|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 3, 2014 11:41:25 GMT -5
Gothos brings up a good point. I never get personally offended when it comes to politics and religion and I'm beyond tired of the banal, somewhat spineless, old mantra that you should never talk about politics and religion. Now, I might make bold statements that are intended to satirize the other position, but this is a far cry from direct personal insults and attacks.
It baffles me that it's viewed by some as outrageous to connect the modern individuals that rip out evolutionary text pages in science textbooks with 20th Century book burners to then go even further back and allude to something like Alexandria. This is an attack on a distinct, well documented mindset, that's linked to a myriad of devastating social conditions, not an attack on a specific individuals appearance, race, sexual orientation, etc. For me, this is not only morally and ethically sound (and in the right) but intellectually as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 3, 2014 11:41:38 GMT -5
Did anyone go to the cops about Lennon or Mathers saying they felt personally threatened and ask for a restraining order? That's something that happened here and I think it makes a difference, this isn't about policing all thought it's something that is very specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 3, 2014 11:58:02 GMT -5
If we get into policing cathartic releases like those Beatles songs, you might as well go ahead and lock up every modern stand-up comedian and cab driver in the nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 3, 2014 20:52:11 GMT -5
Is this really the same thing as a simple release though?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 3, 2014 21:07:10 GMT -5
That Elonis guy posting threats on facebook was clearly making criminal threats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2014 23:46:48 GMT -5
I've got no problem (legally) with stuff like "Kim" or "Bonnie & Clyde '96", but the comment about a protective order stopping a bullet seems like a pretty blatant threat.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Dec 5, 2014 16:50:12 GMT -5
That Elonis guy posting threats on facebook was clearly making criminal threats. I wouldn't object to someone being fined for making threats, but jail-time is an immoral response. Whenever I hear about such disproportionate sentencing, I tend to suspect that some DA is grandstanding to garner good public opinion for being "tough on crime." |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 20:34:33 GMT -5
What you see as "immoral" I see as one of the few things the justice system gets right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2014 3:16:59 GMT -5
That Elonis guy posting threats on facebook was clearly making criminal threats. I wouldn't object to someone being fined for making threats, but jail-time is an immoral response. Whenever I hear about such disproportionate sentencing, I tend to suspect that some DA is grandstanding to garner good public opinion for being "tough on crime." Or maybe they're trying to protect the woman whose life had been threatened. Why wait until he kills her to step in? Like I said earlier though, four years is very steep. I wouldn't have objected at all to six or eight months in county though. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Dec 6, 2014 13:22:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't object to someone being fined for making threats, but jail-time is an immoral response. Whenever I hear about such disproportionate sentencing, I tend to suspect that some DA is grandstanding to garner good public opinion for being "tough on crime." Or maybe they're trying to protect the woman whose life had been threatened. Why wait until he kills her to step in? Like I said earlier though, four years is very steep. I wouldn't have objected at all to six or eight months in county though. Prosecuting for alleged intent is a slippery slope that might well affect other cases dealing with civil liberties, and not just a-holes making stupid public threats. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2014 13:54:56 GMT -5
It's always existed. If what he said about his wife was said about the president, what would happen?
Now what happens more often, an angry husband murders his wife? Or an angry husband assassinates the president?
Free speech has always had limitations. If libel and defamation are illegal, surely threats of murder can be too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 6, 2014 14:43:38 GMT -5
It's always existed. If what he said about his wife was said about the president, what would happen? Now what happens more often, an angry husband murders his wife? Or an angry husband assassinates the president? Free speech has always had limitations. If libel and defamation are illegal, surely threats of murder can be too. Libel (which is a form of defamation) is a tort. It gives rise to a civil cause of action. It is not a crime. Nor is slander (another form of defamation). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2014 19:19:30 GMT -5
But it's a limitation of free speech. I didn't say they send people to prison for it. Sometimes what you say has consequences. Civil cases are still ruled by courts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 6, 2014 19:28:28 GMT -5
But it's a limitation of free speech. I didn't say they send people to prison for it. Sometimes what you say has consequences. Civil cases are still ruled by courts. It's not a free speech issue. Freedom of Speech applies to limitations on speech by the government and its agents. Actions for defamation are civil suits brought by individuals against individuals. It's not a state action. A contract suit between two corporations aren't a state action because they take place in a court. Yes...there have been limitations on free speech carved out by courts, rightly or wrongly. But common law defamation isn't one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2014 19:30:48 GMT -5
I don't see why not. Obviously you know more about the law than me, but if a judge is the arbitrator in a matter between two parties and can issue judgements in favor of one or the other, I see it as being carved out by the courts.
Can wages be garnished because of a civil suit?
|
|
