RE: Brad Pitts mom recieves death threats for criticising Obama.
July 13, 2012 at 5:12 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm by Brian37.)
(July 12, 2012 at 3:47 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: TL;DR - you're calling for Zero-Tolerance.
Case in point - "You have to take that shit seriously, no matter who does it, or at least, ask for a clarification."
If you cannot make a viable threat analysis of the person you're dealing with on intonation, diction and an evaluation of past relationship (or lack thereof), that's your problem.
Fact is, the law protects people, even in cases of epithets. It only fails to protect you when you begin to urge others to action or have a history of following through on said actions.
How hard is that to understand?
Or are you going to return back with a series of edge cases that are not even based on legal precedents.
Come back when you actually have Law to argue.
All else is, as usual, your "everyone should step to my beat and mores" jig.
P.S. - use that uninformed head of yours and consider a real case where the crime (threatening the life of the POTUS) and how the US Supreme Court ruled on it.
This is one of the few examples of pure speech being ruled upon as threatening, as well as the decision that the defendant must exhibit within a reasonable expectation of carrying out their threats.
REF: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/.../case.html
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening...ted_States
TL;DR - Motive, history and ability matters. Also context.
I am suggesting it is a bad idea and always a risk. Law should be case by case and we should not pounce on someone who was merely making a joke or just "venting".
I am saying there is a fine line and if you do it, MAKE IT OBVIOUS, so that you don't risk the reality of FOR EXAMPLE ONLY, using the word "bomb" in an airport, EVEN IF YOU ARE QUOTING THE MOVIE AIRPLANE.
I already said that there is a difference between doing that sort of thing with people you know, and complete strangers. How is a complete stranger supposed to know, ESPECIALLY in text?
I agree context matters, so the best thing to do to keep law off your ass when you are just venting is to make it obvious so you don't have to deal with explaining yourself. That is not an atheist or theist issue. That is just advice that when bitching make it clear what you mean so you do have CONTEXT so that you can avoid the "that person is nuts, call the police"
Oh and who his talking about epithets? An epithet is "fucking atheist" or "fucking Jew" or "fucking Muslim". I defy you to show me where I was saying we don't have legal rights to be bigots or assholes?
Threats are not slurs. You can threaten your roommate, your co-worker, your neighbor, and your spouse with physical violence. THAT IS THE CRIME, not liking someone or saying mean things to them is not a crime. Physical threats are the problem, no matter who does it. The right to be a jerk, an asshole or a bigot, IS NOT my issue, THREATS ARE.
You are talking about slurs, I am talking about THREATS.
