Kid jailed over Facebook comment

[MikeK]

I've deleted a message I posted earlier in which I mistakenly believed the subject "kid" was an adolescent rather than a nineteen year-old. (My fault for not reading the link first.)

But regardless of the subject's age his arrest was an over-reaction and imprisoning him is evidence of the authoritarian direction the U.S. is moving in. Based on what this fellow said, and whom he said it to, only a dunce would perceive it as other than insensitive sarcasm.

 

[Cuyo]

Sad even you dont understand your own movement.

Help explain it to me.

i dont know if I can in two syllable words for you.




How about. elitism? If you cant read the word it means they think they are smart and you are stupid and want to tell you how to live.

I'm just now becoming familiar with you and I think you're stupid. Does that make me elitist?

 

[Politico]

Don't post stupid shit and you won't get arrested.

 

[MikeK]

Don't post stupid shit and you won't get arrested.

That position defines the difference between a citizen and a subject.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AmyNation, the issue here is boundaries, and you don't seem to respect them.. The child should not have said such a thing publicly; common sense and the law prevents it.

What is your problem with boundaries. Were you the one who said as a 17 year old girl you were after 14 year old boys. No sensible boundaries.

The problem is you seem to think that common sense boundaries should equate to criminal boundaries.

Not at all. Older children should not engage in sexual activity, including kissing, with younger children if the age difference is great enough.

No one should ever be allowed to cover threatening or terroristic language as "joking" or "just kidding."

If someone is saying that such laws approach authoritarianism, then those people who oppose such laws may be hiding agendas that should be known to others.

 

[AmyNation]

Sorry jake, contrary to your opinion, we still have the right to offense jokes in this country.

This kid has not been found guilty of anything, and I'd bet that the charges end up dismissed or he is eventually found not guilty.

 

[Montrovant]

AmyNation, the issue here is boundaries, and you don't seem to respect them.. The child should not have said such a thing publicly; common sense and the law prevents it.

What is your problem with boundaries. Were you the one who said as a 17 year old girl you were after 14 year old boys. No sensible boundaries.

The problem is you seem to think that common sense boundaries should equate to criminal boundaries.

Not at all. Older children should not engage in sexual activity, including kissing, with younger children if the age difference is great enough.

No one should ever be allowed to cover threatening or terroristic language as "joking" or "just kidding."

If someone is saying that such laws approach authoritarianism, then those people who oppose such laws may be hiding agendas that should be known to others.

Hah! "If you think this is being authoritarian, you should be investigated"! Let's use the power of the state to suppress those who question the power of the state, eh?

We're going to need to arrest a large number of people by this reasoning. I've seen many, many instances of this type of language over the years in my online interactions. As someone else posted, similar or worse things are said very often in MMOs. Go spend some time browsing 4chan; assuming it hasn't changed since the last time I was there, there are tons of posts this bad or worse. It has to stop! Oh, the humanity! Even if nothing is meant by it, even if it is clearly said as a joke, even if investigation into the person reveals no threats or plans of terrorism, just the words are so terrible!

You never answered my earlier question, Jake....since I've typed and posted the words, "I want to shoot up a school", should I also be arrested? If the context is irrelevant, are you going to report me to the FBI or some other authority? Sure, I clearly am not making an actual threat, but since I support free speech rights in this case, I must be hiding some nefarious plans, yes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry jake, contrary to your opinion, we still have the right to offense jokes in this country. This kid has not been found guilty of anything, and I'd bet that the charges end up dismissed or he is eventually found not guilty.

No one has the right to jokes that are seemingly violent or terroristic.

Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the phrase is used as an hypothetical in a case study of a problem, of course not. Oh, and your red herring of "are you going to report me" is relentlessly stupid.

No matter how many words you type, M, you cannot get away that the kid may very well have broken the law and that the police were completely right to get involved.

 

[AmyNation]

Ok jake, please supply the law that says no one has the right to jokes about violence.

 

[AmyNation]

Btw, the kid has been moved 4 times, suffered serious beatings in jail, been put in solitary confinement and now sits naked in a cell because he's on suicide watch.

Justin Carter, Teen Jailed For Facebook Comment, Reportedly On Suicide Watch

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amy, this is not my OP: Texas teen charged with making terroristic threat after online joke | khou.com Houston

If you disagree with the arrest, you have demonstrate with solid evidence that it was wrong.

Then I can reply. I am not going to build a case for you, when it is your affirmation.

Get to it.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Btw, the kid has been moved 4 times, suffered serious beatings in jail, been put in solitary confinement and now sits naked in a cell because he's on suicide watch.

Justin Carter, Teen Jailed For Facebook Comment, Reportedly On Suicide Watch

Sounds like he might have a lawsuit if that is true. I didn't follow the story.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

[QU



I don'tOTE=JakeStarkey;7482374]

Sorry jake, contrary to your opinion, we still have the right to offense jokes in this country. This kid has not been found guilty of anything, and I'd bet that the charges end up dismissed or he is eventually found not guilty.

No one has the right to jokes that are seemingly violent or terroristic.

Period.[/QUOTE]

I don't know the details but there are no laws about jokes that seem violent, etc that I know of. If that were the case Biden would behind bars right now. What laws are you referring to?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Don't post stupid shit and you won't get arrested.

That position defines the difference between a citizen and a subject.

That is a very, very true statement. I'm sure Mike would have no problem being frisked by a cop on demand or would give consent to the police to search his car. Nothing to hide right?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Amy, this is not my OP: Texas teen charged with making terroristic threat after

online joke | khou.com Houston

If you disagree with the arrest, you have demonstrate with solid evidence that it was wrong.

Then I can reply. I am not going to build a case for you, when it is your affirmation.

Get to it.

Well innnocent before proven guilty comes to mind. What was he arrested for? A joke? Guess that will fill up some time while the DOJ continues to NOT prosecute the list of 300 un indicted terrorist co conspirators named at HLF TRIAL for the 5 th straight year.

Priorities, priorities, go after the skinny teen ager telling a joke on facebook.

This administration is getting more embarrassing by the second. Seriously.

-J.

 

[Montrovant]

If the phrase is used as an hypothetical in a case study of a problem, of course not. Oh, and your red herring of "are you going to report me" is relentlessly stupid.

No matter how many words you type, M, you cannot get away that the kid may very well have broken the law and that the police were completely right to get involved.

You are the one defending the arrest and apparently fairly long imprisonment of this person for what was clearly a joke, what he in fact said was a joke at the time. If that is not protected, why should anything I say here, even as a hypothetical, be exempt?

Do you know what the rules are to differentiate what is a 'terroristic threat' and what is protected speech? I hope you do, because otherwise your defense of this incident is more ridiculous than it already sounds.

If this kid broke the law, it is because the law is incredibly stupid. Perhaps more importantly, why is he still imprisoned? Has he been given a chance to make bail, has he been arraigned, what are the formal charges, is there a trial date set, etc.? How long should he remain imprisoned, even if his words broke the law?

It's not the technicalities of law that interest me here, it is your seemingly blind acceptance of them, Jake. Do you honestly believe that jokes of this nature should be illegal? That, say, a standup comedian should be jailed if he/she says something similar in a routine? Does the offense have something to do with the medium in which it was used? I cannot understand why you think the words used should be a crime, absent any evidence it is a real threat, other than slavish adherence to the state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the phrase is used as an hypothetical in a case study of a problem, of course not. Oh, and your red herring of "are you going to report me" is relentlessly stupid.

No matter how many words you type, M, you cannot get away that the kid may very well have broken the law and that the police were completely right to get involved.

You are the one defending the arrest and apparently fairly long imprisonment of this person for what was clearly a joke, what he in fact said was a joke at the time. If that is not protected, why should anything I say here, even as a hypothetical, be exempt?

Do you know what the rules are to differentiate what is a 'terroristic threat' and what is protected speech? I hope you do, because otherwise your defense of this incident is more ridiculous than it already sounds.

If this kid broke the law, it is because the law is incredibly stupid. Perhaps more importantly, why is he still imprisoned? Has he been given a chance to make bail, has he been arraigned, what are the formal charges, is there a trial date set, etc.? How long should he remain imprisoned, even if his words broke the law?

It's not the technicalities of law that interest me here, it is your seemingly blind acceptance of them, Jake. Do you honestly believe that jokes of this nature should be illegal? That, say, a standup comedian should be jailed if he/she says something similar in a routine? Does the offense have something to do with the medium in which it was used? I cannot understand why you think the words used should be a crime, absent any evidence it is a real threat, other than slavish adherence to the state.

My "blind acceptance" of reaction to violent and threatening language bothers you?

I could care less what you think of that. My opinion in no way can be clearly established as "slavish adherence" to the law.

You are simply mad that you don't get to say whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want.

We are not a libertarian state and never have been, and I am not sure a libertarian government would permit such behavior that threatens others.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amy, this is not my OP: Texas teen charged with making terroristic threat after

online joke | khou.com Houston

If you disagree with the arrest, you have demonstrate with solid evidence that it was wrong.

Then I can reply. I am not going to build a case for you, when it is your affirmation.

Get to it.

Well innnocent before proven guilty comes to mind. What was he arrested for? A joke? Guess that will fill up some time while the DOJ continues to NOT prosecute the list of 300 un indicted terrorist co conspirators named at HLF TRIAL for the 5 th straight year.

Priorities, priorities, go after the skinny teen ager telling a joke on facebook.

This administration is getting more embarrassing by the second. Seriously.

-J.

And that will be up to the courts and not the reactionaries.

 

[Montrovant]

If the phrase is used as an hypothetical in a case study of a problem, of course not. Oh, and your red herring of "are you going to report me" is relentlessly stupid.

No matter how many words you type, M, you cannot get away that the kid may very well have broken the law and that the police were completely right to get involved.

You are the one defending the arrest and apparently fairly long imprisonment of this person for what was clearly a joke, what he in fact said was a joke at the time. If that is not protected, why should anything I say here, even as a hypothetical, be exempt?

Do you know what the rules are to differentiate what is a 'terroristic threat' and what is protected speech? I hope you do, because otherwise your defense of this incident is more ridiculous than it already sounds.

If this kid broke the law, it is because the law is incredibly stupid. Perhaps more importantly, why is he still imprisoned? Has he been given a chance to make bail, has he been arraigned, what are the formal charges, is there a trial date set, etc.? How long should he remain imprisoned, even if his words broke the law?

It's not the technicalities of law that interest me here, it is your seemingly blind acceptance of them, Jake. Do you honestly believe that jokes of this nature should be illegal? That, say, a standup comedian should be jailed if he/she says something similar in a routine? Does the offense have something to do with the medium in which it was used? I cannot understand why you think the words used should be a crime, absent any evidence it is a real threat, other than slavish adherence to the state.

My "blind acceptance" of reaction to violent and threatening language bothers you?

I could care less what you think of that. My opinion in no way can be clearly established as "slavish adherence" to the law.

You are simply mad that you don't get to say whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want.

We are not a libertarian state and never have been, and I am not sure a libertarian government would permit such behavior that threatens others.

Your blind acceptance of imprisonment for a joke bothers me. Your inability to separate a joke from an actual threat bothers me. Your determination to curtail free speech rights bothers me. Your attempt to equate this to yelling 'fire' in a theater bothers me. Your seeming inability to look at context bothers me.

It bothers me that bail was, so far as I have read, set at half a million dollars for this young man. That seems incredibly excessive unless there is a lot of evidence (which I haven't seen) that this threat was serious.

It also bothers me, inasmuch as it may indicate a lack of clarity on my part, that you apparently assume I am a libertarian and that I think I should be able to say anything at any time to anyone. However, I'm leaning toward that being an issue of your own projected biases rather than my inability to get my points across.

It bothers me that your (apparent) belief that our constitutional freedoms should be so easily suborned to vague and ill-defined ideas of safety seems to prevalent in the US these days. It bothers me that the threat of terrorism has been used to start chipping away at individual rights so easily, and it bothers me that I don't see that ending any time soon.