincere and meant to be applied.

If someone in an online game says he's going to rip out my eyeballs and skull-f me, is there a good chance that the random person online really means to carry out that threat? No? Then put your big girl panties on and go on with your life.
Click to expand...

Actually he might well mean what he says and many have done so IRL if they found out who the cheating scumbag is.
 
SGA76 said:
Look, use common sense.
"I'd like to kick his ass" is venting.
"I'm going to kick his ass" is a threat.
A kid posts "I'm bringing a knife to school, cutting off his head and rub his blood all over my body" and the kid should be removed from the school, removed from a pc, removed from his Xbox and jammed in a little room by himself with a stack of books for 6 months to contemplate their actions.
Click to expand...

Eh.... there are lots of times people say "I'm going to..." whee they don't actually mean it. Seems like a dumb standard in which to choose whether or not it's a threat. I mean, saying you'd like to, also gives the suggestion that you need an opportune time to do something.
 
Here's the deal, you HAVE free speech and you can SAY whatever you want, the problem is all the idiots think freedom of speech is freedom from repercussion, and it's NOT.
As a society, we've taken consequences away from children and individuals.
Not your fault, not my fault, lay the blame everywhere but at the feet of the root of the problem.
Instead of letting everyone but the victims off easy, let's let the idiots suffer the consequences of their actions. If something is in print, on paper or online, it's libel or a written threat. Sure, a few idiots will get thrown under the bus but if that's the price we pay to fix the degeneration of society and bring back personal liability then hey, it's worth it.
 
SGA76 said:
Look, use common sense.
"I'd like to kick his ass" is venting.
"I'm going to kick his ass" is a threat.
A kid posts "I'm bringing a knife to school, cutting off his head and rub his blood all over my body" and the kid should be removed from the school, removed from a pc, removed from his Xbox and jammed in a little room by himself with a stack of books for 6 months to contemplate their actions.
Click to expand...

Really? Because I distinctly recall detailing to a friend how I'd kill a person that bullied me in school, but there was never any chance I was going to do it. If I'd written it down on FB, you'd be running to the FBI. My friend took it for what it was and laughed the entire time.

Let's try your examples:
I'm going to kick SGA76's ass. That's an assault, assuming you ignore the facts:
I don't know you.
I don't know where you live.
I don't have any desire to kick your ass.

The kid's statement could be an assault and it could be venting, much like I did in highschool. Now I didn't want to cut off a head and rub my face in his blood (sounds like a kid who just killed his first deer with his dad), but I'd definitely agree that some intervention is needed. Whether that means removing him from school or not isn't something you can determine from a single statement. Sick the fracking shrinks on him.

I'd like to think the venting I did would never have made it to Facebook, but there wasn't even an Internet, so who knows. There definitely wasn't a chance of me doing anything.
 
nilepez said:
Really? Because I distinctly recall detailing to a friend how I'd kill a person that bullied me in school, but there was never any chance I was going to do it. If I'd written it down on FB, you'd be running to the FBI. My friend took it for what it was and laughed the entire time.

Let's try your examples:
I'm going to kick SGA76's ass. That's an assault, assuming you ignore the facts:
I don't know you. ...and a 3rd party knows this HOW???
I don't know where you live....and a 3rd party knows this HOW???
I don't have any desire to kick your ass....and a 3rd party knows this HOW???
Click to expand...

Flaws in your logic, do you really know the crazy guy is thinking crazy thoughts?
 
nilepez said:
Really? Because I distinctly recall detailing to a friend how I'd kill a person that bullied me in school, but there was never any chance I was going to do it. If I'd written it down on FB, you'd be running to the FBI. My friend took it for what it was and laughed the entire time.

Let's try your examples:
I'm going to kick SGA76's ass. That's an assault, assuming you ignore the facts:
I don't know you.
I don't know where you live.
I don't have any desire to kick your ass.

The kid's statement could be an assault and it could be venting, much like I did in highschool. Now I didn't want to cut off a head and rub my face in his blood (sounds like a kid who just killed his first deer with his dad), but I'd definitely agree that some intervention is needed. Whether that means removing him from school or not isn't something you can determine from a single statement. Sick the fracking shrinks on him.

I'd like to think the venting I did would never have made it to Facebook, but there wasn't even an Internet, so who knows. There definitely wasn't a chance of me doing anything.
Click to expand...

And you're an idiot if you think it's ok to go around saying whatever you want without stopping to think if it will blow back on you first.
When I was in high school, I played sports.
I had to watch what I said, what I did, keep my grades up or I'd be off the team. My coach didn't take shit, he LET US KNOW he didn't take shit, and after losing a few guys then we all knew he was serious. We had to contemplate what our words and actions would cost us and whether or not the consequences of our actions would be worth it.
Kids don't get that these days, all they get is "he's misunderstood, the problem is with the world, not him" and it's killing society.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and just because it's easier to threaten, bully and scare people doesn't mean there should be less penalties for doing it.
 
weebling1 said:
Flaws in your logic, do you really know the crazy guy is thinking crazy thoughts?
Click to expand...

Why do I give a shit what you know or do not know? You're not the one that was allegedly assaulted.

If you report the threat, that's fine, but that doesn't make it a threat. Again, it may be a threat. And if I knew all the details of the case, I might say it was a threat, but it would depend.

the SCOTUS is taking the case and I suspect they'll make a narrow ruling against the guy or they'll overturn the conviction.
 
SGA76 said:
And you're an idiot if you think it's ok to go around saying whatever you want without stopping to think if it will blow back on you first.
When I was in high school, I played sports.
I had to watch what I said, what I did, keep my grades up or I'd be off the team. My coach didn't take shit, he LET US KNOW he didn't take shit, and after losing a few guys then we all knew he was serious. We had to contemplate what our words and actions would cost us and whether or not the consequences of our actions would be worth it.
Kids don't get that these days, all they get is "he's misunderstood, the problem is with the world, not him" and it's killing society.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and just because it's easier to threaten, bully and scare people doesn't mean there should be less penalties for doing it.
Click to expand...

OK, I'm really not sure how the "things were better in the good old days" essay has anything to do with this. Nor do I understand how your Coach, who could kick you off the team for virtually any reason is analogous to a constitutional issue that could have wide ranging consequences (no matter which way it's decided).
 
The issue in question was the guy was writing his crap in form of lyrics. If we were to take cRappers seriously, a lot of them would be in jail.

The shitty lyrics in question which the ACLU is on this guy's side in this case.
If I only knew then what I know now...
I would have smothered your ass with a pillow.
Dumped your body in the back seat.
Dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like a rape and murder.
Click to expand...
Did you know that it's illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?
It's illegal.
It's indirect criminal contempt.
It's one of the only sentences that I'm not allowed to say.
Now it was okay for me to say it right then because I was just telling you that it's illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife...
Click to expand...
Took all the strength I had not to turn the bitch ghost
Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat
Leave her bleedin’ from her jugular in the arms of her partner
Click to expand...
That’s it, I’ve had about enough
I’m checking out and making a name for myself
Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius
To initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined
And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class
The only question is … which one?
Click to expand...
 
nilepez said:
Why do I give a shit what you know or do not know? You're not the one that was allegedly assaulted.

If you report the threat, that's fine, but that doesn't make it a threat. Again, it may be a threat. And if I knew all the details of the case, I might say it was a threat, but it would depend.

the SCOTUS is taking the case and I suspect they'll make a narrow ruling against the guy or they'll overturn the conviction.
Click to expand...

Well there's the core problem. If the objective person of the statement feels "threatened' then someone else i.e. policeman/judge gets to determine the validity of the threat.

Your second point: "it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, BUT I SAY ITSA CANARY!" is exactly why this is going to the SCOTUS. The defendant claims his "threatening statements" were entertainment like rap song lyrics etc. protected by the 1st admendment
 
nilepez said:
OK, I'm really not sure how the "things were better in the good old days" essay has anything to do with this. Nor do I understand how your Coach, who could kick you off the team for virtually any reason is analogous to a constitutional issue that could have wide ranging consequences (no matter which way it's decided).
Click to expand...

It's not a "things were better in the old days" essay, it was a "I was taught better and realized my actions carried consequences" speech.
Apparently you've no concept of this and you're probably one of the reasons the world is going to hell.
 
Kaitian said:
The issue in question was the guy was writing his crap in form of lyrics. If we were to take cRappers seriously, a lot of them would be in jail.

The shitty lyrics in question which the ACLU is on this guy's side in this case.
Click to expand...

If it's lyrics, then the guy shouldn't be in jail at all. Eminem fantasized about killing his wife rather explicitly and Cash sang about shooting man just to watch him die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top