Click to open network menu
Join or Log In
Mobafire logo - Happy Halloween

Join the leading League of Legends community. Create and share Champion Guides and Builds.

Create an MFN Account






Or

Community celebration time! Share a Halloween story or creation to enter our Special Halloween Giveaway! Less than 24 hours remaining. 🎃
's Forum Avatar

Justin Carter

Creator: sirell June 28, 2013 12:55pm
79 posts - page 4 of 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DillButt64
<Editor>
DillButt64's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
4244
Joined:
Aug 3rd, 2012
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 7, 2013 6:47pm | Report
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
Thanks to TheNamelessBard for the signature
DillButt64
<Editor>
DillButt64's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
4244
Joined:
Aug 3rd, 2012
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 8, 2013 3:33am | Report
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 ******ed, 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
Thanks to TheNamelessBard for the signature
Mooninites
<Member>
Mooninites's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
3037
Joined:
Jan 25th, 2011
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 8, 2013 11:55am | Report
Pheyniex wrote:

saying its sarcasm and taking it as a threat either tells me you don't know what "sarcasm" or "threat" are.


legally speaking, a threat is a threat regardless of intention or context

SkidmarkD wrote:

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.


you're just wrong on a number of accounts
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
Pheyniex
<Member>
Pheyniex's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
3876
Joined:
Apr 5th, 2012
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 8, 2013 12:10pm | Report
Mooninites wrote:



legally speaking, a threat is a threat regardless of intention or context


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.


Sig made by Aquilegia
The_Nameless_Bard
<Ancient Member>
The_Nameless_Bard's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
12983
Joined:
Jan 17th, 2011
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 8, 2013 2:39pm | Report
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.
Searz
<Ancient Member>
Searz's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
13418
Joined:
Jun 6th, 2010
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 8, 2013 4:16pm | Report
Threatening language is not protected by the first amendment...the same way hate speech isn't.

I'm sure the first amendment also covers sarcasm.
Quoted:
Sure, he was probably joking...but he's also old enough to deal with the consequences of his stupidity as well.

...wow. I'll let you think about what you wrote for a while..
"I'm ebolakin. You can refer to me as Ebola-Chan." - Vurtax

"I also am Otherkin. Whenever autumn rolls around I can feel my kin-type slowly taking over my body. You must know, I identify as pumpkin. I can control it pretty good most of the time, but when September ends, I just cant hold it in anymore. Whenever Im outside I see my brothers and sisters being chopped into soup, coffee, donuts, cake, drinks, bread - ppl even cut human faces into their skin, making a mockery out of their noble appearance. When I see things like that I cant control my pumpkin urges anymore. My natural instincts kick in. I then sit down motionless, while getting bright orange." - Morgana L
The_Nameless_Bard
<Ancient Member>
The_Nameless_Bard's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
12983
Joined:
Jan 17th, 2011
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 8, 2013 5:38pm | Report
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 **** 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.
sirell
<Member>
sirell's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
5978
Joined:
Apr 30th, 2012
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 8, 2013 8:48pm | Report
Quoted:
Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.

Virginia v Black


As far as I can tell, JC didn't have any intent.

Quoted:
The Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole".

Watt vs US


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.

and sorry...but, no, I don't think jokingly or sarcastically threatening to "shoot up a kindergarten" is a reasonable statement.


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).

but he also chose to make a statement that could fairly easily be construed as threatening within the confines of the internet.


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 **** has definitely been said under the context of sarcasm, jokes and satire all over the internet and people have understood them to be such.
MyRepublic
<Member>
MyRepublic's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
1173
Joined:
Jan 12th, 2012
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 8, 2013 9:46pm | Report
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

"Lol jk"- Jonathan Swift

Thank you Miss Maw, CasterMaster and Arcana3 for the sweet sigs. I'd definitely recommend you to anyone looking for a nice sig.

"But we are stronger creatures than babies, why cant we hunt them?"- Meiyjhe
The_Nameless_Bard
<Ancient Member>
The_Nameless_Bard's Forum Avatar
Show more awards
Posts:
12983
Joined:
Jan 17th, 2011
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep July 9, 2013 9:40am | Report
Quoted:
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.

(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.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You need to log in before commenting.

League of Legends Champions:

Teamfight Tactics Guide