Petition to release Cameron D'Ambrosio(cms.fightforthefuture.org)
cms.fightforthefuture.org
Petition to release Cameron D'Ambrosio
https://cms.fightforthefuture.org/teenager/
77 comments
Brandenburg lays out the incitement exception to the First Amendment. If I understand the allegations correctly (and that's made more difficult by the lack of the actual lyrics) the prosecution claims that the speech would instead be unprotected under the true threat doctrine.
The leading Supreme Court case on that doctrine is Virginia v. Black 538 U.S. 343 (2003)[1], but unfortunately it's neither as clear nor quotable as Brandenburg. Here's the gist of the rule:
"'True threats' encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats "protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence" and "from the disruption that fear engenders," in addition to protecting people "from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur." (internal citations omitted)
[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US...
The leading Supreme Court case on that doctrine is Virginia v. Black 538 U.S. 343 (2003)[1], but unfortunately it's neither as clear nor quotable as Brandenburg. Here's the gist of the rule:
"'True threats' encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats "protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence" and "from the disruption that fear engenders," in addition to protecting people "from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur." (internal citations omitted)
[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US...
It should be noted that it's not the feds holding this kid, it's the police of his small-town Boston suburb. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/cameron-dambrosio-b....
"Police learned of the threats after a student alerted a school official, the Herald writes."
"'When we're just recovering from what occurred in Boston, to make a threat and use what occurred in Boston to enhance your threat, is extremely alarming for us,' Methuen Police Chief Joseph Solomon said at a press conference after D'Ambrosio was apprehended."
Also: http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x326078366/Judge-Hes-a-thr....
"Cameron D’Ambrosio was in Lawrence District Court yesterday in a suit, tie and shackles for a hearing to determine whether and how he could be released from custody after being arrested May 1."
Not that it excuses the local police department's actions, but small-town shit like this has always happened. News of it just moves at light speed now thanks to the internet.
"Police learned of the threats after a student alerted a school official, the Herald writes."
"'When we're just recovering from what occurred in Boston, to make a threat and use what occurred in Boston to enhance your threat, is extremely alarming for us,' Methuen Police Chief Joseph Solomon said at a press conference after D'Ambrosio was apprehended."
Also: http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x326078366/Judge-Hes-a-thr....
"Cameron D’Ambrosio was in Lawrence District Court yesterday in a suit, tie and shackles for a hearing to determine whether and how he could be released from custody after being arrested May 1."
Not that it excuses the local police department's actions, but small-town shit like this has always happened. News of it just moves at light speed now thanks to the internet.
I get two inferences from this:
A) The people of this society are turning into safety-obsessed, overly politically correct weaklings
or
B) The two sides of the political spectrum exist to distract us while they both behind the scenes exist to remove our freedom
Unfortunately, I'd have to say I think both A and B are true.
A) The people of this society are turning into safety-obsessed, overly politically correct weaklings
or
B) The two sides of the political spectrum exist to distract us while they both behind the scenes exist to remove our freedom
Unfortunately, I'd have to say I think both A and B are true.
You missed (C): That the overwhelming majority of politicians in power right now sit on the same side of the political spectrum, and that the debate has not been two sided for a very long time.
only one party believes that an unborn human has rights and protections under the law regardless of whether or not the respective mother wants them.
only one party believes that two adults in love can be married under the law regardless of whether or not the respective people are of the same sex.
if nothing else just those two diametric positions seem to indicate an important and meaningful distinction between the two parties.
only one party believes that two adults in love can be married under the law regardless of whether or not the respective people are of the same sex.
if nothing else just those two diametric positions seem to indicate an important and meaningful distinction between the two parties.
Even such an obvious litmus test as this is imperfect.
According to polling data, over 20% of Republicans self-identify as pro-choice and 34% of Democrats as pro-life.
There are plenty of Republicans who support gay rights. In fact did you know that the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell stems from a lawsuit about the matter filed by gay Republicans? Yes, I know that Obama publicly takes all of the credit for that one, but the bill that he pushed for took effect on September 20, 2011 while Log Cabin Republicans v. United States forced an end to enforcement on July 6, 2011.
There is no simple litmus test. Each party is a coalition of people with enough common interests that they prefer one tent over the other.
According to polling data, over 20% of Republicans self-identify as pro-choice and 34% of Democrats as pro-life.
There are plenty of Republicans who support gay rights. In fact did you know that the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell stems from a lawsuit about the matter filed by gay Republicans? Yes, I know that Obama publicly takes all of the credit for that one, but the bill that he pushed for took effect on September 20, 2011 while Log Cabin Republicans v. United States forced an end to enforcement on July 6, 2011.
There is no simple litmus test. Each party is a coalition of people with enough common interests that they prefer one tent over the other.
Ever wonder if, in fact, those are not honest philosophical disagreements, but just rallying cries to divide the pool of supporters? See also: environmentalism, gun rights, etc.
Two teams play the exact same game on the exact same field. They wear different colors, but that's entirely superficial -- it has nothing at all to do with the game being played.
How can we demonstrate that this is different?
Two teams play the exact same game on the exact same field. They wear different colors, but that's entirely superficial -- it has nothing at all to do with the game being played.
How can we demonstrate that this is different?
And another party entirely believes a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body, and also that gays deserve the right to be married. They also believe in personal freedom and lower spending.
Yes, there are parties other than blue and red.
And to whomever says that a vote for a third party is a vote wasted -- congrats. You're one reason this country is in such a mess.
Yes, there are parties other than blue and red.
And to whomever says that a vote for a third party is a vote wasted -- congrats. You're one reason this country is in such a mess.
Only if you insist on applying the European spectrum to American politics. The thing to keep in mind, and this is absolutely critical, is that Europeans cannot vote in American elections. Therefore, the center of American politics, where practically all American politicians sit, is not in the same place as it is in Europe.
The first part is nothing new, and the second part is standard conspiracist pseudo-thought, which is also nothing new.
Poor kid - his only crime was being a terrible rapper.
and living in USA
The UK is not far behind and using the recent Woolwich incident as an excuse to rapidly catch up: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/26/theresa-may-m...
Can I read the other side of the story somewhere? I feel like I'm not getting the full truth.
You're getting the full truth. The story has been going around for a while now, and it was written about in his local paper.
1) He repeatedly posted anti-government statements on Facebook among other sites
2) He posted supposedly threatening rap lyrics invoking Boston and the White House
3) They arrested him for making terrorist threats
This is what's known as a trial balloon. When fascists silence freedom of speech, they don't do it by rounding up millions, they do it by making a few public examples, and everybody else learns what not to say. Through this process it becomes extraordinarily easy to bring an entire population into compliance with new restrictions on speech, without actually altering any Constitutional amendments.
1) He repeatedly posted anti-government statements on Facebook among other sites
2) He posted supposedly threatening rap lyrics invoking Boston and the White House
3) They arrested him for making terrorist threats
This is what's known as a trial balloon. When fascists silence freedom of speech, they don't do it by rounding up millions, they do it by making a few public examples, and everybody else learns what not to say. Through this process it becomes extraordinarily easy to bring an entire population into compliance with new restrictions on speech, without actually altering any Constitutional amendments.
Why are you so sure there is another side? How many times does the US government have to harass innocent people and ruin their lives before you are willing to accept that this sort of thing is happening every day?
> Why are you so sure there is another side?
I suspect there may be one because the site is one that I've seen lie about the contents of bills while urging people to donate money. This does not instill confidence in their reporting.
I suspect there may be one because the site is one that I've seen lie about the contents of bills while urging people to donate money. This does not instill confidence in their reporting.
Because nearly every supposed story along these lines grossly misconstrues and distorts the underlying situation?
That is only true if you believe that (a) our laws are just, (b) the police only ever make honest mistakes, and (c) that it is right to arrest anyone who breaks the law. In other words, you have to be so far down the right side of the political spectrum that anything short of a fascist tyranny would appear "leftist" by comparison.
The fact that social media sites often link to biased stories that exaggerate a situation has nothing to do with the political leaning of any particular reader. Please leave the personal attacks on your make-believe political opponent to other forums. Neither rayiner nor jrockway said anything that implies they're "to the right" or don't believe abuse of the law ever happens; they just asked for some other reporting of the situation than a petition site for the defendant.
All reporting is biased in some way; reporters have to choose what facts to report about a story and what sort of wording to use when reporting them. What I responded to was a broad claim that nearly every story about abuses of police power is misconstrued and distorted. That is not merely an accusation of bias; it is an accusation of deliberate bias, and it suggests that the police and prosecutors are victims of a hostile media.
There is nothing wrong or outrageous about assuming that someone who makes such claims has far-right political leanings.
There is nothing wrong or outrageous about assuming that someone who makes such claims has far-right political leanings.
Sure. Here's a more complete version of his lyrics: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/05/23/a-methuen...
"[Bleep] a boston bominb wait till u see the [bleep] I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!"
He's talking about beating murder charges too.
I love the 1st amendment, don't get me wrong! This dude was crossing the line though.
"[Bleep] a boston bominb wait till u see the [bleep] I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!"
He's talking about beating murder charges too.
I love the 1st amendment, don't get me wrong! This dude was crossing the line though.
My understanding is that the 1st amendment applies up to the point where a person makes a specific, realistic threat. This hardly seems like a realistic threat -- it is a stretch to even call these lyrics a threat -- and I am having trouble seeing where he made reference to any specific target for this supposed attack. I see typical outrageous rap lyrics here, nothing worth taking serious as either a threat or a music.
By this standard, nearly every rapper from the last 30 years should be in prison on terrorist charges.
[deleted]
As far as I can tell all he's threatening to do is be a really famous rapper, so famous that the Boston Marathon bombings are second-page news in comparison? Are you claiming that his music is so bad that this is some kind of imminent threat? Please explain what line he's crossing and why you think that line has any legal or moral relevance.
people don't normally get brought up on murder charges for rapping, no matter how poorly.
Where is this line exactly? None of that sounds like crossing "the line" to me at all.
Worth clicking through for the hilarious "$89 gangster" pic alone. That's not even enough for a memory upgrade at the Apple Store behind him.
[deleted]
That's cool you guys are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you really want to defend the first amendment, look into Bradley Manning & John Kiriakou.
The unwillingness to defend speech that you do not like renders the first amendment pointless.
http://youtu.be/-wbJTHkdBMc?t=38s
From his rap: "Every day with a life of crime, and I'm always screwing up my life"
Yeah!! That's pretty accurate.
From his rap: "Every day with a life of crime, and I'm always screwing up my life"
Yeah!! That's pretty accurate.
Hmm, free speech in the USA seems to be quite a costly exercise these days.
What we primarily have are hyper aggressive government prosecutors and a culture of militance at the Federal level that has spread to some state governments.
Our government - $6.3 trillion in total expenditures (size of Japan's total economy) - is so massive it's effectively impossible to check its power or keep track of it. Nobody could ever afford to do so, and so the abuse of power sprawls.
Our government - $6.3 trillion in total expenditures (size of Japan's total economy) - is so massive it's effectively impossible to check its power or keep track of it. Nobody could ever afford to do so, and so the abuse of power sprawls.
I'm sure he'd be fine in Europe.
Unless, of course, he "insulted Turkishness" in Turkey or insulted the Holocaust in Germany.
I am sorry....I feel no sympathy.
People need to understand that words have meaning. Just because 'free speech' is protected by the constitution doesn't mean that you can (and should) say any crap, at any time, without thinking about the consequence.
When you say stuff like:
fuck a boston bombing wait till you see the shit I do, Imma be famous for rapping and beat every murder charge that comes across me.
Let's take a step back here, and assume for a minute that he REALLY was planning something - and not just talking tough. If he did it, and he posted this stuff on Facebook, and the FBI didn't do anything about it.....what would the fracas be then?
The FBI is incompetent....they knew he would do it, yet they did nothing, etc, etc, etc.
It's really a lose-lose for them. They can either take preventive measures, or do nothing in the name of 'free speech protection' and risk the chance that this latest bozo is actually going to follow up with action.
Kudos to the FBI for taking this seriously and showing people you can't just say crap like this without any consequence. Living in a free society comes with a cost. Not saying that a recent terrorist event was "nothing" is one of those costs.
It's simple really.
Also, if you think you aren't living in a free society, try moving to Saudi Arabia, many countries in Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, many S. American countries, many eastern european countries, etc.
People need to understand that words have meaning. Just because 'free speech' is protected by the constitution doesn't mean that you can (and should) say any crap, at any time, without thinking about the consequence.
When you say stuff like:
fuck a boston bombing wait till you see the shit I do, Imma be famous for rapping and beat every murder charge that comes across me.
Let's take a step back here, and assume for a minute that he REALLY was planning something - and not just talking tough. If he did it, and he posted this stuff on Facebook, and the FBI didn't do anything about it.....what would the fracas be then?
The FBI is incompetent....they knew he would do it, yet they did nothing, etc, etc, etc.
It's really a lose-lose for them. They can either take preventive measures, or do nothing in the name of 'free speech protection' and risk the chance that this latest bozo is actually going to follow up with action.
Kudos to the FBI for taking this seriously and showing people you can't just say crap like this without any consequence. Living in a free society comes with a cost. Not saying that a recent terrorist event was "nothing" is one of those costs.
It's simple really.
Also, if you think you aren't living in a free society, try moving to Saudi Arabia, many countries in Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, many S. American countries, many eastern european countries, etc.
Also, if you think you aren't living in a free society, try moving to Saudi Arabia, many countries in Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, many S. American countries, many eastern european countries, etc.
Just because other countries are less free hardly proves that we are living in a free society. Maybe there is no free society on Earth?
Kudos to the FBI for taking this seriously and showing people you can't just say crap like this without any consequence.
I can't even begin to understand this mindset. In fact, it makes me a bit sick to hear somebody talk this way. But I suppose you think that if we all just sit back in the shadows, embrace fear, behave and do as the all mighty benevolent government tells us, then everything will be alright.
Just because other countries are less free hardly proves that we are living in a free society. Maybe there is no free society on Earth?
Kudos to the FBI for taking this seriously and showing people you can't just say crap like this without any consequence.
I can't even begin to understand this mindset. In fact, it makes me a bit sick to hear somebody talk this way. But I suppose you think that if we all just sit back in the shadows, embrace fear, behave and do as the all mighty benevolent government tells us, then everything will be alright.
I know it's an unpopular thing to hear....but freedom is a relative concept. You are only as free as compared to someone/something else.
The world is a rough place, and is not a utopia. The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. Ignoring it, doesn't make those dangers go away.
I am not defending everything the gov't does in the name of security, but the fact is that these challenges are not easy. They are doing the best they can.
If they didn't act on it, and this kid did in fact do something, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation now.
The reason these things are so tricky is because many of these attacks happen by 'lone wolves' which are almost impossible to stop.
So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence.
The world is a rough place, and is not a utopia. The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. Ignoring it, doesn't make those dangers go away.
I am not defending everything the gov't does in the name of security, but the fact is that these challenges are not easy. They are doing the best they can.
If they didn't act on it, and this kid did in fact do something, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation now.
The reason these things are so tricky is because many of these attacks happen by 'lone wolves' which are almost impossible to stop.
So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence.
I know it's an unpopular thing to hear....but freedom is a relative concept. You are only as free as compared to someone/something else.
That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Freedom is binary, you are either subject to coercive force being applied to deny you your freedom of choice, or you're not. You can't be "sort of free" any more than you be "sort of pregnant".
The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted.
Aaah, the "they hate us because we're free" bit. I hear that a lot, but haven't heard a plausible justification for it yet. From what I've seen, most of the non-westerners who are out to attack the West are mostly pissed off because we occupy lands they consider holy, invade their countries, depose their elected leaders, stage coups, supply weapons and training to "Group A" this week, then switch to considering "Group A" our enemy when it suits us, and generally meddle in their affairs.
So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence.
No, exactly because I am fully aware of how difficult it is to prevent a single "lone wolf" actor from doing Bad Things. And as regrettable as that is, living in a free society has certain dangers that come along with it. Maybe in some hypothetical Unobtanialand you could impose a draconian dictatorship / totalitarian government sufficient to prevent all violent crime... but would anybody actually prefer to live there? I'm guessing "no".
I don't know what it is with people today... as far as I'm concerned, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just some archaic catch-phrase to study in the history books... it is the very definition of what it means to live. If we aren't free, what else could matter more than trying to become so - even if it means dying in the process?
That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Freedom is binary, you are either subject to coercive force being applied to deny you your freedom of choice, or you're not. You can't be "sort of free" any more than you be "sort of pregnant".
The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted.
Aaah, the "they hate us because we're free" bit. I hear that a lot, but haven't heard a plausible justification for it yet. From what I've seen, most of the non-westerners who are out to attack the West are mostly pissed off because we occupy lands they consider holy, invade their countries, depose their elected leaders, stage coups, supply weapons and training to "Group A" this week, then switch to considering "Group A" our enemy when it suits us, and generally meddle in their affairs.
So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence.
No, exactly because I am fully aware of how difficult it is to prevent a single "lone wolf" actor from doing Bad Things. And as regrettable as that is, living in a free society has certain dangers that come along with it. Maybe in some hypothetical Unobtanialand you could impose a draconian dictatorship / totalitarian government sufficient to prevent all violent crime... but would anybody actually prefer to live there? I'm guessing "no".
I don't know what it is with people today... as far as I'm concerned, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just some archaic catch-phrase to study in the history books... it is the very definition of what it means to live. If we aren't free, what else could matter more than trying to become so - even if it means dying in the process?
> That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Freedom is binary, you are either subject to coercive force being applied to deny you your freedom of choice, or you're not. You can't be "sort of free" any more than you be "sort of pregnant".
Now this is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Any human population with size > 1 has to compromise on this inane idealistic notion of "absolute freedom" for individuals, for the simple reason that your freedom to blast the music at 3am conflicts with my freedom to get some sleep. "Sort of free" is the best we can hope for.
Now this is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Any human population with size > 1 has to compromise on this inane idealistic notion of "absolute freedom" for individuals, for the simple reason that your freedom to blast the music at 3am conflicts with my freedom to get some sleep. "Sort of free" is the best we can hope for.
Exactly...plus....what you consider 'freedom' someone else may consider tyranny, etc.
So it is always relative.
For instance, some people think living with their parents is freedom. Others think it is akin to jail.
It's all relative.
So it is always relative.
For instance, some people think living with their parents is freedom. Others think it is akin to jail.
It's all relative.
for the simple reason that your freedom to blast the music at 3am conflicts with my freedom to get some sleep. "Sort of free" is the best we can hope for.
To be fair, there are semantic arguments about the nature of "freedom" to be had. But I, for one, don't find your example to contradict the notion of freedom as a binary proposition in the slightest. But I wouldn't contend to have a "freedom to blast music at 3am" in the first place, if you take "blast" to mean "play at such a volume that it interferes with the ability of my neighbor to sleep". shrug
To be fair, there are semantic arguments about the nature of "freedom" to be had. But I, for one, don't find your example to contradict the notion of freedom as a binary proposition in the slightest. But I wouldn't contend to have a "freedom to blast music at 3am" in the first place, if you take "blast" to mean "play at such a volume that it interferes with the ability of my neighbor to sleep". shrug
Aaah, the "they hate us because we're free" bit. I hear that a lot, but haven't heard a plausible justification for it yet. From what I've seen, most of the non-westerners who are out to attack the West are mostly pissed off because we occupy lands they consider holy, invade their countries, depose their elected leaders, stage coups, supply weapons and training to "Group A" this week, then switch to considering "Group A" our enemy when it suits us, and generally meddle in their affairs.
I never said "they hate us because we're free". I said that people want to hurt the Western freedoms. Big difference. I am not justifying the actions by any gov't, but ignoring the reality on the ground is equivalent to burying your head in the sand and hoping the bad guys go away.
I don't know what it is with people today... as far as I'm concerned, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just some archaic catch-phrase to study in the history books... it is the very definition of what it means to live. If we aren't free, what else could matter more than trying to become so - even if it means dying in the process?
I hear you, and while I agree with you principle....I suspect that if you were President, you would probably be doing similar things.
The mere fact that Obama, who bashed Bush for doing these same things, has gone further than Bush to "protect the motherland" is testament to the enormous pressures on the office of POTUS to prevent major attacks on the homeland.
Also...."give me Liberty or give me Death" is a nice trope to roll off your tongue when you aren't a victim of terrorism. I am not saying you are (or aren't). But...quite frequently, many people like to cling to theoretical ideals until they are tested (either experiencing some tragic terrorist event, in this case, that could have been "easily" stopped - or being the 1 person responsible for the safety of everybody else).
Either way, these issues are not easy and sticking dogmatically to tropes - despite a changing environment - is not likely a prudent strategy.
I don't like the ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties as the next guy, but at the same time....there must be a line on what people are allowed to do and say.
I never said "they hate us because we're free". I said that people want to hurt the Western freedoms. Big difference. I am not justifying the actions by any gov't, but ignoring the reality on the ground is equivalent to burying your head in the sand and hoping the bad guys go away.
I don't know what it is with people today... as far as I'm concerned, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just some archaic catch-phrase to study in the history books... it is the very definition of what it means to live. If we aren't free, what else could matter more than trying to become so - even if it means dying in the process?
I hear you, and while I agree with you principle....I suspect that if you were President, you would probably be doing similar things.
The mere fact that Obama, who bashed Bush for doing these same things, has gone further than Bush to "protect the motherland" is testament to the enormous pressures on the office of POTUS to prevent major attacks on the homeland.
Also...."give me Liberty or give me Death" is a nice trope to roll off your tongue when you aren't a victim of terrorism. I am not saying you are (or aren't). But...quite frequently, many people like to cling to theoretical ideals until they are tested (either experiencing some tragic terrorist event, in this case, that could have been "easily" stopped - or being the 1 person responsible for the safety of everybody else).
Either way, these issues are not easy and sticking dogmatically to tropes - despite a changing environment - is not likely a prudent strategy.
I don't like the ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties as the next guy, but at the same time....there must be a line on what people are allowed to do and say.
The mere fact that Obama, who bashed Bush for doing these same things, has gone further than Bush...
When did Obama do that?
Obama criticized Bush for Iraq. (Rightly so IMO.) However the war on terror was something he was always supportive of. For example he was one of the relatively few Democrats who voted to give the telecoms retroactive immunity for handing over illegal wiretaps.
Now lots of other liberals criticized Bush on those grounds. But I don't remember Obama doing so. (And if he did, it was probably to throw some red meat. In 2007 when I researched him, Obama was clearly conservative for a Democrat.
When did Obama do that?
Obama criticized Bush for Iraq. (Rightly so IMO.) However the war on terror was something he was always supportive of. For example he was one of the relatively few Democrats who voted to give the telecoms retroactive immunity for handing over illegal wiretaps.
Now lots of other liberals criticized Bush on those grounds. But I don't remember Obama doing so. (And if he did, it was probably to throw some red meat. In 2007 when I researched him, Obama was clearly conservative for a Democrat.
> The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted.
You really swallowed 'they hate us for our freedom' hook, line and sinker, didn't you?
> If they didn't act on it, and this kid did in fact do something, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation now.
You're arguing that we should prosecute thought-crime, because it might result in a real-world crime? Wow.
> So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence.
A classic: making an assumption about how others would feel based on your own feelings.
You really swallowed 'they hate us for our freedom' hook, line and sinker, didn't you?
> If they didn't act on it, and this kid did in fact do something, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation now.
You're arguing that we should prosecute thought-crime, because it might result in a real-world crime? Wow.
> So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence.
A classic: making an assumption about how others would feel based on your own feelings.
Where does this idea come from that the government is a "normally sane" actor, usually acting in the best interest of the people?
If history tells us anything, it is that time and time again, governments are the principal actors in massacres and globe-spanning wars. They are the time-tested source of evil, no doubt about it.
I realize you didn't have a holocaust of your own in the USA, but surely you can learn from history.
If history tells us anything, it is that time and time again, governments are the principal actors in massacres and globe-spanning wars. They are the time-tested source of evil, no doubt about it.
I realize you didn't have a holocaust of your own in the USA, but surely you can learn from history.
> I realize you didn't have a holocaust of your own in the USA
A frightfully common misconception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_Sta...
We have also had a slavery based economy with unspeakable cruelty and concentration camps (though not death camps, to America's credit...) for Japanese Americans during WWII. In more modern times we have additional examples of atrocities, many of them ongoing. If you look outside of the boarders the picture becomes even worse.
Nevertheless, the myth of the benevolent American government persists. Somehow historical atrocities, (relatively) small scale modern domestic atrocities, and atrocities that do not take place within the borders do not count. Current American government being good seems to be axiomatic to a disturbing portion of American citizens. It is assumed that our government is good and from that assumption explanations for everything are developed.
A frightfully common misconception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_Sta...
We have also had a slavery based economy with unspeakable cruelty and concentration camps (though not death camps, to America's credit...) for Japanese Americans during WWII. In more modern times we have additional examples of atrocities, many of them ongoing. If you look outside of the boarders the picture becomes even worse.
Nevertheless, the myth of the benevolent American government persists. Somehow historical atrocities, (relatively) small scale modern domestic atrocities, and atrocities that do not take place within the borders do not count. Current American government being good seems to be axiomatic to a disturbing portion of American citizens. It is assumed that our government is good and from that assumption explanations for everything are developed.
> people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted.
This is common propoganda, but is it true? I have no doubt people dislike our country, but do doubt that it is because of our democratic ideals....
This is common propoganda, but is it true? I have no doubt people dislike our country, but do doubt that it is because of our democratic ideals....
So a kid should spend 20 years in prison? I call complete and total BS. When you can't prove that any actual action might be taken in any way, it is a thoughtcrime. The problem with thoughtcrime is you can't defend yourself. You never know what thought will be labeled a crime today. Nobody is ever safe.
Yes, the US isn't Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, etc. The problem is that it is heading in the wrong direction. We are becoming more hate filled, more suspicious, less empathetic, more of a police state, and more tyrannical. That the first derivative of these things is heading in the negative direction is exceedingly worrying because the acceleration curve tends to steepen, and, as a result, the tyranny grows rapidly.
The lack of empathy you've displayed is exactly the problem. More concern for "just desserts" than for compassion and humanity.
Yes, the US isn't Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, etc. The problem is that it is heading in the wrong direction. We are becoming more hate filled, more suspicious, less empathetic, more of a police state, and more tyrannical. That the first derivative of these things is heading in the negative direction is exceedingly worrying because the acceleration curve tends to steepen, and, as a result, the tyranny grows rapidly.
The lack of empathy you've displayed is exactly the problem. More concern for "just desserts" than for compassion and humanity.
"Kudos to the FBI for taking this seriously and showing people you can't just say crap like this without any consequence. Living in a free society comes with a cost.
...
Also, if you think you aren't living in a free society, try moving to Saudi Arabia, many countries in Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, many S. American countries, many eastern european countries, etc."
I agree that living in a free society comes with a cost, but it's pretty clear that this man's right to free speech is being violated. Also, the fact that there are countries with horrible human rights violations doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the USA is truly a "free society."
...
Also, if you think you aren't living in a free society, try moving to Saudi Arabia, many countries in Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, many S. American countries, many eastern european countries, etc."
I agree that living in a free society comes with a cost, but it's pretty clear that this man's right to free speech is being violated. Also, the fact that there are countries with horrible human rights violations doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the USA is truly a "free society."
* Also, the fact that there are countries with horrible human rights violations doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the USA is truly a "free society."*
A free society is a relative term. Free from tyranny, free from government oppression. Free from gov't interference. Those are all relative to those things happening (or happened) elsewhere. Regardless, I hear you on his rights being violated.
Let's assume for a minute that this was a credible threat and the FBI didn't follow up on it like this. Let's say he did do another bombing and killed 20 people, who would you blame?
A free society is a relative term. Free from tyranny, free from government oppression. Free from gov't interference. Those are all relative to those things happening (or happened) elsewhere. Regardless, I hear you on his rights being violated.
Let's assume for a minute that this was a credible threat and the FBI didn't follow up on it like this. Let's say he did do another bombing and killed 20 people, who would you blame?
>Let's assume for a minute that this was a credible threat
It wasn't, which renders the whole rest of your point moot.
The kind of bad logic you're espousing is exactly what gets us zero tolerance laws, that in which any means are acceptable, no matter how absurd, if what it's preventing is bad enough.
It's outsourcing of judgement, something which has shades of grey, to a law, which has only black and white. This is not EVER a good idea.
How far are you willing to go stop a school shooting? Trample all over the first AND second amendments? Put the TSA at the front entrance of every school?
I find it very.... odd, that someone who can grok the nuance that "freedom" is a relative term is unable to understand that same nuance applies to other things as well.
It wasn't, which renders the whole rest of your point moot.
The kind of bad logic you're espousing is exactly what gets us zero tolerance laws, that in which any means are acceptable, no matter how absurd, if what it's preventing is bad enough.
It's outsourcing of judgement, something which has shades of grey, to a law, which has only black and white. This is not EVER a good idea.
How far are you willing to go stop a school shooting? Trample all over the first AND second amendments? Put the TSA at the front entrance of every school?
I find it very.... odd, that someone who can grok the nuance that "freedom" is a relative term is unable to understand that same nuance applies to other things as well.
> How far are you willing to go stop a school shooting?
From 2010, a story about a child who took a tiny toy gun (part of a lego figure) to school. The principal was going to suspend him, but checked with an official from the local education department.
(http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/big_brouhaha_ov...)
From 2010, a story about a child who took a tiny toy gun (part of a lego figure) to school. The principal was going to suspend him, but checked with an official from the local education department.
(http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/big_brouhaha_ov...)
I would blame the bomber.
You do realize its his local town police holding him and not the FBI right?
[deleted]
As far as I can tell, it was the local PD, not the FBI. Correct me if I'm wrong.
People like you are how rights are lost.
I think we should jail people who say that abuse in the US is fine because we're still better than Saudi Arabia. It's seriously harmful to say nonsense like that, so it's fine to jail people who say it, right?
Threats can be hard to parse because for the speaker, the point can be a very emotional self-expression, rather than some kind of accuracy of intent.
One interpretation is:
I'm going to do something insane that will make the news. It may involve the White House, and it will be worse than the Boston bombing. There will be multiple murder charges against me.
Or: I'm going to publicly murder people in a fashion worse than the bombing.
The last Facebook lyrics before he was arrested:
I’m not in reality, So when u see me [bleeping] go insane and make the news, the paper, and the [bleeping] federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t [bleeping] cry or be worried because all YOU people [bleeping] caused this [bleep].
[Bleep] a boston bominb wait till u see the [bleep] I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!
The whole alternate interpretation (it's an insufficiently specific threat, and primarily rap braggadocio) hinges mostly on the interpretation of the inclusion and placement of the line "I’ma be famous rapping."
The problem is that the kid is clearly talking about himself killing people. The whole rap perspective doesn't fix that sufficiently, especially as Rappers talk about and threaten real murders, as well as merely "bragging" about them.
It certainly seems likely that he's merely trying to "sound like a rapper" rather than threatening actual harm, but the words don't really absolve him of the threats contained therein. It is difficult to parse legally:
1. Legal: It lacks imminence (Brandenburg)
2. Illegal: It does communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence (Virginia v. Black)
3. Legal: It is not directed to a particular individual or group of individuals (Virginia v. Black)
4. Illegal: The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat...a prohibition on true threats...protect[s] individuals from...fear...disruption...[and] the possibility that the threatened violence will occur (Virginia v. Black)
If there was a middle ground legally for people who's intent was less harmful than their speech it would benefit this kid, but how would you prove that? And it would muddy the law's ability to fight against true threats.
One interpretation is:
I'm going to do something insane that will make the news. It may involve the White House, and it will be worse than the Boston bombing. There will be multiple murder charges against me.
Or: I'm going to publicly murder people in a fashion worse than the bombing.
The last Facebook lyrics before he was arrested:
I’m not in reality, So when u see me [bleeping] go insane and make the news, the paper, and the [bleeping] federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t [bleeping] cry or be worried because all YOU people [bleeping] caused this [bleep].
[Bleep] a boston bominb wait till u see the [bleep] I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!
The whole alternate interpretation (it's an insufficiently specific threat, and primarily rap braggadocio) hinges mostly on the interpretation of the inclusion and placement of the line "I’ma be famous rapping."
The problem is that the kid is clearly talking about himself killing people. The whole rap perspective doesn't fix that sufficiently, especially as Rappers talk about and threaten real murders, as well as merely "bragging" about them.
It certainly seems likely that he's merely trying to "sound like a rapper" rather than threatening actual harm, but the words don't really absolve him of the threats contained therein. It is difficult to parse legally:
1. Legal: It lacks imminence (Brandenburg)
2. Illegal: It does communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence (Virginia v. Black)
3. Legal: It is not directed to a particular individual or group of individuals (Virginia v. Black)
4. Illegal: The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat...a prohibition on true threats...protect[s] individuals from...fear...disruption...[and] the possibility that the threatened violence will occur (Virginia v. Black)
If there was a middle ground legally for people who's intent was less harmful than their speech it would benefit this kid, but how would you prove that? And it would muddy the law's ability to fight against true threats.
> It certainly seems likely that he's merely trying to "sound like a rapper" rather than threatening actual harm, but the words don't really absolve him of the threats contained therein. It is difficult to parse legally:
It did not seem that hard to parse, but I am not a lawyer.
> 1. Legal: It lacks imminence (Brandenburg)
No deadlines, so nothing showing anything soon. "I’ma be famous rapping," but first he needs to be a famous rapper which suggest no time soon.
> 2. Illegal: It does communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence (Virginia v. Black)
Threats in the lyrics are no different then threats and comments in many rappers famous and non-famous and more often then not seem non-serious( are not carried through, evidence of planning is lacking etc.)
> 3. Legal: It is not directed to a particular individual or group of individuals (Virginia v. Black)
He only mentions the white house, no specific individuals or groups. If he had mentioned individuals or party or a subcommittee it seems like it would still fall under political free speech which in general is heavily protected because it is supposed to at the root or a foundational pillar of the US's democracy.
>4. Illegal: The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat...a prohibition on true threats...protect[s] individuals from...fear...disruption...[and] the possibility that the threatened violence will occur (Virginia v. Black)
I see no evidence in the rap lyrics I have read that he was trying to cause disruption in the government or to change a group or individuals actions through threat.
> If there was a middle ground legally for people who's intent was less harmful than their speech it would benefit this kid, but how would you prove that? And it would muddy the law's ability to fight against true threats.
Normally in the US, at least, you do not have to prove some one's innocence. The state has the burden of proving guilty.
It did not seem that hard to parse, but I am not a lawyer.
> 1. Legal: It lacks imminence (Brandenburg)
No deadlines, so nothing showing anything soon. "I’ma be famous rapping," but first he needs to be a famous rapper which suggest no time soon.
> 2. Illegal: It does communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence (Virginia v. Black)
Threats in the lyrics are no different then threats and comments in many rappers famous and non-famous and more often then not seem non-serious( are not carried through, evidence of planning is lacking etc.)
> 3. Legal: It is not directed to a particular individual or group of individuals (Virginia v. Black)
He only mentions the white house, no specific individuals or groups. If he had mentioned individuals or party or a subcommittee it seems like it would still fall under political free speech which in general is heavily protected because it is supposed to at the root or a foundational pillar of the US's democracy.
>4. Illegal: The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat...a prohibition on true threats...protect[s] individuals from...fear...disruption...[and] the possibility that the threatened violence will occur (Virginia v. Black)
I see no evidence in the rap lyrics I have read that he was trying to cause disruption in the government or to change a group or individuals actions through threat.
> If there was a middle ground legally for people who's intent was less harmful than their speech it would benefit this kid, but how would you prove that? And it would muddy the law's ability to fight against true threats.
Normally in the US, at least, you do not have to prove some one's innocence. The state has the burden of proving guilty.
Disgusting, also, how can anyone not see how all this shitty things your government does tends to make people like it even less? maybe breeding more 'terrorists'? That's the most recent terrorism problem, no? American citizens turning against their own country or something?
I've got to be honest on one thing here, I don't plan on shutting my mouth about how much I think this things are terrible, and I guess I must also not plan to set foot around there anytime soon, would I get locked up for hearing "Paris - Bring it to ya" and posting it to my Facebook? I certainly COULD, apparently, so I won't be going there... before, I thought it would be nice to know California, where most of my favourite bands come from, go to the Burning Man, do a road trip and know the country and all the famous places but I'm giving those up.
I've got to be honest on one thing here, I don't plan on shutting my mouth about how much I think this things are terrible, and I guess I must also not plan to set foot around there anytime soon, would I get locked up for hearing "Paris - Bring it to ya" and posting it to my Facebook? I certainly COULD, apparently, so I won't be going there... before, I thought it would be nice to know California, where most of my favourite bands come from, go to the Burning Man, do a road trip and know the country and all the famous places but I'm giving those up.
It unfortunate, but the kid is an idiot. how you can post lyrics like that and not think it would set off alarm bells all over the place after a kid (right around the same age did something so terrible) just weeks before is beyond me.
Hopefully he walks but I hope he finds the experience harrowing enough to learn a lesson or two about applying a little common sense to the concept of free speech.
Hopefully he walks but I hope he finds the experience harrowing enough to learn a lesson or two about applying a little common sense to the concept of free speech.
Prior discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5748053
Oh no, white kid from the suburbs too? Time to get outraged.
I think the statement implicit in your post definitely sounds plausible, but is it true? Can you point to an individual from another group being given similar treatment for similar action, where people did not become outraged?
Are you asking me if there are other people who:
(1) make random threats against the POTUS or the WH or other public figures or places
(2) aren't actually a clear and present danger to carry out those threats
(3) that still get the full monty by secret service/fbi/local cops/prosecutors
(4) don't get to the top of HN
Yes, there are probably a lot of people like that. And everyone says the same thing about most of those people, "Christ, what an idiot".
Now I don't want to trivialize that this kid is clearly innocent and the victim of some injustice. I certainly don't think he "deserves it". But there's lots bigger injustice in the world to get outraged about and I think threads like this make decent platforms for calling the HN community out over it's blinders.
(1) make random threats against the POTUS or the WH or other public figures or places
(2) aren't actually a clear and present danger to carry out those threats
(3) that still get the full monty by secret service/fbi/local cops/prosecutors
(4) don't get to the top of HN
Yes, there are probably a lot of people like that. And everyone says the same thing about most of those people, "Christ, what an idiot".
Now I don't want to trivialize that this kid is clearly innocent and the victim of some injustice. I certainly don't think he "deserves it". But there's lots bigger injustice in the world to get outraged about and I think threads like this make decent platforms for calling the HN community out over it's blinders.
His previous documented criminal history of physical violence was used as evidence.
You mean the biting claim in an 8th grade fight and a fight with his sister (who appeared in court in his defense for this current infraction) for which the Police were called (so, a domestic incident in other words). Yes, quite the terrorist - off to Gitmo with him! :-|
This is the way the law works and should not be a surprise. He has an established documented history of harming people and the court failed to see a legitimate artistic merit of his case. Fortunately, he can take these arguments to the appellate court.
Your first claim was documented criminal history. Where is it Sherlock?
Where?
"Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
...In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement."
From Cameron's case: "The Methuen Chief of Police even stated: 'I do want to make clear he did not make a specific threat against the school or any particular individuals...'"
Vague threats are not illegal.