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

[Beerina]

Apparently saying "Good Job, Columbine shooters" is a jailable offense in the United States, now.

"They knew how to deal with the overpaid teacher union thugs. One shot at a time!" he wrote, adding they should be remembered as heroes.

Particularly disturbing:

Washington County District Attorney Todd Martens is considering whether to charge Buss with disorderly conduct and unlawful use of computerized communication systems.

Speech is not disorderly unless it's encouraging a clear and immediate danger. And exactly what would be "unlawful" about using a computer communications system for...communications?

Bad taste, certainly. Arrestable? I hope he sues their ass off.

...unless that sentiment will get me arrested now, too.

 

[Loss Leader]

I guess the police can arrest anybody they want but I cannot believe he'll be charged and I lack the requisite whimsy to even imagine he'd ever be convicted.

 

[Gurdur]

... Speech is not disorderly unless it's encouraging a clear and immediate danger.

Cite the relevant laws, please, with links. Or was this simply yet another empty assertion?

...unless that sentiment will get me arrested now, too.

* dreams of that sweet day when those who make only empty, baseless assertions and never answer questions or debunkings will be thrown into dank dungeons, indefinitely *

 

[Darth Rotor]

Cite the relevant laws, please, with links. Or was this simply yet another empty assertion?



* dreams of that sweet day when those who make only empty, baseless assertions and never answer questions or debunkings will be thrown into dank dungeons, indefinitely *

Ah, the nasty version of Gurdur is back. Missed you, hope all is well at your end. Been busy?

@ Beerina.

Seems a sarcastic joke is being used as a pretext to arrest someone. George Carlin won't be pleased. I'd love to hear his take on it.

Eff me, I wax sarcastic now and again.

Watcha gonna do
Watcha gonna do
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you

00 buck.

DR

 

[IMST]

gah. Sarcastic joke was my impression too. Someone decided to perceive a threat. Wonder if this means that we could have had George arrested for threatening a poster during that epic thread.

 

[Puppycow]

I thought the internets wuz supposed to be anonymus.

Seeing he was the president of a teachers union, it seems like he was trying to put a strawman out there to make the teachers union's critics look like foaming-at-the-mouth extremists. Guess it didn't work out. In fact, it makes him look like an ass.

 

[m_huber]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

I believe this is the relevant law.

 

[epeos76]

Beerina's post seems like perfectly reasonable statement of the relevant law. I'm too new to post links but if you google findlaw.com and search the Supreme Court decisions, you'll find Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 US 444, 448 (1969) which stands for the proposition that a state cannot forbid speech even if the speaker is advocating the illegal use of force unless the speech in question is "directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action" and "is likely to produce or incite such action."

In Brandenburg The court gave the okay to the KKK, who made much more explicit threats of "revengeance".

"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.

 

[JoeEllison]

Most people seem to support laws against free speech, as long as it is against speech that they don't see themselves ever saying.

 

[Puppycow]

Most people seem to support laws against free speech, as long as it is against speech that they don't see themselves ever saying.

I agree. I think over 90% of people would probably agree that, for an extreme example, if a person owned property across from a school and put up a large billboard with a pornographic image, that such person could be forced to remove it and punished.

That would be a form of speech however. And so almost all of us draw a line somewhere.

 

[linusrichard]

Beerina's post seems like perfectly reasonable statement of the relevant law. I'm too new to post links but if you google findlaw.com and search the Supreme Court decisions, you'll find Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 US 444, 448 (1969) which stands for the proposition that a state cannot forbid speech even if the speaker is advocating the illegal use of force unless the speech in question is "directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action" and "is likely to produce or incite such action."

In Brandenburg The court gave the okay to the KKK, who made much more explicit threats of "revengeance".

"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.

And before Brandenburg there was Schenck v. U.S.:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

Brandenburg didn't overrule Schenck as much as narrow the rule somewhat.

Personally, I hate both opinions, and find myself agreeing with Justice Black that these standards violate the First Amendment. But, Brandenburg is the law. I'd like to think there's no way this guy can be convicted for what he said - I don't know how they could prove that these words created a clear and present danger of bringing about any substantive evils, or was directed at producing or likely to produce imminent lawless action...

To the credit of Justice Holmes, who wrote the opinion in Schenck, he backed away from it just two years later, dissenting in Abrams v. U.S., and a number of other similar cases.

 

[CaptainManacles]

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.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's not your fathers Oldsmobile.

 

[epeos76]

The legal test for obscenity has literally been characterized as "I know it when I see it".

//library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

The justices used to have a weekly screening to decide whether each challenged movie was protected speech. The story is that when Justice Harlan's sight began to fail he made a law clerk sit next to him and describe each scenel.

 

[epeos76]

And before Brandenburg there was Schenck v. U.S.:

So "clear and immediate" danger is not just a reasonable statement of the law, it's virtually word perfect. The police overreacted and the right of this font of masterful oratory to act like an irresponsible rule 8 will almost certainly be vindicated. That's a fair price to pay for the liberty to criticize popular opinions.

 

[Puppycow]

The legal test for obscenity has literally been characterized as "I know it when I see it".

//library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

The justices used to have a weekly screening to decide whether each challenged movie was protected speech. The story is that when Justice Harlan's sight began to fail he made a law clerk sit next to him and describe each scenel.

So viewing viewing porn is one of the perks of being a justice?

No wonder they wear those long flowing robes.

 

[Gurdur]

Most people seem to support laws against free speech, as long as it is against speech that they don't see themselves ever saying.

Not terribly much of an argument or one-liner, when you consider that that goes for any prohibitive law imaginable. Strange, isn't it, how non-murderers support laws against murder, or non-embezzlers support laws against embezzlement, or non-rapists support laws against rape? Think that that invalidates their stance or something?

And before Brandenburg there was Schenck v. U.S.: .....

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

 

[Gurdur]

Ah, the nasty version of Gurdur is back. Missed you, hope all is well at your end. Been busy?

So nasty it wasn't, not at all; after all, there was a -smiley thrown in there, twice. In any case, you'll be getting a PM from me soonish that will explain the answers to your other questions.

Seems a sarcastic joke is being used as a pretext to arrest someone.

I don't think so, why on Earth would they want to arrest him otherwise? Not a pretext but the actual reason why they arrested him.

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you

I'll use the -smiley on them repeatedly.

 

[JoeEllison]

Not terribly much of an argument or one-liner, when you consider that that goes for any prohibitive law imaginable. Strange, isn't it, how non-murderers support laws against murder, or non-embezzlers support laws against embezzlement, or non-rapists support laws against rape? Think that that invalidates their stance or something?

Your false analogies destroy your position. No one supports being allowed to murder and rape people, while restricting others from doing so. Everyone expects free speech for themselves, but not for everyone else. They want to protest the groups and politicians of their choice, but a lot of people would take that right away from others.

 

[Loss Leader]

Brandenburg didn't overrule Schenck as much as narrow the rule somewhat.

The Court can play with nieceties and split hairs all they want but the solid political truth of the matter was that Brandenburg was the death of Shenck (and lots of SCt and lower court opinions had been eating away at Shenck long before that). There is no question that the behavior prohibited by Shenck would have been legal under Branderburg and would be legal today.

The fact that the SCt doesn't like to say that it's "overruling" itself doesn't mean that it doesn't do it.