Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech 436
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Elonis v. United States, in a case that could result in more attention paid to language in online postings. After a series of angry posts on Facebook in the form of explicit rap lyrics "about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent," Anthony Elonis "was convicted of making threats of violence and sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison. A federal appeals court rejected his claim that his comments were protected by the First Amendment.
The Obama administration says requiring proof that a speaker intended to be threatening would undermine the law's protective purpose. In its brief to the court, the Justice Department argued that no matter what someone believes about his comments, it does not lessen the fear and anxiety they might cause for other people.
WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST FUCKING SAY?!?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
The copypasta is the central debate of the case. (Score:2, Funny)
The linked copypasta [knowyourmeme.com] is actually germane to the case. Your grandmother who never used the Internet would likely perceive it as a threat. Those of us who live on the Internet recognize it for what it is.
To further illustrate the point:
What in the blue blaz
Re: (Score:3)
"Gorilla" apparently being the keyword here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And you're either a troll or completely clueless. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta
In the news today (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In the news today (Score:4, Insightful)
Words are not deeds. Everybody needs to stop conflating the two.
If you want to restrict my speech, I want to make women cover themselves. Their provocative dress incites rape.
Re: (Score:2)
Hannibal already did it.
SPOILER ALERT!
-
-
-
-
In one episode, Lechter flash-freezes a CSI and vertically bisects her body. He sandwiches one half in glass, and vertically bisects the other half, sandwiching the middle quarter in glss and bisecting the outer quarter, sandwiching the middle eighth and bisecting the outer eighth, all the way down until he's got eight sandwiches, then he stands them in a museum atrium for the police to find. I fucking love that show.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to popular media, there's no insanity defense.
Contrary to your belief, the insanity defense is valid in U.S. federal court and all but 4 U.S. states.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html [findlaw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to tell a genuine insane rant from a "joke" [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't like what he says? Don't buy his music.
Didn't read the story, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
Been there and done that. Well, I told him to rot in hell, but same idea. I can't say the result was pleasant, but I was not convicted of a crime as a result.
With stuff like this maybe yes or no but look out (Score:2)
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com... [cbslocal.com]
Not about rap (Score:5, Insightful)
For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks".....most lower courts have [ruled] that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.
So apparently the jury decided that a reasonable person would see those Facebook posts as a true threat.
The real thing to take from this is be careful what you say online. It's not ranting in a bar, it's public record.
Re: Not about rap (Score:2)
It's sad how many people simultaneously try to share information online and treat the same exact service as if it was a 100% private diary. (Or, at the least, that only their small group of friends could ever see it.). No matter how private the message, you should always treat it as if it will spread to everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Grumble grumble. I came into the comments section to see reactionary histrionics and all you can manage is reasonable and dispassionate analysis?
Re: (Score:2)
Grumble grumble. I came into the comments section to see reactionary histrionics and all you can manage is reasonable and dispassionate analysis?
Yeah, it's because of people like me that civilization will end, having found its death in boredom.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I'm not really seeing what the principal issue here is. If a woman has had a violent boyfriend and he leaves Eninem's "Smack my bitch up" on her answering machine, that's a pretty blatant threat. Almost like using newspaper clippings to make threat letters, whatever they were you're using them as a threat now. That said, you seem to get away with an awful lot of threats by proxy by saying "The [holy book] says that [type of sinners] should be [punishment]." instead of making the threats yourself. I gu
Re: (Score:2)
However, that is not the issue before the supreme court here. The question before them is, "is the 'reasonable person would consider it a threat' test a valid test, or should the test be changed to 'proven intent to injure?" I'm not sure they will be willing to change that standard, but this court has been a str
Re: (Score:2)
So, "No means no [wordpress.com]" really means "No means 'the courts will decide'"?
I'm really not sure where this is coming from, or how it relates.
Oh, the irony!! (Score:2)
Who wants to bet that Obama and Holder were great First Amendment supporters back in 1992 during the Body Count "Cop Killer" brouhaha?
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to bet that Obama and Holder were great First Amendment supporters back in 1992 during the Body Count "Cop Killer" brouhaha?
Freedom of speech, just watch what you say. [youtube.com]
Threats Vs. Free Speech always a judgement call (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it's porn if a judge gets hard when looking at it?
Re: (Score:3)
The balance goes to the free speech rights 100%. No law can exist which can override someone's right to free speech.
Fortunately, only a few lunatics like yourself wish that were the case.
Turns out the rest of society thinks there are quite a few edge cases.
Phoning someone to make death threats is one.
Calling in a fake bomb threat is another.
You may disagree. That's your right. But the rest of us are on board with these restrictions.
Now somewhere between phoning in a death threat, and free speech we have a w
Re: (Score:2)
That's all this is, it's balancing the laws protecting citizens against credible threats vs. the free speech rights of the person making the threat.
The balance goes to the free speech rights 100%. No law can exist which can override someone's right to free speech.
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...]
So every law that doesn't have explicit exceptions to allow freedom of speech:
A) Has implicit exceptions to allow freedom of speech, or
B) Is not valid under the Constitution of the United States of America, as congress has no authority to pass such a law
Oh bullshit. I'm not even American and I know that libel / slander / defamation / threats are not covered by your free speech amendment.
The trick is, what's a real threat, what's not? What's defamatory, what's not?
But there is absolutely no 100% guarantee of free speech for anything that comes out of one's mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is, what's a real threat, what's not? What's defamatory, what's not?
The question here isn't really whether it is a "real threat" or not. (Although if it is a real threat then the police needs to go out and arrest the guy, this is not a matter of "freedom of speech", it is a matter of preventing a murder). The question is whether the speech is damaging to the victim. And a death threat is absolutely without any doubt damaging. Seriously, that's why the death threat is being made, to cause damage to the victim.
I'd say a good law change would be to state that when a death t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. I'm not even American and I know that libel / slander / defamation / threats are not covered by your free speech amendment.
That's according to the government, not the actual constitution, you fool. You do realize the government can and does ignore the constitution, right?
So some internet retard is arguing that it's constitutionally protected speech to threaten to kill someone or to claim that one was raped by Anonymous Coward of 123 Coward Lane when it isn't true?
Well, the links you've provided to back up your "point of view" (being generous there) sure are convincing!
Re: (Score:2)
Take, for instance, the 2nd amendment.
People who elect to live in some government housing cannot keep and bear arms in that housing.
Tenants waive that right and the authorities can and do file charges for those exercising their right.
Courts have successfully litigated those cases, so your position in wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court would be invalidating its own existence only if the validity of the Supreme Court were an issue before the court and the court decided to invalidate its own validity.
To date, the validity of the Supreme Court has not been challenged in the lower courts and gone through the appeals process and been accepted by the Supreme Court for consideration, so you're full of shit and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
this guy needed psychological help more than anything
Even if he wasn't pissed at society when he wrote that, he is now!
9 out of 10 Chinese censors approve (Score:4, Interesting)
Context is everything in regards to free speech. Was the post specifically addressed to the subject, i.e. posted on the subject's facebook page vs their own facebook page. What was the author's psychological profile, i.e. any psychological disorders, recent unemployment, history of violence, etc. From what I have researched on the web this guy in urban dictionary terms is a "poser" who is obnoxious and crass but otherwise harmless. The subject was right in alerting authorities and in addition they should have obtained a restraining order against Anthony as well as acquired a firearm to protect themselves. Certainly law enforcement should investigate all perceived threats and in this case they did.
Perhaps his biggest mistake was to fantasize about harming an FBI agent. In a police state any public dissention or insubordination to government authority must be met with harsh retaliation to set an example. We will see if the current supreme court, strict constructionists who deem even money a form of speech, will decide that his speech was protected or that it was illegal and consequentially grant the government power to arbitrarily imprison people solely based verbal expression.
Clickbait headline (Score:5, Insightful)
The wider implication is in the area of cyberbullying and online death threats - if threats are judged from the perspective of a reasonable recipient, rather than the intent of the sender, then the "oh, everyone makes death threats online, they'd never follow through" defense fizzles away.
Yuh Huh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment basically says the government can't interfere with speech and punishing speech is interference. Or perhaps you think that as long as the government doesn't actually gag you it's fine? Making it illegal to say anything negative about the government is fine as you're still free to speak but due to the consequences of criticizing the government, going to jail for your speech is fine?
Usually the consequence argument is along the line that you're free to make false speech but then no-one will
Re: (Score:2)
Tricky! (Score:2)
This is a tricky one.
The old adage is that you have free speech only in so far as that is not used intentionally to cause harm i.e. Willfully shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre is well known. The key aspect here is willful speech, just shouting something like FIRE without willful intent is not enough and has occurred in differing circumstances because of illness or being miss-heard.
In this case the perpetrator has posted in a semi-public forum speech that could be construed as a manifesto of illegal action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A threat is a threat (Score:2)
A threat is a threat, no matter how "nicely" you try to wrap it up.
Crime as Expressive Art? (Score:3)
If I make a threat to kill
The whole world must relax and chill
Because I define the things I say
And you must take them just that way
And when I act offensively
You must accept my artistry
Because my right to have my say
Trumps your right to a peaceful day.
What about metalheads (Score:2)
And what about thrash/death metal bands? Are their lyrics a crime too? Like Exodus, Slayer, Cannibal Corpse, Kreator, etc? Are metalheads and punk rockers now all retroactively now considered terrorists?
This is seriously f**ked up. The Supreme Court better inject some sanity here or things are about to get stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Threats are... (Score:2)
fool ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of it like this, if these lyrics were written in a bathroom stall, would anyone care about it?
The only time when the idea of free speech should be trumped, is when there is intent to cause harm, like yelling bomb or fire in a crowded area, or shining a laser pointer at an air plane or person. Sure, a business or person can or should be able to get a restraining order on the person, but that shouldn't stop them from the ability to practice free speech.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only time when the idea of free speech should be trumped, is when there is intent to cause harm, like yelling bomb or fire in a crowded area
The first amendment lists no such exceptions. If people panic and harm others, that is on them and no one else.
or shining a laser pointer at an air plane or person.
How does that even qualify as speech?
Easy. (Score:5, Funny)
Morse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rap isn't free speech. (Score:5, Informative)
The only time when the idea of free speech should be trumped, is when there is intent to cause harm, like yelling bomb or fire in a crowded area
The first amendment lists no such exceptions. If people panic and harm others, that is on them and no one else.
There have always been limits to the 1st Amendment. At least the Supreme Court has always believed there are limits and contrary to ideologues' rantings it is the Supreme Court's job to define how the Constitution applies in the real world. Here's a Wikipedia page on United States free speech exceptions [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Supreme Court is usually made up of hardcore authoritarians that modify the constitution with invisible ink in order to give the government more power. Citing their invalid opinions and appealing to authority will not change reality.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court is usually made up of hardcore authoritarians that modify the constitution with invisible ink in order to give the government more power.
[Citation needed]
If you look at the history of the U.S., you'll find that it's very rarely the Supreme Court (at least not until the past 50 years or so) as the branch of government who has tried to grab power most often. Ever hear of judicial review? SCOTUS actually came up with what was originally a somewhat controversial power of invalidating actions of Congress and the Executive in order to PRESERVE the Constitution and prevent accretion of federal power.
For the first 150 years or so of the U.S.,
Re: (Score:2)
You're easily proven wrong, and your response is to commit karmacide?
Good riddance to bad rubbish, saith the Mindless One.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you're not my attorney.
I hope like hell you're not trying to be *anyone's* attorney.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he shouldn't phrase his nonsense as statements of fact.
Resorting to crapflooding from multiple accounts when he didn't get the cheering throngs he was apparently expecting in response doesn't add to his credibility, either.
(Not to mention the Troll mods that started showing up on my recent posts about 10 minutes after I made the above response; I suspect that's not a coincidence.)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus making the First Amendment a terror not just to a would-be tyrant, but also to Joe Average. I guess taking a popular law to absurd extremes to artificially inflate the cost is one way of getting it overturned.
Re: (Score:2)
So what exactly is the difference between yelling fire in a theater and yelling "I'm going to murder $ex_girlfriend" in a song lyric?
Are you suggesting that to be guilty of the former, the police must show there was a specific intent to start the fire? If not, why is using speech to place a number of people in fear problematic, but it's okay if the target is an indi
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the former directly puts people in harm's way, whereas the latter are just words being spoken publicly. For example, Eminent sticking a gun to his ex-wife's head and screaming "Imma kill dis bitch!" would be felony assault, but him saying he would do that to a killer rap beat is a multi-platinum record.
Not sure where the confusion is coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
The only time when the idea of free speech should be trumped, is when there is intent to cause harm, like yelling bomb or fire in a crowded area, or shining a laser pointer at an air plane or person.
How can you prove that I intend harm when I yell "bomb" in a crowded arena? I might say that it was just a joke or that I was performing a rap that I call, "There's a bomb in this arena."
Consider a kid who calls in a bomb threat to a school and says that he didn't mean harm; he was only pulling what he thought was a harmless prank. Would that be a legitimate excuse, if the jury believes that he only meant it as a harmless prank?
Re: (Score:2)
The correct test is not "intention" but "reasonable person". IMO, no reasonable person would believe anything the read on the Internet, including threats. But reasonable people seem scarce these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Care to point out where the first amendment says that? Oh, wait; no one, including judges, cares about what the constitution says. That's the land of the free and the home of the brave for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Tupac -
"We bringing drama
fuck you and your mother fucking mama.
We're gonna kill all you mother fuckers.
All of y'all mother fuckers,
fuck you, die slow motherfucker.
My four four (.44 magnum) make sure all your kids don't grow.
You motherfuckers can't be us or see us.
We mother fuckin' Thug Life riders.
West Side till' we die.
Out here in California, nigga
We warned ya'
We'll bomb on you mother fuckers.
We do our job.
You think you the mob, nigga, we the motherfuckin' mob
Ain't nothing but killers
And the real niggas, a
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ. Our Constitutional Rights are not absolute. There are exceptions to free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That's the very argument GP is arguing against. What's the retort to that point? All the article does is show how uniformly the First Amendment has been applied (or lack thereof, in the positive), not what the reality is supposed to be (in the normative).
That is, show us the free speech exception in the United States Constitution, instead of just assuming SCOTUS rulings are always correct. (And there are actually a few! Copyright law as mentioned in Article 1 section 8, for instance.)
Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (Score:4, Funny)
That's the very argument GP is arguing against. What's the retort to that point?
The founding fathers were wrong when they thought their descendents wouldn't turn into absolute morons within three centuries.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If free speech were absolute, someone could construct a 30 foot billboard in your neighborhood showing porn videos 24x7.
Yes, and? Only puritans would even care about that.
People could post lies about you and members of your family online, with no fear of consequences to themselves, saying you were neo-Nazi, was busted several times for meth, worked as a prostitute. They could phone in death threats to airplanes and businesses on a daily basis.
So?
It's pretty obvious that society can't function under those conditions.
No, it isn't. Society hasn't collapsed under actual police states in many places. Society wouldn't collapse if people had actual free speech.
I also like how you say "Well, if the government followed the constitution, it would lead to things I don't like!" as if that means the government is following the constitution by ignoring it.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say I've heard this position before, and it doesn't really make sense. Laws are interpreted by most specific supersedes most general; not most recent supersedes oldest. This is called lex specialis [wikipedia.org], it's a mainstay of parliamentary procedure as used in common law settings like the US.
When laws are repealed, it's because they're specifically removed, e.g. "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." (When SCOTUS finds a law unconstitutional, it
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in the entire Federalist, so-called Anti-Federalist papers, or drafts of the Bill of Rights support this theory. Major citation needed. If you can find this, great! But I can't.
I don't like intellectual property any more than the next guy on /., but the First Amendment was not written to intentionally or unintentionally supersede Congress' copyright law-making ability, which is more specific than the First amendment.
The order of the provisions don't matter. The Constitution is a single, cohesive wor
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the first amendment comes after the copyright clause. Amendments change the constitution, so any ability of the government to restrict speech was overridden by the first amendment.
Wow. This must be one of the looniest arguments I've heard in a while.
Look, the Constitution was ratified and enacted in 1789. The first Congress began meeting on March 4, 1789. The Bill of Rights was debated and passed by Congress to be sent to the states for approval on September 25, 1789. The first Copyright Act (i.e., the very first time Congress decided to exercise its power to create a federal copyright system) was approved by Congress on May 25, 1790.
So, what you're telling me is that Congres
Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (Score:5, Informative)
The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be.
So, even when the constitution was written, there were different viewpoints on how to interpret it. Your approach was that taken by Jefferson. He said, "anything not written in the constitution is not allowed."
The viewpoint kind of died when it turned out to not be practical. Jefferson tried, but when it came time for the Louisiana purchase, he realized the constitution didn't authorize him to purchase the land. Also, there wasn't enough time to modify the constitution. So he bought the land anyway, without modifying the constitution.
Jefferson was the prime proponent of that viewpoint. If he couldn't do it, then it was doubted that anyone could do it. So now we have three defenses of democracy: the soapbox, the ballot box.....
Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (Score:5, Interesting)
That statement is not consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence. There are limitations on many rights listed in the Constitution. For example, the first amendment has been held *not* to give you the right to incite violence. (See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.)
The answer is that it is not. Interpretation of the constitution comes down to a balancing act between competing rights.
True. That's why this is about the *government's* prosecution of one individual and whether the elements of the crime were actually established.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If speech can incite violence (it doesn't ), then provocative clothing can incite rape (it doesn't), and we have to cover our women head to toe.. Let's all try to be a bit consistent here. Otherwise you're inciting the imposition of Islamic law.
Re: (Score:2)
If speech can incite violence (it doesn't ), then provocative clothing can incite rape (it doesn't), and we have to cover our women head to toe..
Covering women head to toe incites Ferengis to imagine undressing them. Do you really want that?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. The point is that SCOTUS jurisprudence often has fsck-all to do with the Constitution.
A perfect example. Chaplinsky [wikipedia.org] was engaging in exactly the sort of political speech that most requires protection and was in no way inciting violence. He called somebody a nasty name, that's all. The Court's absurd and immo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You... do realize the case you're talking about is a case where government thugs decided to completely violate the first amendment by prohibiting "offensive" (absolutely, 100% subjective) speech in public places, yes? You do realize that that is absolutely indefensible? This isn't even a case where people supposedly caused a panic with their speech; this is just government thugs forbidding speech that they don't like.
What you advocate is for the majority to be able to destroy speech of minorities that they
Re: And this is how perverted our system has gotte (Score:5, Insightful)
None of our rights are absolute. If I were to publish an article in a newspaper claiming that you embezzled millions of dollars with no proof whatsoever, I could be sure for libel. Similarly, I can't threaten people's lives and then claim "Freedom of Speech" when the police arrive. This guy made a specific threat against people. It doesn't matter that the threat was in the form of rap lyrics or a handwritten note. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
None of our rights are absolute.
Are you even capable of comprehending the difference between someone saying that things should be a certain way and things are a certain way?
Because responding to someone doing the former by doing the latter is simply offtopic. It's like saying to people who criticize the NSA's mass surveillance, "The NSA is conducting mass surveillance and violating the constitution." Yeah, thanks, except we already knew that, and that's why they're being criticized. You really don't need to tell us the current horrible st
Re: (Score:2)
Flooding in an attempt to dissuade rebuttal?
Time for Slashdot Meme #23: You're about 12 years old, right?
Re: (Score:2)
How did this spammer manage to post all those spammy posts in less than one minute, while we all have to wait anywhere from 2 to 5 minutes to post a second comment?
Methinks there is a hole somewhere in slashcode. Not that Dice gives a damn.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary it has everything to do with it.
The court can't compel you to do anything if it's free speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't even know where to start with this one... The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be. If it weren't then we could all ignore any law we choose and even ignore rulings of the Supreme Court because their powers are based on the same document. So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not - but you can't have it both ways.
However, even with that I don't see how it matters... The bill of rights is supposed to keep us from the Federal Government taking too many rights and amassing too much power (and in doing so has given the federal government way too much power - just as the opponents of the bill of rights originally feared). It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.
Peter.
I don't know why this got "insightful" points. Let's see... First, the free speech protections in the first amendment have never been absolute: from yelling fire in a crowded theater to threatening to kill someone, there have always been reasonable limits. In fact, no limitation in the Bill of Rights is absolute - we don't allow prison inmates to have guns, you can't practice your human sacrifice-based religion, etc.
Second, this has nothing to do with "a court case between two individuals." See the title,
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the way it has to be, Then I insist that short skirts and exposed cleavage incite rape, and we can just accept that free will does not exist, that we are compelled to act by one's words or appearance. Some pigs will just have to be a little less equal.
Would you like to try again, but with a comment that makes sense and is in some way relevant to the thread, rather than just ranting about biatches accusing you of harassment?
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly relevant. You have no more right to restrict what a person says any more than you have to dictate fashion (though the censors are trying to do that also). Their dogma is no better than Sharia law. All you are doing is validating *The devil made me do it* defense. That's not a good idea, but it does keep the slaves from rebelling, so maybe it is good idea, huh? Who wants a bunch of unruly untouchables around?
Yes, that's exactly it: preventing someone from making threats is no better than Sharia law.
Anyway, since we're in Crazytown and you're clearly the Mayor, there's no need to keep discussing this.
Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (Score:5, Informative)
The bill of rights [...]. It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.
If this was a civil trial, you'd have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.
The case is Elonis v. United States, not Elonis v. Ex-Wife.
The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be. [...] So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not - but you can't have it both ways.
Well, then the Constitution isn't absolute.
Constitutional literalists seem to ignore that there was an extensive body of common law and common interpretations of law before the Constitution was ever written. Things that were illegal didn't suddenly become legal just because they weren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
/The only crimes mentioned in the Constitution: piracy, counterfeiting, bribery, treason, and "high crimes and misdemeanors"
/But the Constitution doesn't state what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are, so i guess that's not enforceable?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I don't see a problem with maintaining our rights and then busting murderers, rapists, thieves, etc, when they actually are caught doing the crime or afterward. We can't all be so scared about the possibility of bad things that we give up the great things we have (rights/freedoms). Are we seriously trying to move into thoughtcrime and massive nanny-state/big-brother living where we need the government to PREVENT anything bad from happening? Please... Life is too short, even when it goes well,
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be.
If it's absolute, then we have to interpret the second amendment as permitting individuals to possess weapons of mass destruction. If we don't allow the government to restrict me from keeping nuclear bombs, large amounts of nerve gas, and big vats of anthrax in my garage, we've reached the kind of reductio ad absurdum of Constitutional construction that Justice Jackson criticized in his dissent in Terminiello [wikipedia.org]: "There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical
Re:Freedom has limits (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no right to not be offended.
Re:Freedom has limits (Score:4, Insightful)
The "offense" in this case is a threat of violence directed at specific people with whom the speaker has a dispute with, which is rather more serious than someone just finding the lyrics in poor taste.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the guy who's trying to start fires with his mind when you need him?
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the chi---er, sheep, won't you?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the perceived "importance" of a law as germane to whether it should be consistently interpreted...
Well, not completely [wikipedia.org]...
Re: (Score:2)