This is complete hyperbole and you know it. Where are the secret police whisking away "dissenters" in the middle of the night? Where are the mass forced migrations of ethnic minorities? Where are the mass executions of political prisoners? Fraudulent elections? A one party state?
The fact that you made this comment on a public forum is evidence enough that we are nowhere even close to living in a police state.
I honestly can not tell if you are being sarcastic or not...
>Where are the secret police whisking away "dissenters" in the middle of the night?
Think IRS targeting; think of the secret targeted kill lists (not only can you not know who is on it, you can not know the criteria to get on it).
>Where are the mass forced migrations of ethnic minorities?
Check the farms where you will find field hands who are likely undocumented immigrants. Or check the slums, no need to physically relocate anyone when you can economically relocate them.
>Where are the mass executions of political prisoners?
Thank goodness there is no argument here. However, we do have indefinite detentions and targeted kill lists without due process/judicial review. Maybe not mass executions, but one targeted killing by the government is to much for my tastes.
>Fraudulent elections?
Um...2000 Bush v. Gore? Florida? Certainly no known fraud, but an election decided by a single state and a few hundred votes, where thousands went missing for a period of time, not to mention the "faulty ballots" in Florida. I would say this is more like MLB during the steroid era, sure the new records still stand, but there is a asterisk next to the names.
>A one party state?
You have a choice between red or blue, either way you get budget deficits, a surveillance state, Gitmo, war of terror(opps *on), ect...
Even if one generously ascribes good motives to every political campaign, politicians and their staff are under enormous pressure to win. If there exists any way to cheat the system (hacked voting machines, gerrymandering, voter suppression, the list goes on), it will be taken advantage of. And We The People deserve what we get for allowing these flaws to persist.
My understanding of the GP is specifically that we should not be comparing ourselves to 1984, but instead acknowledge the real problems we are facing, the OP article being a reflection of one of the real problems.
I agree it really does not do a great deal of good to compare ourselves to some hypothetical society, especially when we have such a rich and vast historical record to compare our modern actions against. We just need to look to the history of the NSA and CIA and see a whole range of domestic spying operations (the Prisms of their day):
The truth is comparing the US to some hypothetical police state we are simultaneously better off and worse off (so who cares if we are close to being that police state), but one thing is for sure our problems affect real lives on a daily basis, I think that is the point the GP was making.
You must be living in some sort of alternate reality dreamstate where these things don't happen routinely. Allow me to attempt to wake you up:
Eternal NSA surveillance. The TSA. No-fly lists. Secret prisons. Guantanamo Bay. Election rigging. Being targeted by IRS. The percentage of population that is in prison (much higher than USSR at the height of its power).
I could go on. Out of everything you stated, the only thing we don't have is mass executions of political prisoners. But the fact is, the differences between the USA and USSR are only on a matter of scale. And that scale is growing at an alarming rate.
As someone born in the 70s it's ironic to think that we now talk about "sending people to Gitmo" the way we used to joke as kids about people being "sent to Siberia" back when Russia was the bad guy. Funny how much things can change in your own country.
"But the fact is, the differences between the USA and USSR are only on a matter of scale."
I can still buy bread, reliably, at a corner market. I can still open a business on a whim without too much fear of bureaucrats making my life completely miserable. I don't have to worry about leaving the country.
There are very real issues with the United States, but this kind of rubbish comparison does nothing to help spur the debate onwards in a useful fashion.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." - Mark Twain
Historical comparisons are tricky. I remember reading numerous comparisons of Bush to Hitler in 2003. On the one hand, such talk is both absurd and offensive. On the other, certain detailed similarities were extremely accurate, such as Goebbels' infamous quote about denouncing pacifists for lack of patriotism.
Nothing ever repeats exactly, and empires least of all. The best lesson that can be drawn from the history of powerful states is that they learn from one another, carrying forward the "best practices" based on what did and didn't work.
Has the U.S. become Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or even modern China? Not even close, by any metric. But have we engaged in human rights abuses analogous to other actions by those three? Undisputedly. The fact that we do so on a smaller scale and with more effective P.R. does little to help the victims.
It's unfortunate if you've managed to avoid the news for the last decade. The secret prisons the US has been running around the world have been regularly in the news since not long after 9/11.
Because their locations are or were undisclosed, and obviously not even everyone here has heard of them. They exist.
Edited in reply They are explicitly said to exist in Hollywood propaganda film Zero Dark Thirty (2013). No, this is not proof, although it is evidence. If the establishment wants us to believe they exist, is that not troubling enough?
The US incarceration rate is higher than Russia's during the height of the KGB. That's right: while the political goals and tactics are different and somehow palatable to a pliable US population, the net results of our current system are actually worse than those of most oppressive regimes in the history of the world.
What's worse is that there is no end in sight. The NSA scandal has shown the the people who make it into elected office these days are all about the same. US elections are nothing more than political theater designed to delude the population into thinking that it can make choices, when in fact the end result will be the same regardless of whom they choose. Who needs rigged elections in this environment?
Yes you did. You're basically pulling the puppetmaster defense of 'I said something incorrect but you reacted so I win'. People tend not to like that argument.
"Where are the secret police whisking away 'dissenters' in the middle of the night?"
You mean like the 40-50,000 swat team raids against non-violent political dissenters that the US government carries out each year, almost always in the middle of the night?
That is an interesting thought. At any moment, an officer that can't get a search warrant could anonymously call 911 from a burner cell or pay phone and report a violent situation. That alone is enough for a full-scale paramilitary invasion of the target's home or office.
Doesn't even have to be violent. Just as easy to roll an informant to claim drugs dealings at a residence. Drugs seem to be easiest way to get a no-knock raid, even if your mayor.
Only if you don't consider civil disobedience to be a form of political dissent, or if you don't consider drug crimes to be a form of civil disobedience.
...but we are not talking in terms of building a model showing the equivalence in replica between each state's government and actions (actually Stalin was a very 'unique' dictator, the same as Hitler, in relation to ANY other leader).
We are talking in terms of ideology behind a governments actions e.g. a complete disrespect for individual freedoms granted by the constitution. Tha kid was placed in jail for uttering a joke. Come on.
Don't need secret police when the kids are whisked off to jail in broad daylight, out in the open. Secret police are only required when one wants to hide such grievous acts. Quite the opposite is the case now - our leaders our proud they're Fighting Terrorists.
America isn't a Capitalist nation and hasn't been for decades.
America is between a mixed economy and Socialism, with the world's largest welfare system, and 'social safety net.' 3/4 of the massive Federal budget goes to social welfare programs. From 1930 to perhaps the early 1980s, the US was a mixed economy.
Every aspect of the US economy is completely under regulation and Federal control. The number of Federal regulations has doubled since 1975. There are now over 170,000 pages of Federal regulations in total, governing every aspect of ... well, everything. Obama's Administration alone added over 11,000 new regulations in just his first two years in office. America is the ultimate regulation state (aka the opposite of a low regulation free market).
America is heavily taxed, and has a total government system that eats 40% of the economy, and at $6.4 trillion is larger than the economy of Japan. Those facts alone disqualify the US as being Capitalistic.
It's quite easy to demonstrate that America is in fact not Capitalistic any longer. A very short historical comparison of the economic structures (spending, taxes, welfare, regulations, etc) of the US economy in, say, 1820, 1890, 1910, 1930, 1975, 2013 - more than demonstrates the progression from highly unregulated Capitalism toward Socialism.
Capitalism requires an unregulated free market based economy. America is almost as far away from that as you can get before becoming a full blown Socialist nation. Even worse, America's variation of Socialism is going to be Fascism, and is rapidly trending that direction.
> Capitalism requires an unregulated free market based economy.
No, it doesn't; at best, laissez faire capitalism requires an unregulated free market, but even then allowances are made towards regulation to protect property rights. Capitalism isn't solely determined by a lack of regulation.
I started going through each point you've made, but it's not worth it. You're simply too wrong to bother.
Start by looking up the difference in meaning between 'capitalism' and 'mixed economy.' The former is a description of an idealized economy that hasn't ever truly existed, while the latter is a description of how an economy is actually organized. In fact, a mixed economy is considered a form of capitalism (it's not one or the other). "The common features among all the different forms of capitalism is that they are based on the production of goods and services for profit, predominately market-based allocation of resources, and they are structured upon the accumulation of capital."
My comment was trying to address where my impression of how your definition of capitalism and what I consider to be the commonly considered definition of capitalism differs.
If you want to try to restate/reword you definition we can discuss how it differs from my readings and sources or how my initial impression was incorrect if that happens to be the case. Then the consequences can be discussed if there is interest.
This is even funnier, considering that post-2008 bailouts, the Big 3 Car companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler) all moved their factories/jobs to St. Petersburg, Russia. I'd say "ironic", but it seems to have been planned.
Either way, we're now the USSR, and all the capitalism is on the other side of the ocean.
When "threats" like this get you in jail, it's time to admit the speaker is in small-town Texas (New Braunfels, TX, population 57,000, 30 miles outside of San Antonio and surrounded by nothing: https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=E+Ashby+Pl&daddr=S+Walnut...).
Small towns do stupid things the world over. It's like a universal constant. And for better or worse, in the U.S. there is relatively little high-level supervision of how small towns police themselves.
Holding this kid for what he said is clearly unconstitutional. I think every federal court in the country would hold likewise. But a police department in a small town where residents are scared to death of another Columbine or Sandy Hook? They don't care about the first amendment, and they never have. Small towns have never been a place where you could just say whatever you wanted. They've never had that mentality. It's just much more visible now that everything is on the internet.
In my misspent youth I very nearly ran afoul of zero-tolerance policies at school, in a somewhat small suburban town. This is a bullshit case, but par for the course.
Yeah, I live in San Antonio and go to New Braunfels pretty often. I wouldn't call it a small town.
The whole thing seems absurd. His statement is obviously making fun of the person calling him insane, not a threat. It's pretty bad when you have to be so careful with what you say, because it can be considered "terroristic". Who get's to make that determination and how long do you get to sit in jail for until it's decided regarding a crime that wasn't committed?
Statements don't lose 1st amendment protection because they're "terroristic." The benchmark for that has always been "true threat." That's the law.
As for the New Braunfel's government's treatment of the kid: what the law is and what it's smart to say have always been two separate things. I'm willing to test the boundaries of the 1st amendment in say New York or Chicago. Maybe Austin or Dallas. Not so much 30 miles outside of San Antonio. This has always been the reality of places where the police don't have much better to do, and where things like this don't invoke national scrutiny.
But the prosecutors and police aren't San Antonio prosecutors and police. New Braunfels is an independent city with its own policing function. The prosecutors and police in New Braunfels are not accountable to all the different kinds of people that live in San Antonio, just those that live in the city.
Just to clarify: He made the comment on Facebook not within a League of Legends game.
This doesn't change the ridiculousness of the situation but it does explain things a bit more: Vastly wider audience, public profile, easy access to personal information, etc.
Blizzard will report you for making direct threats to the appropriate authorities.
The question that people have to ask is, do they get in more trouble by not reporting or by reporting. After all they have deep pockets which makes them a target. Our litigious society at times condemns us far too often
This seems pretty unreal. Is there a way to donate to this kid's defense fund?
You know, I'm really starting to hate prosecutors with a passion. I used to (a long time ago) buy into the TV crime show narrative of slimy defense lawyers and shining prosecutor-paladins, but the way the system promotes successful convictions over any semblance of actual justice makes these people look like sociopaths.
I am Canadian and don't understand enough about the US criminal system to comment on this. However, your thoughts mirror some that I've had for a long time, and I'd like to ask some questions and hopefully learn more.
Do you think that having elected district attorneys who want to look tough on crime causes this? Or rather, is it a case of actual prosecuting attorneys being graded solely on conviction rate?
I've seen some highly dubious prosecutions emerge out of the US over the last few years and, from an outsider's point of view, this is rather terrifying!
Having only seen the 'wheel of justice' grind people up from a distance, I'm not really sure, but my intuition is that prosecutors make careers out of getting successful convictions, and they absolve themselves of any responsibility by telling themselves that they are merely advocating for the state. So if they do something wrong, it's really just the state at fault.
I'm not saying all prosecutors are horrible people who want to ruin lives indiscriminately, and they serve a valuable purpose, I'm just worried about the feedback loop we created.
Good points, especially about how prosecutors may absolve themselves of responsibility by telling themselves that they are advocates for that state. Thanks for your comments - you've given me a lot to think about today!!
Feedback loop? It's a simple lack of responsibility. They -- the state prosecutors -- have an extremely limited perspective on the work that they do, and furthermore they write it off as "that's how the law works" without considering justice and merit.
Blaming the prosecutors here seems suspect. Remember, it was a Canadian woman that saw the comment and phoned the police in the first place. And the impetus for keeping him in jail is the same frothy public rage that has been arising in response to school shootings for years now. Don't pretend that Canada doesn't have its share of this contingent of paranoid minivan-driving suburbanites who call for every possible response to any perceived threats to school kids.
I'm not blaming prosecutors, or pretending that Canada doesn't have problems. Rather, I'm asking questions because I don't understand the nuts and bolts of the US justice system.
Consider elected District Attorneys. In Canada, Crown Prosecutors are appointed and the position is meant to avoid becoming political. That doesn't always happen, since becoming a CP is often a route to either become a judge (our judges are also appointed), or a politician, but I digress.
As another example, under Canadian law, if you're charged with a crime, it starts with the police office involved 'laying an information'. Basically, the police officer will draft a sworn summary of the case and present it to a Justice of the Peace. Then, the JP decides whether there is enough evidence to actually go forward. We don't have the concept of a grand jury, nor do Crown Prosecutors necessarily have to be involved before a charge is formally brought upon the defendant.
As for paranoid suburbanites, we have more than our share, and for good reason. Some of our laws (ie - our Young Offenders Act) admittedly leave a little to be desired and some awfully bad people get to walk the streets. For example, my city has a number of extremely violent sex offenders (who the parole board has ruled at an extremely high risk to re-offend) walking around free. Ask me how I feel about my Mom getting into her car alone at night....
Despite sharing a border and coming from the same legal tradition, our criminal systems are dramatically different. Consequently, I can't really comment on the American system because I don't understand it well enough to know where concepts like discretion come from and who has the right to demonstrate discretion.
The difference is that in Canada, all criminal law is federal. Thus, Crown Prosecutors are involved in most criminal cases. In the U.S., most criminal law is state or local. Our federal prosecutors, U.S. Attorneys, are appointed, but are not generally involved for run of the mill criminal prosecutions because those are the domain of state law.
We also use grand juries to return indictments instead of magistrate judges. In theory, this is more democratic, but on the flip side its much more susceptible to small town group think.
I would guess it's a bit of both elections and CYA.
If you lock the kid up, then a) he can't shoot up a school and b) you get to look "tough on school shooters". Some people are mad, some people feel safer, most people will end up forgetting about it.
If you don't lock the kid up then you're a) soft on crime (people are scared, gotta do something) and b) there is a chance he'll shoot up the school and your career is dead and you'll get a billion dollar lawsuit against you.
Unfortunately locking this kid up is a very sensible decision for the DA. Whatever happens they can say "we were just trying to stop another Columbine" and nothing bad will happen. Basically, there is no almost no upside to understanding this is a joke, but there are potential life-runing downsides.
> If you don't lock the kid up then you're a) soft on crime (people are scared, gotta do something) and b) there is a chance he'll shoot up the school and your career is dead and you'll get a billion dollar lawsuit against you.
Why can't you hold him over night (tough on crime)? Hold an investigation on his operational capabilities, and then let him go when you realize he can't pull it off?
> Unfortunately locking this kid up is a very sensible decision for the DA.
No it isn't. You swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not do things that are political expedient. There are plenty of ways a DA could prove due diligence without holding the kid in jail.
I think it would really depend on the local population but I generally think its a bad idea to have elected officials in the criminal justice system. In Alabama they have elected judges and they do things like campaign on how tough on crime they are.
Do you think that having elected district attorneys who want to look tough on crime causes this?
Absolutely. I'm not too hot on electing judges either. Voters can be pretty stupid in the aggregate, and there's a lot of politicians who pander to that, along with a lot of media outlets. There's a lot of dumb, selfish people out there, and by definition they're easier to manipulate than smart people.
Yes, although our Conservative government is doing its best to make our criminal justice system more American, with tough-on-crime posturing, mandatory minimum sentences, an escalation of the war on drugs and so on.
“These people are serious. They really want my son to go away to jail for a sarcastic comment that he made ,” said the elder Carter.
I wouldn't admit to making that comment. Make them prove that he was sitting in front of the computer when his account made that statement. Did anyone else know the password? Is his computer completely free of malware or unknown backdoors? Could anyone be eavesdropping on the connection to the game server? Is the game server completely secure?
For a crime that carries almost a decade in prison, confessing doesn't sound like the right legal strategy to me.
That strategy is very risky in the real world: do you really think they're going to say “Oh no, we don't have HD video of him typing in the comment – call the whole thing off!” or simply look at all of the evidence, consider how plausible it is that an attacker chose that moment to closely mimic his style for an entire conversation just to frame him with an in-character comment, and then use the stronger end of the sentencing scale for lying to the court and making a lame attempt to avoid responsibility?
They appear to be trying a more realistic strategy: admit making the statement, show remorse but reject the premise that this was anything other than constitutionally protected speed or that it constituted a realistic threat. That seems far more likely to work, particularly given the age of the suspect.
Indeed. The burden of proof isn't "beyond any possible doubt". It's reasonable doubt. The court system won't be circumvented by a astoundingly minute logical loophole.
For a single sentence written in response to a direct insult and immediately labeled as a joke by the guy who wrote it, there is no legal strategy that sounds right to me because this is not something that should require a legal strategy to begin with. This situation is preposterous and criticizing the error in legal tactics made by a minor who had no reason to believe he had done anything wrong is completely missing the forest for the trees.
edit: apparently he was 18 at the time, so he wasn't a minor, but I don't feel that makes the situation any less ridiculous
It is completely absurd that making a sarcastic comment can be a crime that means a decade in prison. Shouldn't there be some common sense included in the justice system? Here in Finland there have been lately some similar cases, and in all of them as far as I know there was some simple investigation about the real motives but no charges and no jail time.
I think that's usually the case in the US too. I've heard cases where people joke about some kind of president attack on their blog and getting a secret service visit shortly after. They tend to get a stern warning, as the investigators likely have better things to do and can understand the difference between a comment made in jest and a credible threat.
Unfortunately we do have a huge problem with prosecutorial abuse.
They make a valid point that it's probably not something you should joke about, especially because similar comments led to actual attacks. The part where insanity comes in is where many people are seemingly incapable of acknowledging the degree of wrongness, and think this warrants anything more than a police visit. Instead, they opt to effectively ruining his adult life, which he had barely started. For nothing. Society is not better off, we are not safer, we wasted a life because someone wanted to make a point.
investigation about the real motives but no charges and no jail time.
The US has shifted towards charging everything and anything remotely possible, maybe investigate, then plea down to something that only looks good because of the extreme first set of charges. Brilliant strategy from the p(er|ro)secutors that keeps cases from going to court and pads their stats with lots of 'wins.'
People hope that if they are honest and in the right that they will be exonerated. Typically, it just means they say something they shouldn't and they are punished for it.
It probably isn't the optimal strategy. But it's real world, average-case human honesty. One reason among many why fairness in prosecution and sentencing is critical.
There's also a much more serious point at stake here which is that should we be thrown in jail for making sarcastic/bitter/meaningless comments? It seems obvious (unless someone is withholding other facts) that this child had no intention of committing a crime, but because he was frustrated/angry and didn't express himself well (as an adult would, which is something we don't expect children to do, because that's what being young is about, learning!) we want to lock him up for 8 years? Does anyone really think that's a good idea? and more importantly by ignoring what really happened you're ignoring the fact that actions like that have now come under scrutiny by the general public/government, and to such a degree that by merely jesting we face jail time? That's insane, I would believe that maybe an investigation by the police, maybe a day in jail...
They don't mention the exact charges, but I think it's safe to assume that's the maximum sentence for the charges.
So "terrorist threats with nothing to back it up" aren't necessarily worth 8 years in prison, but terrorist threats could be, under maximally aggravating circumstances. Say you were an actual terrorist going to great lengths to make plausible threats in order to terrorize the populace.
Remember that terrorism isn't about bombing or shooting or killing. As Bruce Schneier said, "Terrorism isn't a crime against people or property. It's a crime against our minds". Making threats is the crux of terrorism.
What's ridiculous is charging a kid who clearly wasn't making the kind of serious threat that these laws were intended for.
(I'm making some suppositions here - my case would be stronger if I had dug up the actual laws and charges.)
But the tone and context are not a convincing threat as the comment was made as a joking example how "insane" he was instead of a credible threat targeting anyone specifically.
There is a serious question on proportionality here. Kids do and say stupid things. You cannot bar them from their rights while forcing them to attend school to "protect" them, meanwhile throwing the book at them for every minor stupidity or bad division they might undertake.
Lately I hear more cases of ruining lives by charging minors with ridiculous crimes than school violence... Protecting the youth...
if a drunk guy in a bar says "i'll punch you" to another drunk guy with intent to scare that other guy then that is a terrorist threat? And actual punch is a terrorist attack?
I don't think so, that might just be intent to assault and assault and battery, they probably have a lot of discretion to choose when to charge someone with terrorism. Basically another tool in the DA's arsenal to get people under his thumb.
He hasn't been convicted of anything yet. This is the media seeing that someone wants to charge him with making a terrorist threat, and that if he was convicted, there would be no way he could possibly spend more than 8 years in prison.
He hasn't been convicted; I assume he has clean record so far; he doesn't have materials in his home about wanting to kill children and eat their still beating hearts; but US taxpayer money is spent keeping him in jail until it gets to trial?
When I get FU money I'm going to hire designers to make "Never talk without your lawyer" posters and get that message across.
I agree that someone making a credible terrorist threat needs some form of punishment and rehabilitation. I don't think the sentence about beating hearts was a credible threat, but I don't have all the information.
It is weird to me that most young people are seen as "evil", not "stupid". Often the reaction should be to just tell them not to be stupid and explain the havoc they've caused. We shouldn't be locking them up.
This reminds me of an anecdote I heard, or maybe read, or confabulated. A police officer had shot an adolescent who was in the street with a toy gun that had been painted black. Somehow a police officer in Japan was asked about this situation, an his response was that, in Japan, the police would assume that, because it was a child holding it, the gun was a toy.
You can't assume that in the land of the Second Amendment though. I read a story just a few months ago about a child in Kentucky who accidentally killed his sister with an actual "kid-sized gun" or something like that.
A child on a U.S. street with an actual handgun wouldn't surprise me one bit.
That doesn't mean that the cop had to shoot the child though but I don't know the details to the case you're referring to enough to comment one way or the other.
Sadly true. Not only the Kentucky case, but in New Jersey a few months ago a 4 year old playing outside went into the house, picked up a gun, and shot & killed a 6 year old. The father of the 4yo has been charged over it since.
Toy guns in the US are now required to have bright orange flashing on them to ID them as toys. Of course a criminal could put bright orange paint on a real gun to make it look like a toy, and some do (http://publicintelligence.net/baltimore-police-department-gu...) but since most criminals want to intimidate people with their guns it doesn't happen that often. It's more common, I suspect, for people to modify toy guns to make them look more real. Some people do so to threaten people, sometimes there's a case of 'suicide by cop' where the person calls the police or brandishes the painted-to-look-real toy weapon in public and then points it at police when they show up to investigate, who unsurprisingly tend to shoot rather than waiting to see if they'll get shot.
"A child on a U.S. street with an actual handgun wouldn't surprise me one bit."
It probably should, since that is an exceedingly rare phenomenon. Furthermore, painting such a broad stroke of a nation with ~314 million people and thousands of political jurisdictions, with their own gun laws, is absurd.
It's also rare when someone wins the lottery, but it doesn't surprise me when it happens. It'd be unusual IMO to have seen the rare event, but not surprising that it happened.
Convicted or not. This seems like it would fall under a federal crime. That means that he's most likely either going to be convicted via a plea bargain or his family will risk going bankrupt in order to defend him. And if him and his family do attempt to challenge it, the DA will probably through all their resources at the kid and bury him because many have contempt for people who try to exercise their right to trial by jury.
You extremely difficult be part of a system where you see legitimate criminals everyday and not develop a posture that everyone that comes across your desk deserves to be behind bars.
> He hasn't been convicted of anything yet. This is the media seeing that someone wants...
I'm curious about your wording in your comment. I may misreading your intentions but do you find absolutely nothing wrong with someone being in jail for the past 3 months for making a threat followed by "lol, jk"?
And do you find that it always follows that someone making sure that the facts at issue are correct must always support the side that the incorrect facts back up? We're not allowed to even discuss this on a somewhat even keel without having motivations questioned?
I agree with what you're saying but I wasn't quite sure jrockway was simply making sure everyone had their facts straight which is why I was asking him to clarify his position. If he actually felt the arrest was appropriate I would have some follow up questions for him. Was that wrong of me?
By the way; what does it mean to question his motivations anyways? If he came out and said he supports Justin's arrest, what does it matter? Heck, I'd love to have someone say so. Maybe then we could have an interesting discussion on the matter.
I disagree with a lot of things people say here on HN. But I still love to hear people rationale's for the things they say.
Someone who has been accused of something really heinous (or threatening to commit a heinous crime) shouldn't get bail, they should be locked up until it is determined that they are not a danger to society.
The problem is that the courts are so busy with other cases that it has taken at least three months so far to do that (and probably more) for the trial to start. Have they even had a bail hearing? It wouldn't surprise me if bail was denied.
The fact that some people get charged with serious crimes and then they have to be in prison for months/years before their trial could start (even if the lawyers were ready) seems like a miscarriage of justice.
This is also why plea bargains are supposed to be so common, to avoid clogging the courts.
> Someone who has been accused of something really heinous (or threatening to commit a heinous crime) shouldn't get bail, they should be locked up until it is determined that they are not a danger to society.
I accuse MBCook of really heinous threatening things (that i don't dare repeat or more people will feel threatened). Please lock MBCook up until we can prove that MBCook can't possibly be a danger to society.
Problem is without being convicted, he has already spent 3 months in jail... So not only does it seem an overblown charge, he is being punished for it while still being legally innocent (hasn't been proved guilty).
IANAL, but as I understand it, in order for the courts to consider this a "true threat", the government must prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the it was intended to be taken seriously (the subjective test), or a reasonable person familiar with the context would interpret it as a serious threat (the objective test).
"Release Justin Carter from jail. Too many teenagers are being arrested, jailed and having their lives forever altered because of anti-terrorism laws and investigations that impede their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech."
I can't believe he was arrested and jailed for this. On one hand yes in context it is a ridiculous statement and no one should have spent more than a minute thinking about it. Yeah, the Newtown Massacre was heinous so I can understand that 'can't be too careful' mentality but c'mon, just get him mentally evaluated if you're spooked.
Terrorist charges? This gov't, our culture, is getting unbearable.
This story is especially concerning in light of the NSA revelations of late. Suppose this kid actually made this admittedly terrible joke over email. Suppose the recipient of the email was another kid in a foreign country; entirely plausible considering League of Legends is popular worldwide. The NSA could technically catch this email with their dragnet based on keyword search algorithms and pay him a visit, throwing him in jail as a suspected terrorist without a fair trial as the state of Texas has done. Think back to all the stuff you've joked about as a kid and tell me this scenario doesn't enrage and terrify you.
The NSA would have to get a federal court to throw you in jail, and there is no federal court in the country that wouldn't dismiss this case on First Amendment grounds.
Texas courts? Sure. You have to remember that a substantial portion of the 1960's and 1970's were spent reigning in the absolutely batshit things state and local courts and governments do. Its always been bad at that level.
One person in a nation of 300 million was jailed for speech. And it was notable enough to drive a very sympathetic story in a comparatively high traffic (if cheesy) news outlet.
That doesn't make it acceptable, but it's hardly the kind of systematic suppression of free expression you seem to be invoking.
>One person in a nation of 300 million was jailed for speech.
More accurately, this article is about one person in a nation of 300 million who was jailed for speech, which gives us no grounds for assuming that either a large or small number of people are being prosecuted for things like this, other than the number is greater than one. It's a systematic problem that portions of the system feel free to jail for pretty innocuous speech.
How about Cameron D'Ambrosio last month, or the unknown number that were not "notable enough"? D'Ambrosio only got out of jail because the grand jury refused to indict, not because prosecutors weren't willing to prosecute.
This article talks about one person, there is others...
Beside whistleblowers, there is also that dude that defended Al Quaeda (he only spoke in favour of Al Quaeda), and some others I don't particularly remember now...
There's also this first act from the "Right to Remain Silent" from This American Life [0] and this story [1] that pmorici posted. So that's 3 now without actually looking hard at all.
I think we have to wait for this to play out to see how it actually reflects on our culture. If he is released and the people who broke his right to free speech are punished then we don't have a problem. But even one case like this can be the foundation for hundreds more.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but there is the concept that "even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
In this specific case I think the analog to shouting fire in a a theater here would be to actually call in a bomb threat (or other threats). Which I believe the vast majority of HNers will agree should be a crime.
I'm honestly confused how people can see the situation described in the article as anything other than insane.
Compare this with the treatment of Paula Deen by her sponsors, who are dropping her products left and right, because of her speech years ago. She is being labeled a racist, and of course nobody wants to be associated with a racist, do they?
In this case, the video gamer is being labeled a terrorist because of his speech. It's almost a preemptive charge. Better to charge and try him for terrorist threats now than have him actually harm anyone sometime down the line.
Of course there is a vast difference between corporations' political correctness and the criminal justice system, but both instances show the importance and interpretation of speech.
I don't really understand how you're connecting these dots, so I suspect that I'm getting trolled here, but your comparison makes no sense. Paula Deen spouting racist nonsense does not show anything about "interpretation of speech" unless she claims that her racist nonsense was somehow misinterpreted. Was she being sarcastic with her slave-themed event? Seems shockingly implausible (and she certainly hasn't suggested as much.)
But you're correct, there is a vast difference between corporations showing her the door (though while you call it "political correctness" I would call it "the free market rejecting some old racist speech") and this kid who very likely didn't mean what he said literally.
Well racist thoughtcrime is still "only speech", just like violent thoughtcrime is "only speech", no matter how you interpret it.
What you can say about Deen vs. this gamer is that a business is free to do what they want, but the government must respect the First Amendment.
But at the same time making threats against others has also been considered wrong to do. I personally wouldn't actually press charges against this guy (despite the spattering of school shootings recently) but I also wouldn't fault the state for taking a very close look at whether he was serious or not.
They didn't evaluate it at all. They blindly, knee-jerk reacted. And / or someone wants to appear tough and that they are doing "something" for election or promotion.
I'm not sure if this story is true but it leads me to a question:
Should any parent let their child use any IT system that creates a permanent record that they are not in charge of.
I would be far happier with a child writing a blog that their friends can access rather than ever posting to Facebook. Have logging turned off on comments entered using your child's account and you have plausible deniability.
I suppose the problem is telling them that are not allowed to comment on their friends Facebook posts.
It'll be interesting to see what we have in 15 years time?
You can't monitor children 24/7, especially not teenagers, and cutting them off from the internet in this day and age would only stunt them socially and intellectually.
I count myself very lucky that as a teenager I was allowed to have my own computer and internet connection. For all the valid worries about what trouble I might have gotten myself into, I instead grew up to be the most successful member of my family with a career in IT.
We can't let fears of isolated incidents like these drive all of our decisions, or we'll just end up with the parental equivalent of the TSA.
> Should any parent let their child use any IT system that creates a permanent record that they are not in charge of.
This is the same as thinking that not telling your children about sex or alcohol will keep them from experimenting. It's much better to have a respectful, grownup conversation where you explain the risks and how to reduce them.
In the article, the dad points out how his son was not the sort to read newspapers, or watch the news. I am not sure why the Dad thought it wasn't important for his son to do these sort of things.
I do not have children yet, and one of the reasons I am reluctant to move to the US (even with people sometimes insisting me to do so because of SV and all) is that I think US is one of the worst places in the world to raise a child, excepting other obvious bad places (ie: any country US attacked since the end of cold war, like Somalia, Libya, Iraq...)
Listen, not getting into the obvious nationalism that tends to color something like this, but the US is a damn fine place to live. Is it better than the UK, France, or Germany? In some ways, yes, and in other ways, no. The problem is that you are reading some very specific articles that are coloring your perception. You're focusing your attention to only the negative, which will obviously make you think everything is negative.
The US is in the middle of make gay marriage legal. Not being gay legal, but the idea that two men or two women can be in a state-recognized marriage. They'd hang both parties in Iran.
A state Senator in Texas openly spoke against an anti-abortion bill for over 10 hours, without sitting, leaning against a podium, or going to the bathroom. She brought national news to a decisive issue without being arrested.
Say what you want about the job he is doing, but we have an African-American president. That's pretty progressive considering that he wouldn't have even had same rights as a white person only 40 years ago.
I can drive from Portland, OR, to New York City and not have to show a single sliver of paper to anyone (unless I get pulled over for speeding).
So, feel free to fear that which you don't understand but know that your feelings are tainted by a small sub-section of information.
Actually, the US is full of narcisistic egocentric and overly individualistic people.
The defense you made for the US, even kinda proves it, I don't care the race of the president, or about anti-abortion...
The issues I DO care when taking care of children, are the ones that US outright suck.
I don't want to give GMO-ed milk to my children, or all the crap you put into your food, or live in a country that teaches that invading other countries over and over again is nice, or that has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world summed and think this is being peaceful, or that has people more concerned about gay rights/feminism/etc... instead of being concerned about true well being of future generations and of the country.
From your profile, I see that you live in Brazil. One of the top 20 countries for homicide rate[1]. Plenty of it's own human rights abuses[2], and one of the bottom 15 for income equality and distribution.
The defense you made for the US, even kinda proves it, I don't care the race of the president, or about anti-abortion...
My examples were showing the freedom we have here in America. Whether it be personal or financial, it's certainly not as bad as you portray it. It's on the same level as the UK, France, and Germany. There's give and take for what you are going to have to live with. You aren't going to find some utopia in the world today, but the US is a fine place to live.
So if not the US, assuming you have zero restrictions for moving, what do you think would be a better country to live in?
Except maybe some farm areas in the middle of nowhere, but I dunno yet.
I am currently searching, interesting spots so far have been Singapore (not without its faults though), other SE Asia countries, Scandinavian countries, Quebec, New Zealand...
But I don't had a decision yet of where I will go, but certainly not the US, although it has some very free and interesting places, the US federal government infamously is quick to meddle into stuff (like your raw milk, or Waco, or Roe vs Wade).
Brazil has the same issues as US, plus some other ones... But Brazil living in the middle of nowhere is more feasible (the government here last pulled a Waco in 1800s, currently it leaves people that want to live far from urban areas mostly alone).
Your focus on Waco is making my point that you are only focusing on very high-profile subset of the negative. Waco was terrible but not as innocent as you are portraying it as. If you would've said Ruby Ridge I think you might get some agreement.
If you want to live in the middle of nowhere in the US, have at it. The government won't bother you unless you do something really messed up, like manufacture drugs for sale, murder people, or don't pay your taxes. You can milk your own cows, grow chickens for eggs, be a subsistence farmer if you want - there's no one to stop you from doing that. I'm not sure what you want to do that you'd think the feds would bother you.
I don't know if you saw in other posts of mine, but I am very much against current US government behavior, I am outspoken about it, and I support non-terrorist organizations related to that subject.
I am very sure I don't need to do anything "wrong" to attract negative attention of US government, even if I live in the middle of nowhere...
The concept of "terrorism" has horrible semantics and needs to be excised from all laws. Its legal existence leads to absurd abuses and behaviors, and utterly confused policy.
This is an interesting case that points to a hole in our society. We have this freedom of speech that is really important. People shouldn't be prosecuted for speaking in poor taste. The statement was wrong but not criminal. The fact that it wasn't criminal doesn't mean it should be ignored. Anyone who makes a comment like that has a problem. It might not be a mental illness, but it is a problem. Healthy, well-adjusted people just don't say things like that. It's not a crime to be unhealthy or poorly adjusted so we need another means of dealing with that problem.
There was reasonable suspicion to investigate Carter, but barring hard evidence of intent to follow through, he should be freed. Personally (not politically), I think community service would be appropriate for these comments, but that's a slippery slope that should not be legally imposed.
Exactly. Spend an hour on xbox live and I guarantee you will hear things worse than what that kid said. My gosh, watch some R rated movies and I guarantee you will see things much worse than what that kid said.
No, I am implying that is the kid is maladjusted than the majority of people on xbox live are maladjusted. If that is the case, than the majority of hollywood is also maladjusted. If that is the case, the majority of those who enjoy the movies produced and directed by those who are maladjusted are also maladjusted. Follow that line of reasoning with most form of media e.g. books, tv shows, music and video games. At this point, most of America, not to mention the world, could be considered maladjusted. Now, it just depends on what your definition of maladjusted is.
I'm not an xbox live user, but I do watch my share of movies. I've yet to see a reference to killing a school full of children and eating their hearts in any movie that has come out of hollywood.
> Healthy, well-adjusted people just don't say things like that.
Unless they're doing this on an extremely regular basis, I don't even think this is a sign of someone having a problem. I think I'm normal enough, and I know for a fact there have been moments where I've made a comment that was meant to be a little over-the-top or shocking, and ended up being much worse than it seemed in my head. I really think this happens to everyone at some point, don't you? This kid just had the bad luck that the people he was talking to thought he really meant it.
In this particular case, I think it was understandable that they might not see his statement as sarcastic and under that belief, it makes sense for them to call the police. But I agree with you, that to convict him there really needs to be some other evidence besides a single off-the-cuff statement in the context of trash talk.
I don't even think this kid should get community service. His attempt to be sarcastic on the internet didn't communicate what he thought it did, and that's it.
1) if it is a health problem, it is not a police issue.
2) if you cannot use history as a means to exaggerating, we have a problem. Ever watched "to be or not to be" by E. Lubitz? There is a joke there "listening to Wagner makes me wish to invade Poland." That is MUCH WORSE than any school shoot in the USA. But then cannot you make that joke?
As cliché as it sounds, does this mean the terrorist have actually won? Isn't the point of terrorism to produce a crippling climate of fear within a certain society?
On one hand, Carter made a horrible threat about shooting up a school. Whether he followed his comments with 'lol' and 'jk' or not, he still made a really ugly, juvenile threat. Whether he follows the news or not, he still had to have some inkling that what he said was going to get him in a whole lot of trouble. I mean, he was 18 years old when he said that...
On the other hand, he celebrated his 19th birthday behind bars and it seems like such an unbelievable waste to lock up people that young. The penal system isn't exactly famous for rehabilitation, rather, many people come out of prison far worse (and more screwed up) than they were when they went inside.
All I can hope is that he is offered a plea bargain that calls for severe amounts of therapy, community service and probation.
If you think an 18 year old needs therapy, community service, and probation for a poor-taste sarcastic comment (the kind of thing teenagers do all the time), you are actually a horrible person.
EDIT: Sorry for the personal insult. This really bothers me. I said a lot of stupid shit when I was young (still do, actually), and I couldn't imagine being prosecuted for it.
I'm sorry to have offended you, but seriously, he was 18 years old when he made that comment. I said some incredibly stupid things when I was 18, but nothing quite of that magnitude. I mean, shooting up a school and eating their still beating hearts??
At minimum, the young man could use some anger management training. I think that probation beats the heck out of jail time. And, I'd argue that community service is good for just about any teenager (even those who haven't been convicted of anything).
Have you ever been to 4chan? Is the real problem here that he made a stupid remark on facebook instead of anonymously in the depths of the internet?
He was obviously trying to make a joke about how 'insane' he is, and came up with some prose to try and show it. His reference for 'insane' was a school shooter cannibal.
I don't really understand how any of this could be construed as anything other than just poor taste humor.
The anger management training he could use is primarily, I think, because this person left the confines of the game and posted a comment, presumably in a place that the other person could see it.
In the physical world, this would be akin to someone saying, "Dude, you're a jerk" (or harsher) and then you, some time later, write over all the whiteboards in his office and the offices around his many explicatives and angry faces.
Someone's got a bit of an uncontrolled temper.
In the game is one thing, since it wandered OUT of the game that's ... a bit awkward. Deserving of criminal charges, I don't think so; but, needing help? I think yes.
I don't understand this critique. Just because there is a large community of people on the Internet who say horrible and stupid things doesn't mean that those things are excusable. The better argument is to say that having poor taste and being socially inept are not criminal offenses, except in extreme circumstances (shouting "fire" in a theater)
Honestly, I think this is going to fall into one of those "it depends on your audience" statements.
If a popular greeting between people of the same culture was "F* you!" except the long form of that, or even something more grotesque (to you), is it wrong to, if you're a part of that community, say those things to one-another?
The internet, if anything, has created a large collection of very callous 20-somethings that can, off the cuff, say some really, really awful things, to a person that's not a part of their community. Huge parts of Reddit and 4chan are evidence of this sort of change in callousness.
Now, this particular instance of what he said, given what's happened in schools lately, was in terrible taste; and, if this is a pattern for him, he may need some real counseling, but the criminality of his statements is very suspect.
Long story short: what people are saying in normal conversation between each other is changing to things that older people, in part even like myself, find repulsive; but, it's normal and not-rude in their vernacular and it's a strong judgement call to call them socially inept and having poor taste - just different ones, and maybe "socially inept", if only in your social circles; but, when those statements cross the line to real threats or extreme circumstances, then yes, things must be done, sometimes through the judicial system.
I would be very surprised if the sequence of events that lead up to that was a sarcastic remark after being called 'insane' followed by 'lol jk'. Context is everything.
Not only that, I could even go so far as to see the police showing up, the kid saying 'no, really, it was a joke', and then the whole thing ending right there, and I wouldn't cry foul. But prosecuting this kid for making 'terroristic threats' is a monumental failure of the justice system.
EDIT: Policeman friend of mine just quoted the Penal Code 22.07 Terroristic Threat verbage for me:
1. Threatening to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property
2. With intent to
a.) cause a reaction of any type by an official or volunteer agency organizied to deal with emergencies
b.) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury
c.)prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile or other form of conveyance or other public place
In his opinion, the kid's actions did not meet the criteria to cause an arrest, much less a prosecution, under this law due to the lack of evidence of intent.
Well, I don't support prosecuting him by any means, or arrest. I don't mind the police investigating to see if there was any intent to act for real though, but the police can do that investigation without him sitting in a jail cell.
It's hard for me to take seriously anyone who suggests they're going to eat a human heart. Even without "lol" and "jk", I read that and I think, "Oh, that's a joke", not: "what a horrible, ugly threat".
I find this attitude dismaying because to me it just screams out "I AM SCARED!!!" You are suggesting that society place a permanent mark on this young man's criminal record and force him into course of treatment designed to change who he is because one sentence he wrote puts him in the category of "different than you ever were." You know nothing about this person except that he is in jail for one sentence which was a joke; this is not right even if you feel the joke was in poor taste. If you think that a person's making one joke you don't like is enough information about that person to prescribe such dire consequences then you should seriously reevaluate the way you think about the world around you. Supposing a heckler had shouted to George Carlin that he was insane in the middle of a performance, and he responded the same way this young man did -- would you be calling for the same consequences as you are for the young man in the article? A disproportionate reaction to something like this is the grown-up equivalent of being frightened of monsters under your bed at night, and nobody deserves to have his or her life ruined because of it.
I am now 30 years old and I still make sarcastic jokes that are worse than this boys comment.
Anyways, is there a list of safe jokes available that has been approved by the US Führer or local Gauleiter? I'd just like to be safe when I visit friends in the US.
Your argument is that because his vocabulary is far more depraved than your own punishment is deserved? Why does he need to have any punishment at all? I thought in America you can say whatever you like and that is an inalienable right.
I am sure there are plenty of people who say some really horrible things in jest that would shock you. Have you heard of the joke 'The Aristocrats'? You think the people who tell that joke need anger management to bring them to a more moderate level of behaviour that society can accept?
I cannot to go on, the fact that people think the way you do without seeing what is so deeply wrong with that mindset upsets me too much. It's a sad world we live in.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." (attribution disputed per wiki)
As I read it, it was not a threat. It was sarcasm. Maybe you need sarcasm tags, but it was trash talk.
Observe. "I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts".
Look I just said the same thing that kid did, but now it's a quote of someone else's speech. Did I just make a terrorist threat? No, because the context clearly shows that it's not a threat. Just as his context showed that it was not serious.
I cannot believe you're serious... You believe that people should go to jail for the things that they say, really? It doesn't matter if it was tacky or juvenile or vulgar.
When you were a teenager, you didn't do and say things that flew in the face of convention just for the sake of making noise? Saying the things that you know were verboten, just to get the reaction?
First, I don't want this young person to go to jail - quite the opposite, in fact.
Second, when I was a teenager, my Dad was a police officer and my Mom worked in a Catholic church. I rebelled hard and got in trouble for wonderful things like wearing a Bad Religion shirt to my Catholic school, or writing obscenely long, self important indictments of Christianity in Christian Ethics exams, or driving at extremely high speeds around the school parking lot, listening to the Ramones and playing "Scare hockey players."
My very first, formative experience with computers was actually playing Shadowrun on a BBS. Had I gone to high school post-Columbine, that game would have gotten us all kicked out of school and likely thrown in jail. Thankfully, nobody ever found out what we did or the kinds of things we said online.
I was an especially pretentious teenager and fell under the guise of 'straight edge punk', so I absolutely shunned drugs and alcohol and stopped being friends with people who drank or got high. In retrospect, that pretentiousness likely kept me out of serious trouble and I'm quite glad for it.
Long story short, I rebelled hard and was friends with many kids who rebelled equally as hard, or even harder. Unfortunately, in the 18 years since I graduated from high school, a shocking number of the people who got me through high school have died because of drugs and suicide.
So yes, I rebelled. And yes, I did many things solely for shock value. However, I also lost some really good people because we didn't get the help that some of us (myself included) needed. Consequently, I take the view that some things are far enough away from the norms to justify further intervention.
"whole lot of trouble" and "whole lot of legal trouble" are massively different things. I'm not sure how you can not be sure how you feel about this case, since it's the latter, not the former.
I'm having trouble telling whether you are serious here. You seem like you are, but you're saying you rebelled by playing Shadowrun, speeding, and not drinking or doing drugs?
I don't want to be condescending but I want you to consider that your perspective might need some calibration. Most professional working adults I know today still do far worse than that, and nobody really considers it rebellious.
Likewise, this act was not rebellious in the least. Watch any comedy central roast and they say worse things all night. Personally, I think people who are afraid of these statements need therapy.
I'm having trouble telling whether you are serious here. You seem like you are, but you're saying you rebelled by playing Shadowrun, speeding, and not drinking or doing drugs?
I googled the term "Justin Carter texas teen jail" and got a whole lot of links from other websites and thumbnail of a youtube video of what looks like a local tv station covering the same story.
I haven't looked into it further but if all you had to doubt the story was "Reported by Daily Caller?" I think that should be sufficient.
Something to keep in mind is that the crime of "terroristic threat" has been around far longer than the current "war on terror". (speaking of Texas here) As early as 1994 I know of someone who was arrested for it (for saying they were going to hurt someone).
Whether or not this is a reasonable thing to be arrested for, the fact that it's online is irrelevant. If the social standards or laws need to be changed, let's do that. Let's not, however, act as if those standards should apply differently online. (or on the phone, or in our car, etc...)
Wow. Putting him in jail is like swatting a fly with Mjölnir.
I often wonder what is the right reaction to such a "threat". Is it to ignore the topic until it is carried out (and thus becomes a real crime; someone carrying out something like that is probably a rare thing, despite the FB posts of various previous school shooters)? Will the public tolerate the perceived inaction? Is there something useful that can be done?
This is at least the second case that I'm aware of this happening in recent months. There was another one [0] earlier this month about a kid in MA that is in jail for essentially the same thing.
I agree with everything written here about how ridiculous this is. However, the dad is hardly helping matters by saying his son isn't aware of current affairs. His son clearly didn't make the schools reference randomly - he clearly had an awareness of what had happened at several schools in the US. Also publicly posting this on Facebook is idiotic.
To be convicted of most crimes, the criminal must be found to have had a particular mental state (mens rea), such as a specific intent that the words be taken as a threat. By including "lol jk" along with the threat, I can guess what the teen's mental state actually was.
Because our laws are so broad, most people in the US commit multiple felonies each year. That is not an exaggeration. That being the case, prosecutorial discretion - the exclusive right of the prosecutor to decide whether or not a given prosecution serves the public interest - is incredibly important.
The elected District Attorney in this and any other jurisdiction where prosecutorial discretion is not being properly exercised needs to be removed from office, and any abusive deputy district attorneys must be fired. This is the only way to ensure some semblance of reason and sanity in our "justice" system, since removing the laws that make everyone into felons simply will not occur.
Why not? Information wants to be free, the URL wasn't blocked by technical measures, obviously he meant the information to be public, blah blah blah just like we say when our hackers find unprotected data on the Internet. :P
Yeah, but still, it's somehow interesting how she wandered there. For example, if she was just hopping over hyperlinks on Facebook, it's a bit interesting how distant the kid was from her in a social graph.
What if he do it after? Who would be on the chomping block then? How many of the same people here would be going after the same authorities for not having stopped him beforehand when he made the threat...
Did which part? The eating of still beating human hearts, or the part about laughing out loud?
The choices aren't: do absolutely nothing or lock him up for 8 years.
> How many of the same people here would be going after the same authorities for not having stopped him beforehand when he made the threat
Do you mean if the authorities had done absolutely nothing, or if the authorities had followed up on the lead and done a full investigation on his capabilities? Those are very different scenarios.
I feel bad for Canada. America is going to poison their society and culture... could you imagine if we somehow turned Canadians en masse from the kind and friendly people that we hear about to, well, Americans? We'd end up going to war within a decade.
No doubt. I would have been cloned just so they had enough bodies to put in gitmo, prison, and whatever the NSA torture dungeon that has yet to be leaked is called.
When I was young I had no idea that bitches in Canada be crazy and can actually send you to jail for talking shit.
Read Soljenitsin; you have this for real. Not just a novel like 1984, the very real thing, like being afraid of making a joke, of criticizing nr. 1.