Slashdot Mirror
Webcomic Author Deemed a Terrorist Threat
CaptainCarrot writes "Writer/IT contractor Matt Boyd, formerly the man who made up the words for webcomic Mac Hall and who now does the same for his and Ian McConville's new comic Three Panel Soul, was recently fired from his government job. His conversation with a co-worker about a gun he intended to buy for target shooting was overheard by someone in a nearby cubicle. As it was unfortunately the day of the Virginia Tech shootings, the eavesdropper panicked and reported him to management. That was bad enough. But when he used the comic to document the meeting where the reason for his firing was explained, he was visited by representatives of local law enforcement investigating him on suspicion of making a "terroristic threat" using the Internet. No charges have been filed. Yet. FLEEN interviewed Matt about the incident."
A "terroristic threat" has zero to do with political change.
Did you even read my post? Or maybe do a little research?
"Terroristic threat" doesn't really have anything to do with "terrorism" or "terrorist threats" as we talk about them. Yes, they're very similar words, but from a legal standpoint, "terroristic threat", which is codified in many states, doesn't have anything to do with the modern usage of "terrorism". When someone makes a threat against another person, or calls in a bomb threat, or threatens to perform an act of violence, etc., that is, in many jurisdictions, a "terroristic threat", and has been classified as such for a long, long time.
Uh, it doesn't have anything to do with grammar. "Terroristic threat" is a very old and specific legal concept, and when someone is suspected of issuing a "terroristic threat", it doesn't mean someone thinks they're a "terrorist" or planning anything related with "terrorism", as we talk about those in the modern vernacular. They are unrelated concepts. It's actually unfortunate that "terroristic threat" was codified in many jurisdictions with those words in particular, because whenever anyone is suspected of committing such a threat, it always gets misinterpreted as someone thinking it is "terrorism", which no one does (except the people who blog about it).
And yes, these obviously all root from the same words, but when we say "terroristic threat", those are the exact words that define a behavior where someone is, or is suspected of, threatening another person with violence, calling in a bomb threat, etc. It is NOT what we think of as "terrorism" (e.g., a suicide bombing, 9/11, etc.), and no one thinks it is.
Sorry, I should have said "no one in government or the state" thinks it's "terrorism". The only people who think anyone believes this to be "terrorism" are bloggers who don't understand that "terroristic threat" and "terrorism" or a "terrorist threat" are legally not the same thing. And, at this point, no one thinks it's anything at all, since the police investigated it (correctly following up on a complaint of a threat), and found there to be no threat.
So yeah, when I said "no one thinks it is", I meant "no one who actually has the power to charge him with a crime", not bloggers who want to ride it as another example of how the "post 9/11 war on terror world" has gone so horribly wrong, when it's utterly unrelated.
Regardless of your position on induced stupidity-- err, i mean, smoking pot habitually, you've got some poor logic there. While the opponents of the ban you mention are against the idea of smoking pot and making candy that tastes like pot, they're not banning the idea. They're banning a product with a particular taste. Therefore your conclusion that "ideas and presumed intentions" are becoming criminal is completely illogical.