So now we're not allowed to make jokes on the internet? Did the entire world turn into one giant fascist wet dream while I was asleep?Objectable said:
This case is stupid. Judge too.
Judge Refuses To Dismiss League of Legends Terrorist Threat Case
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This case is stupid. Judge too.
This kid deserves to be told he's a little shit by everyone under the sun. And his parents should prevent him from going online for a while as a punishment. That should be the end of it. This whole case has been completely overblown and it seriously worries me that some people would consider the treatment of this ignorant kid as justice. You might not be so quick to condemn if it was you that made a silly remark one day which led to arrest.
Sarcasm about something specific should now be punishable with eight years in prison? Are we now so paranoid as a society that a comment made in the public sphere to no one in particular and read out of context counts as a threat against the state? This is what 9/11 did, they planted a seed and paranoia is the fruit we're now all eatting.Nocturnus said:
By your reasoning, if I quoted exactly what he said here without the quotations I should go to prison for eight years because I was making a terrorist threat. Why? Because this context, these words that I'm typing right now have no meaning to the system of justice you're advocating. It's all empty context, and everything YOU say or type is JUST as empty to that system of justice as long as you make a bizarre allusion to violence.
No, I would not be saying the opposite, I would be pointing to the other hundreds of thousands of bizarre violent threats that are posted on the internet everyday that have come to exactly nothing and pointing out that it's silly to try to judge the intent of a human being from a few scraps of text in a forum. It's obviously an unreliable method of determining intent if a few hundred thousand threats are posted daily and only one was acted upon this year. Also, I doubt that anybody who ever shot up a school publicized it first on facebook with "lol" and "j/k"Doomsdaylee said:
I think you misunderstood me. Specifically, where I disagreed with the harshness of the potential sentence. I don't actually think this guy should serve jail time for a statement he made. I'm just saying that I can understand where the officers of the law are coming from, and that the defendant isn't totally innocent of doing anything wrong. A fine would be sufficient, I think. Maybe not even a harsh fine. Just enough to let him know that making jokes on Facebook about shooting up a school is...well, not really cool.WWmelb said:
Edit: Also, it's all well and good to assume he's not serious. However, without any context, it's just as possible he was being serious, and just using jk and lol to disguise that. That's the issue with chatting online. Sarcasm does not work well in text, and neither does black humor.
Ha. This kid is lightweight compared to me. But he didn't actually intend to do any of what he typed into the chat sarcastically, and neither do I wish to incinerate everybody that can't beat my CS.
Authorities don't much care though. And that's fine. You don't have any rights. You don't deserve any respect or dignity. This statement was not sarcasm.
Authorities don't much care though. And that's fine. You don't have any rights. You don't deserve any respect or dignity. This statement was not sarcasm.
May very well have misunderstood, sorry about that.thebobmaster said:
And yes, i agree things can be completely skewed with written things online etc, and intent can be lost or misconstrued easily enough. Which is why i don't text message anything serious. Too many things taken the wrong way over the years.
I have no problem with an investigation into his comment, but from all the reports i've read on this case, there was little to no investigation into intent or a pattern of comments, or anything to give any evidence against this being just an ill-timed comment with bad taste coating it like a ham glaze.. mm ham.. christmas..
i'm sitting on here christmas morning discussing someone half a world away who may be going to prison..
i can't decide if that is sad, or good for justice that it means that much to me... on christmas...
to be fair i have a roast pork in the oven cooking for lunch... and chicken to go in soon..
now where was i?
That's right i'm going to blow up a building with a glazed ham and roast pork...
It's been said in these threads before by others and I'll say it again. The kid is a little shit. He should have had the cops come to his house, sit his ass down and drill into his head that you don't say shit like that. Any prison time completely oversteps the bounds of common sense. I'm guessing this kid isn't even old enough to drink and you're going to charge him with terroristic threats when he's trash talking on Facebook and then throw in into prison with murderers and rapists? Now maybe if he showed definite signs of some mental illness and had a history of violence I could see this being seen as a threat "Somehow".
Poor dumb kid is going to get convicted not because the judge believes he is guilty, but rather the states have a quota to fill for inmates in private prisons. Fun read for those who want to learn more.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289
Wow, it's bad enough (yet unsurprising) that the judicial system in Texas lacks basic reading comprehension, but apparently it's quite rare in this thread, too. He did not make a terrorist threat, period; he sarcastically opined that he's not crazy. Punishing that is a straight-up free-speech issue; as there's no remotely credible threat - nor indeed any threat at all, properly speaking - his only offense is speaking on the subject. Many of you people want this guy to be legally punished for merely bringing up the subject of school shooting, as if "too soon" was a legal doctrine rather than a taste issue. (And in the U.S., it's always too soon after a school shooting these days, which means it never is. It's just too common now.)
You're speaking out against basic requirements of freedom.
You're speaking out against basic requirements of freedom.
Ah, America, land of the free (if you have money).Kalezian said:
Clearly the solution is to nuke the place and start from scratch again. Or is that a terrorist threat and I'll be arr- oh wait, I'm in New Zealand. We won't even give the US Kim Dot Com. Guess you'll have to be satisfied with taking out your anger on harmless teenagers.
So we'll piss and moan all day about the mythical "twelve year old" who talks shit in online games but as soon as one gets caught we change our tune?
"Not at all." Said the strawman.Doomsdaylee said:
The military and the police only deal with people who are in the habit of following through with threats, other armies and the police are only called when people feel they are in danger of the person making a threat, if a person has called the police the police are already under the impression that the threat is serious enough to warrant police intervention.
The difference in effort between making a threat and carrying one out is one on the order of many magnitudes. A person can make a threat in a flash of anger in three seconds. Carrying that threat out could take days, weeks or months, and in that time or even within a few minutes or seconds of making a threat the emotion would have faded and reason would creep back in. When a person makes a threat it's almost always in the heat of an intense emotion and it's purpose is to intimidate, it's driven by the fight or flight mechanic and that mechanic shuts down the part of the brain that's reasonable. That is why there is a distinction between hot and cold blooded murder, one is done in the heat of a moment, the other is planned, reason doesn't have a chance to intervene in the first case and in the second case reason is corrupted.
I would argue that a threat given by a person 6000 miles away from you over an internet forum is very different than a person standing on your lawn with a shotgun. The amount of effort given by both people is what has changed the severity of the threat and indicates intent. Threats aren't intent.
I also like that you completely disregard my point that many bizarre violent threats are made every day on the internet and so few of them are ever carried out, how can they be taken "very seriously" when they amount to exactly nothing if they are examined for actual intent. How exactly would you propose we deal with the fact that threats aren't actions? I suppose we could put anybody in jail for threatening somebody else, but then there's that fight or flight mechanic, that's not going away.