Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Censorship Crime Music

"Terrorist" Lyrics Land High Schooler In Jail 573

An anonymous reader writes "A Methusen, Mass. high schooler, who goes by the rapper name 'Cammy Dee' has been arrested after posting lyrics that police felt were 'communicating terrorist threats.' This wouldn't be the first time rap lyrics were investigated, but if formally charged for 'communicating terrorist threats' this would a set a chilling low bar for terrorist investigations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Terrorist" Lyrics Land High Schooler In Jail

Comments Filter:
  • Re:NRA sedition (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SplashMyBandit ( 1543257 ) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:29PM (#43638629)

    You cannot call this 'sedition' and still claim to follow the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is specifically designed for exactly the purpose the NRA are stating - this is patriotism, not sedition. As far as the US Constitution is concerned 'sedition' is essentially that activity the current US Administration is undertaking whereby it is bypassing the legislature to enact 'Executive Orders' that achieve anti-Constitutional goals. Of course many in the US don't see or notice this because they mainstream media appears to supporting the bypassing of the Constitution when it doesn't align with their goals (which are socialist in nature - they talk about 'individual freedom' but are actually all for the Government dictating what is 'politically correct' for you to do; this is the anti-thesis of liberty for the smallest minority of all, the *individual*).

    I used to be a believer in gun control except the NRA pointed out how anti-Constitutional this is (and I strongly support the US Constitution, despite not being a US citizen). Then we have more practical matters, such as the fact that of the gun deaths each year 2/3 are self-inflicted suicides (if guns were not available then these people would still find a way, perhaps even more messy). Of the remaining ten thousand or so tragic deaths it is pretty safe to say there are *none* committed by NRA members. In fact, most of the deaths are caused by handguns (not by AR-15 and the like) and by criminals who have no license for the weapon (so adding more laws simply won't change that figure). What is really amazing and not reported in the media, is that good people with firearms prevent over *one hundred thousand* instances of crime because they present a firearm in their own defense (with around 2% of these weapons actually needing to be discharged). You must ask yourself, why are the media not reporting the true statistics? why is the Obama Administration not reporting these true statistics, that in a cost-benefit analysis the Second Amendment saves more lives than are taken by criminals with unlicensed weapons? why isn't it emphasized that murderous rampages are only stopped when someone, usually citizens, shoots the madman dead? why should police have a monopoly in defending citizens who are keen to defend themselves (and would rather the police arrive to interview the surviving gun owner than merely investigate the bodies left by armed criminals)? why are the statistics not used for sensible and well-informed debate?

    The answer comes back to this, the current Administration is exploiting tragedies to further its agenda in disarming the populace. Once the populace is disarmed they cannot resist the will of the Government. Instead of the citizens being the masters and the Government implementing the will of the people (or their representatives) the situation will be reversed (the citizens serve the Government). The NRA are probably much more aware of history than you are. When Hitler, Stalin etc got into power one of the first things they do was disarm the population. Socialists always do that, because it means the populace has no effective means of resisting the socialist Government. The NRA are correct in this debate and have history and the US Constitution on their side. Can you bring yourself to admit that perhaps some rednecks know more history than you do and perhaps understand the implications of the Obama Administration's "think of the children" agenda to dismember the Constitution? Amazing isn't it? So, if you care about preserving the current liberties in the US (you know, what Conservatives like to do, despite the caricatures the leftist media present to you) then perhaps you could at least listen to the arguments the NRA is making, before dismissing them as ignorant rednecks.

    Here's an article by the genius economist Thomas Sowell who goes over the cost-benefit analysis of personal firearms in US society:

  • Re:And... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @12:12AM (#43638889) Homepage

    Tribe Called Quest? Jurrasic 5? J-Live? Curren$y? Drake? Jay-Z? Jungle Brothers? De La Soul? Pharcyde? Kanye? ... fuckit, that took about 5 seconds and I'm bored already. I'm even too bored to google for delicious metal lyrics. As an intelligent, employed, classically musically trained white guy from the burbs, I feel sad for folks who really think they're "above" rap. You don't have to like it, but it's no smarter or dumber than any other genre.

  • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @01:28AM (#43639199)
    Yep, as done by such armed civilians as General Washington.
    Sorry, but the pathetic myth of some guys with old muskets freezing in the woods winning a country alone is pissing on the graves of your ancestors who were not as stupid as you'd like to pretend they were.
  • Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anagama ( 611277 ) <> on Monday May 06, 2013 @02:42AM (#43639457) Homepage

    Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are.

    Glenn Greenwald has been commenting on this issue for a while with respect to the disparate law enforcement treatment Muslims receive in general, and specifically most recently in the way the Boston bombers have been labeled terrorists before there is any real knowledge of motive. []

    Can acts of violence be deemed "terrorism" without knowing the motive?

    This is far more than a semantic question. Whether something is or is not "terrorism" has very substantial political implications, and very significant legal consequences as well. The word "terrorism" is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name. It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe []" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah []) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies. For the manipulative use of the word "terrorism", see the scholarship of NYU's Remi Brulin [] and the second-to-last section here [].

  • Re:NRA sedition (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:37AM (#43639841)

    The NRA President is a nutcase! I am Swiss and we have a militia, and I was born in Germany that had conscription. The reality of the matter is that these days humans are not able to withstand an army unless they have been trained like the army. If anybody thinks that they can do a few laps around the track and shoot some "evil doers" paper stands and call it ready to stand against tyranny then they are dreaming BIG time... Vietnam was an example of pulling in people that had no experience nor understanding of war against those who did. The US got its ass kicked big time because of the attitude of people like Jim Porter.

    To be able to stand up to tyranny you need to be able to walk up to a person and pull the trigger without hesitation. To be able to stand up to tyranny you need to be able to sacrifice your family in the name of the quest. To be able to stand up to tyranny you need to be able to endure torture and pain for the quest will make you victorious! The fact that you have a weapon is secondary. Heck in those situations they could give you a pitchfork and you would be a badass!

    But no the NRA is selling the American people a facade on how they "would and could" protect themselves! I say BS! BS! BS! I am not saying I could protect myself, because I can't. I am saying if you want to be able to stand up to tyranny you need to be psychologically ready first, weapon second.

  • by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:08AM (#43639913) Homepage Journal

    "Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?"

    Members of the United States armed forces are also CITIZENS of this land. Each of them has a home, located in some city or town, located in some state or another. Each of them (well, the overwhelming majority, anyway) has loved ones, whom they probably value more than they value the US government.

    I'll remind you of General Robert E. Lee, who didn't want to see the states fight each other - but decided that if there were to be a fight, he would fight for his home state of Virginia.

    If revolution should happen, you cannot rely on the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force to remain intact as fighting units, to be used against the people of the United States. Nor can you rely on the government's ability to retain control over all the hardware, command infrastructure, or much of anything else.

    For this reason, and others, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. The government hopes to retain control of DHS if and when the shit hits the fan. Unfortunately for the government - DHS consists of mostly incompetent buffoons, far less capable than agents from any other agency. Further, the loyalty of Napolitano's troops remain untested.

    Anyone can sit around and make up scenarios about how a revolution would evolve, and the results of said revolution. History proves one thing: civil wars are fucking MESSY!!

In less than a century, computers will be making substantial progress on ... the overriding problem of war and peace. -- James Slagle