"Planning a crime IS a crime. Discussing a crime IS a crime. Thinking about a crime is NOT a crime."
Assuming you are talking about US law - close - but not quite.
Neither planning nor discussing a crime are a crime.
If you are talking about conspiracy, it stills requires a contructive act on the part of at least one party before a conspiracy is considered to exist.
In this case, there is no conspiracy and the potential crime is that of communicating a threat.
It's protected speech to say "I wish you would get run over by a truck."
To say "I am going to run you over with a truck" is assault.
To actually run someone over is battery.
In the assault example, if there were clear and compelling evidence know to the victim at the time of the communication, that would be a defense. If I say I am going to run you over with a truck, but you know for a fact that I am a quadaplegic, there is no credible threat and no offense. If you find out only later that I have a deathly fear of motor vehicles, this does not mitigate my actions as the threat was credible at the time of the utterence.
The only question I have about the case is how the teacher found out about the icon. If it were in an IM from the student, then the response was correct. If it were disclosed by a third party, I'm not sure how that would play out.
In your scenario of planning a school shooting, I can plan one all day long and no crime has been committed. If I plan it with someone and either of us then goes out and purchases a couple of ski masks to use in the commission of the crime, this is a constructive act that forms the conspiracy. Note that both parties are then guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder even if one party was unaware of the other's action.
I didn't buy either - but a client handed me a supposedly bad V5 which they had replaced with a new unit of what they thought was the same model.
They complained the original unit was losing it's settings, failing to route traffic, etc.
The new unit was a V4 - and exhibited similar routing failures, though not as frequently.
I brought the V5 home - noticed it had old fw - updated it with the latest linksys fw.
It's been happy ever since.
I had never bothered with wireless before, as I have no issue with running cable where I want it, but the evil V5 has performed flawlessly with the new fw.
It sits behind 2 linksys voip routers fed by a 8meg/768k cable connection and my little home network typically is much more heavily loaded than the client's network which is fed by a relatively slow dsl connection.
I checked out the client site with Netstumbler and noticed that there were a dozen other ap's in the area - most running on the same default ch6 as the client. Changed to ch1 and it hasn't hiccupped once in the last 6 months.
Bottom line - the average consumer will be happy with either unit.
The enthusiast who purchased a V5 under the assumption that it would be as hackable as the other models need only to return it and pony up the extra $10-20 for the more hackable model.
If I were buying one with my own cash, I certainly would not have been a skinflint over the slight price increase.
I *may* flash the client's routers with 3rd party fw - but only because a telnet interface would be convenient for me.
While I applaud the efforts of 3rd party fw developers, I have no particular use for them at home.
Slashdot Mirror
I did support for many years, from Win95 to isdn adapters to routers to cell phones.
Sometimes, the temptation is just too great to resist messing with someone's head.
I once told a cell customer to be careful with his FM headset, as listening to stations outside his home area would incur roaming charges.
The tard thanked me for saving him from a large bill.
There are a number of factors that make Offspring's song protected speech.
Being successful musicians, it doesn't take much to establish artistic value.
Further, the lyrics to Kill The President seem to be more an indictment of the false logic of the "anarchists" than anything else.
"Planning a crime IS a crime. Discussing a crime IS a crime. Thinking about a crime is NOT a crime."
Assuming you are talking about US law - close - but not quite.
Neither planning nor discussing a crime are a crime.
If you are talking about conspiracy, it stills requires a contructive act on the part of at least one party before a conspiracy is considered to exist.
In this case, there is no conspiracy and the potential crime is that of communicating a threat.
It's protected speech to say "I wish you would get run over by a truck."
To say "I am going to run you over with a truck" is assault.
To actually run someone over is battery.
In the assault example, if there were clear and compelling evidence know to the victim at the time of the communication, that would be a defense. If I say I am going to run you over with a truck, but you know for a fact that I am a quadaplegic, there is no credible threat and no offense. If you find out only later that I have a deathly fear of motor vehicles, this does not mitigate my actions as the threat was credible at the time of the utterence.
The only question I have about the case is how the teacher found out about the icon. If it were in an IM from the student, then the response was correct. If it were disclosed by a third party, I'm not sure how that would play out.
In your scenario of planning a school shooting, I can plan one all day long and no crime has been committed. If I plan it with someone and either of us then goes out and purchases a couple of ski masks to use in the commission of the crime, this is a constructive act that forms the conspiracy. Note that both parties are then guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder even if one party was unaware of the other's action.
I didn't buy either - but a client handed me a supposedly bad V5 which they had replaced with a new unit of what they thought was the same model. They complained the original unit was losing it's settings, failing to route traffic, etc. The new unit was a V4 - and exhibited similar routing failures, though not as frequently. I brought the V5 home - noticed it had old fw - updated it with the latest linksys fw. It's been happy ever since. I had never bothered with wireless before, as I have no issue with running cable where I want it, but the evil V5 has performed flawlessly with the new fw. It sits behind 2 linksys voip routers fed by a 8meg/768k cable connection and my little home network typically is much more heavily loaded than the client's network which is fed by a relatively slow dsl connection. I checked out the client site with Netstumbler and noticed that there were a dozen other ap's in the area - most running on the same default ch6 as the client. Changed to ch1 and it hasn't hiccupped once in the last 6 months. Bottom line - the average consumer will be happy with either unit. The enthusiast who purchased a V5 under the assumption that it would be as hackable as the other models need only to return it and pony up the extra $10-20 for the more hackable model. If I were buying one with my own cash, I certainly would not have been a skinflint over the slight price increase. I *may* flash the client's routers with 3rd party fw - but only because a telnet interface would be convenient for me. While I applaud the efforts of 3rd party fw developers, I have no particular use for them at home.