• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another School Shooting

catsmate said:
Still spewing the same lies? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Trausti is clearly misremembering the Twitter bomb threat joke. Paul Chambers was initially convicted and fined (not sent to jail), but appealed the conviction and had it quashed by the High Court in London in 2012.

If Trausti is talking about something other than this, Trausti can provide some examples of people getting thrown in jail over tweets.
 
I am 4 pages behind in this thread but here was my week in a middle school in California.
A threat was posted online about another school over the weekend. School district was notified and police investigated.
Monday news of the posted the “threat” got out to the school where the “threat” was focused. (Scare quotes explained later).
Tuesday I show up at school at 7 am. At 7:38 an email comes out from principal: we are aware of a threat online. Police have investigated and found it to be baseless.
School starts at 8. I have been in my classroom since arriving a 7. I am clueless.
Period of 1: 9 students absent. 8:05 my phone rings:send this student to office he is going home. My phone rang about every 5 minutes with another student leaving.

What happened. Someone posted a screen capture of the threat to another school on social media. Based on that some parents went into panic mode. Students who heard about what happened on Monday at the neighboring school coordinated to send texts to their parents saying there was an active shooter on campus. This was a deliberate lie to get out of school. We know this because students have told us they did this.
The students were not afraid. There was no risk. The students created chaos because they could and they wanted to get out of school.
There was an arrest in the original posting of the threat. The student who reported the threat sent the text to themself. There was never any threat.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Trausti is clearly misremembering the Twitter bomb threat joke. Paul Chambers was initially convicted and fined (not sent to jail), but appealed the conviction and had it quashed by the High Court in London in 2012.

If Trausti is talking about something other than this, Trausti can provide some examples of people getting thrown in jail over tweets.
Click to expand...

After the recent riots several folk have been charged and convicted for social media posts; in the past there have been charges made for rape and murder threats to female politicians.

All of which seems fine to me: don't make threats of murder, violence and the like, no-one forces you to do that.
 
Not sure why frame it as something specific to the UK or Twitter, though. Death treats are illegal the USA too, and reason for a civil case too, and it's not specific to the medium. Using Twitter is no different from using the postal service.
 
HansMustermann said:
Not sure why frame it as something specific to the UK or Twitter, though. Death treats are illegal the USA too, and reason for a civil case too, and it's not specific to the medium. Using Twitter is no different from using the postal service.
Click to expand...

The US ‘limits’ free speech in essentially the same manner as the UK does. Not sure why that triggers some Americans. We just can’t seem to apply the same necessary, reasonable restrictions to guns.

I am entertained by the 1A auditors that provoke clueless cops into accosting them videoing in public. I am amazed that they are still able to find an adequate number of cops that are completely (perhaps willingly) ignorant of the law. What would really entertain me is if 2A auditors would start confronting cops in the same fashion. Maybe do it a foot outside the school gun exclusion zones.
 
HansMustermann said:
Not sure why frame it as something specific to the UK or Twitter, though. Death treats are illegal the USA too, and reason for a civil case too, and it's not specific to the medium. Using Twitter is no different from using the postal service.
Click to expand...

Because this side discussion started with a claim that in the UK folk can be imprisoned for a tweet and that in the US free speech was defended by people having guns.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Because this side discussion started with a claim that in the UK folk can be imprisoned for a tweet and that in the US free speech was defended by people having guns.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's exactly that claim that I wonder about. It's like saying that in <insert any other country> you can be arrested for sending a postcard through the post office. Well, you sure can, if you write a death or rape threat on it :p
 
jt512 said:
Not true. The U.K. has laws against hate speech. The U.S. does not.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the word ‘essentially’ is throwing you? A state can pass legislation prohibiting ‘fighting words’ and then charge a person under that statute for calling a specific African American the N-word in public. A conviction would likely survive constitutional challenges.
 
HansMustermann said:
Not only that's not what 2A says about it, but OK, I'll bite...

And how do guns help there? Do you think a guy who's accused of inciting violence, should prove it by starting shooting at the cops? How does that make it any better? :p

Oh, you mean people should revolt and yada yada. Well, even in the USA, which likes to use that rhetoric a lot, that's not what happens, is it? What happens is that some loony picks up a gun and starts shooting up the school (or workplace, convention, clinic, etc) to show those darned X what's what. Where X is whatever group they had a beef with.

How's that making it any better?

Plus, historically, gun ownership doesn't even have that much to do with ensuring freedom of speech. As a trivial example, Nazi Germany DIDN'T actually take people's guns away; it actually encouraged more gun ownership. Did that preserve freedom of speech? In what universe? The mirror universe from ST where Spock had a beard? :p
Click to expand...
That is not true. The Nazi regime made it impossible fir certain groups to legally possess firearms. This was based on the Weimar laws of ~1920 which instituted the
Waffenschein and Jagdschein requirements. These were loosened in 1928 and 1930.
Gypsies and other 'homeless' persons were prohibited from possessing firearms. This was unofficially applied to Jews, until this was instituted in law.
 
Depends on what you mean by "imprisoned". I'm not aware of anyone who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a tweet. I do know of people who have been arrested and detained in police cells for relatively short periods of time for a tweet.
 
sarge said:
Perhaps the word ‘essentially’ is throwing you? A state can pass legislation prohibiting ‘fighting words’ and then charge a person under that statute for calling a specific African American the N-word in public. A conviction would likely survive constitutional challenges.
Click to expand...


Apparently, it is throwing you. There is no comparison between the hate speech laws of the U.K. (and other European democracies) and what is unprotected speech in the U.S. The U.K.'s hate speech laws would be flat-out unconstitutional in the U.S.
 
jt512 said:
Apparently, it is throwing you. There is no comparison between the hate speech laws of the U.K. (and other European democracies) and what is unprotected speech in the U.S. The U.K.'s hate speech laws would be flat-out unconstitutional in the U.S.
Click to expand...

There is enough similarity between Hate Speech laws and our own laws against speech that is likely to or is actually intended to provoke violence. Their effect is similar enough to call them essentially the same, even if the wording used in some countries wouldn’t survive constitutional muster here.

The 1A isn’t absolute.
 
sarge said:
There is enough similarity between Hate Speech laws and our own laws against speech that is likely to or is actually intended to provoke violence. Their effect is similar enough to call them essentially the same, even if the wording used in some countries wouldn’t survive constitutional muster here.
Click to expand...


No. They are not even remotely the same, no matter how often you publicly pretend that they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom