Your example has nothing to do with this scenario. If I point a gun at a real person rather than a nintendo gun at a TV screen, same completely different situation.
The First Amendment protects a wide swath of expression that many of us may find offensive, distasteful or even repugnant. The government cannot silence and punish speakers just because it dislikes their expression. Oftentimes, the First Amendment protects the flag-burner, the tobacco advertiser, the pornographer and the hateful speaker. However, First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech. There are several unprotected categories of expression, including but not limited to fighting words, obscenity, extortion, perjury and false advertising. Another unprotected category is the true threat. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to walk up to someone else and say “I am going to kill you” or to announce in an airport, “I am going to bomb this plane.”
Because that is the type of comment that gets made around the globe untold times every day. A statistically insignificant portion of them actually mean it.
citation please
You simply can't expect police to investigate every time someone makes these types of remarks.
yes, we can. says the well-established law of the land i live in
There's a clear, common sense difference between homicidal hostility and frustrated venting.
you're right, it's something like the difference between saying "i'm so frustrated" and "i am going to kill someone"
Otherwise, diverting resources to investigate such things to other, more fruitful goals would surely bring a greater benefit to society.
i think a fruitful goal of society would be punishing those who make threats of violence, thereby minimizing violence in society, which is a better society. some of those threats are not real. for those dumbasses, they will have learned a valuable lesson about the difference between free speech and threatening someone else's freedom to life and limb
but you're not arguing with me. you're just shooting the messenger. you're arguing with well-established law of your country, which i am fruitlessly attempting to interpret for someone who refuses to understand logic and reason on the topic:
The First Amendment protects a wide swath of expression that many of us may find offensive, distasteful or even repugnant. The government cannot silence and punish speakers just because it dislikes their expression. Oftentimes, the First Amendment protects the flag-burner, the tobacco advertiser, the pornographer and the hateful speaker. However, First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech. There are several unprotected categories of expression, including but not limited to fighting words, obscenity, extortion, perjury and false advertising. Another unprotected category is the true threat. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to walk up to someone else and say “I am going to kill you” or to announce in an airport, “I am going to bomb this plane.”
i clearly have a better grasp on the concept of free speech than you do
but i'm not going to argue with you anymore, you are clearly a crackpot
rather than argue with me, whom you envision as some avatar of fascism when in reality everything i say comes from a love of and better understanding of freedom than you, you should try arguing against the laws of your own country:
grow a brain, halfwit. i better understand freedoms, my understanding protects freedoms better than you (such as the freedom to life and limb), and i have a better grasp on the founding fathers true intent
but, as i said, i'm not going to argue with you anymore
because you're just shooting the messenger
you're not arguing with me. you're arguing with the established law and the intents of the founding fathers of your own country
You use your observational powers to determine whether, when people say things like this online, they're serious.
oh, my mind reading powers
(!?)
you can't make the determination you say. no one can
the burden is not on law enforcement or the recipients of threats to guess whether someone is joking or not
the burden is on free men to act responsibly and not make threats of violence, joke or not
because, get this: threats of real world violence is not funny, and is never funny
because people actually do get threatened and then killed by unhinged individuals. take the unhinged individuals words out of context, and they can indeed seem funny and ridiculous. because people with a demented state of mind are indeed ridiculous and way out there
a guy calls himself the joker, dyes his hair red, goes to opening night of a batman movie, and shoots up the crowd
i am merely describing to you what the majority of your fellow citizens believe, what decades of judges and juries have said, and what logic and reason say about the natural balance between freedoms
how am i a tyrant for, in my love of freedom, understanding when people's freedoms are impinged by other's threats?
and what kind of person reaches for a gun when they feel theoretically threatened?
i think this is how a tyrant rules, with the gun and the threat and fear of the gun
and prove to the authorities and to me that you are a dumb shit for not understanding the difference between free protected speech and threats of real world violence
every word i wrote is in the name of LOVE OF FREEDOM
what spastic nitwits like you without a brain dont understand is that the limitations on free speech are NATURAL: the rights and freedoms of others
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to smoke is limited by the other guy's freedom to breathe clean air on the side walk next to me
and we, freedom loving people, task our government with punishing those dumbasses who out of evil or stupidity, think freedom means freedom from responsibility, and impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. for example: using "free" speech to cast fear and limit other peoples free mobility by indicating their freedom to life and limb is going to be removed
free speech has never, and will never protect threats of real world violence. and this is 100% correct and 100% in line with the values of a freedom loving society of free men
really!
says the majority of your fellow citizens, says judges and juries throughout the history of this nation, says logic and reason
goose stepping nazis are not out to detroy your freedom for no good reason, you dumb shit. your fellow FREEDOM LOVING citizens want those idiots who impinge on the freedoms of others removed from society
if we assume he is joking and people get killed, we have erred
if we assume he was serious and he was joking, the worst we have done is taught a dumbass a valuable lesson about the natural limits on free speech: when they impinge on the freedom to life and limb of others
the freedom loving common man speaks, and stands against those who threaten to remove the freedom to life and limb by hiding behind a bad interpretation of what free speech means
the limitations on free speech are NATURAL: the rights and freedoms of others
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to smoke is limited by the other guy's freedom to breathe clean air on the side walk next to me
and we, freedom loving people, task our government with punishing those dumbasses who out of evil or stupidity, think freedom means freedom from responsibility, and impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. for example: using "free" speech to cast fear and limit other peoples free mobility by indicating their freedom to life and limb is going to be removed
grow up, you spastic nitwits
free speech has never, and will never protect threats of real world violence. and this is 100% correct and 100% in line with the values of a freedom loving society of free men
it stops when you are able to express your opinions on the internet without threatening real world violence
if you threaten REAL WORLD VIOLENCE: fuck you, throw your ignorant ass in jail
as it should be. grow up and understand why
free speech has never, and will never, protect threats of real world violence. never, in any society, ESPECIALLY a freedom loving society because threats of real world violence casts fear and limits other peoples freedom by altering their behavior because somebody has indicated they intend to limit their freedom to life and limb. it's just a joke? how do you know? everything is a joke?
the greatest lesson some people need to learn about freedom is that your freedoms are not really limited by government actions (in a society that values freedom, there are plenty of authoritarian vile governments that do limit freedoms), but is limited by other people's freedoms. natural limitations on freedom. some people have a hard time grasping this concept
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to smoke is limited by the other guy's freedom to breathe clean air on the side walk next to me
see? natural limits on freedom
all of these situations are usually cast by ignorants in the realm of evil fascist freedom destroying government. "blah blah fascist government doesn't want me to smoke blah blah blah!" no: government has nothing to do with it. well, government does has something to do with it: judges and juries have decided that some forms of speech: threat of real world violence and libel, for example, are not really free. not because goose stepping nazis are out to remove your freedoms for no good reason, but because some form of freedoms naturally impede on the rights and freedoms of others. and therefore, freedom loving people have tasked their government to punish those dumbasses who out of evil or stupidity remove other people's freedoms. such as casting fear by threatening freedom to life and limb
everyone know this quote, and it is misused and out of context:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin
this quote doesn't apply here because it connotes, in this context, the idea that someone's freedom is being removed, in vacuum, without any other considerations
but there are other considerations: other people's freedoms
an accurate understanding of this situation is to see that freedom to speech is being balanced against freedom of life and limb. as is the case with many laws that "limit freedoms" "for no good reason" but is really protecting the freedoms of others from dumbasses who think freedom means freedom from responsibility
this is the accurate quote to think of in this context:
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
Slashdot Mirror
In a world where women are still treated like cattle, the idea of a men's rights movement: this is a joke, right?
The Duke Nukem of markup languages
well, you for one are stigmatized for your own unique reason
valuable scientific research
Your example has nothing to do with this scenario. If I point a gun at a real person rather than a nintendo gun at a TV screen, same completely different situation.
1. shut up
2. educate yourself. here's some intellectual charity for you, start here:
http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases
3. then open your ignorant piehole
stop shooting the messenger, stop acting like a teenager throwing a temper tantrum because life is a little more complicated than you think it is
i'm not your problem. the reality of well-established case law is
grow the fuck up child
and 100 percent of well established law say threats of violence are not protected speech
it does not matter if they follow through or not
freedom of life and limb is threatened, fear is induced, freedom of mobility is impinged
The harm against freedom is already done
no you don't understand
out of willful ignorance or stupidity
your made up reality, actual reality be damned
you're just a crackpot shooting the messenger
stop calling me a fascist like an immature teenager whose dad told him he can't have the car keys, and try to understand the laws of your own country
i'm not arguing with you, because you're not arguing with me. you're arguing with the founding fathers and the laws of your own country:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats
do you understand?
do you really?
Because that is the type of comment that gets made around the globe untold times every day. A statistically insignificant portion of them actually mean it.
citation please
You simply can't expect police to investigate every time someone makes these types of remarks.
yes, we can. says the well-established law of the land i live in
There's a clear, common sense difference between homicidal hostility and frustrated venting.
you're right, it's something like the difference between saying "i'm so frustrated" and "i am going to kill someone"
Otherwise, diverting resources to investigate such things to other, more fruitful goals would surely bring a greater benefit to society.
i think a fruitful goal of society would be punishing those who make threats of violence, thereby minimizing violence in society, which is a better society. some of those threats are not real. for those dumbasses, they will have learned a valuable lesson about the difference between free speech and threatening someone else's freedom to life and limb
but you're not arguing with me. you're just shooting the messenger. you're arguing with well-established law of your country, which i am fruitlessly attempting to interpret for someone who refuses to understand logic and reason on the topic:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats
i clearly have a better grasp on the concept of free speech than you do
but i'm not going to argue with you anymore, you are clearly a crackpot
rather than argue with me, whom you envision as some avatar of fascism when in reality everything i say comes from a love of and better understanding of freedom than you, you should try arguing against the laws of your own country:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats
grow a brain, halfwit. i better understand freedoms, my understanding protects freedoms better than you (such as the freedom to life and limb), and i have a better grasp on the founding fathers true intent
but, as i said, i'm not going to argue with you anymore
because you're just shooting the messenger
you're not arguing with me. you're arguing with the established law and the intents of the founding fathers of your own country
oh, my mind reading powers
(!?)
you can't make the determination you say. no one can
the burden is not on law enforcement or the recipients of threats to guess whether someone is joking or not
the burden is on free men to act responsibly and not make threats of violence, joke or not
because, get this: threats of real world violence is not funny, and is never funny
because people actually do get threatened and then killed by unhinged individuals. take the unhinged individuals words out of context, and they can indeed seem funny and ridiculous. because people with a demented state of mind are indeed ridiculous and way out there
a guy calls himself the joker, dyes his hair red, goes to opening night of a batman movie, and shoots up the crowd
it sounds like a joke, doesn't it?
the chinese and religious fundamentalist use threats of violence to impinge on natural freedoms
which i stand against
which is what i am standing against when someone threatens freedom to life and limb
free speech never included, and will never include the "right" to threaten the freedom to life and limb of others
everything i say flows from a love of freedom
the guy threatened violence on line
the guy's words are evidence that he made a threat of violence
burden of evidence met
the funniest part is when the troll accuses others of his own behavior
i am merely describing to you what the majority of your fellow citizens believe, what decades of judges and juries have said, and what logic and reason say about the natural balance between freedoms
how am i a tyrant for, in my love of freedom, understanding when people's freedoms are impinged by other's threats?
and what kind of person reaches for a gun when they feel theoretically threatened?
i think this is how a tyrant rules, with the gun and the threat and fear of the gun
the seed of tyranny is in you, friend, not me
"clearly do not intend to follow through on what they are saying"
how do you know that?
go ahead
and prove to the authorities and to me that you are a dumb shit for not understanding the difference between free protected speech and threats of real world violence
what are you talking about?
fuck you you ignorant smearmonger
every word i wrote is in the name of LOVE OF FREEDOM
what spastic nitwits like you without a brain dont understand is that the limitations on free speech are NATURAL: the rights and freedoms of others
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to smoke is limited by the other guy's freedom to breathe clean air on the side walk next to me
and we, freedom loving people, task our government with punishing those dumbasses who out of evil or stupidity, think freedom means freedom from responsibility, and impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. for example: using "free" speech to cast fear and limit other peoples free mobility by indicating their freedom to life and limb is going to be removed
free speech has never, and will never protect threats of real world violence. and this is 100% correct and 100% in line with the values of a freedom loving society of free men
really!
says the majority of your fellow citizens, says judges and juries throughout the history of this nation, says logic and reason
goose stepping nazis are not out to detroy your freedom for no good reason, you dumb shit. your fellow FREEDOM LOVING citizens want those idiots who impinge on the freedoms of others removed from society
how do you define credible?
a guy threatens to kill people online
do we assume he is joking?
do we assume he is making a genuine threat?
if we assume he is joking and people get killed, we have erred
if we assume he was serious and he was joking, the worst we have done is taught a dumbass a valuable lesson about the natural limits on free speech: when they impinge on the freedom to life and limb of others
the freedom loving common man speaks, and stands against those who threaten to remove the freedom to life and limb by hiding behind a bad interpretation of what free speech means
what a moron
the limitations on free speech are NATURAL: the rights and freedoms of others
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to smoke is limited by the other guy's freedom to breathe clean air on the side walk next to me
and we, freedom loving people, task our government with punishing those dumbasses who out of evil or stupidity, think freedom means freedom from responsibility, and impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. for example: using "free" speech to cast fear and limit other peoples free mobility by indicating their freedom to life and limb is going to be removed
grow up, you spastic nitwits
free speech has never, and will never protect threats of real world violence. and this is 100% correct and 100% in line with the values of a freedom loving society of free men
then why does a completely different subject have anything to do with this subject
it stops when you are able to express your opinions on the internet without threatening real world violence
if you threaten REAL WORLD VIOLENCE: fuck you, throw your ignorant ass in jail
as it should be. grow up and understand why
free speech has never, and will never, protect threats of real world violence. never, in any society, ESPECIALLY a freedom loving society because threats of real world violence casts fear and limits other peoples freedom by altering their behavior because somebody has indicated they intend to limit their freedom to life and limb. it's just a joke? how do you know? everything is a joke?
the greatest lesson some people need to learn about freedom is that your freedoms are not really limited by government actions (in a society that values freedom, there are plenty of authoritarian vile governments that do limit freedoms), but is limited by other people's freedoms. natural limitations on freedom. some people have a hard time grasping this concept
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to smoke is limited by the other guy's freedom to breathe clean air on the side walk next to me
see? natural limits on freedom
all of these situations are usually cast by ignorants in the realm of evil fascist freedom destroying government. "blah blah fascist government doesn't want me to smoke blah blah blah!" no: government has nothing to do with it. well, government does has something to do with it: judges and juries have decided that some forms of speech: threat of real world violence and libel, for example, are not really free. not because goose stepping nazis are out to remove your freedoms for no good reason, but because some form of freedoms naturally impede on the rights and freedoms of others. and therefore, freedom loving people have tasked their government to punish those dumbasses who out of evil or stupidity remove other people's freedoms. such as casting fear by threatening freedom to life and limb
everyone know this quote, and it is misused and out of context:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin
this quote doesn't apply here because it connotes, in this context, the idea that someone's freedom is being removed, in vacuum, without any other considerations
but there are other considerations: other people's freedoms
an accurate understanding of this situation is to see that freedom to speech is being balanced against freedom of life and limb. as is the case with many laws that "limit freedoms" "for no good reason" but is really protecting the freedoms of others from dumbasses who think freedom means freedom from responsibility
this is the accurate quote to think of in this context:
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
grow up slashdot