• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet

Excon said:
And I was pointing out that your example doesn't fit because of the propensity of actual harm to occur, which is the reason that limit on speech is in place, does not exist in simply making threatening speech. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Which has exactly nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, which is that words have to be considered in context.
 
Redress said:
Which has exactly nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, which is that words have to be considered in context.
Click to expand...
:naughty
It puts your point into proper context as having no meaning to "threats".
 
Excon said:
:naughty
It puts your point into proper context as having no meaning to "threats".
Click to expand...

It has become abundantly clear you are talking about something entirely different from what I was. Best bet is to just let it go, as you are not going to take the effort to read what I wrote in the context I wrote it.
 
j-mac said:
Not sure what you all think of this, but my personal feeling is that the authorities should stay the hell out of monitoring what people say on mediums like Facebook unless they have some kind of specific threat to follow up...As much as I disagree with bullies, and thugs on the internet, I must defend their right to free speech because someday it may be extended further down in ugly ways...Thoughts?
Click to expand...

So... authorities should stay away from what people say ... when they're threatening violence against others? You don't have a right to threaten anyone.
 
Redress said:
It has become abundantly clear you are talking about something entirely different from what I was. Best bet is to just let it go, as you are not going to take the effort to read what I wrote in the context I wrote it.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, your point was irrelevant as shown.

If you want to let it go, do so. You do not need to talk about it to do it.
 
Excon said:
:naughty
No, your point was irrelevant as shown.

If you want to let it go, do so. You do not need to talk about it to do it.
Click to expand...

No, my point was relevant to what I was discussing with another person, and relevant to this case in that way. Just accept you are not seeing the point, that you do not understand it, and that you cannot actually address it.
 
Redress said:
No, my point was relevant to what I was discussing with another person, and relevant to this case in that way. Just accept you are not seeing the point, that you do not understand it, and that you cannot actually address it.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't, as already shown.
 
Redress said:
Well no. What has been shown is my point went over your head.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, actually what was shown was that your point was irrelevant as they are not even close in comparison.
And apparently you are unable to comprehend that.
 
Hatuey said:
So... authorities should stay away from what people say ... when they're threatening violence against others? You don't have a right to threaten anyone.
Click to expand...

You want the government monitoring what you say in places like that? What's to stop them from monitoring you in here?
 
If this is the case I remember, the government wasn't "monitoring" anything. Correct me if I'm wrong but this case started with the individual left his ex-wife "friended" on Facebook and then posted the content in question. The wife then contacted authorities because she felt threatened. Not a case of the government "monitoring" Facebook, but exactly what you requested - a response to a specific perceived threat.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
If this is the case I remember, the government wasn't "monitoring" anything. Correct me if I'm wrong but this case started with the individual left his ex-wife "friended" on Facebook and then posted the content in question. The wife then contacted authorities because she felt threatened. Not a case of the government "monitoring" Facebook, but exactly what you requested - a response to a specific perceived threat.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Yes, that is one of the examples, however, I think now that it is in the courts it has morphed.
 
j-mac said:
You want the government monitoring what you say in places like that? What's to stop them from monitoring you in here?
Click to expand...

You don't realize that nobody was monitored right? It's almost like you don't know what happened in the case.
 
j-mac said:
What in your mind constitutes a threat?
Click to expand...

In my mind? Lol:

Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

The Ninth Circuit concluded that a “true threat” is “a statement which, in the entire context and under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted by those to whom the statement is communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon that person.”995 “It is not necessary that the defendant intend to, or be able to carry out his threat; the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly communicate the threat.”996
Click to expand...

A wife being threatened violence by a husband and then that husband carrying out the threat a hurting/murdering his wife? Unheard of. :roll:
 
Hatuey said:
In my mind? Lol:

Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia



A wife being threatened violence by a husband and then that husband carrying out the threat a hurting/murdering his wife? Unheard of. :roll:
Click to expand...

I don't know where your snark is coming from, maybe your just a miserable individual, who knows? But that's what this court is deciding now is it not? What constitutes a threat?
 
j-mac said:
I don't know where your snark is coming from, maybe your just a miserable individual, who knows? But that's what this court is deciding now is it not? What constitutes a threat?
Click to expand...

As such, I have stated what my idea of a threat constitutes. That you believe you have a right to threaten individuals is another matter entirely. Clue: You don't.
 
Hatuey said:
As such, I have stated what my idea of a threat constitutes. That you believe you have a right to threaten individuals is another matter entirely. Clue: You don't.
Click to expand...

Point out where I said that?
 
j-mac said:
Point out where I said that?
Click to expand...

Do you understand what this case is about? You just stated this case was about free speech. Threats aren't covered under free speech.
 
Hatuey said:
Do you understand what this case is about? You just stated this case was about free speech. Threats aren't covered under free speech.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand...Still waiting for you to point out where I said what you just said I did....Otherwise admit you just made it up.
 
j-mac said:
Yes, I understand...Still waiting for you to point out where I said what you just said I did....Otherwise admit you just made it up.
Click to expand...

Eh, the fact that you're defending the words of this person because you believe they have a right free speech show you actually think threats fall under free speech. Own your statements. :)
 
j-mac said:
You want the government monitoring what you say in places like that? What's to stop them from monitoring you in here?
Click to expand...

The government found the posts in response to a complaint made to them. Since, under the commonly used standard, those posts reported to them could be considered complaints, they continued to investigate. Do byou somehow think the police should not be able to check facebook in response to a complaint of threats from some one?
 
Redress said:
The government found the posts in response to a complaint made to them. Since, under the commonly used standard, those posts reported to them could be considered complaints, they continued to investigate. Do byou somehow think the police should not be able to check facebook in response to a complaint of threats from some one?
Click to expand...

He's just anti-government. He doesn't really understand what this case is about or how it developed. At the center of it is whether he meant to carry out the act. To be honest, I don't think it makes a difference because the context for any sort of artistic expression simply wasn't there. It was clear that he meant to intimidate his wife and make her fear for her life. That's simply unacceptable.
 
Along with rights come......

Wait for it......

Responsibilities.
 
Hatuey said:
He's just anti-government. He doesn't really understand what this case is about or how it developed. At the center of it is whether he meant to carry out the act. To be honest, I don't think it makes a difference because the context for any sort of artistic expression simply wasn't there. It was clear that he meant to intimidate his wife and make her fear for her life. That's simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...

I got the impression he did not really make it past the admittedly misleading headline before his outrage kicked in. We need to spend less time outraged and more time researching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom