Put in jail for speech. Yes, in the USA.

[BPSCG]

Okay, I think we're coming around to a consensus that while he trod pretty close to the line, but didn't go over it.

Now, does anyone think he shouldn't be fired?

 

[Tailgater]

Okay, I think we're coming around to a consensus that while he trod pretty close to the line, but didn't go over it.

Now, does anyone think he shouldn't be fired?

I don't think he should have been arrested.....well, maybe held overnight and questioned to see if this is a buildup to a Columbine 2, but not formally charged.

Yes, he should be fired and probably tazed a few times.

 

[Rob Lister]

it's not all that wacky, I don't think calling for someone's murder should be part of free speach. Though if he was obviously being sarcastic then it's definately an overreaction. But, meh, I've seen worse.

Except he didn't call for anyone's death.

 

[Rob Lister]

Is this quote illegal speech?

Regarding the guy that shot the two guys robbing his neighbors hows, he knew how to deal with them, one shot at a time. He's a hero.

 

[Loss Leader]

Okay, I think we're coming around to a consensus that while he trod pretty close to the line, but didn't go over it.

Now, does anyone think he shouldn't be fired?

I don't even agree with that. He made no specific threat, he targetted no specific people (there are thousands of teachers' unions across the country, he spoke about no specific place, he didn't even invite others to do harm to anyone. I see nothing but protected speech.

Every day on Stormfront, there are people typing that it would be great if some lone wolf went down to Wall Street with a rifle and thinned out the Jewish herd. None of those people are under arrest.

 

[Tailgater]

I don't even agree with that. He made no specific threat, he targetted no specific people (there are thousands of teachers' unions across the country, he spoke about no specific place, he didn't even invite others to do harm to anyone. I see nothing but protected speech.

Every day on Stormfront, there are people typing that it would be great if some lone wolf went down to Wall Street with a rifle and thinned out the Jewish herd. None of those people are under arrest.

Once this comment reaches the students, it is basically an issue of them feeling safe with the guy, even if logically they shouldn't feel threatened. He wasn't just praising a killer of teachers, but of other students. Twelve students and one teacher. It just won't fly.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Every day on Stormfront, there are people typing that it would be great if some lone wolf went down to Wall Street with a rifle and thinned out the Jewish herd. None of those people are under arrest.

It might be that they are not arrested since they do not advocate hunting out of season, a horrific and illegal thing . . .



DR

 

[sackett]

... "Funny" little dirty research trick - when I'm looking for support for an extreme legal position as a last resort I throw in some search terms related to race or the labor movement.

A belated welcome to the forum, epeos76, and thanks for your fast work digging up the cases.

Yes, it's "funny" how the law is so readily used against union men; it always has been, of course, especially union organizers.

The law and a nightstick.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It might be that they are not arrested since they do not advocate hunting out of season, a horrific and illegal thing . . .

I always will remember,
'Twas a year ago November,
I went out to hunt some deer
On a morning bright and clear.
I went and shot the maximum the game laws would allow:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

I was in no mood to trifle,
I took down my trusty rifle
And went out to stalk my prey.
What a haul I made that day!
I tied them to my fender, and I drove them home somehow:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

The law was very firm, it
Took away my permit,
The worst punishment I ever endured.
It turned out there was a reason,
Cows were out of season,
And one of the hunters wasn't insured.

People ask me how I do it,
And I say "There's nothin' to it,
You just stand there lookin' cute,
And when something moves, you shoot!"
And there's ten stuffed heads in my trophy room right now:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a pure-bred Guernsey cow.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Except he didn't call for anyone's death.

Sure he did. He said that the proper way to deal with teachers unions is to kill their members. That's calling for the death of every union member.

 

[Rob Lister]

Sure he did. He said that the proper way to deal with teachers unions is to kill their members. That's calling for the death of every union member.

No he didn't. He said these kids knew how to deal with...

But even if he did, it's still not a direct threat or inciting

 

[Loss Leader]

Once this comment reaches the students, it is basically an issue of them feeling safe with the guy, even if logically they shouldn't feel threatened. He wasn't just praising a killer of teachers, but of other students. Twelve students and one teacher. It just won't fly.

Except the guy was anonymous. If the police hadn't looked for him for no legal reason, he'd be anonymous. If the blogger hadn't given up his IP address despite being under no compulsion, he'd be anonymous. If his IP hadn't given up his name despite not being required to, he'd be anonymous.

The whole thing stinks.

 

[CaptainManacles]

No he didn't. He said these kids knew how to deal with...

But even if he did, it's still not a direct threat or inciting

Saying these kids knew the proper way to deal with them, by killing them, is implying that killing them is the proper way to deal with them. Proper means that it SHOULD happen. So he's telling people they SHOULD kill teachers. That's inciting violence. And I don't see why I should care if it's a direct threat or an indirect threat.

 

[bignickel]

I'm at a loss as to how anyone can support this.

Anyone on this board for a few years has seen plenty of sarcastic posts that rival the one that this teacher made. If it's acceptable to arrest this teacher, then it's acceptable to arrest members of this forum?

Heck, I'm sure a few people here remember a certain post about air marshals on planes, and that wasn't even sarcastic. Should the poster in question be detained at the airport, and deported next time he visits? Seriously?

 

[Tailgater]

Except the guy was anonymous. If the police hadn't looked for him for no legal reason, he'd be anonymous. If the blogger hadn't given up his IP address despite being under no compulsion, he'd be anonymous. If his IP hadn't given up his name despite not being required to, he'd be anonymous.

The whole thing stinks.

Then he might have a lawsuit, but after the fact, I don't see how he could be left in his position.

It does stink, because I'm sure he never intended to threaten anyone or would commit such an act, but what's done is done. Now we have a public employee, with a clear statement that he gave hero status to someone who gunned down a teacher and some students, working exclusively with teachers and students.

 

[Rob Lister]

Saying these kids knew the proper way to deal with them, by killing them, is implying that killing them is the proper way to deal with them. Proper means that it SHOULD happen. So he's telling people they SHOULD kill teachers. That's inciting violence. And I don't see why I should care if it's a direct threat or an indirect threat.

Nope. Unless you can show precedent, you're wrong.

 

[Beerina]

I'ld have preferred it if you had let Beerina do the work.

I'll keep that in mind, but if I've learned the principle, I'm not going to do detailed legwork just to satisfy a detractor like you.

 

[daredelvis]

Thank you, with that post you finally pushed The Vatican Rag out of my head. I have been genuflecting constantly for the last three days.

Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow...

Daredelvis

 

[Beerina]

Saying these kids knew the proper way to deal with them, by killing them, is implying that killing them is the proper way to deal with them. Proper means that it SHOULD happen. So he's telling people they SHOULD kill teachers. That's inciting violence. And I don't see why I should care if it's a direct threat or an indirect threat.

Now that's a finer line. "Chavez should die", according to Pat Robertson. Maybe he should. Is saying that illegal?

The killing is probably illegal. That doesn't mean it's illegal to discuss whether it's proper to kill someone as part of a particular goal.

Or does it? Is it illegal to say, "If you hate your wife, kill her, and your problems will be over."

 

[DaChew]

Illegal speech or not, he was being a Moby on somebody's discussion and that SHOULD be punishable by a trip to Guantanamo.