Quote. . . I'm going to be a professional school shooter. . . . Unquote

May I remind you what you said?

originally posted by: intrptr
... Freedom is minding your own business, until someone meddles in your business.

Like in my example with the toddlers in the Parkland case we were all looking through the window saw that he was indirectly but obviously holding a gun at his classmates heads.
That is the point where he should have lost a bit of his freedom not?
And to blast bs now like this

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DBCowboy

Do people actually want to sacrifice their freedom of speech for the illusion of safety?

No, the ones sacrificing our freedom of expression are afraid that unchecked expression will lead to a revolution. They know what they do is illegal, they are making the world safer for them, at our cost.

Is just showing you might have strong opinions but perception of reality and correctly applying them isn't your strong suit.

I don't care how many kids die, I keep my rights because they are granted by my Creator. If it must be said like this, then so be it.

I don't care how many kids die, I keep my rights because they are granted by my Creator. If it must be said like this, then so be it.

a reply to: Peeple

Individual rights do not include the right to abuse children, because its a violation of that child's rights.

It was a dumb question to ask in the first place. Thats what I meant in response to:

If you notice your neighbour has five chained up naked toddlers in his cellar you just keep on "minding your own business"?

But you already know that.

a reply to: intrptr

You just don't get it.

If you are dumb enough to say your going to be the next school shooter, you should be removed from the gene pool, or society at least. There were many red flags on this guy..is uttering threats like that free speech? there are limits.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Are we seeing the inception of "thought police"?

They already do psychological profiles and threat assessments by studying peoples past and 'potential' with computer programs.

Subject is covered in a documentary called Do Not Resist on POV.

a reply to: vonclod

There were many red flags on this guy..is uttering threats like that free speech? there are limits.

Authorities had twenty calls on this guy, even the FBI was contacted. What were they doing? Issuing warnings about Chinese cell phones.

a reply to: intrptr

I think it is pretty apparent this guy was a bomb waiting to go off..somebody sure dropped the ball.

Taken in context, it's a huge red flag. And it should have been acted upon.

Taken out of context, just as a statement? It's free speech.



I fear that once we allow the authorities to act upon social media statements, the contextual aspects will disappear and we'll be left with a form of censorship.

We'll be too afraid to say anything that might be construed by others to be a risk to security.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Stopping crimes before they are committed is a slippery slope, eh?

Where does one draw the line on who should be investigated and for what purposes based on their social media activity?

a reply to: intrptr

Authorities had twenty calls on this guy

Closer to 30, actually. The vast majority of which were the shooter's mother calling law enforcement to come do parenting for her.

Beyond that, it appears that his therapist showed up for most of the calls, medicated him, and declared him to not be a threat to himself or anybody else.

The responding officer wrote that Cruz's therapist from Henderson, Jared Bienenfeld, was "on the scene at the home and deemed Nikolas to be no threat to anyone or himself at this present time." An investigator with the Florida Department of Children and Families, Beatrice Thomas, was also there to check on the teen's well-being.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah, but the contexts here are different.

If I simply type about wanting to be a professional school shooter like I just did. We are not in a school, I don't have any guns, and I'm doing this to make a point.

Context?

I was responding to/correcting the individual who said shouting fire in a crowded theater is free speech. It is not protected speech.

I did not address the OP or the argument therein.

ETA: "I'm going to be a professional school shooter" is neither a threat nor an incitement of violence, nor is it illegal. Should an individual be investigated or interviewed for such a statement? Sure. Especially considering all the other red flags, but such a statement is still not illegal.

a reply to: DBCowboy

At some point you need to take off those blinders and realize you're not free, the freedom you crave is an illusion. You are free to obey laws and do as you're told.

The op has suggested that we are dangerously close to the inception of the thought police, that free speech is in danger. And that the media and posters and pundits talk about what was missed and what people should have done. And ask do we want to sacrifice their freedom for the illusion of safety.

Here is what can be stated:

There is always a limit on the very freedoms that we hold dear. Along with a responsibility and a price that we all have to pay for those same freedoms.

People will often say things, either in jest or in the heat of the moment, sometimes it is shocking, and possibly slanderous. Others done in bad taste, and there have been court cases and legal precedents that have been set by those cases.

And there are other issues here that goes around this man’s actions, and all in due time, but first the topic.

First is the idea of the thought police. The government uses it to their advantages, often trying to provoke a reaction to justify say spying on private citizens. Some would say that perhaps a statement goes too far. After all the WBC speaks vial things, yet after a court case, it was supported. And as bad as it is, racist organizations like the KKK and the Neo Nazi’s have a right to march and speak, even post things that could be considered as a threat by some. Even religious persons have been known to go a bit too far in their zeal to say things that are very disturbing and yet no one thinks them a threat to anyone. And politicians, who suggest one group should be shut down cause they are false, or another who seems to think that another group should not have the same rights, or even one who suggested that the libel laws should be relaxed to make it easier to sue others for statements, all have ramifications. And the law enforcement arm of the government who is currently under fire, is often one of the main people who often has to investigate these statements out to determine if they are or are not a viable threat.

This statement, the one that was made by the shooter, ultimately if anything, if he did say such, pretty much damming and in a legal sense, there will be discussion and debate, and possibly upgrade the charges, to murder 1, premeditated. As it shows that the person thought about and planned this from the get go.

So there you have a person, who has had run ins with the law, who people have mentioned, finding him disturbing, who has mental health issues, and has been looked at by the authorities. What more could have been done? Where was the foul up, and how much of a threat was this person?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Incompetence at every instance.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Maybe it's the totality of this specific instance.

I agree it's free speech to say some crazy stuff. However, when coupled with all the warning stickers on this kid, that speech becomes part of a bigger picture. His free speech is giving you a heads up.

If he was whisked away by the NSA for simply saying what he said, all by itself, a big problem. If you know someone who has a ton of issues going on and then says what he said, maybe it means a little more than random blabbering.

IDK. Just my dos centavos.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

That nutjob woman who held up a fake of President Trump's severed head should have been arrested and jailed.

Why?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

possibly upgrade the charges, to murder 1, premeditated. As it shows that the person thought about and planned this from the get go.

He was charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder in his first court appearance/bond hearing.

a reply to: CharlesT

You (customer) yelling "Fire" in a movie theater (private business) is a breech of contract, not a freedom of speech issue.

When you buy your ticket, you agree to that contract.

Any problems or injuries which ensue from your actions, is public endangerment.

There are no limitations on freedom of speech. Likewise there are no limitations on repercussions from what you say.

I know common wisdom always defaults to the Fire/Movie Theater scenario when discussing free speech. Unfortunately it is not a very solid argument.