NO, If you think just because you are at home then you can say whatever you want, you are extremely mistaken. If you call someone and tell them you will kill them from home, you will be arrested. If you write all over the wall at your house that you will kill someone, you will be arrested, if you write threats to the President and never send them, you will be arrested, I don't know why people think just because you are at home then you can do whatever you want. If it poses a danger to another, no matter where you are, you can get in trouble.
The question has absolutley nothing to do with whether he was at home or at school. If you didn't know, he went to a public school, and guess who is in charge of the public schools, that's right, the government, particularly state and city. So, if he made a threat that the police(also operated by the government) found possibly hazardous, then they do have the right to punish him. It has nothing to do with where he was. Second, had he done this, it had been reported and nothing was done, then one day he shows up and kills the teacher, the end would never be seen as far as lawsuits, not to mention a life or more being loss. Something so graphic and specific as to name a teacher in a picture and then shoot her in the head deserves some attention. The worst that has happened is that the kid and friends now learned the power of words, threat, and the seriousness of crime post-columbine.
To say that an aim icon shouldn't be seen as a threat is contradictory to the arguement made by the family, that he was exercising free speech. If he was trying to exercise free speech, that means he was trying to say something by his "artwork". In saying it as something of that nature, then it should be taken just as seriously as written messages, or others on a different media.
I don't understand any lawyers who would argue the point they tried to argue which is that it was free speech. Unfortunatley, while we are allowed free speech, that does not include violent threats, especially in the world we live in, and anyone who believes they do or should is an idiot. Had we listened to threats from terrosist, thousands would be alive, had we listened to threats columbine students would be alive, threats are a great way to pinpoint students who are troubled, and if nothing else stupid enough to make a violent threat that they should know could get them in trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
NO, If you think just because you are at home then you can say whatever you want, you are extremely mistaken. If you call someone and tell them you will kill them from home, you will be arrested. If you write all over the wall at your house that you will kill someone, you will be arrested, if you write threats to the President and never send them, you will be arrested, I don't know why people think just because you are at home then you can do whatever you want. If it poses a danger to another, no matter where you are, you can get in trouble.
The question has absolutley nothing to do with whether he was at home or at school. If you didn't know, he went to a public school, and guess who is in charge of the public schools, that's right, the government, particularly state and city. So, if he made a threat that the police(also operated by the government) found possibly hazardous, then they do have the right to punish him. It has nothing to do with where he was. Second, had he done this, it had been reported and nothing was done, then one day he shows up and kills the teacher, the end would never be seen as far as lawsuits, not to mention a life or more being loss. Something so graphic and specific as to name a teacher in a picture and then shoot her in the head deserves some attention. The worst that has happened is that the kid and friends now learned the power of words, threat, and the seriousness of crime post-columbine. To say that an aim icon shouldn't be seen as a threat is contradictory to the arguement made by the family, that he was exercising free speech. If he was trying to exercise free speech, that means he was trying to say something by his "artwork". In saying it as something of that nature, then it should be taken just as seriously as written messages, or others on a different media. I don't understand any lawyers who would argue the point they tried to argue which is that it was free speech. Unfortunatley, while we are allowed free speech, that does not include violent threats, especially in the world we live in, and anyone who believes they do or should is an idiot. Had we listened to threats from terrosist, thousands would be alive, had we listened to threats columbine students would be alive, threats are a great way to pinpoint students who are troubled, and if nothing else stupid enough to make a violent threat that they should know could get them in trouble.