Slashdot Mirror


Teenage League of Legends Player Jailed For Months For Facebook Joke

Kohath writes "Eighteen-year-old Justin Carter of Austin, Texas was arguing with a friend on Facebook about League of Legends back in February. After being called 'insane,' he responded with 'Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.' Below that, he wrote 'lol' and 'jk.' He was arrested March 27, 2013 and has been in jail since that time. A hearing to review his case is scheduled for July 1, 2013. His parents have launched a change.org petition to convince the authorities to release their son."

117 of 743 comments (clear)

  1. So much for... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...freedom of speech.

    He wasn't actually making a direct threat at any place or thing...just shooting off his mouth.

    Sad that you can be arrested for just a general saying of something.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:So much for... by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      thought crimes?? I mean seriously everyone knows that if you are going to do something stupid like that, you dont post about it, you dont joke about it, you just do it. Its never the ones who say things like that you need to worry about its the ones who are silent to watch out for.

      Im most likely moving to austin in the next few months, not a fan of hearing this though

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:So much for... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes Freedom is more important than general safety.

      When the government says you can't have or do X because it is unsafe. It allows them to take the next step and say the next thing is unsafe and you shouldn't do it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:So much for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It happened countless times. It shouldn't count as a fallacy anymore.

    4. Re:So much for... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet he is still allowed to own guns... Because that freedom is so much more important

      Flamebait, but I'll bite:

      If he made a joke about drunk driving, do you think his driving privileges should be permanently revoked too?

      There's a *huge* difference between a credible threat leveled at a specific target, and just farting around. If you cannot tell the difference, kindly stop your internet service, burn your computer, and cancel your TV/cable/sat subscription.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:So much for... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can we take them away just because he is a teenager?

      We have the drinking age and driving age totally backwards in this country.

    6. Re:So much for... by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      Just because it's not funny doesn't mean it's a credible threat. If that were the case, pretty much everybody would be jailed at one point or another.

    7. Re:So much for... by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 2

      I 100% guarantee that you and I and everyone else here has made sarcastic, over-the-top, threats as a joke. Not only that, but you will do so again. Which makes you a hypocrit. If a massively sarcastic joke constitues a "true threat" to you then you know full well that you sir, are a threat and have no business walking around free yourself.

    8. Re:So much for... by operagost · · Score: 2

      What a cretin you are. Since when is there a competition between natural rights? You leftists are just the kind who pick and choose which rights are acceptable. FWIW, if he is convicted of a felony, he won't be allowed to own a gun.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:So much for... by Antipater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Freedom of speech does not absolve one from responsibility for the consequences of the speech in question.

      Depends on what consequences you're talking about.
      People around you thinking you're an asshole and never talking to you again? No, it doesn't protect you from that.
      Getting arrested and jailed? Yes, in fact, it does protect you from that; that's the entire meaning of the term.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    10. Re:So much for... by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, that's not always the case.. And when hindsight reveals that a killer had joked or made facebook posts or otherwise gave warning signs about the destruction to come, and police write it off as just some kid harmlessly blowing off steam, the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs.

      So... they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Yes, in retrospect it's easy to see which ones really were just harmless sarcastic jokes and which ones were obvious warning signs, because we know how the story turned out.

      Was the jail sentence an overreaction? Perhaps. By the time they got to that point they had probably sorted out whether he had a real problem or if he was just sarcastically responding to someone else's comment. But in a world where school shootings are entirely too common and too real, he's got to learn that you can't say stuff like that and not have any consequences. This isn't punishment for a crime he didn't commit; this is ensuring that he doesn't create panic and waste police time with more idiotic statements in the future.

      I'm not saying that they did the right thing. I'm just saying, it isn't so black-and-white. They can be too slow to respond and risk finding out the hard way that those "jokes" were a cry for help, or they can be too quick to respond and crack down on somebody for making an innocent, if tasteless, comment. I'm sure glad I never have to make that decision!

    11. Re:So much for... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      If he plays his cards right he can retire before he's 20. As you noted, this was a gross violation of his civil rights. With the right lawyer, he'll be a rich man when he's grown.

    12. Re:So much for... by durrr · · Score: 2

      >pretty much everybody would be jailed at one point or another.
      I think that's the point, you're supposed to be so inhibited and shitscared of everything that you don't dare to do anything but follow the approved guidelines.

    13. Re:So much for... by cybertears · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd like to sponsor this initiative. Is there a project up on KickStarter?

    14. Re:So much for... by vidnet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a Twilight Zone revelation, the authorities do exactly what the people want them to do.

      They're showing a "tough and uncompromising stance on terror" which gets you public support. What if? Think of the children! (except the ones you jail, obviously). If he did happen to have something they could pin on him, they've "stopped a terrorist", gaining more public support.

      If they had done nothing and nothing happened, no one would have cared either way. If they had done nothing and something happened, there would be public outrage, mass firing and countless inquisitions.

      Arresting him was the logical thing.

    15. Re:So much for... by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet he is still allowed to own guns... Because that freedom is so much more important

      Both freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms are explicitly enumerated in the constitution so what's your point, exactly? Other than his free speech is being trampled upon?

    16. Re:So much for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You cited the wrong section. This is what you should have cited: imminent lawless action. There are three parts of the test:
      intent, imminence, and likelihood.

      If you say "Jews should be killed", it doesn't imply imminence. If you say "Let's go put some Jews in gas chambers", it doesn't have likelihood. And if you say "It would be funny if y'all went and lynched a Jew" it wouldn't have intent.

      For the Facebook post, it didn't have likelihood or any real intent (it was a joke). The imminence of it could be argued. In any case, it fails the test and his speech is protected.

    17. Re:So much for... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up"

      Two wrongs don't make a right...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    18. Re:So much for... by operagost · · Score: 2

      He didn't, really, but since we allowed our overlords to call anything "terrorism" then there happens to be a catchall charge they're levying here... and it's a felony, of course.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    19. Re:So much for... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have a cousin who spent ten years in prison for posession; not sure what drug or what amount, but considering your username I'd move to Colorado or Washington State if I were you (possession of small amounts is a civil offense with a small fine here in Springfield). Texas is the closest thing to Singapore the US has when it comes to laws.

      Seriously, you should stay out of Texas. Ever heard Uneasy Rider?

    20. Re:So much for... by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm curious as to what 'crime' he made by expressing himself this way.

      I think the problem is a little more complicated than that.
      1) Somebody got a phone call from an idiot saying that they believed someone was making a threat.
      2) This person realizes that there is no threat, BUT, if the kid for some unrelated reason commits some act of violence and the media finds out that a warning was ignored, they'll have a field day and the person will be crucified.
      3) So, the person who received the phone call passes along the fact that they got it and it's in somebody else's lap who, using the same logic, feels the need to at least make a show of taking some sort of action.
      4) Spirals out of control and we get a ridiculous arrest over a stupid, but innocent, sarcastic comment.

      Welcome to the modern age...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    21. Re:So much for... by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The public is wrong for crucifying them for not arresting the 50,000 or so teenagers who, each month, make a crass joke about violence on the Internet.

      That doesn't make them justified to arrest this kid, unless we're seriously short on information and he was clear that he owned a bunch of guns and planned to use them.

      I don't have a problem if this anonymous Canadian lady perhaps called his parents and told them... nosy as hell, but not life destroying.

      But phoning police is absurd.

    22. Re:So much for... by SJHiIlman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and I am also free to take the consequences of my action.

      Then countries such as North Korea must have as much freedom of speech as the US... but there are consequences for exercising the right. That's all. Just consequences.

    23. Re:So much for... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      depends on how he looks at it when he comes out. What happens when he comes out and thinks to himself "well, everyone thinks i was gonna shoot up a school, everyone treated me like i was gonna shoot up a school, i might as well shoot up a school so at least i did what i was accused of doing"

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    24. Re:So much for... by SJHiIlman · · Score: 2

      Cases like this show why we should never accept any form of government surveillance. The government will inevitably overreact to something you said, take it out of context, and/or take it seriously, and then they'll make you wish you were never born.

    25. Re:So much for... by matrim99 · · Score: 2
      Nice, I see what you did there. You have many career options available to you in the public sector.

      Might I suggest the Department of Truth?

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    26. Re:So much for... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      And when hindsight reveals that a killer had joked or made facebook posts or otherwise gave warning signs about the destruction to come, and police write it off as just some kid harmlessly blowing off steam, the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs.

      Sure, some people often suffer from jerky-knee syndrome, but one (non-specific) joke/comment doesn't really constitute "warning signs".

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    27. Re:So much for... by IronChef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We've already institutionalized "no joke" zones at airports. Unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before there are more such restrictions.

    28. Re:So much for... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Those too. You should want to wear a seatbelt and helmet. However if you do not, it is your own damn fault if something happens. However you should have to have insurance because if you do get injured or killed, then you are affecting other people from your injury.

      Sure there are stats showing how many lives have been saved from seatbelts and helmet laws, I don't have any cause to disbelieve them. But really should government say we should do something just because it is safer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    29. Re:So much for... by DrGamez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There should be no remorse for what was said. Out of all the countless conversations that get monitored and picked up, what this kid said amounts to saying "I will blow up the President with a billion nuclear bombs." It's just a completely ridiculous statement, especially when it's followed up with a "lol", "jk".

      This is not a threat to shoot up a school, this is - if anything - some kind of morbid joke that highlights the ridiculousness of the earlier accusation that he was insane.

      Poe's Law.

    30. Re:So much for... by PhxBlue · · Score: 2

      OK, when you're done being snarky, riddle me this: What forms of expression are not protected under the First Amendment?

      Do some research, and you'll find threats are on that list.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    31. Re:So much for... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      And when hindsight reveals that a killer had joked or made facebook posts or otherwise gave warning signs about the destruction to come, and police write it off as just some kid harmlessly blowing off steam, the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs.

      Educated people, such as doctors or statisticians, have a term for this: "low specificity". It basically means you can't take a single symptom as a reason to throw somebody in jail/prescibe a treatment until you also have other symptoms to back your hypothesis up.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    32. Re:So much for... by PRMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, just in jail for 4½ months for making a joke post immediately followed by LOL JK. But no sentence...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    33. Re:So much for... by PhxBlue · · Score: 2

      According to their logic, North Korean citizens have exactly as much freedom of speech as we do in the US...

      Um, no. I'm pretty sure you can say Very Bad Things about the U.S. president, your Senator, congressperson, etc., without being disappeared. What you can't do is make threats against their lives.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    34. Re:So much for... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      In the USA we let 16 year olds drive cars, we have no real driving tests or lessons to speak of. Passing the test on the first try is the norm for 95% of people.

      You can't even compare driving anywhere in Europe with that in the USA.

    35. Re:So much for... by drakaan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think a stand-up comic making this same joke might make people uncomfortable, but wouldn't be jailed for it. That's one of the (many) problems with arresting people for thoughtcrimes...there's no way to be objective about humor.

      If "lol...j/k" isn't enough to indicate that a statement shouldn't be taken seriously, then what is? What's on the government-approved list of acceptable metaphors for "batshit crazy"?

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    36. Re:So much for... by charles2678 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sure there are stats showing how many lives have been saved from seatbelts and helmet laws, I don't have any cause to disbelieve them.

      Actually, there is good reason to disbelieve that bicycle helmet laws (as distinct from motorcycle helmet laws) have a beneficial effect: Simply put, the desired effect doesn't show up on country-level statistics after these laws have been implemented.

      One of the more plausible explanations for this related to its interaction with the safety-in-numbers effect: The more cyclists are on the roads, the more motorists are watching for them. Requiring helmets reduces the number of cyclists on the road on a scale reaching towards 50%, both directly from inconvenience and vanity, and less directly by making cycling seem so unsafe that it needs to be regulated... but by making cycling seem unsafe, it thus becomes actually unsafe: Every time the cyclist population doubles, the per-person accident rate drops by about 1/3rd.

      So -- cut the cyclist population in half with a helmet law, and you reduce the safety-in-numbers effect enough to entirely lose what little you gained. And that's presuming that people are actually wearing appropriately sized and fitted helmets correctly -- there's no shortage of studies showing that the percentage of people doing so in areas where helmet usage is mandatory is in effect is low enough that the beneficial side of the law is of little help as well.

      There are other reasons to be skeptical of bicycle helmets -- motorists are measurably more careless when driving near a cyclist with a visible helmet, and the risk compensation effect (in which a helmeted cyclist behaves more recklessly on the belief that they're safer) is clearly a factor as well. Me? I wear a helmet when I ride anywhere with traffic (it's where my mirror and headlight are mounted)... but I'm vehemently opposed to any attempts to make the practice mandatory.

      [And another addendum, to be fair -- there's some new work on helmets that effectively dampen rotational inertia; if those actually make it to market, something which has been effectively suppressed in the US by manufacturers having no incentive to exceed CSPC regulations, I might want to review parts of my position -- they've been shown to be quite effective at preventing concussions, which widely available bicycle helmets don't do].

      Oh -- and about seatbelts: There's no question that they make folks who are belted in safer. However, it's also well-established that they make people who aren't belted in -- such as pedestrians -- less safe: Drivers behave more recklessly when they feel secure, and seat belts and anti-lock brakes provide such security.

    37. Re:So much for... by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 2

      They really should do some actual investigating before just locking him up. If he had plans for bombs, or bombs, or some sort of credible weapon, then yeah you can arrest him. Until then, keep an eye on him. They do shit like this blowing things out of proportion, while some crazy person is really planning on doing it, but they don't do their jobs. It should have been pretty easy to get a search warrant for his premises and then to have actually searched them.

      School shootings aren't really that common, I agree that it happens more often than it has in the past, but more kids are killed by drunk drivers than by mass shootings. Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver

    38. Re:So much for... by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      PhxBlue, I am going to shoot you and eat your still-beating heart.
      I'm going to do this is person, and I'm specifically threatening you which is more than what this teenager did. Since he had more of a blanket threat against a nebulous "school" and did it online over facebook.

      But relax, I'm joking. It's just something to try and make a point.

      And no, you can't have me arrested, you can complain to the cops who make a judgement call about whether or not they feel the need to arrest me or really do anything at all. Typically that's only if there's an immediate threat or fear that I'd run away. A citation seems more appropriate for the whole "call the cops and get justice" scenario. But really, lip-service to the importance of your complaint seems like the more probable outcome. Maybe someone would swing by and ask some questions and leave a warning.

    39. Re:So much for... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I already replied to this thread, so I can't mod you up. I'm going to agree with you and disagree with the other respondents. When people make comments like he did, there is at least limited probable cause for investigation.

      No, there isn't. Can you show me any statistical significant link between making jokes like this and committing the crimes?

      If you note the ONE guy who went postal who also posted stuff online, that's not a statistical significant link. He also carried a red backpack. Should everyone carrying a red backpack be investigated then?

    40. Re:So much for... by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 2

      Can't move adulthood to 21, we'd lose half of the cannon fodder for the armed forces.

    41. Re:So much for... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So if someone tells a woman 'Fuck You' he should be charged with rape? Context matters and it's exquisitely clear from the quoted context he was being sarcastic.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    42. Re:So much for... by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs

      Do they really? I see exponentially more outrage at the war on drugs, the patriot act, PRISM and TSA than I do at law enforcement letting the odd criminal slip by. Law enforcement seems to withstand YEARS of complaints about racial profiling and jail for nonviolent offenders, yet they have to utterly destroy this teenager because they might be questioned if he were to have done something?

      Lets not make excuses for them. They crushed him like a bug for a trifling offense because they could.

    43. Re:So much for... by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Yes everyone should have the right to exercise freedom of thought and speech as long as they don't commit crimes. He shouldn't be arrested. Kept an eye on, maybe, I'm not actually making that argument either. I'm just pointing out that they should do their actual jobs (it's okay to investigate such a case, get a warrant from a judge, search around, keep an eye on the kid, station an officer outside said elementary school during school hours, patrol the neighborhood a little more, I'm sure there are a hundred other things that could have been done besides arresting the guy)

      Like: NOTHING.
      Otherwise, it is harassing an innocent. A joke is not probable cause.

      If we're so scared shitless that we can't even handle jokes, what right do we have to call ourselves the home of the brave?
      (Land of the free went down the drain a long time ago.)

    44. Re:So much for... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Makes this whole mess even more offensive to justice.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    45. Re: So much for... by knight24k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate getting into a gun control debate on this thread and replying to an AC to boot but.... what massive killings? Out of a nation of 300 million we have approx ~15k gun deaths annually. Granted, any death is tragic but I would hardly call it massive compared to other causes of death. The majority of these are criminal with accidental and suicides thrown in. Even if you make the case that all of the suicides would have been saved (good luck making that case), criminals will still be able to get weapons since they are...(wait for it) criminals.

      The UK tried this in 97. In the 5 years after their gun ban violent crime doubled, violent crime with handguns (not including air weapons) quadrupled and handgun murders doubled (Home Office Statistical Bulletin Jan 2003). It took them another 7 years to get their crime back down to where it started in the first place. All this for a nation that had an annual gun homicide rate of 50 in 1997. As it is, today they estimate there are in excess of 5 million illegal guns on the streets of the UK (as reported by the UK press) and that 1 in 5 Brits know how to get a gun if they need one. This is gun control working? Also keep in mind the UK is an island, has 1/10 the population of the US and even they cannot control guns effectively. Exactly how are we to do it when we can't even keep illegal drugs out (and that is a whole different can of worms).

      Guns are not the problem. We have a violent society and we are no longer properly identifying and caring for our mentally ill citizens. We need to fix the cause not the result.

    46. Re:So much for... by Sperbels · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although I believe he's not guilty of any crime other than being idiotic, it is not up to the police to judge whether he's guilty. It's up to the justice system. He will have his day in court, like any other person charged with a crime.

      Will he? You do realize, that in this country, it's entirely legal to indefinitely imprison a terrorist in secrecy? The definition of terrorist being anyone they deem to be a terrorist. And they are saying the kid made a terrorist threat. They can legally disappear this kid for making an obvious joke online with some friends. Does that give you some idea how out of control the US government is?

    47. Re:So much for... by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Making a threat is an actual crime.

      And that's plain wrong. If you deliberately cause fear by threatening someone, then it's causing fear that's the crime, not the words. Whether you do that by words or waving a bazooka doesn't change the crime, which isn't the words.

      A threat in itself should never be a crime. That's punishing thoughts.
      If I say "I am going to cut off your tonker" and you laugh it off with "with both your arms broken?", no crime has been committed. Even if both of us are capable of those acts - if they don't cause fear and are unlikely to happen, there is no crime.

    48. Re:So much for... by rivercityrandom · · Score: 2

      I dunno, it took me three tries to get my license in California, and I'd been playing racing games for most of my childhood. Maybe it had something to do with trying to parallel park via drifting...

    49. Re:So much for... by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      He was arrested two months ago and has not been released. The alternatives are they found something else or they intend to prosecute and make an example of him based only on that conversation.

      The biggest problem I see here is that if they didn't find anything and end up releasing him then they have detained someone for two or more months while they attempted to find a reason to detain them.

      If they are going to prosecute him on just the conversation provided in the article and win it sets an awful precedence. The next thing you know people will have what they say taken out of context and be sent to prison for shooting another player's character in call of duty and exclaiming "You're Dead!"

       

    50. Re:So much for... by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, so the slippery slope in the gun control debate is that the constitution only allows for a well-trained militia to keep their guns, but gun-owners have forced it to become anybody's right regardless of training or participation in a militia. The government is trying to go back up the slope (with mandatory ID and criminal record checks), but they just keep sliding back down.

      No, the constitution recognizes the need for a regulated militia and the right of the people. Otherwise:

      1. It would be self contradictory, since regulating your militia is, in turn, regulating arms, which the text says shall not be infringed
      2. It wouldn't be located next to the third amendment, which also puts the freedom of the people over soldiers of the union
      3. It would be unique, as the fifth amendment also refer to the militia as external to the people
      4. It would be misplaced, as rights specifically granted to a government entity (states) that wasn't already addressed in the articles is all the way in the back at amendment ten
      5. It would be redundant, since the military is already presumed to exist as in Article 2

      Anyone can argue whether they like it or not, but the fact is the second amendment, quite clearly, refers to the right of the people. Anyone claiming otherwise is mistaken at best and selectively manipulative at worst.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    51. Re:So much for... by Quila · · Score: 2

      By this criteria, half the 13 year-olds on XBox Live should be in jail.

    52. Re:So much for... by GigG · · Score: 2

      Reread the Second Amendment and diagram the sentences. Maybe then you will understand what it is saying. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say "...the right of the states militia to keep and bear arms..." And many constitutional authorities believe the meaning of the word "regulated" in the amendment was. To adjust for accurate and proper functioning.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    53. Re:So much for... by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Was the jail sentence an overreaction? Perhaps.

      Perhaps?? It was't even a *sentence*. He hasn't even had a trial yet. According to the article the police didn't even question him for a MONTH after they arrested and imprisoned him, and now over 4 months later he's still sitting in jail for a silly comment on a Facebook page. This is not only "overreaction", it's practically Guantanamo, Texas.

      What if someone on slashdot cut and pasted the quote into a post but forgot to use quotation marks? There is no reason to think the kid was any more serious about carrying out the act than that poster would have been, and just as much "proof". Should the then be imprisoned for 4 months without a trial?

    54. Re:So much for... by plover · · Score: 2

      I'd say to look for more of this mistreatment and abuse.

      I doubt anyone in authority (except for some really stupid cops) believes the kid is actually a threat. What the rest of them are trying to do is hold him up as a warning example to all other kids "don't make school shooting jokes or we will jail your ass for as long as we like."

      The authorities in Austin are forgetting two crucial element of this whole process, though. The first is that teenage boys are capable of learning this lesson and applying rational thought to their behaviors - the number of teen drunk drivers and teens killed by texting-while-driving proves this is a futile exercise. The second is that we all have the right to free speech, and that what they're doing is far more illegal than what the kid did; at least one of these a-holes needs to end up in jail for abusing the child's rights.

      --
      John
    55. Re:So much for... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      You really want to live in a country where a bad joke can send you to prison? I wish we had two different countries. One for people like you and one for people like me. You have pretty much every country in the world to choose from, although people are generally nicer and more tolerant in most other countries I have lived in. For people who actually want to live in a free society there is nowhere to go. But if I had a time machine I could stay right where I am and a quasi-free society (as long as your skin wasn't too dark) would come to me. I truly could say ANYTHING I wanted because sticks and stones may break bones, but words are just noises. Not inherently different from the barking of a dog.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    56. Re:So much for... by xmundt · · Score: 2

      Greetings and Salutations;
                Hum...."he's got to learn that you can't say stuff like that and not have any consequences".
      Well, that is a point. However, I would argue that this is an infringement of our first amendment rights of free speech simply because it occurred in a forum where there was a certain expectation of privacy. Now, do not jump all over me about FB...I know how it works. However, it is far different than walking into a movie theatre and yelling "FIRE". That has already been ruled by the SCOTUS as non-protected speech. Totally different case, though.
                No, in my opinion, this was a massive over-reaction by the authorities, and, unless there is more data about the young man, or the situation that adds to the picture, I am going to stick with that opinion. I want to remind you that this is America, where, at one time, a Citizen's Freedom was considered one of the most important rights he or she had. To have it casually taken away because of a thoughtless and meaningless remark craps on the efforts of our Founding Fathers, and, all the brave citizens who have laid down there lives to save this right. The fact of the matter is that it IS punishment for a crime that did not happen. I am not comfortable with the whole kneejerk creation of laws about "terroristic Threats". IN general, it seems as if too many of them are so broadly written that they are little more than excuses for locking up people who express unpopular opinions, or, speak foolishly in the heat of the moment. This kid appears to have spouted off in the heat of the moment, after playing a hack and slash game. According to an interview with his father, he also pays little or no attention to the news, and really does not have the maturity level to understand the impact of his remarks.
                He has been incarcerated for several months now, and, if the judge decides he wants to "make an example" of someone, he could end up in prison for eight years! Eight years in a society rift with felons, being exposed to a lawless but barely controlled environment, where one cannot trust anyone, and, there are many opportunities to learn job skills that do nothing but ensure he will be successful as a parasite on society. Is that what we really want to do? Turn out another predator who, if he was joking about killing kids when he was tossed into prison, will likely NOT be doing so when he gets out? I, personally would rather find another option. For example, I would call for a series of therapy sessions, and, community service, to help build empathy for others.
                YOu may think that his current incarceration is the proper way to handle him. Just remember that the sort of erosion of rights that has happened in the past decade has a tendency to continue and grow. Today it is Justin. Next month it could be you, or one of your family who is caught up in the net.
                Pleasant dreams.
                dave mundt

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
    57. Re:So much for... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      This isn't punishment for a crime he didn't commit

      Yes, it is. Jail time, especially in this amount, for a clearly sarcastic statement in response to what I surmise is a troll on the internet is punishment, quite literally, for not committing a crime.

    58. Re:So much for... by Ost99 · · Score: 2

      Oh -- and about seatbelts: There's no question that they make folks who are belted in safer. However, it's also well-established that they make people who aren't belted in -- such as pedestrians -- less safe: Drivers behave more recklessly when they feel secure, and seat belts and anti-lock brakes provide such security.

      But the overall reduction in fatalities is still reduced significantly.
      Where I live the fatalities pr transported km have been reduced by a factor of 20 for children since before seat belt and child safety seats where required by law. For adults the reduction due to improved cars, airbags etc. is a factor of 4 in the same period.

      We have ~200-250 car related fatalities a year, of which ~20 are pedestrians.
      Of the ~150 car related ones ~50% did not wear a seat belt. 1-2% of the population does not wear seat belts.

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    59. Re:So much for... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      I'd say we're having an argument here and you just said you were going to "break into my house tie me down and rape me". So you're guilty of a threat right? or does context matter?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  2. Sarcasm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A teenager being sarcastic? No way that *never* happens.

    1. Re:Sarcasm by intermodal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is just the perfect thread to remind everyone that text has no tone. And a perfect time to remind everyone that we need to stop letting this kind of nonsense by law enforcement go unchallenged. There's nothing about that statement that implies seriousness, and in fact the eating of hearts makes it even more obvious that there is nothing to justify what they've done here.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  3. Oh, Canada... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Funny

    The statements “lol” and “jk” — meaning “laughing out loud” and “just kidding” — indicate that Justin’s statement was entirely sarcastic, said his father.

    But a Canadian woman who saw the post looked up Carter’s Austin address, determined that it was near an elementary school, and called the police.

    Fucking Canadians...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Oh, Canada... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      so let me get this right. someone from another country some 2K miles away from the situation at hand decided to meddle in something that was not their concern?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Oh, Canada... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What she did was stupid, and the result of being a nosey busybody, none of which is unusual. What the authorities have done is madness and dangerous.

    3. Re:Oh, Canada... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's something this particular American and many more here on /. regularly call for an end to.

    4. Re:Oh, Canada... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      It sounds like that woman needs to be kicked off the internet. At the very least, have her Internetting license revoked.

      The issue isn't nosy ladies who want to poke their nose into stuff ... we'll never get rid of those, any more than you'll get rid of the Westboro idiots who want to protest every funeral.

      The issue is the epic stupidity of the police for not being able to look at this in context and realize he wasn't actually making a real threat.

      It used to be you could make a joke in bad taste and people wouldn't immediately jump to arresting you. But in a world where they need to send cell phone alerts to everyone because of an amber alert, making a joke is now a crime apparently.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Oh, Canada... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      She was stupid to want that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Oh, Canada... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      You tell 'em! Time to show you Yanks you're not the only ones who can act like douchebags!

      Some of us Yanks get regular reminders of that fact. One reminder we Slashdot denizens receive is when a European Slashdotter feels compelled to talk about how much more sophisticated and enlightened they are, when compared to their American counterparts.

      But a Canadian! I expect better from them...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:Oh, Canada... by Smauler · · Score: 2

      there's nothing funny about threatening violence against another human being.

      That's the point - he didn't. He said he was kidding immediately afterwards. He explicitly said he was not going to shoot up a school.

      I'm going to shoot up a school.... jk. Should I be arrested now? Because if the answer is no, you're applying the law differently.

      Besides, threatening violence can be funny. There's loads of comedy based around violence.

    8. Re:Oh, Canada... by OneAhead · · Score: 2

      To be honest, if I were the authorities, I would take his gun away based on the facts as you're telling them. If you're in the habit of getting so drunk you'll pass out on the floor, you have a responsibility to society to have your gun behind a nice childproof lock, or no gun at all. Also, the line between sarcasm and serious is a little bit blurry when the source is piss drunk. Even if it would certainly be sarcasm when coming from the sober version of the person. I'm not saying he'd have done anything stupid, but after displaying such poor judgment, he had it coming. Real-life justice can be just and unfair at the same time.

      But TFA is a completely different case. Unless the police has strong damning evidence TFA failed to mention.

  4. Re:well... by Applekid · · Score: 2

    Here in the US it is impossible to take two steps forward without taking a step and a half back.

    This week has been pretty scary in those regards...

    Week? Last decade, surely.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  5. Uhhh what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A Change.org petition? Do people still think those have any relevance to the people they petition? Has a Change.org petition ever had any meaningful effect?

    1. Re:Uhhh what? by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      Yes, they made national news.

    2. Re:Uhhh what? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Au contraire! These petitions are very valuable to identify malcontents, troublemakers, politically unreliables and other enemies of the state and all that is good and proper. When they begin to round up all these dangerous criminals in the not too distant future, the list generated will come in very handy.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. Another victim of mass shootings by schn · · Score: 2

    On top of the people actually hurt, we are happy to create some more needless suffering.

  7. Appropriate response by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your tax dollars at work here people.

    --
    "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
  8. Old News?? by randomuser2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real shame here is that we're hearing about this now, after the kid's been in jail for 3 months. WTF?

  9. Ugh, this is disgusting. by Yosho · · Score: 5, Funny

    Really, how could he get away with saying something like this:

    eat their still, beating hearts.

    That is entirely the wrong place to put a comma. How could a heart be both still and beating? If you really have to have some kind of punctuation there, "still-beating heart" would be acceptable.

    --
    Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    1. Re: Ugh, this is disgusting. by joocemann · · Score: 2

      are you aiding this guy in his terrorIzIng? ...knock knock...

    2. Re:Ugh, this is disgusting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The article doesn't mention it, but this is actually why he is in prison.

    3. Re:Ugh, this is disgusting. by Megane · · Score: 4, Funny

      (Scene: prison cafeteria)
      "So kid, what are you in here for?"
      "I spelled lose with two 'o's."
      (everyone at the table moves away a few inches)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  10. Re:Ah Crap.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    I was wondering why that black van was parked in front of my house for the past 2 weeks. My wife offered them some coffee, and they just pointed guns at her. Maybe I shouldn't go back home anytime soon.

    Black, huh? In my one experience with asshole government agents doing surveillance, they were rollin' in a gold Escalade.

    FYI no, they weren't watching me, they were using my parking lot to watch the meth cooks in the trailer park across the way. Which I was OK with.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  11. his crime? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    In case anyone wonders what crime he could be accused of with those words, from the article: "Authorities charged him with making a terrorist threat. If convicted, he will face eight years in prison."

    I also found this bit from the article hilarious: "“Justin was the kind of kid who didn’t read the newspaper,” said [father] Jack Carter. “He didn’t watch television. He wasn’t aware of current events. These kids, they don’t realize what they’re doing. They don’t understand the implications. They don’t understand.”

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:his crime? by Andrio · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Authorities charged him with making a terrorist threat. If convicted, he will face eight years in prison."

      Greetings, humans. I am a traveler from another world, trying to study your civilization. You humans are a strange race. In all my travels I've never seen a single race capable of such altruism and beauty as humans. And yet, conversely, I've also never seen a race capable of such evil and ugliness. One wonders your future: will both sides even out, resulting in mediocrity? Or will one side triumph out over the other, either blessing--or cursing--the entire galaxy and all life as a whole?

      Such a peculiar species.

      Another mystery, which has been solved just now, was the bizarre and disproportionate punishments and reactions to certain speech, such as this pre-adult being arrested for an obviously ficticious statement of no malicious intent. But I understand now! If something gets labeled "terrorism", then regular laws and common sense do not apply! Authority figures are allowed to do anything they want, arrest anyone they want, or attack anyone they want. All that is needed is the "terrorist" label.

      I don't see the sense in this personally. In fact, it seems awfully silly. But then again, it's your civilization--you should be free to explore your own destiny. I'm just here to observe. (This statement won't be interpreted as terrorism will it?).

      --
      The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    2. Re:his crime? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Texas law [onecle.com] does calls all threats a "terroristic threat". They differentiate the severity by the class of penalty type ranging from Class B misdemeanor to felony of the third degree. Since the threat was against a school which could be considered a "place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury" it would be a third degree felony punishable by 2-10 years [onecle.com]. I bet that this statute has been on the books for decades and has nothing to do with the recent terrorism problems.
       

    3. Re:his crime? by lgw · · Score: 2

      But the absence of the "reasonable man test" in practice is new.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:his crime? by GreyWanderingRogue · · Score: 2

      Yes, it has been an occurrence over the past couple of decades. However, I think it's more likely to be a reference to Sandy Hook than Columbine. Just like a domestic terrorist bombing would be more likely to be a reference to the Boston Marathon than the Oklahoma City Federal building. Or, if you prefer, a reference to the government spying on its citizens, is more likely to be a reference to Snowden than to J Edgar Hoover. Current events.

  12. Re:Teens and their thousands of Facebook "friends" by Synerg1y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The teen's stupid, the woman's human waste, and... the authorities don't know what jk means. When he gets out I hope they sue for 1st amendment rights violations. Whoever issued that warrant is the real monster here.

  13. Re:Teens and their thousands of Facebook "friends" by Ultra64 · · Score: 2

    "Why should facebook posts by a teen in Austin TX even be visible to a woman in Canada?"

    Why shouldn't they? Unless he marked his post private or friends only, anyone can see it.

    Common sense should tell you that.

  14. Alec Baldwin by transporter_ii · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Contrast that to Alec Baldwin, who was making a direct threat: Alec Baldwin Melts Down On Twitter, Threatens To 'F*ck Up' Reporter

    http://gawker.com/alec-baldwin-melts-down-on-twitter-threatens-to-fuck-604856776

    I wonder if the rich still have their rights?

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    1. Re:Alec Baldwin by operagost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dunno. The elite are confusing me this week. They applaud the shutdown of Paula Deen, a financial and emotional supporter of Obama, because she may have said the "N-word" 20 years ago; but this is like the third time Baldwin has made a bigoted statement and he's still working. I guess it's because the President isn't in any of the groups he's attacked (yet).

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Alec Baldwin by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what's really funny is that Obama, by his own words in autobiography, used racist words and held racist beliefs couple decades ago, moreover went to a church that taught hate and racism from the pulpit. so should Obama lose his job?

    3. Re:Alec Baldwin by KermodeBear · · Score: 2

      It's all about who the mainstream media wants to love or hate that day. Certain groups can do no wrong, while other groups can't breathe without being called a child molesting coke snorter who hasn't paid his taxes.

      --
      Love sees no species.
  15. Re:Teenager? by Ultra64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "is something wrong with a statement "18 year old teenager". I kinda thought "teenagers" ended right about 16, "

    SevenTEEN
    EighTEEN
    NineTEEN

  16. Re:Waste of time petition by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    If someone high up in the federal government puts pressure on a state/county/local government, then that state/county/local government will most likely comply. As it is, it's probably one of many methods they're using to get the word out... I really doubt their thought process is "Whelp, made a change.org petition. Guess that's all I can do."

  17. Sad by space_jake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Land of the sensational, home of the afraid.

  18. Re:Teenager? by Microlith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    a fully functional member of society, who should be a little more responsible with words.

    Yes, he should know when not to say the bad things! You might not know what they are, so be careful and keep your mouth shut!

    Especially when those words are are direct threat to health and lives of others.

    Except it wasn't a direct threat.

    In any case, "j/k" and "lol" does not excuse a sociopath

    He's a sociopath, huh? How'd you figure that one out?

    nor does it guarantee that a mentally ill person will not actually act upon the threat.

    And now he's mentally ill?

    Aside from that, we don't know all the circumstances of the case (except for what one side with vested interest tells us).

    Hasn't stopped you from casting judgement.

    Perhaps such threat does really exist.

    Therefore no amount of abusive, oppressive investigation and imprisonment is too much!

  19. Still Beating Hearts by KWNet · · Score: 2

    In other news Obama is supporting Syrian rebels who actually did eat the heart of their victims. It is Obama's fault for promoting cannibalism.

  20. The revenge of the humorless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is the age when the humorless will finally get their revenge.
    Be aware, we are on to you!

  21. Re:Ah Crap.... by operagost · · Score: 2

    It was probably a confiscated vehicle.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  22. How can you say that?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fallacy: Slippery slope argument.

    How can you say that considering all the bullshit coming out of Washington, DC lately? The government always abusing their power? The NSA was able to get away with it for so long because of abuse of the PATRIOT Act. The TSA is constantly going way beyond their original purpose.

    The Slippery Slope argument is not only true but it is a fact.

    Actually, I can't think of when it's NOT true.

  23. this makes me so mad by Cito · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm gonna go shoot up a school, perhaps bomb wall street and throw M80's at the white house

    jk

    jk = just killing

    1. Re:this makes me so mad by DrGamez · · Score: 2

      Boy I sure hope someone doesn't decide to call the cops on you 4 months from now.

      I type this as a joke but now, looking at this story again... I actually really hope nobody decide to call the cops on you - because apparently what you have typed is now a clear legitimate threat?

      I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

  24. Re:Hes not a "Kid" anymore by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    nonsense, anyone can make a statement like that. something is wrong between your ears, you are the one needing mental evaluation as you are a psychological marshmallow.

  25. Total cop out by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, they are MOST CERTAINLY NOT "damned if they do and damned f they don't". There is a big difference between doing an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION, and arresting someone without any critical thought or due process.

    If any actual critical thinking was applied here, this kid would not be arrested.

    No one has a problem with the police investigating threats. They are not "damned if they do". The problem starts when they just go off arresting people without any thoughts on if, you know, they actually meant whatever was being written.

    1. Re:Total cop out by void* · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They have a responsibility to arrest him and see what his intentions were" is one of the scariest statements I've read in this thread.

      --


      Code or be coded.
  26. Re:Ah Crap.... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had an incident with a black SUV with large, armed men a few years ago. All I did wrong was park in front of the wrong house. Scared the hell out of me, afterwards it just pissed me off that my 4th amendment rights were violated when they searched me and my car with no warrant. They didn't bother asking, they just pointed their tasers at me. Coats read SPD, FBI, and the guy in the ski mask (in July!) had a coat that read DEA. And I'm an old white guy, imagine if I was 20 and black.

    Really lessened my respect for cops. No, fuck calling them cops, here's a handle from my youth - PIGS.

  27. which city? by orgelspieler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So is this kid from Houston or Austin? I've read it both ways. One of my wife's co-workers had a problem with the pizza delivery guy. Her husband made some choice comments to the little jack-ass. Later that night the cops came a-knockin'. Threw the guy in jail. The little bastard pressed charges of making a terrorist threat. This was in Houston. So no big surprise with this story. The only shocking thing is that we didn't hear about it three months ago.

    HPD and friends have a history of shitty things like this. Just last Christmas an off-duty sheriff shot and killed a shoplifter in a Walmart parking lot. He claimed they were trying to run him over. I got pulled over for going 35 in a 35, because it was "almost time" for it to be a school zone. They arrested hundreds at a parking lot for trespassing even though some of them were actually eating at Sonic or shopping at Kmart.

  28. not really in this case... by syntaxterror7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we have a right, the government can not just claim "saftey first!" and subjugate that right, just because they say. If they can then we never had any rights to begin with and we have a larger problem

  29. Whatever happened to Means, Motive, & Opportun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is way too Orwellian and although terrorism is bad, mm'kay, we better find a way to determine the real threats versus the non-real threats. Not too just protect people and their potential futures (which this kid now has none). But, also to not overburden the system with a bunch of gamers saying $h!t.

    I not only hope that they dismiss the case, but, purge his record entirely. He won't even be able to get a public trust clearance with this.

  30. Charged with "making terroristic threat" by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Informative

    For once I actually RTFA, because I couldn't think of a crime this kid could have been charged with. He is charged with "making a terroristic threat."

    Then I wondered what that means, feeling a bit surprised that this kid's actions could be interpreted as a terroristic threat (though, I think we can all agree that sometimes summaries on /. and descriptions in news can be innaccurate, which may very well be the case here), so I found this summary of the common elements of the crime of "making a terroristic threat":

    http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/making-a-terrorist-threat.html

    Basically, my conclusion is that, yes, we should all be afraid--This is getting into "thought crime" territory.

  31. Re:Battling "the man" requires better planning! by Theovon · · Score: 2

    No, not anymore. Remember, we no longer have any right to be forgotten. :) Seriously, though, we not leave an indelible mark on the world when we say things on the internet, and future employers will scrutinize us based on that. There's no getting around that. This is particularly an issue in today's economy with floods of peolpe looking for jobs but so few jobs. Employers look for anything superficial to take you out of consideration, and they're not going to hire someone who did some stupid things as a kid in favor or someone who didn't (as far as they can tell).

  32. Re:Battling "the man" requires better planning! by AmazingRuss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, you're going to have to figure out some way to make kids not be stupid then. After thousands of years of failure, I don't think you will have much luck on that score.

    A more prudent approach would be to make adults accept the fact that kids are stupid.

  33. Why is subject denied bail? by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is this chap still in jail?

    I've read the articles. Maybe my Google-Fu is weak today. But I cannot find anything that explicitly states why either he was denied bail or the bail was set ludicrously high.

    Having to go to court for this is silly enough. But did a judge seriously deem this teen so much a threat as to deny him bail? I'd really like to know because it would seem to me a judge is who should have added some sanity to this issue.

  34. slope produce proven, no fallacy by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slippery slope is a fallacy only when there is no evidence that the slope exists.

    It's well produce proven that government will in fact stretch any powers they are given to the limit. As example, the US federal government was given the power to regulate commerce between the states. Based on that power, they made it illegal to grow vegetables in your home garden, for you to eat. There's nothing interstate about that, and no commerce, but nevertheless govt did that under the interstate commerce clause.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

  35. He did not make any threat, not even in jest. by pupsocket · · Score: 3, Informative

    He wasn't making a threat in jest. He was making a joking interpretation of the word "insane", which had been wrongly applied to him. The point was to underscore the absurdity of the insult. And underscore it he did, with a bright highlighter across the entire state of Texas and the sadistic government operations that go under the banner of "law enforcement" there.