Brad Pitts mom recieves death threats for criticising Obama.

[Tempus]

What the hell was his name? Chalk boards, conspiracy theories, everything pointing Obama being the root of all evil. Oh yeah, Glenn Beck. Whatever happened to that douche bag?

I think he's dead. And if he's not, someone better send him a death threat soon.

This actually reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother when I called her last. She started talking about Tom Cruise's divorce and I interrupted by making it very clear I didn't have the slightest interest in celebrity lives. She agreed... and then continued talking about it!

[Faith No More]

Glen Beck still spews his unique brand of idiocy on his own channel that is broadcast over the internet.

[Autumnlicious]

There is a HUGE difference between being offensive and making physical threats.

Not really.

"I'm gonna kill you" said in a rage != 'I'm gonna kill you" said seriously.

Given the above, it appears that what is strictly said is equivalent. However, the method of which it is presented differs.

Even then, you cannot judge someone just because they made a threat, any more than "God exists because I say so!" has any credible evidence inlined within itself. There has to be more than that, usually in the forms of actions taken or a history of acting upon said threats (Pseudo-anonymous twitter posters aren't known for presenting a threat).

Else you're just, as usual, dictating what people can do.

And in that particular edge case, have yourself a nice steaming cup of "Go fuck yourself."

TL;DR - you need more than a simple epithet to decide that ones life is actually at threat.

[Brian37]

There is a HUGE difference between being offensive and making physical threats.

Not really.

"I'm gonna kill you" said in a rage != 'I'm gonna kill you" said seriously.

Given the above, it appears that what is strictly said is equivalent. However, the method of which it is presented differs.

Even then, you cannot judge someone just because they made a threat, any more than "God exists because I say so!" has any credible evidence inlined within itself. There has to be more than that, usually in the forms of actions taken or a history of acting upon said threats (Pseudo-anonymous twitter posters aren't known for presenting a threat).

Else you're just, as usual, dictating what people can do.

And in that particular edge case, have yourself a nice steaming cup of "Go fuck yourself."

TL;DR - you need more than a simple epithet to decide that ones life is actually at threat.

While it is true, for example, when I was a kid my mom at one point may have said "I am going to kill you" and I know she didn't mean it.

BUT that fine line is worse because you are not dealing with people you know personally. That girl who got the prayer banner removed from the high school got physical threats and death threats. You cannot honestly say that even if some of them are merely venting, that there could not be some who did it meant it.

You have to take that shit seriously, no matter who does it, or at least, ask for a clarification.

For example only. I have seen the challenge from atheists about how absurd claims of the after life are. FOR EXAMPLE ONLY

I've said myself, "Well, if you believe that, take a shotgun, blow your own head off, and come back and tell me if there really is an after life." I HAVE DONE THAT.

But I also follow it up with the following, "I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND IT". In order to show the absurdity of their claim.

When framed like that there is no mistake that the person reading it could make as a literal threat.

So if someone is going to even merely vent about wanting, if merely in venting, to "strangle" someone, then when taking that risk, you better damned well make that clear. WHOMEVER is doing it, because if you don't make yourself clear, when you don't really mean it, you can get yourself into some REAL potential trouble. And that advice isn't for atheists, that is for anyone who is just merely bitching.

People DO make real threats and DO really mean it sometimes. So how do you tell when it is someone you don't know?

There are laws against even making physical threats even if you don't act on that threat, when the cops show up, they aren't concerned, when they don't know you personally, if you try to cop out to "I didn't mean it".

It is the risk you take when even merely venting. How someone takes it even if you didn't mean it, can mean jail time for you. It is true even in mere work place or schools, or on your own street.

I simply would not recommend anyone, no matter their label, do that unless they make it blatantly clear and so obvious that it cannot be misunderstood.


Even outside this issue, how many people here would even risk joking with violence in an airport today, EVEN IF, they did not mean it. I personally would say it would be really stupid.

[Autumnlicious]

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.

[Brian37]

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.

[Autumnlicious]

I'm not taking this further.

I don't know where you got the idea I talked about "just" slurs.

As it stands, I linked a supreme court decision that ruled on a threat made and supported "free speech" in the context of threat analysis.

If you can't see that, it's because you're using your head to stuff dirty rags.

Also, by my points, nowhere have I laid out a case against making epithets/free speech. In fact, I supported the "right to be profane" and even looked at threats to a head of state.

[Brian37]

What is it you want from me, are there limits to free speech? YES, you cannot yell fire in a theater and you cant sell porn to kids. Ok? AND you cannot physically harm someone outside self defense and you cannot call for the physical harm to others, BE it your neighbor, your spouse or anyone, race, religion or politics.

I am still stuck on how epithets got equated to physical threats, because they are NOT the same. There is no Supreme Court case I know of that forces people only to say nice things about each other. In fact People vs Larry Flint if you want to bring up free speech says you can offend people and piss them off.

What is your point?