As for freedom of speech issues: Threats and harassment are not free speech. Get use to it.
Soooo, about that. The Supreme Court kinda fucked over legal action against online death threats: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/supreme-court-rules-in-anthony-elonis-online-threats-case.html And Clarence Thomas was the only one to say "This is fucking stupid, of course this guy is an asshole and belongs in jail. What the hell is wrong with all of you?" So yeah, random anonymous death threats are easy to get away with as long as you say it's all joke! Go America!
As for freedom of speech issues: Threats and harassment are not free speech. Get use to it.
Soooo, about that. The Supreme Court kinda fucked over legal action against online death threats: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/supreme-court-rules-in-anthony-elonis-online-threats-case.html And Clarence Thomas was the only one to say "This is fucking stupid, of course this guy is an asshole and belongs in jail. What the hell is wrong with all of you?" So yeah, random anonymous death threats are free speech as long as you say it's all joke! Go America!
Reread the article. That didn't touch First Amendment grounds at all, just that the threat had to be intentional.
This is still an incredibly stupid decision that makes prosection hard, mind. But it's not in any way an absolute defense.
Also props for finding probably the only 8-1 where I agree with Clarance Thomas :P
As for freedom of speech issues: Threats and harassment are not free speech. Get use to it.
Soooo, about that. The Supreme Court kinda fucked over legal action against online death threats: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/supreme-court-rules-in-anthony-elonis-online-threats-case.html And Clarence Thomas was the only one to say "This is fucking stupid, of course this guy is an asshole and belongs in jail. What the hell is wrong with all of you?" So yeah, random anonymous death threats are free speech as long as you say it's all joke! Go America!
Reread the article. That didn't touch First Amendment grounds at all, just that the threat had to be intentional.
This is still an incredibly stupid decision that makes prosection hard, mind. But it's not in any way an absolute defense.
Also props for finding probably the only 8-1 where I agree with Clarance Thomas :P
I worded it badly, fixed it to try clean it up. But yeah, it doesn't take away from this being a super cut and dry issue because our government is just pants on head dumb. Thanks to this decision, the avalanche of daily internet death threats are that much more nightmarish to deal with to the point of impossibility from a legal standpoint. "I was just venting" should never be a legal defense for threatening people but welcome to modern America!
As for freedom of speech issues: Threats and harassment are not free speech. Get use to it.
Soooo, about that. The Supreme Court kinda fucked over legal action against online death threats: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/supreme-court-rules-in-anthony-elonis-online-threats-case.html And Clarence Thomas was the only one to say "This is fucking stupid, of course this guy is an asshole and belongs in jail. What the hell is wrong with all of you?" So yeah, random anonymous death threats are free speech as long as you say it's all joke! Go America!
Reread the article. That didn't touch First Amendment grounds at all, just that the threat had to be intentional.
This is still an incredibly stupid decision that makes prosection hard, mind. But it's not in any way an absolute defense.
Also props for finding probably the only 8-1 where I agree with Clarance Thomas :P
I worded it badly, fixed it to try clean it up. But yeah, it doesn't take away from this being a super cut and dry issue because our government is just pants on head dumb. Thanks to this decision, the avalanche of daily internet death threats are that much more nightmarish to deal with to the point of impossibility from a legal standpoint. "I was just venting" should never be a legal defense for threatening people but welcome to modern America!
Normally, when someone says a case is "super cut and dry" they aren't agreeing with the lone dissent given by the courts resident dullard. :rotate:
Popping in again to clarify what seems to be going on with YouTube since it's been mentioned a few times and I've kept somewhat moderate track of how it's been moving along. YouTube isn't so much rolling out a new moderation filter as it is slowly changing the entire site's business model over to a focus on professionally produced content. The first phases of this were YouTube's deals with record labels, movie rentals, and more recently YouTube Red. Demonetization seems to be topic-agnostic, though most "pro" channel operators have changed their models to adapt as well (switching to Patreon rather than relying on monetized advertisements). It was only very early on that some people thought it was targeting some specific users, but the situation has since become much clearer.
IIRC they've erased offending videos by being searched via Google, as well.
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
Somehow, I think we can mark a difference between black protesters demanding that our society treat their lives as valuable, and adherents to one of the most murderous ideologies ever.
Edit: I thought this was a good response to the argument that I saw elsewhere:
A "stalwart absolutist defense of free speech" does have drawbacks.
Tell the dead that they're drawbacks. Tell the terrified, the beaten, the disenfranchised. Tell everyone who actually feels the existential terror of being in a world where "now, now, let's let the nazis say their piece" is the genteel response of people living outside that terror.
Right now you are bending over backward to not say "maybe Nazis should in fact shut the fuck up". You're putting in a hell of a lot of effort there. And you can say you're defending a principle and not the Nazis exploiting that principle, but they are who you are actually helping with this. That's what lets the fuckers keep spreading the good word. That exact tolerance-of-anything-speech-shaped absolutism.
Festering hatred and xenophobia and dehumanization is a hell of a price to consider better than taking megaphones away from the Richard Spencers of the world, and it is a price you are suggesting you are willing to let other people pay if it means you don't have to budge on an abstract principle.
You don't want to carry water, put the fuckin' bucket down.
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
The legal and moral equivalent here wouldn't be BLM. It'd be a neo-Marxist group advocating death to the bougeroes or something. A content neutral "No you may not advocate for ethnic cleansing or genocide" would not hit either of the groups you mentioned.
Many recognize them as the black KKK because they're racist shits. The two groups aren't in any way equivalent.
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
The legal and moral equivalent here wouldn't be BLM. It'd be a neo-Marxist group advocating death to the bougeroes or something. A content neutral "No you may not advocate for ethnic cleansing or genocide" would not hit either of the groups you mentioned.
Many recognize them as the black KKK because they're racist shits. The two groups aren't in any way equivalent.
Do neo-Nazis actually advocate genocide openly while marching? I bet that would not be protected speech. I challenge you to write an objective rule differentiating "we need to protect the interests of white Americans and traditional values" from "we need to protect black people from police shootings".
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Thousands of angry 14 year olds who like rap and metal are open to prosecution if they post lyrics and someone reports feeling threatened by it.
IIRC, the guy wasn't messaging his ex in a targeted way(DM, Email, txt message etc), just making status posts to Facebook.
Also, here is one of the offending posts
“You know your s***’s ridiculous
when you have the FBI knockin’ at yo’ door
Little Agent lady stood so close
Took all the strength I had not to turn the b**** ghost
Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat
Leave her bleedin’ from her jugular in the arms of her
partner
[laughter]
So the next time you knock, you best be serving a
warrant
And bring yo’ SWAT and an explosives expert while
you’re at it
Cause little did y’all know, I was strapped wit’ a bomb
Why do you think it took me so long to get dressed
with no shoes on?
I was jus’ waitin’ for y’all to handcuff me and pat me
down
Touch the detonator in my pocket and we’re all goin’
[BOOM!]
Are all the pieces comin’ together?
S***, I’m just a crazy sociopath
that gets off playin’ you stupid f***s like a fiddle
And if y’all didn’t hear, I’m gonna be famous
Cause I’m just an aspiring rapper who likes the
attention
who happens to be under investigation for terrorism
cause y’all think I’m ready to turn the Valley into
Fallujah
But I ain’t gonna tell you which bridge is gonna fall
into which river or road
And if you really believe this s***
I’ll have some bridge rubble to sell you tomorrow
[BOOM!][BOOM!][BOOM!]”
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
The legal and moral equivalent here wouldn't be BLM. It'd be a neo-Marxist group advocating death to the bougeroes or something. A content neutral "No you may not advocate for ethnic cleansing or genocide" would not hit either of the groups you mentioned.
Many recognize them as the black KKK because they're racist shits. The two groups aren't in any way equivalent.
Do neo-Nazis actually advocate genocide openly while marching? I bet that would not be protected speech. I challenge you to write an objective rule differentiating "we need to protect the interests of white Americans and traditional values" from "we need to protect black people from police shootings".
Neo-Nazis advocate genocide by just existing. It's baked into the ideology.
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
The legal and moral equivalent here wouldn't be BLM. It'd be a neo-Marxist group advocating death to the bougeroes or something. A content neutral "No you may not advocate for ethnic cleansing or genocide" would not hit either of the groups you mentioned.
Many recognize them as the black KKK because they're racist shits. The two groups aren't in any way equivalent.
Do neo-Nazis actually advocate genocide openly while marching? I bet that would not be protected speech. I challenge you to write an objective rule differentiating "we need to protect the interests of white Americans and traditional values" from "we need to protect black people from police shootings".
Neo-Nazis advocate genocide by just existing. It's baked into the ideology.
Do you understand why this cannot be used as a working basis for legislation?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
The legal and moral equivalent here wouldn't be BLM. It'd be a neo-Marxist group advocating death to the bougeroes or something. A content neutral "No you may not advocate for ethnic cleansing or genocide" would not hit either of the groups you mentioned.
Many recognize them as the black KKK because they're racist shits. The two groups aren't in any way equivalent.
Do neo-Nazis actually advocate genocide openly while marching? I bet that would not be protected speech. I challenge you to write an objective rule differentiating "we need to protect the interests of white Americans and traditional values" from "we need to protect black people from police shootings".
Advocating genocide is definitely protected speech right now in the USA unless the person is basically advocating for it to start happening right this second. The landmark case saying the speech had to be intended to and likely to cause imminent lawless behavior literally involved a KKK leader who talked about revenge against Jews.
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
The legal and moral equivalent here wouldn't be BLM. It'd be a neo-Marxist group advocating death to the bougeroes or something. A content neutral "No you may not advocate for ethnic cleansing or genocide" would not hit either of the groups you mentioned.
Many recognize them as the black KKK because they're racist shits. The two groups aren't in any way equivalent.
Do neo-Nazis actually advocate genocide openly while marching? I bet that would not be protected speech. I challenge you to write an objective rule differentiating "we need to protect the interests of white Americans and traditional values" from "we need to protect black people from police shootings".
Neo-Nazis advocate genocide by just existing. It's baked into the ideology.
Yeah things don’t work that way. We tend not to persecute based on ideology for very good reasons.
You can be arrested for being a member of a terrorist organisation in the US. These groups are considered threats because their ideology is considered to drive them to commit criminal terrorist acts.
It's just that Neo-Nazi groups typically are not identified as domestic terrorist groups. Erroneously so, IMO, but there definitely is a basis to that. Why do you think everyone who visits the US has to answer the question "are or or have you ever been a member of the Nazi Party?"
You can be arrested for being a member of a terrorist organisation in the US. These groups are considered threats because their ideology is considered to drive them to commit criminal terrorist acts.
It's just that Neo-Nazi groups typically are not identified as domestic terrorist groups. Erroneously so, IMO, but there definitely is a basis to that. Why do you think everyone who visits the US has to answer the question "are or or have you ever been a member of the Nazi Party?"
are you sure you can be arrested for being a member of a group, and not for either providing support to those groups or planning to do illegal things with them? like, you know, be arrested for actions you take and not just association?
If you, on Twitter, post threats against other citizens in the name of the "Islamic Caliphate" you'd better fucking believe that the local intelligence agency will be all over you. No matter what you've done or not done.
You can be arrested for being a member of a terrorist organisation in the US. These groups are considered threats because their ideology is considered to drive them to commit criminal terrorist acts.
It's just that Neo-Nazi groups typically are not identified as domestic terrorist groups. Erroneously so, IMO, but there definitely is a basis to that. Why do you think everyone who visits the US has to answer the question "are or or have you ever been a member of the Nazi Party?"
This is more like prosecuting someone for being Muslim, because Terrorists are Muslims. We punish for crimes, not ideology.
Ultimately, it comes down to: can we expect Twitter to attempt to improve society and care about more than increasing the number of tweets sent from month-month
You can be arrested for being a member of a terrorist organisation in the US. These groups are considered threats because their ideology is considered to drive them to commit criminal terrorist acts.
It's just that Neo-Nazi groups typically are not identified as domestic terrorist groups. Erroneously so, IMO, but there definitely is a basis to that. Why do you think everyone who visits the US has to answer the question "are or or have you ever been a member of the Nazi Party?"
Ultimately, it comes down to: can we expect Twitter to attempt to improve society and care about more than increasing the number of tweets sent from month-month
No, not unless it is forced to through public or legal pressure.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
The legal and moral equivalent here wouldn't be BLM. It'd be a neo-Marxist group advocating death to the bougeroes or something. A content neutral "No you may not advocate for ethnic cleansing or genocide" would not hit either of the groups you mentioned.
Many recognize them as the black KKK because they're racist shits. The two groups aren't in any way equivalent.
Do neo-Nazis actually advocate genocide openly while marching? I bet that would not be protected speech. I challenge you to write an objective rule differentiating "we need to protect the interests of white Americans and traditional values" from "we need to protect black people from police shootings".
Advocating genocide is definitely protected speech right now in the USA unless the person is basically advocating for it to start happening right this second. The landmark case saying the speech had to be intended to and likely to cause imminent lawless behavior literally involved a KKK leader who talked about revenge against Jews.
And as I've said before, Brandenburg is an shitty ruling that boils down to "Holy fuck, we're holding genteel white bigots to the same standard we hold everyone else? We need to nip that in the bud!", and is a large part of why it's been hard to push back against hate speech targeting communities.
Thousands of angry 14 year olds who like rap and metal are open to prosecution if they post lyrics and someone reports feeling threatened by it.
IIRC, the guy wasn't messaging his ex in a targeted way(DM, Email, txt message etc), just making status posts to Facebook.
Also, here is one of the offending posts
“You know your s***’s ridiculous
when you have the FBI knockin’ at yo’ door
Little Agent lady stood so close
Took all the strength I had not to turn the b**** ghost
Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat
Leave her bleedin’ from her jugular in the arms of her
partner
[laughter]
So the next time you knock, you best be serving a
warrant
And bring yo’ SWAT and an explosives expert while
you’re at it
Cause little did y’all know, I was strapped wit’ a bomb
Why do you think it took me so long to get dressed
with no shoes on?
I was jus’ waitin’ for y’all to handcuff me and pat me
down
Touch the detonator in my pocket and we’re all goin’
[BOOM!]
Are all the pieces comin’ together?
S***, I’m just a crazy sociopath
that gets off playin’ you stupid f***s like a fiddle
And if y’all didn’t hear, I’m gonna be famous
Cause I’m just an aspiring rapper who likes the
attention
who happens to be under investigation for terrorism
cause y’all think I’m ready to turn the Valley into
Fallujah
But I ain’t gonna tell you which bridge is gonna fall
into which river or road
And if you really believe this s***
I’ll have some bridge rubble to sell you tomorrow
[BOOM!][BOOM!][BOOM!]”
Yes, because it's not like there isn't a problem with abusive ex-partners engaging in ideation until they finally act on it.
Just because he wasn't targeting her specifically didn't mean that the lyrics weren't threatening to her, or that she didn't have good reason to fear for her safety. It's also interesting that you bring up Eminem, because guess who actually abused the person he sang about abusing?
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
Somehow, I think we can mark a difference between black protesters demanding that our society treat their lives as valuable, and adherents to one of the most murderous ideologies ever.
Edit: I thought this was a good response to the argument that I saw elsewhere:
snip
There's no "we". The people who would be marking such a difference are not a "we", they are a "they", and they are not trustworthy to do it. You're gonna have the next seven or so years of this shit to remind you of that, it'll probably sink in by the end.
Thousands of angry 14 year olds who like rap and metal are open to prosecution if they post lyrics and someone reports feeling threatened by it.
IIRC, the guy wasn't messaging his ex in a targeted way(DM, Email, txt message etc), just making status posts to Facebook.
Also, here is one of the offending posts
“You know your s***’s ridiculous
when you have the FBI knockin’ at yo’ door
Little Agent lady stood so close
Took all the strength I had not to turn the b**** ghost
Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat
Leave her bleedin’ from her jugular in the arms of her
partner
[laughter]
So the next time you knock, you best be serving a
warrant
And bring yo’ SWAT and an explosives expert while
you’re at it
Cause little did y’all know, I was strapped wit’ a bomb
Why do you think it took me so long to get dressed
with no shoes on?
I was jus’ waitin’ for y’all to handcuff me and pat me
down
Touch the detonator in my pocket and we’re all goin’
[BOOM!]
Are all the pieces comin’ together?
S***, I’m just a crazy sociopath
that gets off playin’ you stupid f***s like a fiddle
And if y’all didn’t hear, I’m gonna be famous
Cause I’m just an aspiring rapper who likes the
attention
who happens to be under investigation for terrorism
cause y’all think I’m ready to turn the Valley into
Fallujah
But I ain’t gonna tell you which bridge is gonna fall
into which river or road
And if you really believe this s***
I’ll have some bridge rubble to sell you tomorrow
[BOOM!][BOOM!][BOOM!]”
Yes, because it's not like there isn't a problem with abusive ex-partners engaging in ideation until they finally act on it.
Just because he wasn't targeting her specifically didn't mean that the lyrics weren't threatening to her, or that she didn't have good reason to fear for her safety. It's also interesting that you bring up Eminem, because guess who actually abused the person he sang about abusing?
To be clear, what are you suggesting? Seems like a giant can of worms you’re opening there.
Ultimately, it comes down to: can we expect Twitter to attempt to improve society and care about more than increasing the number of tweets sent from month-month
You can be arrested for being a member of a terrorist organisation in the US. These groups are considered threats because their ideology is considered to drive them to commit criminal terrorist acts.
It's just that Neo-Nazi groups typically are not identified as domestic terrorist groups. Erroneously so, IMO, but there definitely is a basis to that. Why do you think everyone who visits the US has to answer the question "are or or have you ever been a member of the Nazi Party?"
I have never been asked that question
Up until about 4 years ago you would have answered a similar one. It's out now. The question was "were you involved in the persecutions associated with Nazi Germany between 1939 and 1945".
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
Somehow, I think we can mark a difference between black protesters demanding that our society treat their lives as valuable, and adherents to one of the most murderous ideologies ever.
Edit: I thought this was a good response to the argument that I saw elsewhere:
snip
There's no "we". The people who would be marking such a difference are not a "we", they are a "they", and they are not trustworthy to do it. You're gonna have the next seven or so years of this shit to remind you of that, it'll probably sink in by the end.
At least in my opinion, this is less an argument for inaction lest the wrong people get in power (which doesn't work for a number of reasons, the foremost being that binding your hands doesn't bind theirs), and more an argument for making sure those people aren't given power in the first place.
We should not try to stop Nazis, because otherwise they might try to stop us.
Riiiiiiiight...
I don't think that idea holds water.
Unlimited freedom of speech only empowers the worst of us, the most loudest, meanest, most ruthless and hatefull.
The idea that we must allow nazis and their ilk not only a freedom to talk, but a platform to do so in public, or we also silence those speaking in favor of justice and freedom, is not born out by most of the developed world outside US.
Posts
Reread the article. That didn't touch First Amendment grounds at all, just that the threat had to be intentional.
This is still an incredibly stupid decision that makes prosection hard, mind. But it's not in any way an absolute defense.
Also props for finding probably the only 8-1 where I agree with Clarance Thomas :P
I worded it badly, fixed it to try clean it up. But yeah, it doesn't take away from this being a super cut and dry issue because our government is just pants on head dumb. Thanks to this decision, the avalanche of daily internet death threats are that much more nightmarish to deal with to the point of impossibility from a legal standpoint. "I was just venting" should never be a legal defense for threatening people but welcome to modern America!
Normally, when someone says a case is "super cut and dry" they aren't agreeing with the lone dissent given by the courts resident dullard. :rotate:
Everyone shrugs and goes "duh."
IIRC they've erased offending videos by being searched via Google, as well.
Good to know.
Any other responses? I don't really understand the implications of favoring objective intent vs subjective intent. The justices most of us like all lined up to oppose Clarence Thomas. Why?
Majority opinion starts on page 4:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-983_7l48.pdf
Then most rap lyrics become actionable threats
Whether this is good or bad is probably a whole nother thread
Because they, like the rest of us, live in a society that lauds as a victory for free speech the right of neo-nazis to march in force through a community that is not only comprised significantly of Jewish people, but had a large population of Holocaust survivors.
We, as a society, tend to not appreciate the power of speech at the same time we put it on a pedestal. Which is why we routinely respond to people being genuinely terrorized with "it's only words".
If Neo-Nazis cannot march, then neither can BLM or protests against the Trump Administration. BLM terrorizes non-blacks and families of law enforcers, many recognize them as the black KKK. Trump protests terrorizes those who voted for and support the president, and intimidates them from speaking their mind in public.
Is that what you want? Maybe it is, the way things are going who knows.
Somehow, I think we can mark a difference between black protesters demanding that our society treat their lives as valuable, and adherents to one of the most murderous ideologies ever.
Edit: I thought this was a good response to the argument that I saw elsewhere:
The legal and moral equivalent here wouldn't be BLM. It'd be a neo-Marxist group advocating death to the bougeroes or something. A content neutral "No you may not advocate for ethnic cleansing or genocide" would not hit either of the groups you mentioned.
Many recognize them as the black KKK because they're racist shits. The two groups aren't in any way equivalent.
Doesn't matter. Same way a lot of conservatives call BLM "terrorists" but the DoJ isn't going to he able to get that to stick.
Do neo-Nazis actually advocate genocide openly while marching? I bet that would not be protected speech. I challenge you to write an objective rule differentiating "we need to protect the interests of white Americans and traditional values" from "we need to protect black people from police shootings".
Thousands of angry 14 year olds who like rap and metal are open to prosecution if they post lyrics and someone reports feeling threatened by it.
IIRC, the guy wasn't messaging his ex in a targeted way(DM, Email, txt message etc), just making status posts to Facebook.
Also, here is one of the offending posts
That is clearly someone (badly) writing a rap verse, in the vein of something like.
NSFW obviously
So now you are arguably censoring art.
Neo-Nazis advocate genocide by just existing. It's baked into the ideology.
Do you understand why this cannot be used as a working basis for legislation?
Advocating genocide is definitely protected speech right now in the USA unless the person is basically advocating for it to start happening right this second. The landmark case saying the speech had to be intended to and likely to cause imminent lawless behavior literally involved a KKK leader who talked about revenge against Jews.
Yeah things don’t work that way. We tend not to persecute based on ideology for very good reasons.
You can be arrested for being a member of a terrorist organisation in the US. These groups are considered threats because their ideology is considered to drive them to commit criminal terrorist acts.
It's just that Neo-Nazi groups typically are not identified as domestic terrorist groups. Erroneously so, IMO, but there definitely is a basis to that. Why do you think everyone who visits the US has to answer the question "are or or have you ever been a member of the Nazi Party?"
Why aren't groups who espouse or advocate for genocide or ethnic cleansing classified as terrorist organizations?
Can you put an ISIS flag on the back of your coal roller and not get arrested? I doubt it.
because the gop would lose some support if various militias, the klan, and neo nazis were labeled terrorists and treated as such
are you sure you can be arrested for being a member of a group, and not for either providing support to those groups or planning to do illegal things with them? like, you know, be arrested for actions you take and not just association?
If you're a Nazi? Nope.
This is more like prosecuting someone for being Muslim, because Terrorists are Muslims. We punish for crimes, not ideology.
I have never been asked that question
Even if you couldn't label them as terrorists, you could probably label most of them as gangs.
I mean hell, Juggalos just got classified as a gang and they're just fans of shitty music.
Yep. Remember the shitfit the right had in 2009 over the FBI's report on right wing extremism.
No, not unless it is forced to through public or legal pressure.
And as I've said before, Brandenburg is an shitty ruling that boils down to "Holy fuck, we're holding genteel white bigots to the same standard we hold everyone else? We need to nip that in the bud!", and is a large part of why it's been hard to push back against hate speech targeting communities.
Yes, because it's not like there isn't a problem with abusive ex-partners engaging in ideation until they finally act on it.
Just because he wasn't targeting her specifically didn't mean that the lyrics weren't threatening to her, or that she didn't have good reason to fear for her safety. It's also interesting that you bring up Eminem, because guess who actually abused the person he sang about abusing?
There's no "we". The people who would be marking such a difference are not a "we", they are a "they", and they are not trustworthy to do it. You're gonna have the next seven or so years of this shit to remind you of that, it'll probably sink in by the end.
To be clear, what are you suggesting? Seems like a giant can of worms you’re opening there.
Up until about 4 years ago you would have answered a similar one. It's out now. The question was "were you involved in the persecutions associated with Nazi Germany between 1939 and 1945".
At least in my opinion, this is less an argument for inaction lest the wrong people get in power (which doesn't work for a number of reasons, the foremost being that binding your hands doesn't bind theirs), and more an argument for making sure those people aren't given power in the first place.
Riiiiiiiight...
I don't think that idea holds water.
Unlimited freedom of speech only empowers the worst of us, the most loudest, meanest, most ruthless and hatefull.
The idea that we must allow nazis and their ilk not only a freedom to talk, but a platform to do so in public, or we also silence those speaking in favor of justice and freedom, is not born out by most of the developed world outside US.