Justin Carter

[quote=DillButt64]a girl at my school posted on facebook "omg all this school work is stressing me out im just gonna blow up the school!" she got a month of out of school suspension even though it was a joke it was funny cuz we literally had 2 other bomb threats that school year alone[/quote]

[quote=DillButt64]not to be mean but anyone that thinks the freedom of speech means they can say whatever they want and get away with it is retarded, im pretty sure when the founding fathers created the constitution they were thinking common sense would be a gene that got passed down a bit more frequently that it actually did[/quote]

[quote=Mooninites][quote=Pheyniex] saying its sarcasm and taking it as a threat either tells me you don't know what "sarcasm" or "threat" are. [/quote] legally speaking, a threat is a threat regardless of intention or context [quote=skidmarkD] Actually, no. Freedom of speech is just that, being free to say whatever you want. Consoring is always subjective. ALWAYS. Censoring is stopping someone saying something you don't like. This is what they wanted to prevent. They wanted to prevent one to silence another because he didn't like what the other was saying. This is what allows the WBC to continu their protests. He made a joke. Humor is highly subjective. There is absolutely no reason for the guy to be arrested. None at all. There is no justification whatsoever for arresting him. [/quote] you're just wrong on a number of accounts[/quote]

[quote=Pheyniex][quote=Mooninites] [quote=Pheyniex] saying its sarcasm and taking it as a threat either tells me you don't know what "sarcasm" or "threat" are. [/quote] legally speaking, a threat is a threat regardless of intention or context [/quote] trying to define something with itself? i had that last time someone came to my door to talk to me about god... you should prove your point by explaining why sarcasm is a threat, regarding showing off intentions sarcasm is actually ridicularizing. threfore the threat is void. context matters. noone says "i'm going to kill x and do y" out of the blue, for no reason. sarcasm uses context and the intention is clear. it's not a legal problem, it's a problem of interpretation. void threat for those who can understand it as sarcasm.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]He's actually right though. Threatening language is not protected by the first amendment...the same way hate speech isn't. Whether the threat was "a joke" or not (which, btw, it's disputed whether he actually said lol jk or not) doesn't matter, because, as has been stated previously, the intent and context are moot. Sure, he was probably joking...but he's also old enough to deal with the consequences of his stupidity as well.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=The_Nameless_Bard] Threatening language is not protected by the first amendment...the same way hate speech isn't.[/quote] I'm sure the first amendment also covers sarcasm. [quote]Sure, he was probably joking...but he's also old enough to deal with the consequences of his stupidity as well.[/quote] ...wow. I'll let you think about what you wrote for a while..[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]It does not in terms of threatening language, the fact that he meant it sarcastically does not condone it...if a guy "sarcastically" says he's gonna go out, "get him a gun", and "shoot up one of them homo bars" that statement is not protected by the first amendment due to its innately threatening nature. He can be detained while it is being investigated and even put on trial for saying such if there is sufficient reason to believe he may cause harm to anyone. and sorry...but, no, I don't think jokingly or sarcastically threatening to "shoot up a kindergarten" is a reasonable statement. Do I think the punishment is reasonable? not entirely, but he also chose to make a statement that could fairly easily be construed as threatening within the confines of the internet. The fact that people are willing to condone such a statement really shows how desensitized we all are to violence.[/quote]

[quote=sirell][quote]Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the [b][i]intent[/i][/b] of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected. [h4]Virginia v Black[/h4][/quote] As far as I can tell, JC didn't have any intent. [quote]The Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious [b][i]hyperbole[/i][/b]". [h4]Watt vs US[/h4][/quote] This implies that sarcasm is actually protected in terms of precedent. Actually, if you can take 'hyperbole' to mean 'sarcam' (which contextually, you can), then the First Amendment still protects him in terms of precedent. I don't even think the Canadian woman who reported him took it seriously. I think she just saw something which offended her sensitivities and sensibilities. [quote=The_Nameless_Bard]and sorry...but, no, I don't think jokingly or sarcastically threatening to "shoot up a kindergarten" is a reasonable statement.[/quote] None of us are saying that what he did was reasonable. We are not 'condoning' his statement, Jesus-f'ing-Christ. I'm pretty sure we all think it was a dumbass thing to do (especially in retrospect) and said in extremely bad taste but 1) nobody would have expected it to be taken this seriously and 2) the reaction to this case is infinitely more stupid. $500K bail? 8 years max if found guilty? What? Are you kidding me? After what this might do to the 18-year-old's life, I wouldn't be 95% surprised if he actually ended up going to a school and shooting it up, minus the eating still-beating hearts bit. And to be honest, I would think that a slightly perverse but oddly fitting instance of karma for the state (I sincerely hope it doesn't happen, though, don't get me wrong. Twouldn't be fair for all the little kids to die to prove a point). [quote=The_Nameless_Bard]but he also chose to make a statement that could fairly easily be construed as threatening within the confines of the internet.[/quote] Gonna have to disagree. It was fairly obviously a joke given the context, because 1) it was on the internet, where death threats shouldn't really be taken seriously, especially on Facebook, and given the rest of the context, in particular the context of the person, 2) he stated or at least implied immediately afterwards that he was joking. 3) Worse shit has definitely been said under the context of sarcasm, jokes and satire all over the internet and people have understood them to be such.[/quote]

[quote=MyRepublic]http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html "Lol jk"- Jonathan Swift[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote]I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten And watch the blood of the innocent rain down And eat the beating heart of one of them.[/quote] (the actual statement that was made) He chose to make an incredibly insensitive "joke" only a couple months after the Sandy Hook shooting, so I'm not particularly surprised they would take it seriously and choose to investigate it completely. It is also somewhat disputed whether he actually said "lol jk" or not, as his father is the only one who has stated he said that. You have to realize that some of these threats are very serious, even if the person who made them tries to claim they were a joke afterwards. The investigation is the main reason he is currently being detained..and if there is truly no reason to believe his threat was serious, his sentence will likely be short or he may not even be found guilty in the first place.[/quote]