Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Jokes: Free Speech On Trial
An anonymous reader writes "On 6 January 2010, Paul Chambers typed a flippant tweet that would turn his life upside-down for the next two and a half years. As the courts repeatedly showed a lack of common sense and an ignorance of technology, for a long time it looked as though the right to free speech in the UK was under very real threat. Now that it's over, we can step back and take a detailed look at how such an insane case even came to trial. This article delves deep into the the Twitter Joke Trial: how it happened, what it means, and the epic struggle to balance civility and civil liberties."
If you say "I'm going to kill you if you do that again" should you go to jail?
Just because it is a bit buried in TFA.
European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory includes the right to free speech.
Now, I'm not going to side with the government here(who would?), but the assertion that free speech was in jeopardy is real mistake. All sorts of things that are speech are not legal, and if you flagrantly slander someone, or make threats that imply risk of harm to others, or have a youtube channel that promotes terrorism, governments have shown more than enough willingness to let their beliefs about criminality override the core ideal of free speech.
And that's what free-speech is, an ideal, a goal, not an impossible-to-violate core component of society. There are no perfect guardians of that ideal. Not the citizenry, not the elected official, not the courts, and not the police. All you can do is try to make judgements about how and when you can defend your ideals, and do so the best of your abilities.
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Art 11. Freedom of expression and information
Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution
> it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
No it's not. Not even close.
What always annoys me about this example is that it ignores the possibility of there actually being a fire. Or the perception of a fire. Or something misheard as "fire". Sure, prosecute the liar, but what about good-faith attempts to save lives?
By going after someone for a silly twitter comment, you can put on a big show of pretending to do your job with no personal risk at all.
It is very hard for police or prosecution to ever back down. It's embarassing to them. Their culture doesn't allow it, and those on the political side would lose face. Once the legal action has been initiated, it cannot be stopped until a conclusion is reached. This is true in the UK as much as in the US. It's a very good reason to stay away from the police: A single mistake on their part can easily bloom into a years-long life-ruining legal struggle.
The saddest part of this story is that it could've been stopped before it began: the manager who discovered the tweet, the airport police, the police, none of them thought there was a credible threat but rather than assume responsibility they decided to pass the buck to someone else effectively pushing the case further and further up the chain.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I see no reason why this tweet should be protected free speech, it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Really, jackass? The reason it's illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded place is because of the direct harm to life and limb that will occur when the crowd panics and begins stampeding out.
Who got hurt because of this tweet? Who died? Not a damn soul.
Whether a joke or not, it looked sufficiently realistic a threat and the sender should've known this.
Bullshit. Straight up, unadulterated bullshit. This isn't some known terrorist organization making threats, it was a gaddamn accountant bitching about his flight being delayed. Anyone who actually believed this guy was going to do anything other than deal with the flight delay is a fucking imbecile who should be sterilized for the good of the species. That includes you, AC.
Though not enough for years of imprisonment, this is certainly to persecute him and scare the shit out of him to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Right, 'cause the entire purpose of the legal system is to intimidate those who can't afford protracted legal battles into being good, submissive little serfs, right?
Fuck you, fuck the prosecutors who brought this case, and fuck the authoritarian regimes who push such bullshit policies.
I swear I don't know which is worse: The elitist fucks who are working their damnedest to set up permanent police states, or the loser apologists who expect the rest of us to drop trou and grab ankles as readily as themselves.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Anyone who knows this airport knows it was a joke. I'm not joking when I say that it's small...... huge runway but as an airport it's very quiet.
The issue, as it has always been with the internet, missing infliction..
No it doesn't, the source of the phrase is "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". Seems pretty clear there is no problem if you have no intent to cause harm.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
That doesn't stop their Public Order Act of 1986 from banning insults.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Whether a joke or not, it looked sufficiently realistic a threat and the sender should've known this.
I totally disagree. It's an ordinary expression of frustration, not a credible threat.
We've all said similar things, and many people write similar things in our modern informal online media.
No one could have expected this guy to anticipate the overreaction.
Now, I know that a horny boy behind a keyboard has trouble differentiating between civilized and uncivilized comments, and I think many of us who have been there would agree, but that is why we have private tweets. Of course for some of u narcissism, horniness, voyeurism, and bravado intersect and we end up in trouble. Like when we try to impress a girl while drunk at a bar and end up hitting a police officer. Not our fault, just bad luck.
The lesson is that tweets that are not semi-private are very public and can be misconstrued. Also, cooperating with the police is often not the best course when one is innocent, while the best way to be proven guilty is to not have a highly competent solicitor/lawyer/abogado.
If someone threatened to blow up my house if I did not fix it I would take that as a serious, though non credible, threat. I do not go through airports threatening to blow them up, even when it was in fashion. I do make fun of the police even though of my friends did. It is not that I did know I the write to do so, it was simply that I had other means of venting and expressing my frustrations.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Guy is a complete idiot.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the people who took him seriously...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Section 2: ...may may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law...
Nice little catch all there. That is NOT free speech. Only the First Amendment of the US Constitution has full protection of free speech explicitly codified into law... WITHOUT being subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law... Free speech has no written guarantees of protection in the UK.
The convention is a sham. Especially one that can be voided where prohibited by law, as the old contest rules used to say
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Speech has consequences. If you threaten to unseat those in power, you will probably be prosecuted.
ftfy
Palm trees and 8
There's a difference between saying something on a public channel and calling up the airport: that would have been a threat. But unless authorities or the facility in question are contacted, they have no business what a person says in his own Twitter.
...that they didn't shot him 7 times in the head:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
As with all crimes, one of the issues in finding guilt AND in sentencing is intent. While uttering threats should be illegal, whether or not a charge is even brought or the extent of the penalty if found guilty is dependent on the context and intent.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
no, you are an idiot. it is painfully obvious that this was not "threatening to blow up an airport"
it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre
Where have I heard that expression before...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
Palm trees and 8
Yeah, that's pretty bad.
It is? Probably only if you're paranoid about nonexistent threats. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who agree with this are the type of people who think organizations like the TSA are a good thing.
Although unrelated to this specific case, this is another reason why I feel privacy is so important. The government (or some authority figure) will inevitably take you out of context or misinterpret you and attempt to ruin your life (even if everyone you know would know you didn't intend any harm). Sadly, some people seem to cheer these zero-tolerance policies on.
Though, you're right: you'll probably be prosecuted.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If you think that is a credible threat, you must be an idiot. I could have distinguished that post from a real threat when I was in kindergarten.
Palm trees and 8
I find this to be more a comment on the media driven nature of government officials then on free speech. This is the story of a man's life ruined by government officials who did not have the common sense nor decency to tell the media that there is no story here and that they should bugger off. Instead these morons put a man on trial for his sense of humor. I have said similar things in the past with no intent of committing any actual act of violence. I have heard or read a great many such comments made (admittedly generally by young men). Any one of my friends could be up on charges right now if a journalist had decided to take interest due to a slow news day, and then applied pressure to get more information. So, who is more guilty; the journalist who ignored his public responsibility to find real news stories and used the power of the press inappropriately, or the officers who knew darn well that this man was not a threat to the public, but charged him anyways due to the pressure applied by bored journalists. You decide. The second to the last sentence is a horrible run-on, but an English major I will never be.
"European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory includes the right to free speech."
Article 9 states (bold is mine): "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Public order? Morals? That's a whole set up loopholes you could drive a fleet of trucks through.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
Pure garbage. Where are the free speech rights to challenge the authority of the state, or even the church?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You should really read the full article. I know a whole 5 pages wahhh, but seriously it is well written and a very scary tale of someone being railroaded by the legal system. It was only through the charity of some celebrities and twitterers that he was able to appeal and get it overturned. Most of us would just be screwed and have to live with it. In the end he still had to go through losing his job and the ordeal of being a convicted criminal. Sad.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
What have you seen or heard about that would lead you to believe that?
I see no reason why this tweet should be protected free speech, it is similar to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Really, jackass? The reason it's illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded place is because of the direct harm to life and limb that will occur when the crowd panics and begins stampeding out.
whine whine whine
By your test, nothing is a threat unless it is actually carried out (everyone knew the identity of the person tweeting with such confidence? Like accountants can't kill people?) I suggest you look up what the term threat means, since your expectations are very unrealistic. We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.
You are clearly very passionate about free speech, which is a good thing. You are also clearly very naive when it comes to what is required of a civilized society to not break down under the weight of trying to preserve every idiot's right to it. There is give and take.
THIS is why I continually question the way "free speech" (it really isn't) is implemented in the UK. You people are completely crackers and and have NO IDEA why its so important.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Declaration of Independence. If you are referring to the US Declaration, it doesn't apply. Free speech is in the first amendment to the US Constitution.
Blame the apologists. They are the enablers. Without them no dictatorship can ever survive. They are the ones who execute the orders and pull the trigger.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Or "I'm going to kill you if you say 'I'm going to kill you if you do that again' again".
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Maybe he just wasn't hyperbolic enough?
When I was dealing with some extremely shitty, slow service from Asus, I threatened to destroy their entire country. Didn't get a second glance - they seemed more worried about my "spread bad reviews on them all over the place" threat.
We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.
I'd much rather risk someone's death than overreact to everything, take everything out of context, and harass people who intended no harm.
Paranoia is how we get useless organizations like the TSA who violate everyone's rights.
You are clearly very passionate about free speech, which is a good thing.
You don't seem to act like it is.
You are also clearly very naive when it comes to what is required of a civilized society to not break down under the weight of trying to preserve every idiot's right to it.
By no means would society break down by not overreacting to what I believe was clearly not an actual threat. But of course, such a society doesn't have much free speech, anyway.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Freedom of speech is not guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.
Are you perhaps thinking of the Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment to the constitution?
I'm not even american and I know this.
Check your facts.
Here is his tweet:
"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!"
Yeah, that's pretty bad. It will take cases like this for people to realize that anything they say online is instantly public and viewable by the entire world.
Speech has consequences. If you threaten to blow up airports, you will probably be prosecuted.
People comfortable with twitter just presume that nothing on it is to be taken seriously (and they would almost always be correct). However if you are some security manager who doesnt know a tweet from a poke, and someone says to you "hey someone broadcast on the internet that they are going to blow up the airport" you are going to treat it just like a phone call to the same effect, or a guy outside with a megaphone, or any other direct display of a threat. Us internet-savvy know-it-alls can easily discount just about anything we read, but not everyone is as comfortable doing that. I think that's the real lesson to be learned; online actions have very real consequences and unless you are prepared for them, maybe you should keep your "jokes" to yourself.
Do we want to live in a world where it's perfectly acceptable to broadcast threats of mass violence with the expectation of no reprisal at all? Or put another way, the next time some threat is made, and it is summarily ignored but it IS carried out, are we going to be OK with the conclusion that "well there was nothing we could do, who knew the guy who tweeted to tell us he was going to shoot up the place was serious?"
Great Britain to me has become a regime of politically correct tyranny and is not a country I will ever visit for any reason.
Which is sad, because I've always gotten along quite well with Brits, but their laws and they're willingness to abide by rule of hyper-sensitive sissy boys and have the government be their nanny is quite deplorable.
Lay down and be calm while your wife and children are raped and murdered -- the PC-person willnbevthere shortly.
Do not say anything that might ever hurt the feelings of someone or you'll go to jail
Smile for the camera! Can't have enough surveillance let's add a million more cameras!
Don't say or do anything that might run contrary to American law or American interest, you will be extradited even if your actions are perfectly legal here
Fuck britain
but not everyone is as comfortable doing that.
Their problem.
online actions have very real consequences and unless you are prepared for them, maybe you should keep your "jokes" to yourself.
Then there is no free speech. This is entirely the fault of people who misinterpret other people's messages or take them out of context.
Perhaps you should have kept your comment to yourself. Someone might misinterpret it completely.
Do we want to live in a world where it's perfectly acceptable to broadcast threats of mass violence with the expectation of no reprisal at all?
Even if you arrest people for credible threats, this doesn't fit that criteria in the least. So, yes. Enough with the paranoia of terrorists.
the next time some threat is made, and it is summarily ignored but it IS carried out
Ah, yes: "But what if it really happens!?" The solution is not to overreact to everything and harass people who intended no harm. There cannot be a utopia where everyone is perfectly safe even if you have a police state (in that case, the government would be a larger threat). People are so scared of a single person dying that they'll willingly allow the government to molest people at airports and violate everyone's rights.
are we going to be OK with the conclusion that "well there was nothing we could do, who knew the guy who tweeted to tell us he was going to shoot up the place was serious?"
I would be. There is no way to prevent all deaths, and sometimes it just isn't worth it. The problem lies with the people who actually commit the murders, not random people who aren't actually serious.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Let me repeat myself: "Paranoia is how we get useless organizations like the TSA who violate everyone's rights."
I don't believe you're helping in this regard. You will never be perfectly safe, and the solution is to not overreact. If it appears to be a joke, then there is nothing that can be done.
I'd tell you to stop worrying about nearly nonexistent threats, but I think that just isn't going to happen.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Section 2: ...may may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law...
Section 2 ... Of the explantion provided!
That's just like the little annotations to the US constitution that SCOTUS members have in their heads.
It's just that it's out in the open where you can see it!
Taken in context, the statement is thus:
I need the airport. The airport is broken. If the airport does not open, I'm going to break it.
This almost identical to a phrase we have all heard:
If you do X and die, I'm going to kill you.
While yes, the LAST part of the statement taken out of context is a threat, in context of the whole situation it creates an obvious paradox.
Anyone who does not see that should go back to preschool.
True. But on one side is an idiot with a Twitter account. On the other side is a crowd of idiots with, ultimately, guns and the power to imprison. How do YOU think this would ever work out?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I guess you missed the whole point-- the "threat" is not credible. It's only slightly more credible than threatening to blow up the earth with my Uranium Pu-36 explosive space modulator.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It depends on what your definition of "is" is. In all seriousness, does the European Convention interpret what is and what is not speech?
Actually, I think this case stopped having anything to do with guilt or innocence a while ago.
Once this case got blown out of proportion, the government changed tack. What they then wanted from this case is for ordinary people to say "hell, I'm not telling a joke about acts of terror, remember that guy they screwed over?" Nobody's going to remember the verdict, but we'll all remember the two years of crap this guy got.
Sure, the twitterverse is temporarily full of stupid people reposting this twat's tweet. But that will quickly die down now that the circus is over. So they'll happily settle for the chilling effect of their Orwellian response, and not have to deal with so many of these boors in the future.
John
Ve have always told you zat ze Britisch have no humour! At all! Ha-Ha!
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
More generally, I wonder if there is some theory about what should be exempted from "free speech"? To me, it seems very arbitrary in many western countries: threats is the big one, harassment, "yelling fire", copyright, trade secrets, circumvention devices, military secrets, privacy laws. I realise that it's not possible to derive a legal system from basic axioms, but it always seems a bit hypocritical when someone complains about some "decency" law in a backwards country. How do we know that prohibiting threats is good for society?
If you didn't take him seriously and it was infact a real threat, is it worth risking your job over? Do you want to be the guy who ignored a "bin laden plans to hijack planes" memo?
Let me make it simple here, don't threaten to blow up public infrastructure on a public forum like the internet. Period. What should be common sense to most people seems absent from the always on, speech entitled twitter generation that thinks they have a right to write any garbage they want free and clear.
Just take it into a real life context. If you were responsible for securing a facility and you heard someone just outside the gate joking with his friend about blowing up your facility, are you telling me you wouldn't report that to the police?
Most people are not experts on judging the validity of threats. That's why we have police. Jokes are only jokes until things start blowing up, then its all like "where were the signs!!" and "how come you didn't connect the dots??". People think its all so easy, because they are looking at everything in retrospect. Most people who are actually responsible for things, don't have the luxury of ignoring things like this. Again, if it's my job on the line vs some idiots "joke", I can tell you right now 100% which is more important to me. And its not the idiot.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
By your test, nothing is a threat unless it is actually carried out (everyone knew the identity of the person tweeting with such confidence? Like accountants can't kill people?) I suggest you look up what the term threat means, since your expectations are very unrealistic. We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.
Uh, no, you're just continuing your original line of jackassery. Ever hear of a little process called 'police work?' it goes like this:
1) person makes potentially threatening statement
2) the authorities do their fucking jobs by investigating the person who made the statement, and determining whether it's a legitimate threat, or if it's just some pissed off citizen venting
3) if, and only if, the evidence supports arrest (i.e., the person who made the statement has a history of violent conduct, or is known to be affiliated with terrorist groups, or any of a thousand legitimate reasons to fuck with someone), then the police can and should issue a warrant.
You are also clearly very naive when it comes to what is required of a civilized society to not break down under the weight of trying to preserve every idiot's right to it.
No, I don't take well to morons who, obviously incapable of anything even resembling cogent thought processes, think of the world in all-or-nothing, black-and-white terms.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Outstanding. Very good rant. Lewis Black would be proud. :)
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
By your test, nothing is a threat unless it is actually carried out (everyone knew the identity of the person tweeting with such confidence? Like accountants can't kill people?) I suggest you look up what the term threat means, since your expectations are very unrealistic. We typically don't wait for someone to die before deciding that exceedingly risky behavior should be discouraged by way of law.
I do have to wonder -- did you read the article? All six pages? This was, in fact, one of the things talked about by the judges who ultimately reversed his conviction. The police themselves did not take his threat seriously, until someone suddenly decided that he needed to be made an example of. The fact that they didn't take the threat seriously indicated to the judges that the threat did not 'menace' anyone, as required by the law he was convicted under -- they stated that in order for there to be 'menace', someone actually has to be afraid. Since he wasn't actually doing anything, and there is no evidence or testimony that anyone was really afraid that he was going to, the court ruled that his tweet did not qualify as "menacing" under the statute.
If there had been real fear -- e.g., if the airport could have produced any evidence that anyone contacted them saying, "I think this guy's going to try to blow your airport up" -- then the statute would have applied. This seems to me like a reasonable standard, so long as the law considers the threshold to be what a "reasonable person" would consider threatening. Outlawing all threats, regardless of how much they might lack any credibility, leads to things like we see happening in the US right now, where elementary school students have been arrested for making "terroristic threats" for angrily saying they wanted to kill their teachers.
"Then there is no free speech". Exactly. There is not now, nor has there ever been, such a thing as free speech. Sorta like the old line, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The only place where 'free speech' exists is a place where no one can hear me speak. If I am in a room with a man and say "You are an f'ing a-hole" and as a consequence, he pulls out a gun and kills me, then I'd say I wasn't able to speak freely. As long as my words can have an adverse consequences to me or others, while I may, by LAW be free to speak them, by REALITY I am not. That is the real crux of these 'free speech' debates - some people, when saying 'free speech', mean "legally protected right to speak" while others mean "free to say anything you want". The two are not the same thing.
How does something you post to the internet, on a site made expressly for the purposes of sharing this information with others, become "your own" anything? He didn't write this in his private notebook that some police officer found in an illegal search of his bedroom. Once you post something to the world, you lose your exclusive rights to it. This includes the right to bitch that people are reading and in some cases reacting to it. DUH!!!
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
It was obvious he shouldn't have limited his opinion to just the airport, but the whole of Doncaster.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Free speech in the US has limits such as when it comes to malicious defamation.
Can you point out any limits in the constitution... please? All other laws must conform.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
if your coworker said his mother just died do you crack jokes about how ugly she was?
if you get in a fender bender on the highway do you start craking jokes about how the other guy's car sucks?
if you go on blind date with a woman, five minutes in do you start making crude jokes about her ethnicity?
you can have an argument about legality of this case all you want, but hands, down, 100%: are a genuine bona fide moron if you think threatening to blow up an airport on a wide open communication channel is funny
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Regardless of your opinion, it is still the law of the land. And the politicians and all members of the military and civilian police forces have taken a sworn oath to uphold it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The main worry then is who gets to determine what constitutes "intent to cause harm" -- the original case was about handing out an anti-draft flier during World War I. Speaking out against government war policy was an intent to cause harm (to the government's policies). It was later overturned, but still a good cautionary tale regarding censorship.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
if your coworker said his mother just died do you crack jokes about how ugly she was?
if you get in a fender bender on the highway do you start craking jokes about how the other guy's car sucks?
if you go on blind date with a woman, five minutes in do you start making crude jokes about her ethnicity?
Crude and tasteless, perhaps, but not illegal or threatening. Considering the lack of relevance to the conversation at hand, I have to ask - do any of these anecdotes have a purpose?
you can have an argument about legality of this case all you want, but hands, down, 100%: are a genuine bona fide moron if you think threatening to blow up an airport on a wide open communication channel is funny
In your opinion, with which I disagree on the basis that it is ignorant and childish. I posit that the true "genuine bona fide moron[s]" are the people who thought/think the rantings of a regular person, with no record of terrorism or violent behavior, was worth wasting so much time and resource on prosecuting, especially considering that the judge in the case themselves stated that no such prosecution should have occurred.
I presume, since you're to the point of resorting to ad hominem and pedantics, that you've run out of legitimate arguments, assuming you had any to begin with.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Actually, the thing is the example DOES provide it, the problem is too many people butcher the shit out of the quote and leave the important points in the example out, and as a result all we have is a discombobulated mess.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Wow
What a tool
The comment was stupid. Threatening to blow up an airport is stupid
Get over yourself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
One thing that people who keep referring to that example keep forgetting is the original context in which it was used. To remind, this was Schenck v. United States, a Supreme Court case where they found that it was legal for the government to prosecute people who published propaganda against military draft during WW1. The specific slogans that he was indicted for included "Do not submit to intimidation" and "Assert your rights".
So, whenever someone brings that example up, be sure to check whether it does indeed have as much in common with the actual situation at hand as the original instance in which it was (ab)used.
How much does a Security Council vote from Russia or China cost these days?
I don't think those are for sale, actually. Otherwise Syria would be in ruins by now.
If I am in a room with a man and say "You are an f'ing a-hole" and as a consequence, he pulls out a gun and kills me, then I'd say I wasn't able to speak freely.
Freedom of speech is generally meant to mean freedom from being punished by the government for your speech. If something like that happened, I sure hope that guy would be sent to prison.
Under his definition (where you have the ability to say it, but you might get punished by the government), even China has freedom of speech.
by LAW be free to speak them, by REALITY I am not.
Using the definition above, you very much do have freedom of speech in reality. At least if it hasn't been 'interpreted' away by the supreme court.
The two are not the same thing.
Indeed they're not. But I'm always speaking of the former.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
No one seems to have brought up Brandon Ruub. US Vet held for Facebook Post. He posted on facebook and was locked up. The scary part was the judge that gave the release found no grounds for the hold. Glad the US and UK are so in step with trying to lock people up.
Naw, it's all about the area you are in.
While that's a great internet meme video, in a lot of areas, it's actually better just to be a "little guy". It's when you get all fancy "upholding your rights" that you'll get in trouble, because so help you if you mess up one line of your "script" the grumpy officer will then go ballistic on you.
This is all made difficult because each town has about three "moods" depending on which set of officers is on shift, times the number of towns in an area. But I've done far better with "Yes Officer, my license is a week expired, but see, this is Route 28, I'm on my way to the DMV 20 miles up that way to go fix it. There's a new section on the form that asks for 'any license number you ever had in the last 10 years' that took me a week to figure out."
That's usually all it takes to get a Warning. If you get all fancy like "I don't have to talk to you", they get pissed, then they unload on you.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The Constitution is implemented as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.
There are a multitude of limits to freedom of speech, as there must be. Wikipedia has a good list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
As an extra data point: in Norway, we have the concept of protected speech, which refers to types of expressions which are covered by the Norwegian constitutional provisions for free speech. Advertisement, for instance, is not considered protected speech - which is why it's possible to ban false advertisement.
toresbe
Honestly? I don't care at all. There likely cannot be a utopia where no one ever dies, and I'd much rather a few people die than we harass people who intended no harm and/or overreact to everything that may or may not be a threat. But your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are still extremely slim even if you take into account that the UK has more terrorist attacks.
Even if there are a few terrorist attacks here and there, I believe anyone should be able to tell that this guy very likely intended no harm.
Again, this paranoia and ridiculous desire for safety is how the TSA successfully began in the US.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Wikipedia has a good list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
That list demonstrates the slippery slope I believe we're sliding down. While I don't agree with any of them, a few of them seem particularly ridiculous. Obscenity (child pornography seems to fall under this category no matter the arguments against it), fighting words, and offensive speech seem extremely ridiculous and ambiguous. The "reasonable person' nonsense just makes things worse. They just interpret whatever they want into the constitution at this point. Sometimes they interpret it literally (when it's convenient for them) and sometimes not (when it's convenient for them).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If you didn't take him seriously and it was infact a real threat
Utopias where no one gets hurt do not exist. If we have to resort to overreacting to every potential threat and violating people's freedom because of an insatiable desire for security, I'd rather we just accept the (minuscule) chance that it's real.
Do you want to be the guy who ignored a "bin laden plans to hijack planes" memo?
I don't want to be the guy who overreacts to everything and harasses people who intended no harm, either.
Let me make it simple here, don't threaten to blow up public infrastructure on a public forum like the internet.
Don't overreact to all potential threats. Period. I don't want to end up with another TSA.
Most people are not experts on judging the validity of threats.
They don't need to be! Judging from context alone (and similar events that happen daily but aren't posted on the Internet), I'd say it's pretty easy to tell he meant no harm. But I don't have an insatiable desire for security, so...
That's why we have police.
They don't seem to be doing a very good job.
Jokes are only jokes until things start blowing up
Which doesn't happen often at all, and isn't what happened in this case. The actual message was a joke and remains as such. Just because there's a minuscule chance that someone might be serious doesn't mean that none of them are jokes.
Most people who are actually responsible for things, don't have the luxury of ignoring things like this.
I believe we need to give them the luxury.
I suspect this message seemed completely normal to this guy. He didn't even think about it; he had no ill intentions. He could never have predicted that people overreact to everything because they have some unrealistic expectation to have absolute security.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It better not be the case that only their opinions (i.e. the opinions of the Supreme Court) matter, or the USA is in big trouble. If James Madison and other like minded people were prepared to trust the institutions defined by the Constitution -- the Presidency, the Congress, or the Supreme Court -- individually or collectively, there would have been no need to add a Bill of Rights to limit the power of those institutions (and incidentally, also limit the States).
Legal professionals, as a class in society, are in a position of conflict of interest with respect to the nature and form of the legal system. Think about this for a bit and you'll see that that this means members of the Supreme Court are also in a position of conflict of interest, not just with respect to actions taken in their present positions, but also considering decisions made during their entire careers as legal professionals.
It would be extremely foolish to trust the Supreme Court: just look at how slavery was handled for reasons why this is a bad idea. The Constitution, while authorizing the counting of persons not free in population totals, did not, for example, say anything about allowing the children of slaves to be themselves enslaved. It did not authorize the abuse of slaves, either. Various Supreme Courts could have done many things to limit the slave system and chose to do nothing, or worse, chose to permit abuses.
A similar failure happened after the Civil War with the numerous violations of fundamental human rights directed against African-Americans by law in the Southern states, which were also permitted by various Supreme Courts for many decades before finally being stopped.
Also consider the Nuremberg Precedent (which can be asserted in the USA under the 9th Amendment as a right "retained by the people"): if we can expect people to refuse to obey illegal orders from their military superiors, we should also expect people to refuse to obey illegal orders from civil superiors. A court order or precedent, from any court at any level, including the Supreme Court, is only valid when it does not involve the infringement of fundamental rights.
Finally, rights "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment are by definition retained by the people. They are not retained by the Supreme Court, and an attempt by Supreme Court justices to take this away would be a violation of the judge's oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights. Similar reasoning applies to the 10th Amendment and rights "reserved to the people".
The EU Charter???? The unelected bunch in Brussels that claims to somehow lead the various squabbling nations of Europe? And the UK signed on to that mess and surrendered its sovereignty in doing so? Gads....
Maybe. Sometimes.
Are you holding a knife when you say it?
Do you have that look in your eyes when you say it?
Does the other person really believe you mean it?
Who is them?
Personally, I don't get this idea of turning the Constitution into a dogmatic, religious text. To me, the idea that the document is to be revered for the position it has rather than its content, lessens its value by implying it will not stand its content being tested. My reverence is reserved for liberal values, and not the text itself. Especially when it is generally ignored anyway when it's considered convenient by the executive branch.
Don't get me wrong - as a historical document it is one of the most important documents in human history, but laws appropriate for ensuring a free society in 1776 may well not be appropriate for 2012, hard as that may seem to understand. The Second Amendment is an excellent example of an idea which has no real relevance for the purpose intended in the old days, which should really not be a part of the US Constitution.
At home in Norway, we change our constitution from time to time. It's much closer to being just another law, than it is to being a sacrament. I like it that way.
toresbe
Who is them?
The exceptions.
To me, the idea that the document is to be revered for the position it has rather than its content
Its content is what is important to me. I do not claim that the constitution is perfect, but I agree with many of the concepts there. Times have changed, and I believe our rights are being violated in ways never thought possible at that time, so I would say it needs to be updated, and in a way that makes its message explicitly clear.
The Second Amendment is an excellent example of an idea which has no real relevance for the purpose intended in the old days, which should really not be a part of the US Constitution.
I think we need more protection against collective punishment-like restrictions ("Some people abuse guns; ban them for everyone."). Again, I don't think the current amendments go far enough in this regard. I believe it needs to be made explicitly clear.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Who is them?
The exceptions.
Wait, what? I don't see how that makes sense in the context you used "them" in the above text...
The Second Amendment is an excellent example of an idea which has no real relevance for the purpose intended in the old days, which should really not be a part of the US Constitution.
I think we need more protection against collective punishment-like restrictions ("Some people abuse guns; ban them for everyone."). Again, I don't think the current amendments go far enough in this regard. I believe it needs to be made explicitly clear.
That's a weird way to state the problem. It's not a collective punishment - it's a risk/benefit assessment. The fact that I'm not allowed to carry out biological experiments on contagious diseases or store high explosives in my downtown apartment is good because I don't see any reason anyone would do that. That's not a "punishment". The thought that my neighbor does not have those rights is a relief. And it does prevent random accidents. The point is: Why would you need a semi-automatic weapon for personal use? Is regulating their ownership really "punishment", or is that really just a disingenuous turn of phrase?
The primary reason why it is possible to ensure that the gun control is so incredibly lax in the US, is by harping on the ramifications of the Second Amendment and the idea that it provides some kind of hypothetical balance of power against the US Government. Sure. Try forming a militia, go somewhere and rebel - see how that works out for your group and the crater that would surround it.
But that argument, so incredibly separated from reality, is the primary argument against gun control - and that is possible because the Constitution is turning into something people are supposed to have faith in, in the religious sense, rather than a document that should appeal to rationality.
Ironically, the idea that the Constitution is immutable really does remove freedom of self-determination from the people - subverting the intent of the document.
toresbe
it's a risk/benefit assessment.
Which I've already done and have come to the conclusion that it's a bad decision here.
Is regulating their ownership really "punishment"
I'd certainly say so. At the very least, I'd claim it's a bad thing. I don't care about rebels, defense, or combating the big, evil government with the guns; I just don't think they should be banned for everyone just because a few people abuse them (and it's not as if they're nuclear weapons). A few lives lost here and there are acceptable to me (just like how the TSA is unacceptable to me even if the risk they claim is there is real). Some people just want to feel safe, and then we end up with organizations like the TSA. But their desire to feel safe is what is important.
Ironically, the idea that the Constitution is immutable
Who thinks this? The constitution can be amended or disregarded entirely. A constitution won't help at all if the citizens are apathetic about violations of freedom, either.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I said that it was similar to collective punishment. And it is: the solution is to 'punish'/regulate everyone due to the actions of a few.
because I don't see any reason anyone would do that.
Just because you don't see any reason that they would do that doesn't mean you should be able to restrict it. Many times I fail to understand why people take certain courses of action, but that doesn't mean I think the action should be banned. To me, not banning it would have to result in catastrophe before I would even consider it.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Get over yourself
I'm not the one getting their panties in a bunch because someone disagrees with me, now am I?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The primary reason why it is possible to ensure that the gun control is so incredibly lax in the US, is by harping on the ramifications of the Second Amendment and the idea that it provides some kind of hypothetical balance of power against the US Government. Sure. Try forming a militia, go somewhere and rebel - see how that works out for your group and the crater that would surround it.
But that argument, so incredibly separated from reality, is the primary argument against gun control - and that is possible because the Constitution is turning into something people are supposed to have faith in, in the religious sense, rather than a document that should appeal to rationality.
Ironically, the idea that the Constitution is immutable really does remove freedom of self-determination from the people - subverting the intent of the document.
This must be the most intelligent argument one way or another about the US constitution, thanks :)
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Reading the article, seems that pretty much nobody took the "threat" seriously. Had it been "sufficiently realistic", I'd assume people would take it a bit more seriously.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
...and you didn't actually read the article, now did you?
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
In fact, according to article, everyone else involved distinguished it from a real threat just fine also - but then the case ended up on big media, everything was blown out of proportions and now we have a bunch of tools defending the system for acting like total jackasses and actually claiming that the threat was realistic.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Paranoia is how we get useless organizations like the TSA who violate everyone's rights.
The fact that the TSA is "useless" to you does not imply that it isn't extremely useful to the people that established and perpetuate it.