The 19-year-old jailed for the crime of sarcasm(nationalreview.com)
nationalreview.com
The 19-year-old jailed for the crime of sarcasm
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352432/free-justin-carter-now-charles-c-w-cooke
92 comments
There are a lot of targets of blame these days... politicians, bankers, parents, teachers, you name it.
At the core, I believe it's my fellow Americans that have become frightening. They represent the rotting culture that accommodates our increasingly violent, extralegal form of government, the one now almost entirely unchained from the Constitution.
The sheer apathy; the willingness to hand over fundamental liberties with little to no fight; the willingness to defend perpetual war; the willingness to suffer any indignity (eg molestation at the airport) just so long as one can go home at night to the couch and watch Leno; and so on.
People joke endlessly about America's expanding waistline, mismanagement of personal and national finances, abuse of prescription drugs, and terrible education scores. It's all part of the same sickness, that goes hand in hand with the governmental abuses: it's a populace that has willingly become numb, and is ready for an iron boot to its neck, and no coincidence that's exactly what it's getting.
Show me a people unwilling to be vigilant about their liberty 24/7, and I'll show you a government happy to lord over them with absolute power.
At the core, I believe it's my fellow Americans that have become frightening. They represent the rotting culture that accommodates our increasingly violent, extralegal form of government, the one now almost entirely unchained from the Constitution.
The sheer apathy; the willingness to hand over fundamental liberties with little to no fight; the willingness to defend perpetual war; the willingness to suffer any indignity (eg molestation at the airport) just so long as one can go home at night to the couch and watch Leno; and so on.
People joke endlessly about America's expanding waistline, mismanagement of personal and national finances, abuse of prescription drugs, and terrible education scores. It's all part of the same sickness, that goes hand in hand with the governmental abuses: it's a populace that has willingly become numb, and is ready for an iron boot to its neck, and no coincidence that's exactly what it's getting.
Show me a people unwilling to be vigilant about their liberty 24/7, and I'll show you a government happy to lord over them with absolute power.
"Every nation gets the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre.
Thank you, this quote suddenly really clicked for me. I had interpreted it as an indictment of apathy. It's actually a statement of fact, the government refelects society.
And the society reflects the corporatocracy. Our culture and way of life have been deeply shaped by marketing. Producers producing too much are finding ways to make more consumers. So we're stuck in this endless cycle of consumerism that's _just_ comfortable enough we don't complain. Government does a lot, but fundamentally it's becoming a Punch & Judy show between Democrat and Republican extremes while the groups with money divide and conquer global resources.
Oh wait, shhh settle down and pass me that KFC bucket, my favorite TV show is about to start.
Oh wait, shhh settle down and pass me that KFC bucket, my favorite TV show is about to start.
I would wish her a swift expulsion from office for gross incompetence, except that this type of brainless bureaucrat really does represent the people who elect them.
We live in a post-literate, lawsuit driven society where such officials are simply following the path of least resistance.
I hope the parents have some really good lawyers. This thing may have to go up the chain to their Senator and perhaps a federal court of appeals, before this kid is exonerated.
As for that woman who turned him in to the police and effectively ruined his life, I'd say she deserves a nice, fat civil suit.
We live in a post-literate, lawsuit driven society where such officials are simply following the path of least resistance.
I hope the parents have some really good lawyers. This thing may have to go up the chain to their Senator and perhaps a federal court of appeals, before this kid is exonerated.
As for that woman who turned him in to the police and effectively ruined his life, I'd say she deserves a nice, fat civil suit.
He had a public defender, but recently got Donald Flanary to take the case pro bono. I don't know anything about Flanary, but reports indicate this is a positive development, and it seems he was able to get some traction.
I think fundamentally the woman did nothing wrong, if it was truly a case of an unrelated person showing concern. If it turns out she had some more nefarious reason to throw Justin to the wolves (there's no evidence of this) then have at her.
A more tech literate police force would have pointed and laughed, but that's a pipe dream. Where I feel the system truly failed is in getting past the DA, past the grand jury, and past the judge with the $500,000 bail.
I think fundamentally the woman did nothing wrong, if it was truly a case of an unrelated person showing concern. If it turns out she had some more nefarious reason to throw Justin to the wolves (there's no evidence of this) then have at her.
A more tech literate police force would have pointed and laughed, but that's a pipe dream. Where I feel the system truly failed is in getting past the DA, past the grand jury, and past the judge with the $500,000 bail.
The police and the DA are afraid of this kid being a real threat down the road. They imagine that if what he said really happens, they will lose their jobs and have some very bad publicity (because the US society expects that it can avoid all and every crime so it moves the machinery in that direction adding more stupid laws, more law enforcement, more spying, etc, etc, etc). So for the Police and DA it's much easier to throw this kid in the jail and, if it was a mistaken, then 1) they can say they were overprotectice and 99.999% of the population will thank them for it and 2) the fat paycheck for this kid will not come from their salary.
If the police officers and the DA to get booted from their jobs for this mistake, then some other public figure / wannabe politician will use the current society paranoia state to point at the elected officials and say they don't care about people's security and blablabla.. the masses let it all happen and the policitians need the masses.
We're in a sad state of affairs these days but I suppose it has always been like that since before humans even started to talk.
If the police officers and the DA to get booted from their jobs for this mistake, then some other public figure / wannabe politician will use the current society paranoia state to point at the elected officials and say they don't care about people's security and blablabla.. the masses let it all happen and the policitians need the masses.
We're in a sad state of affairs these days but I suppose it has always been like that since before humans even started to talk.
Hate to downvote an otherwise very informative post, but tech literacy is not an issue here. If this was a hundred years before facebook existed and someone joked "Oh yes I'm insane, I am going to stab a hundred babies...ha ha ha" it would be the exact same issue.
You're right, 'tech literacy' isn't really the right words, more like 'cultural literacy' where the correct "frame of reference" in this case is MMORPG banter. Or what the courts might refer to as 'community standards'.
It's been a while since my one and only anthropology course, but the basic idea is actions and language can only be understood through a common perceptual framework between the speaker and the listener. Actions which are otherwise benign, or even loving, can seem violent or insane when the observer lacks the proper 'frame'.
One great example of this, if you're a fan of Orson Scott Card, is the humans struggling to understand the Pequeninos in Xenocide, the 3rd book in the Ender's Game series.
This is why, when I hear the statement was made in the context of a MMORPG, it immediately alters my opinion on whether Justin had mens rea (criminal intent) when he wrote the post. A hundred years ago, if communities didn't exist where this type of dialog was typical, the same words actually take on a different meaning -- one that might actually indicate a need for intervention!
It's been a while since my one and only anthropology course, but the basic idea is actions and language can only be understood through a common perceptual framework between the speaker and the listener. Actions which are otherwise benign, or even loving, can seem violent or insane when the observer lacks the proper 'frame'.
One great example of this, if you're a fan of Orson Scott Card, is the humans struggling to understand the Pequeninos in Xenocide, the 3rd book in the Ender's Game series.
This is why, when I hear the statement was made in the context of a MMORPG, it immediately alters my opinion on whether Justin had mens rea (criminal intent) when he wrote the post. A hundred years ago, if communities didn't exist where this type of dialog was typical, the same words actually take on a different meaning -- one that might actually indicate a need for intervention!
You shouldn't downvote a post because you don't agree with it anyway. You should downvote it because it doesn't add anything to the discussion or is otherwise vapid. It follows that there should never be a reason to downvote and reply to a comment.
Are you sure about that? Comments like the one this kid made are rampant in certain immature areas of the internet. If you're used to that sort of thing, it's more of a bad taste issue than an actual threat.
I.e. Oprah and http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-over-9000
I.e. Oprah and http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-over-9000
I don't know that I wish ill on the woman. I was confused by the article as to how she picked up on what he said, but if she saw "I'm going to shoot up a school" and was genuinely alarmed--and even if she's a total moron to miss the sarcasm--I think it's a net Good Thing that she alerted the authorities.
The onus lies with the authorities to distinguish between real leads and moronic, no-threat-at-all leads, and to not trample on the rights of innocent people while doing so. Unless the lady that reported him knew for sure that the authorities would grossly misbehave like this, I'd say she's fine. She's likely just a moron; blaming her lets the police and the DA off too easily.
The onus lies with the authorities to distinguish between real leads and moronic, no-threat-at-all leads, and to not trample on the rights of innocent people while doing so. Unless the lady that reported him knew for sure that the authorities would grossly misbehave like this, I'd say she's fine. She's likely just a moron; blaming her lets the police and the DA off too easily.
> As for that woman who turned him in to the police and effectively ruined his life, I'd say she deserves a nice, fat civil suit.
Or at least to be doxed and harassed for a few weeks. Let's hope 4chan picks that ball up and runs with it. People need to stop being so fucking hair-trigger paranoid.
Or at least to be doxed and harassed for a few weeks. Let's hope 4chan picks that ball up and runs with it. People need to stop being so fucking hair-trigger paranoid.
This makes you no better than her, not one hair.
Really? She'd deserve that sort of treatment; he didn't deserve the treatment he received.
> As for that woman who turned him in to the police and effectively ruined his life, I'd say she deserves a nice, fat civil suit.
You're talking about the not-an-American-citizen woman?
You're talking about the not-an-American-citizen woman?
There are always armchair prosecutors ready to bring out the electric chair for jaywalking. They are the same ones saying we always need to be tougher on crime even though we lock more people up than any other country. They are completely out of touch with reality.
Most of the time, when people are talking about getting tough on crime, they are talking about stuff like murder, rape, child abuse, selling crack to kids, or DUIs. They generally adopt this attitude after seeing people commit horrible crimes and get out of prison almost immediately to do the same or worse.
We do lock more people up than any other country, and it is shameful, but that doesn't mean that everyone who wants to get tough on crime is talking about locking children up for making bad jokes, or imprisoning their neighbor who occasionally smokes pot. That, my friend, is being out of touch with reality.
We do lock more people up than any other country, and it is shameful, but that doesn't mean that everyone who wants to get tough on crime is talking about locking children up for making bad jokes, or imprisoning their neighbor who occasionally smokes pot. That, my friend, is being out of touch with reality.
I can't speak for the people in your community but here in the UK 'tough on crime' most certainly does mean getting tough on what is called 'antisocial behaviour'. In our recent Police and Crime Commissioner elections it was these lesser 'antisocial' offences that were the central campaign point for just about all candidates (along with 'giving victims more say').
The result of this attitude is that we lock up people for 4 years for joking about starting a riot on Facebook[1].
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls...
The result of this attitude is that we lock up people for 4 years for joking about starting a riot on Facebook[1].
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls...
> By the way, how the hell does bail get set at $500,000 for a single Facebook comment, no matter how insensitive or inciteful?
I think he might graduate high school soon and go off to college, so that represents a flight risk.
And as funny as that is, I'm willing to bet that the above really was the reason given.
I think he might graduate high school soon and go off to college, so that represents a flight risk.
And as funny as that is, I'm willing to bet that the above really was the reason given.
So, i'd like to get the full details of this seemingly outrageous situation. After somewhat extensively searching, I've never found what he actually said; only paraphrasing, etc.
That's the difference between an obvious joke and... something different. Not that it justifies the situation entirely (or maybe at all), but would perhaps explain the reaction. Consider a similar poster who did an AMA on reddit here: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1hl4gi/ive_been_raided...
After reading the actual transcript (http://pastebin.com/Ldtj6mhx), many Redditor's sided with the police.
So - not to take the side of the incarceration, but I certainly find it odd that I can't find the actual FB threat / comments (yet?).
That's the difference between an obvious joke and... something different. Not that it justifies the situation entirely (or maybe at all), but would perhaps explain the reaction. Consider a similar poster who did an AMA on reddit here: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1hl4gi/ive_been_raided...
After reading the actual transcript (http://pastebin.com/Ldtj6mhx), many Redditor's sided with the police.
So - not to take the side of the incarceration, but I certainly find it odd that I can't find the actual FB threat / comments (yet?).
I believe the exact details are all here; he typed (in the fairly popular MMO `League of Legends`):
Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.
lol
jk
Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.
lol
jk
In response to someone calling him "insane." In that context it's pretty clear this was a sarcastic response.
Anyone who has ever played video games even pseudo seriously knows that comment is just scraping the bottom of the barrel. So much worse shit is said daily in games like WoW/CS/League/anything competitive. It's mind boggling that someone took his comment this seriously.
I hope he sues whoever he has to sue and lives out the rest of his life in absolute comfort.
I'd be paranoid forever online because of this. Spending this much time in jail at such a young age for such a mundane comment is... I don't even know.
I hope he sues whoever he has to sue and lives out the rest of his life in absolute comfort.
I'd be paranoid forever online because of this. Spending this much time in jail at such a young age for such a mundane comment is... I don't even know.
It has never occurred to you that what's really wrong here is that such comments are ever, under any circumstances mundane, normal and to be expected?
We can't jail him for that grossly inappropriate comma, can we?
It's been reported that it was in runescape. Some kid told him to kill himself and his response was not only would he kill himself, he'd take a kindergarten with him columbine style.
I'm not sure if I'd actually say it was a joke rather than him just lashing out, but I highly doubt he was even remotly serious and disagree with him being held on that alone.
Obviously I accept I don't know all the facts of the case but I wouldn't be suprised if it really was that stupid. We've had similar cases in the UK.
I'm not sure if I'd actually say it was a joke rather than him just lashing out, but I highly doubt he was even remotly serious and disagree with him being held on that alone.
Obviously I accept I don't know all the facts of the case but I wouldn't be suprised if it really was that stupid. We've had similar cases in the UK.
Yeah, this article seems to be missing a lot. According to a piece on the Today show, he also said:
I think I’ma shoot up a kindergarten. And watch the blood of the innocent rain down. And eat the beating heart of one of them.
Hard to make a judgment about any of this without the full context. But being held without trial is definitely a heinous misstep of justice.
http://www.today.com/news/teen-charged-held-months-over-terr...
I think I’ma shoot up a kindergarten. And watch the blood of the innocent rain down. And eat the beating heart of one of them.
Hard to make a judgment about any of this without the full context. But being held without trial is definitely a heinous misstep of justice.
http://www.today.com/news/teen-charged-held-months-over-terr...
> After reading the actual transcript (http://pastebin.com/Ldtj6mhx), many Redditor's sided with the police.
Well, my conclusion then is that many redditors are absolute mouth-breathing fucking retards. This transcript is dripping with obvious sarcasm and hyperbole. Anyone who can't see it should kill themselves.
Well, my conclusion then is that many redditors are absolute mouth-breathing fucking retards. This transcript is dripping with obvious sarcasm and hyperbole. Anyone who can't see it should kill themselves.
This npr article seems to quote the facebook post verbatim:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/03/198129...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/03/198129...
This is ridiculous, outrageous, insane.
Terrorism is less likely to happen to you than a great many extremely unlikely events, I can't find a citation right now but I suspect it's less than being struck by lightning, yet the risk justifies... this?
The odds of being struck down by a careless driver must be vastly higher, yet I don't see people who text as they drive being sent to jail for >= 10 years, or those with driving licenses who are suspected of being higher risk (older people, those on higher insurance risk bands, etc.) being monitored illegally (or 'legally' based on dubious laws) and/or shipped off to a coaling station [0] where their legal rights are effectively suspended and they are tortured [1] to get information about their alleged membership of a boy-racer organisation.
Oh, and if this law was in effect in my country (UK), I'd be serving several years in jail. The irrationality of this kind of bullshit hasn't prevented people from trying to ruin people's lives over it, however [2].
What I'd like to see is the humourless 'people' who report this kind of obvious bullshit prosecuted for wasting police time and perhaps even harassment (I can't think of anything more harassing than trying to send somebody to jail + near enough ruin their life over something that is obviously not serious), the prosecutors who actually take it seriously losing their jobs and the politicians who implement these laws being publicly grilled on them.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_bay#US_Control_of_Gu...
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#T...
[2]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
Terrorism is less likely to happen to you than a great many extremely unlikely events, I can't find a citation right now but I suspect it's less than being struck by lightning, yet the risk justifies... this?
The odds of being struck down by a careless driver must be vastly higher, yet I don't see people who text as they drive being sent to jail for >= 10 years, or those with driving licenses who are suspected of being higher risk (older people, those on higher insurance risk bands, etc.) being monitored illegally (or 'legally' based on dubious laws) and/or shipped off to a coaling station [0] where their legal rights are effectively suspended and they are tortured [1] to get information about their alleged membership of a boy-racer organisation.
Oh, and if this law was in effect in my country (UK), I'd be serving several years in jail. The irrationality of this kind of bullshit hasn't prevented people from trying to ruin people's lives over it, however [2].
What I'd like to see is the humourless 'people' who report this kind of obvious bullshit prosecuted for wasting police time and perhaps even harassment (I can't think of anything more harassing than trying to send somebody to jail + near enough ruin their life over something that is obviously not serious), the prosecutors who actually take it seriously losing their jobs and the politicians who implement these laws being publicly grilled on them.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_bay#US_Control_of_Gu...
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#T...
[2]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
Toddlers killed more Americans this year than Terrorists did. Time for a war on toddlers.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-killed-...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-killed-...
Well the obvious argument for that is that the terrorists didn't kill people because all these powers allowed us to stop them.
> in my country (UK)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls...
On the off chance that anyone here is new to the story: He's been given concussions, black eyes, stripped and held in solitary confinement.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/03/198129...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/03/198129...
This deserves to be on the home page for a number of reasons, including the quality of the writing:
> Nevertheless, a woman in Canada, who inexactly described
> herself as a “concerned citizen,” ...
>
> The heirs to the constitutional settlement of the late
> eighteenth century are as entitled to its bounties as
> were its architects — idiot boys included.
> Nevertheless, a woman in Canada, who inexactly described
> herself as a “concerned citizen,” ...
>
> The heirs to the constitutional settlement of the late
> eighteenth century are as entitled to its bounties as
> were its architects — idiot boys included.
I know Charlie from back in the UK - I don't always agree with his writings and ideas, but I can't deny he's one of the finest journalistic authors I've had the pleasure of reading online.
This article raises a multitude of issues.
Issue number one: The problematic ways that the prison system deals with assault and mental illness among inmates.
Issue number two: Whether the potential sentence for a crime purely involving speech, rather than actions, should be so severe as eight years in prison.
Issue number three: Whether the speech in question was Constitutionally protected satire, or a criminal threat.
Issue number four: Whether the defendant should have gotten some slack from the justice system -- i.e. why the police/prosecutors/court involved haven't determined by now that lesser charges/penalties are appropriate.
I'm sure there are more.
I cross-posted this comment from another HN submission on the same case with only a few upvotes, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5987867
Issue number one: The problematic ways that the prison system deals with assault and mental illness among inmates.
Issue number two: Whether the potential sentence for a crime purely involving speech, rather than actions, should be so severe as eight years in prison.
Issue number three: Whether the speech in question was Constitutionally protected satire, or a criminal threat.
Issue number four: Whether the defendant should have gotten some slack from the justice system -- i.e. why the police/prosecutors/court involved haven't determined by now that lesser charges/penalties are appropriate.
I'm sure there are more.
I cross-posted this comment from another HN submission on the same case with only a few upvotes, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5987867
I think the fundamental problem here is that the government doesn't really care if a 19-year-old needlessly goes to jail. Imagine things from their point of view. If an innocent 19yo goes to jail, it costs them virtually nothing. If they let him go, and he ends up actually shooting up a school, they have a lot more to lose.
It's the same reason they're ok with torturing suspected terrorists. Better to err on the conservative side for the entire country than to respect an individual's rights and risk the next 9/11.
I'm bringing this up as a problem, not as a justification. I'd be interested if anyone knows how to fix this.
It's the same reason they're ok with torturing suspected terrorists. Better to err on the conservative side for the entire country than to respect an individual's rights and risk the next 9/11.
I'm bringing this up as a problem, not as a justification. I'd be interested if anyone knows how to fix this.
They could use their illegal NSA spying programs and bring out some proofs that he was not kidding?
All parents in the USA should be fearful that their child will be torn away when they too say something so childish.
"He’s been incarcerated since March without trial."
That's the problem. A jury of his peers would throw this out no questions asked.
That's the problem. A jury of his peers would throw this out no questions asked.
To be specific, here are a list of constitutional issues being called into question:
> Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech
> Excessive bail shall not be required
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
Okay, so the speedy trial clause has been adapted de facto to mean six months, but maybe if he forms a law suite for free speech and excessive bail and wins he could be set for life.
> Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech
> Excessive bail shall not be required
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
Okay, so the speedy trial clause has been adapted de facto to mean six months, but maybe if he forms a law suite for free speech and excessive bail and wins he could be set for life.
Unfortunately for anyone who appeals to the Constitution, the government it establishes is also the government to which it awards the authority to interpret its meaning. In other words, the government can only make laws which the government decides don't abridge the freedom of speech, the government cannot require bail which the government decides is excessive, and the government must provide a trial which the government considers speedy.
I wouldn't count on it. It was some uptight woman who saw the comment and told the police in the first place, and you can bet its the fear of uptight parents that's causing the prosecution. Can you imagine how the shit would hit the fan if the kid had said something like that, the police had been notified, and the police had done nothing, and the kid had shot up some school?
But that's exactly the problem -- some fearful little officials saying, "But what if he meant it?"
An intelligent chief of police and prosecutor should have looked at the kid's background, maybe dropped by his house, and said, OK there's no "there" there. Unless there's a history of violence, or record of mental illness, or sociopathic behavior officially noted, etc. Which as far as I know, there isn't in this case. Just pure blind, stupid bureaucratic grinding an individual with their jackboots, simply because they have the power.
An intelligent chief of police and prosecutor should have looked at the kid's background, maybe dropped by his house, and said, OK there's no "there" there. Unless there's a history of violence, or record of mental illness, or sociopathic behavior officially noted, etc. Which as far as I know, there isn't in this case. Just pure blind, stupid bureaucratic grinding an individual with their jackboots, simply because they have the power.
It's the suburban soccer moms wearing the jackboots. The police are just their messengers.
I don't know if you remember high school, or more specifically other peoples' parents, but it doesn't ring true to me to blame the bureaucracy with their "jackboots."
Parents are fucking nuts, suburban parents doubly so. This is some town outside of San Antonio--you think these police officials are acting out of step with what most of the local parents want?
Parents are fucking nuts, suburban parents doubly so. This is some town outside of San Antonio--you think these police officials are acting out of step with what most of the local parents want?
See my earlier comment :)
Everything up to calling the police and them searching his house is fine, even expected. Police investigate and find that this is a random, sarcastic comment from an otherwise normal 19 year-old and warn him not to do that again - that's what we should expect, not sitting in jail awaiting trial.
But at the same time, I have to ask where the line should be drawn. Our babysitter's boyfriend was arrested and jailed (charges of making "terroristic threats" again) for leaving a bomb threat in the bathroom of their high school His stated reason: he wanted the day off. He's harmless, but ridiculously stupid. However, he did make the threat. Even if it was an empty threat, he has to be held responsible for the cost of evacuating the school, bomb-sniffing dogs and police searching and the general disruption that ensued.
In the case of this story, though, I'd like to believe that the police or the DA would have had the balls to say "this is just a dumb kid shooting off his mouth. We told him to be careful and let him go."
But at the same time, I have to ask where the line should be drawn. Our babysitter's boyfriend was arrested and jailed (charges of making "terroristic threats" again) for leaving a bomb threat in the bathroom of their high school His stated reason: he wanted the day off. He's harmless, but ridiculously stupid. However, he did make the threat. Even if it was an empty threat, he has to be held responsible for the cost of evacuating the school, bomb-sniffing dogs and police searching and the general disruption that ensued.
In the case of this story, though, I'd like to believe that the police or the DA would have had the balls to say "this is just a dumb kid shooting off his mouth. We told him to be careful and let him go."
You mean like the uproar and lawsuits that occurred when it turned out the FBI was tracking the 9/11 hijackers for months before they attacked?
Like the concerned woman who reported him to the police?
Actually, if you saw that posted, would you not consider whether to tell the police?
The proper thing to do - as said in the article - is for the police to investigate if he was serious. And you or I would - depending on lots of context on whether we thought it a remotely credible threat I guess - report it for them to investigate?
The problem seems to be on the police end, not the concerned citizen (of another country) end.
The proper thing to do - as said in the article - is for the police to investigate if he was serious. And you or I would - depending on lots of context on whether we thought it a remotely credible threat I guess - report it for them to investigate?
The problem seems to be on the police end, not the concerned citizen (of another country) end.
>> Actually, if you saw that posted, would you not consider whether to tell the police?
No. Not at all. Have you not read what is commonly spouted on the internet? You have to be 100% illiterate to not understand that this was tasteless sarcasm.
This doesn't mean I think it is funny or that I agree with it, but calling the police over a joke is pointless and irresponsible.
No. Not at all. Have you not read what is commonly spouted on the internet? You have to be 100% illiterate to not understand that this was tasteless sarcasm.
This doesn't mean I think it is funny or that I agree with it, but calling the police over a joke is pointless and irresponsible.
I've seen worse, heard worse, said worse, and am ashamed for you. Nothing anyone says on an online game should be taken seriously.
No, I would not consider it for one moment.
How could you think that's a remotely credible threat?
No. I may respond with "lol". That's it.
I definitely would. I'm not sure what the rest of these people are talking about. If some angst-ridden teenager is posting something like that on facebook, they probably need to speak with a psychologist/councilor. In today's America, you can't take that shit lightly.
However, this is like putting out a candle with a fire hose.
However, this is like putting out a candle with a fire hose.
Have you ever been to 4chan? Just scroll through: http://boards.4chan.org/b/ ... things like this can be considered the norm depending on what sites you go to.
That's just the thing though. Context matters a lot. Are you so excited to have something to be outraged about that you don't think about this? I mean, if I yell "I'm going to rape you" in a video game that's the equivalent of "Good game buddy", and quite innocent. I wouldn't however yell that in a public arcade at a 12 year old.
The inability to discern the difference hints at mental issues that need to be discussed with someone, even a parent would do.
The inability to discern the difference hints at mental issues that need to be discussed with someone, even a parent would do.
And, in this context, he was replying to his friend with whom he played video games with on a facebook page, and adding "lol" and "jk" to the joke. Do you consider that equivalent of an adult yelling "I'm going to rape you" to a 12 yo in a public arcade?
To me, it looks like the inability to discern the differences is not with Justin.
To me, it looks like the inability to discern the differences is not with Justin.
I guess everything I've read about it was inaccurate then. I had read that it was just a facebook post, like a post to his own wall. To me, it's still a fucking retarded thing to say in a public forum. Free speech is great, but your words still have consequences. Again, I don't think he should have been essentially abducted with no trial or bail.
However, I do believe that if you say "I'm going to murder children" in a public forum in a country where that exact thing happened on a disgusting level recently... you should get some counseling.
However, I do believe that if you say "I'm going to murder children" in a public forum in a country where that exact thing happened on a disgusting level recently... you should get some counseling.
Yet, kids do scream such things in public at one another. Constantly.
So it's only if an american says this that you'd report it?
We have provided people with easy ways to voice their thoughts and we are now confronted with what everyone should already have known: that people have a lot of 'bad' thoughts.
Every teen has at one occasion thought: I feel like killing [everyone in school, my team, my so-called friends, my brother, my ...]. Writing such a thought down gives it extra power and a screen doesn't confront you with a person and make it easy to misjudge whether you can press 'send'.
Monitoring that speech and acting on it, directly by the government or indirectly via 'concerned citizens': that way lies police state insanity.
So the answer is emphatically, decisively: no. You should not want to report this.
Every teen has at one occasion thought: I feel like killing [everyone in school, my team, my so-called friends, my brother, my ...]. Writing such a thought down gives it extra power and a screen doesn't confront you with a person and make it easy to misjudge whether you can press 'send'.
Monitoring that speech and acting on it, directly by the government or indirectly via 'concerned citizens': that way lies police state insanity.
So the answer is emphatically, decisively: no. You should not want to report this.
Wander around most any part of Reddit for 5 minutes, and you'll see things that are far worse said in twisted jest. And that's a mainstream site.
By these standards, you'd have to arrest every teenager in America eventually. That isn't an exaggeration.
By these standards, you'd have to arrest every teenager in America eventually. That isn't an exaggeration.
I'd think one of his peers would know what 'lol' and 'jk' stand for, which a middle aged women might not.
Don't be so sure. I was on a jury recently, and the deference given to the government position is alarming. Your fellow Americans are ready to send you to jail.
It reminds me of Michael Diana, convicted for drawing comics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Diana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Diana
It's only illegal for him to say such a thing if he also has a few machine guns and other preparations ready to go. Such statements, even with the appended "jk lol," deserve question. But I don't see how authorities managed to do anything more than question or search him.
Seems to me more like he needed a councilor and a talking to from his parents, but maybe the police did find the means to follow through with these statements in his home. This is all outrage-inducing non-information.
The police did not find means to follow through with the statements. They did, however, confiscate his computer.
"Normally this wouldn't be the kind of story we run, but given the misconception that Carter's comments were made within a game and that League of Legends had anything to do with this, we felt compelled to dispel the inaccurate information. According to lieutenant Wells, the comments were left on the Facebook page of someone unknown to Carter"
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/07/01/was-a-...
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/07/01/was-a-...
What would happen if a bunch of people were to tweet Justin's facebook message verbatim? [1] Since it would seem impractical to put everyone in jail, how does the legal system typically deal with such a situation?
---
[1] This article seems to quote the intact message that got Justin in this trouble: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/03/198129...
---
[1] This article seems to quote the intact message that got Justin in this trouble: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/03/198129...
This idea of preventing crime is like pre-emptive strike doctrine.
[deleted]
Schneier always writes about overreactions that happen after every major tragedy or high profile criminal act http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/this_weeks_ove...
If this kid was trolling Runescape now nobody would care
If this kid was trolling Runescape now nobody would care
If this goes to show anything that it is that the administration is full of incompetent and insecure people who will thrash hardest to someone who cant hit them back.
Twitter, Facebook and similar services have provided people with easy ways to voice their thoughts at whim. We are now confronted with what everyone should already have known: that people have a lot of irrelevant, illogical, uninteresting, confusing and reprehensible thoughts. I sure do.
Every teen has at one occasion thought: I feel like killing [everyone in school, my team, my so-called friends, my brother, the neighbour dog, ...]. Writing such a thought down gives it extra power. A screen doesn't confront you with people, which would make your brain stop and think, so it is easy to misjudge whether you can and should press 'send'.
Monitoring that speech and acting on it, directly by the government or indirectly via 'concerned citizens': that way lies police state insanity. It means the system, and many of the people in it, is in denial of the complex, inconsistent nature of humans. They want clear rules, easy judgments, binary divisions between right and wrong. They lose sight of what 'being human' means: a huge variety of things, not all of them pretty, but all of them human.
Every teen has at one occasion thought: I feel like killing [everyone in school, my team, my so-called friends, my brother, the neighbour dog, ...]. Writing such a thought down gives it extra power. A screen doesn't confront you with people, which would make your brain stop and think, so it is easy to misjudge whether you can and should press 'send'.
Monitoring that speech and acting on it, directly by the government or indirectly via 'concerned citizens': that way lies police state insanity. It means the system, and many of the people in it, is in denial of the complex, inconsistent nature of humans. They want clear rules, easy judgments, binary divisions between right and wrong. They lose sight of what 'being human' means: a huge variety of things, not all of them pretty, but all of them human.
I'm going to be downvoted into oblivion for this comment, then my account will be hellbanned by the mods, but whatever: this guy's posting was jarringly violent and disturbing.
I believe most people would never fathom ideas so evil, and yet this guy broadcasted it in the most public space in the known universe - FACEBOOK.
The guy needs correction, badly.
I believe most people would never fathom ideas so evil, and yet this guy broadcasted it in the most public space in the known universe - FACEBOOK.
The guy needs correction, badly.
Jarringly violent and disturbing -- sort of like a certain (or any?) Quentin Tarantino movie that grossed over $100m world wide?
Most people would never fathom ideas so evil? Obviously false and useless hyperbole. Which is why you would deserve the downvotes.
What you fail to grasp is the entire concept of protecting speech, why it's so essential to a functioning democracy, and why your personal opinion of a paragraph of text being 'violent' or 'disturbing' is completely irrelevant.
We're talking about locking up a young man behind bars. Taking away his liberty, possibly taking away his ability to earn a living. It's not a stretch to say that his life is on the line, because of how a paragraph of text made you feel.
All this is further compounded by the highly political decision about what type of speech may be 'too violent' or 'too disturbing' to be legal. I can't fathom how an informed American can honestly argue that we should criminalize the act of typing a few words on your keyboard, and posting them on Facebook, when those words don't constitute an intentional and imminent threat to a specifically identified individual. (see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)
Most people would never fathom ideas so evil? Obviously false and useless hyperbole. Which is why you would deserve the downvotes.
What you fail to grasp is the entire concept of protecting speech, why it's so essential to a functioning democracy, and why your personal opinion of a paragraph of text being 'violent' or 'disturbing' is completely irrelevant.
We're talking about locking up a young man behind bars. Taking away his liberty, possibly taking away his ability to earn a living. It's not a stretch to say that his life is on the line, because of how a paragraph of text made you feel.
All this is further compounded by the highly political decision about what type of speech may be 'too violent' or 'too disturbing' to be legal. I can't fathom how an informed American can honestly argue that we should criminalize the act of typing a few words on your keyboard, and posting them on Facebook, when those words don't constitute an intentional and imminent threat to a specifically identified individual. (see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)
Judging by your post, you seem to have a good grasp of the concept of hyperbole. Now apply that to the guy's posting.
What hits me the hardest about this story is that, what if an HN post of mine strikes the wrong nerve and next thing they're coming for me? Maybe next they'll be coming for you. Or 15 years from now my kid makes a dumb post and they come for him.
The Supreme Court was pretty clear this kind of speech is protected, and yet here we are with Justin behind bars. By the way, how the hell does bail get set at $500,000 for a single Facebook comment, no matter how insensitive or inciteful?
You might be interested in contacting the DA who filed the charges, Jennifer Tharp, http://tharpda.com/. Apparently she made her first comment on the case yesterday, although I can't find a direct link to her written statement: "Comal County District Attorney Jennifer Tharp says in a statement that Justin Carter could get 'community supervision or probation' if that is determined to be in the 'best interest of the defendant and society."
What Justin should get is sent home with an apology, and perhaps a nice settlement check down the road. I hope while Jennifer is out enjoying her 4th of July, celebrating our independence day, she can spare a moment to think about how she's managed to trample the constitutional freedoms that so many Americans have given their lives to defend.
I better be careful not to wish any ill will upon her for her role in this travesty of justice, since, you know, I wouldn't want to be accused of making 'terroristic threats'. So let's just say I hope it's raining in Comal County today.