Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty to Terrorist Solicitation and Firearms Offense

Originally posted by Maxmars
I apologize for my delay in responding..... Since you know me enough to understand my roundabout verbose nature I will give you my perspective... It'll take a minute or two to get there...

No apologies necessary for time in responding nor in verbosity.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I view this issue as one of social 'scaffolding.'

On the one hand, we cannot argue against responsible communication. Meaning we accept that what we say may have consequences; and in theory, a person should anticipate and be prepared to accept such consequences. Ideally, a measured action should include a rational anticipation of the likely result.

On the other hand, we have the reality of what was said (or conveyed/posted) and whether it merits consequences deliberately chosen.

So many people do not act responsibly let alone consider the ramifications of their actions.

I was taught specifically to consider all things, what they might bring forth, and how to counter.

I've been thinking in contingency plans, parameters, responsibility of action, since 1979.

Originally posted by Maxmars
People often say things to be dramatic, use hyperbole, sarcasm, double entendre, polemics, histrionics, and presumptive moral relativism to bolster or promote their opinion. This reality is also a matter of the infinity of perspectives, information, misinformation, faith, and here's the kicker ........ error.

Our social mechanisms exist to minimize and smooth out those instances where such things manifest themselves. Were I to say. "There's that jerk over there, I'm going to kill him!" you would be well-advised to realistically determine whether a call to the police is in order.... doing so - because of the utterance of a phrase - might lead to a tragic and wasteful exercise in law enforcement - the police of course will certainly justify whatever action they take (this is a given) and it's 'rightness' or 'wrongness' will be removed from the purview of your judgement. Regardless of the presumed threat, the verbal thrashing that would have been interrupted by an agitated and anxious police officer could be strikingly our of place. Failing to call them, by wrongly interpreting the phrase as metaphorical, has equal dire consequences, and in some case, might even lead to liability on the part of the interpreter of the statement... "But I told him I was going over there to kill him! He didn't stop me." ... and thus you may be held liable - one way or another, by someone.

All of this is to exemplify the idea that people speak, and people hear, but they do not by definition understand.... and what makes this important is that the listener may either, recognize that they could be misunderstanding, or not understanding, BUT instead of basing their reaction on that potential... they proceed as if they DO understand.

You give a very good example of using our words and interpreting meaning.

It is the intent, content, and context which is important, as well as that which is seen or heard.

Especially in the online world where subtleties are missed, nuances escape some, and intent.

This is one of the reasons I go so far out of my way to explain things in minute detail.

Because I've been online for better than 20+ years I've seen the lack of understanding.

As well I've seen the misunderstandings in person and seen verbal, facial, and body reactions.

Originally posted by Maxmars
So this guy had a "jihadist" website? Tell me. What does that mean? So he wanted people to contact him to engage in acts of terror. Again, tell me, what exactly does that mean?

Let's be clear, people have been calling for violence all over the world.... since.... forever. You know this, most do. Would you, or our government, prefer that such calls for violence take place where they cannot be seen and countered? Of course not.

Our founding fathers, acknowledged regretfully that they accepted the need for violence to achieve their ends. In fact, "talking" about it may have made it possible to minimize the duration, level, and nature of the violence against their sovereign land and King. Yet most cringe at the characterization of them as terrorist leaders, and criminals for stating such things. They didn't say them out of hatred and bias, they believed they had no alternative.... today they would be in Guantanamo, or secretly rendered in some off-shore facility.... just to hurt them and 'make them pay'. They gave up all their secrets in their writings, which were all ideologically based and focused on the creation of something new.

I would think if someone had a website where he was trying to incite violence it was pure stupidity.

I would not prefer that the calls for violence be hidden.

But neither would I care for any aspect of Government be hidden.

Not in any way whatsoever.

Especially not hidden associations in Secret Societies through social connections.

Yes, but our Founding Fathers, were terrorists and brigands to the British.

The history books for England surely do not look at the Revolutionary War as good.

You have to see both sides of any conflict in order to understand the conflict.

Not necessarily from good or bad, right or wrong, freedom fighter or terrorist.

But two sides of a conflict without merit for either side to fully understand.

Far too many people would see our comments about the Revolutionary War and instantly pick a side, root for one side, while booing the other, without considering that there were two sides, and that possibly both sides were right as well as both sides were wrong.

I see America was born on the lips of conspirators.

It will die by those same lips.

Whether they are citizens or foreigners is still undecided.

Yes, our Founding Fathers, would have been imprisoned, they risked everything.

They risked imprisonment, their properties seized, and execution as traitors.

This is what most people do not get nor fully understand that they risked their very lives.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Others have called for violence, and met the full force of the law.

But calling for violence, determining intellectually that a discussion of violence is in order, is not the same thing as "being violent".... in this case we are only assuming it is. And based upon that assumption we are launching a doctrine of treating those who "speak" of violence as "violent".

If someone should utter the words.... "Someone ought to kill that *fill int he blank with a person of consequence here*" Are they responsible for it happening? The justice people seem to want that to be the case; and I find that self-serving, since they cannot seem to do much about other things, they target the "notional" crimes that can be the subject of sophistic re-characterization, and played out in the courtroom according to the doctrines of legal theater.

Therein lies the problem.

If the Government acts it's damned no matter how it acts.

If it does not act them it is doubly damned.

Historically people calling for violence have others than answer with it.

Whether the person was serious, sarcastic, or semi-unstable it does not matter.

The violence happened nonetheless and it was because someone provoked it.

It does not matter if "free speech" was practiced or not the end results were harm to others.

Even if the speaker were diametrically opposed to real violence but the words were uttered.

He or she is responsible for the actions of others if they inspire others to act in violence.

That is called leadership mixed with responsibility as well as measured response.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Free Speech is exactly, without qualification, what it says to be. You are free to speak, to express your thoughts to convey them to others.

Thus, YES - your are free to incite violence, lie, misinform, misdirect, and most importantly, MOST, to be wrong.

Yes you are free to interpret the errors of others as lies, misinformation,. misdirection... because of that freedom this is reality.

CONSEQUENCES are what matters, NOT speech.

I agree.

Consequences are what matter.

"Free Speech" is not free it comes with consequences.

It does cost something.

The cost of "free speech" is responsibility through forethought.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Just because someone calls for violence; you think that equates to a threat?

Certain prophets and notable historical figure spoke to incite peace; were the logical similarly implied, we should expect to be living in Utopia.

If I call for violence, YOU can choose to disagree and say so, that is an element of free speech. If I call for peace, you can disagree, that too is part of the freedom.

I do not think calling for violence alone equals a threat.

I think specifically calling for violence without considering the ramifications equals a threat.

Both through the speaker and those who act upon it.

Utopia is impossible and I've never sought it out it is a foolhardy dream.

The real area of where free speech lives is in our own responsibility of action with our words.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I will tell you what I found threatening in this scenario; the notion that speech should be squelched so the government law enforcement authorities can propagate the myth that they have made us "safer." I find that much more threatening to me... because unlike those who acquiesce to the precept of the benevolence of institutionalized enforcement as a universal reality, I will not cast aside my observations of systemic and prejudicial abuse to which people are subjected for speaking what they believe to be true.

What you're referencing is called "Security Theater" in the appearance of doing their jobs.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Security Theater

Security theater is a term that describes security countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually improve security.

The term was coined by computer security specialist and writer Bruce Schneier for his book Beyond Fear, but has gained currency in security circles, particularly for describing airport security measures.

It is also used by some experts such as Edward Felten to describe the airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks.

Security theater gains importance both by satisfying and exploiting the gap between perceived risk and actual risk.

I do not now nor have I ever believed in "Security Theater" and I believe it is the real threat.

To pretend to make one safe while acting as their protector is merely posturing and nothing more.

It actually makes those people less safe prior to the actions which rob them of safety.

This is because they live within a false sense of security and do not see the threat.

Until it is far too late.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Perhaps you and I disagree on what precisely should constitute "inciting violence." You seem to agree with the establishment that propagating your beliefs and ideas of what violence should be carried out based on that is the same thing as "inciting violence"... I fell that picking up a rock, or stick and hurting someone while leading others is...

No, I don't think we agree, or disagree, not in so many words, let alone definitions.

It is a point of semantics on some levels as well as differences of opinions on others.

Words are just as powerful as rocks, bullets, and missiles, otherwise politicians would never exist.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Incitement is not the same as excitation. Politicians, and religious leaders say they "inspire" and "excite" people... by your definition, the will likely be the next silenced group; lest their passions about something "incite" others to act according to their own judgement based upon that excitation... for which, at least according to the prosecution here, is the same thing as being violent in the first place.

This is a matter of interpretation, one which the establishment and her institutionalized authorities have consistently demonstrated is not something we can trust them with. So much so the Jury system had to be 'invented' to ensure these zealots of "justice" don't get out of hand and turn our world into more of a police state than it already is....

As we all know a "plea" of guilty is nothing more than a settlement between the accused and the accuser... this doesn't seem like a victory for freedom and safety to me... especially since the trail was avoided altogether...

*whew* .... sorry about the lengthy response.... By the way GREAT thread!

edit on 10-8-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

If only politicians could be silenced.

I might get a moments peace without hearing through their lies.

It is a gift and a curse to see through and hear their real thoughts in verbiage.