http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... avo_threat
The federal charge against Dera Marie Jones stems from a posting on an America Online message board: "If she dies I will kill Michael Schiavo and the judge. This for real!"
Jones told FBI agents she was "just kidding" and soon began receiving threats herself, FBI Agent Christopher Sadlowski wrote in an affidavit filed Monday in federal court in San Francisco.
Jones, 32, is charged with transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure a person.
Saying something doesn't mean it's an actual threat, especially on the Internet. Every one of us has said something online that we don't really mean. What this woman said was probably done in the heat of the moment, but certainly she would never carry out such an act.
What else could she have said, "Boy, if she dies I'll be very angry at those responsible." Are you kidding me?
Somehow, Rammstein - Amerika needs to start playing... And fuck off you euros, I've seen related stories happening there too. Can you smell the new world odor? It's big brother's armpit pressing against your nose.
This post P.C. era can shove it. Everything has to be it's literal definition, but it all depends on who pens the definitions. Blacks aren't blacks, they're African-Americans, even though they never set foot in Africa... And a white woman, born somewhere on the Ivory Coast who now lives in New York of course can't be an African-American. Don't say straight people! That implies gays are crooked, and therefor not normal! And make sure you close your eyes when Justin Timberlake exposes JANET JACKSON'S PASTIE!!!!! DEAR GOD, IT'S SOMETHING COVERING HER NIPPLE!!!! LIKE A SHIRT, BUT SMALLER! WHAT EVER WILL WE DO!?
Fuck off. Yeah, in America that actually means what it says. Go have sex. :\
Anyone else thirsty? I'd kill for a glass of ice water right now. Anyone else into stocks? I made a killing on AmeriTrade last year.
Attention: You're all going to jail.
Attention: You're all going to jail.
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
Exactly the response I was waiting for.
Get ready to be Geoff's bitch behind bars, because he's already made so many threats here, you'll be sharing the same cell in no time, Sally.
*mwah!*
Edit: As poorly as EA treats their workers, they're nothing like the rapist CG companies in India who are stealing American jobs by creating the equivalent of sweat shop labor in the CG field and stealing tons of business.
Get ready to be Geoff's bitch behind bars, because he's already made so many threats here, you'll be sharing the same cell in no time, Sally.
*mwah!*
Edit: As poorly as EA treats their workers, they're nothing like the rapist CG companies in India who are stealing American jobs by creating the equivalent of sweat shop labor in the CG field and stealing tons of business.
Last edited by rep on Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
-
LOL INTERNET
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:08 pm
Re: Attention: You're all going to jail.
SORRY MR REP BUT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN EUROPE BECAUSE EUROPE ISN'T FULL OF AMERICANSrep wrote:ht
Somehow, Rammstein - Amerika needs to start playing... And fuck off you euros, I've seen related stories happening there too. Can you smell the new world odor? It's big brother's armpit pressing against your nose.
-
LOL INTERNET
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:08 pm
-
Guest
-
Guest
-
-Replicant-
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:00 am
there's a legal reasoning for that, by the way. the definition of a "true threat" was established in a mixture of 2 cases, Brandenburg v. Ohio and Watts v. United States (Watts is the one where the terminology came about and the one that has the most relevance to what this woman said). The first big application of this online was in United States v. Baker. Its interesting to see how the law has been applied and interpreted over time.
http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.brandenburg.html
http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.watts.html
http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.baker.html
edit: the first amendment and its application to the internet are my two areas of interest for law school
http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.brandenburg.html
http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.watts.html
http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.baker.html
edit: the first amendment and its application to the internet are my two areas of interest for law school
-
-Replicant-
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:00 am
those are the 3 cases that i was talking about, and i don't really feel like explaining everything. quick synopsis, since thats what most people can only deal with (read the full text, about 1-2 pages each for the justices' opinions):Dr_Watson wrote:don't just link supreme court cases without quantifying their relevance...
i'm not sure who's being lazier, me for not being arsed to click and read them, or you for just posting sources rather than posting a fully formed opinion.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
•Facts
o Ku Klux Klan held a rally in a field outside of Columbus, Ohio
o During the rally, a speech was given proclaiming that: “We[the Klan are] not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.”
o A tape of the rally was later shown and charges were brought against the Klan for breaking an Ohio law forbidding the assembly of such groups
• Findings
o The Supreme Court overturned the ruling on the grounds that it infringed on people’s right to freely assemble
o Established that groups could assemble under their first amendment rights as long as it did not pose a threat to others.
Watts v. United States
• Facts
o On August 27th, 1966 there was a public Vietnam protest rally on the Washington Monument grounds
o The petitioner, 18 years old at the time, was overheard saying “They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”
o Petitioner was arrested for threatening harm to the President, a felony.
• Findings
o Petitioner did not present a “true threat” to the President
o Speech was political in nature, although crude, and represented the petitioner’s political beliefs
United States v. Baker
• Facts
o Baker posted stories depicting the graphic torture, rape and murder of a woman on a message board
o This woman was given the name of one of Baker’s classmates at the University of Michigan
o Baker was arrested after the FBI and local authorities were contacted regarding his private e-mails with Gonda
• Findings
o Based on the ground rules laid out in Watts, Baker did not constitute a “true threat” to those around him because he did not specify a particular date or time or inform the victim of his intentions. Because of this, he did not act as a “true threat” to the potential victim and thus his freedom of speech rights are protected
These are my notes for the lecture I'm giving on this topic next week, so they're full of gaps that I'll be filling in from memory, but that will suffice to give you an idea
-
-Replicant-
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:00 am
and some quick explanation, since those notes don't do the justices' reasoning...justice.
Brandenburg - Basically, because the Klan was not advocating immediate action with foreseeable consequences against a near object (IE, because they were simply saying that if things don't change they might get upset, and they were out in the middle of a corn field), then they have the right to do whatever the heck they want to. An example of where this wouldn't be the case is if Nazis were to have a rally and a march through a Jewish neighborhood, because its too close in proximity to the group its policies effect/have affected in the past, and there is a high probability of violence as a result.
Watts v. US - because Watts based his threat on a list of conditions which he didn't plan to follow through with (IE: "I am not going") and because he was obviously against the war and not likely to go (again, as evidenced by "I am not going.") then the condition in his statement that he would shoot LBJ if they put a rifle in his hand would never occur, thus removing any "true threat" from the situation because of all the statements upon which he conditioned his threat which would never be fullfilled.
US v. Baker - combine the reasoning for the first two cases and apply it to cyberspace. voila. because there was no "true threat" since he didn't specify date, time or give the victim any knowledge of his intentions. therefore, while crude and distateful, his speech was protected under the 1st amendment.
if you look at Watts, you can see how this woman's statements, that she WOULD kill Mr. Schivo and the judge IF she died (which she did), conditioned her actions upon something which DID happen. Thus, she constituted a "true threat" to the judge and Mr. Schivo.
Brandenburg - Basically, because the Klan was not advocating immediate action with foreseeable consequences against a near object (IE, because they were simply saying that if things don't change they might get upset, and they were out in the middle of a corn field), then they have the right to do whatever the heck they want to. An example of where this wouldn't be the case is if Nazis were to have a rally and a march through a Jewish neighborhood, because its too close in proximity to the group its policies effect/have affected in the past, and there is a high probability of violence as a result.
Watts v. US - because Watts based his threat on a list of conditions which he didn't plan to follow through with (IE: "I am not going") and because he was obviously against the war and not likely to go (again, as evidenced by "I am not going.") then the condition in his statement that he would shoot LBJ if they put a rifle in his hand would never occur, thus removing any "true threat" from the situation because of all the statements upon which he conditioned his threat which would never be fullfilled.
US v. Baker - combine the reasoning for the first two cases and apply it to cyberspace. voila. because there was no "true threat" since he didn't specify date, time or give the victim any knowledge of his intentions. therefore, while crude and distateful, his speech was protected under the 1st amendment.
if you look at Watts, you can see how this woman's statements, that she WOULD kill Mr. Schivo and the judge IF she died (which she did), conditioned her actions upon something which DID happen. Thus, she constituted a "true threat" to the judge and Mr. Schivo.
-
FragaGeddon
- Posts: 3229
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 7:00 am
-
-Replicant-
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:00 am
oh, and i'd be careful about what you say 
-
-Replicant-
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:00 am
