Justin Carter: Jailed For FB Comment

[Yuhaney]

If not jail, then what? A slap on the wrist? Not interested in helping deliberately stupid people.

Whilst you have freedom of speech, you are still held responsible for what you say. Freedom of speech is not Freedom of Speech without consequence.

These.

Stupid people have constitutional rights too, which are being unjustly violated here.

Maybe.

But if you want to sign it, then you sign it. That's it.

EDIT:
8 years is a bit much, I admit that; yes.
I still ain't going to sign some petition for him.

This whole media rumble can be a good lesson on life for him - hopefully...

[Bridge]

If not jail, then what? A slap on the wrist? Not interested in helping deliberately stupid people.

Whilst you have freedom of speech, you are still held responsible for what you say. Freedom of speech is not Freedom of Speech without consequence.

These.

Stupid people have constitutional rights too, which are being unjustly violated here.

Maybe.

But if you want to sign it, then you sign it. That's it.

I'm not going to sign it because it would be futile at best, but that doesn't mean I'm going to condone this blatant disregard for basic human rights. To suggest that he somehow deserves this is ludicrous.

[Your Computer]

Stupid people have constitutional rights too, which are being unjustly violated here. He doesn't even deserve a slap on the wrist. How can you guys not care about other people's rights? In case you weren't aware, they are your rights too. If you let shit like this go by unchallenged, sooner or later you will be the ones whose rights are being violated.

And freedom of speech does in fact mean freedom of speech without consequence. When you start talking about speech that is not protected by free speech (rare and justifiable instances) it's not a freedom anymore. In the United States you are basically allowed to say anything in an ironic way for the sake of satire or comedy and it can be clearly demonstrated by examining the context that it was said in an ironic way. Ergo, free speech.

Even though it is a case of a person being treated unconstitutionally, just the fact that people resort to signing an online petition is itself absurd. Even if i agreed with the parent's parenting (which i don't, since that kid deserves some form of punishment), i wouldn't sign the petition. Even though i agree that this was unconstitutionally handled, and even if this were to happen to me for another reason, i wouldn't sign the petition, or any petition concerning upholding constitutional rights. I am not interested in making that kind of support through these trivial means.

How can you say that freedom of speech is without consequences and go on to say that there are speeches not protected by freedom of speech? Does freedom of speech touch on every spoken and written word or doesn't it?

[Bridge]

Even though it is a case of a person being treated unconstitutionally, just the fact that people resort to signing an online petition is itself absurd. Even if i agreed with the parent's parenting (which i don't, since that kid deserves some form of punishment), i wouldn't sign the petition. Even though i agree that this was unconstitutionally handled, and even if this were to happen to me for another reason, i wouldn't sign the petition, or any petition concerning upholding constitutional rights. I am not interested in making that kind of support through these trivial means.

I agree.

How can you say that freedom of speech is without consequences and go on to say that there are speeches not protected by freedom of speech? Does freedom of speech touch on every spoken and written word or doesn't it?

It does not, and nobody said it did. Wikipedia lists a fine example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater for the express reason of causing panic and not to warn people. That's one example of free speech being justifiably restricted that I don't think anybody would disagree with. Making admittedly insensitive statements for the purposes of comedy is covered by free speech. People have said much worse things and not even gotten a warning for it. The reason? They got paid for it.

[Your Computer]

It does not, and nobody said it did. Wikipedia lists a fine example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater for the express reason of causing panic and not to warn people. That's one example of free speech being justifiably restricted that I don't think anybody would disagree with. Making admittedly insensitive statements for the purposes of comedy is covered by free speech. People have said much worse things and not even gotten a warning for it. The reason? They got paid for it.

I would agree that the concept of jokes in relation to free speech is handled inconsistently. If it were handled consistently, however, the argument that the kid shouldn't have gotten arrested because of his "rights to free speech" would not have been valid. After all, if you can't joke around and scream "fire!" in a theater, then neither should you be able to joke around and claim you're going to murder people (which would also apply to paid comedians).

[Bridge]

I would agree that the concept of jokes in relation to free speech is handled inconsistently. If it were handled consistently, however, the argument that the kid shouldn't have gotten arrested because of his "rights to free speech" would not have been valid. After all, if you can't joke around and scream "fire!" in a theater, then neither should you be able to joke around and claim you're going to murder people (which would also apply to paid comedians).

You absolutely should IMO. The difference between yelling "fire!" in a theater and joking about murder is that in the former example the joke is both experienced involuntarily and is not immediately perceived as a joke. If you go to see a stand-up comedian with an extreme sense of humor however you are well within your rights to simply leave and you need not be exposed to it any more than you wish. Plus, the context makes it abundantly obvious that whatever the comedian says is a joke and should be taken as such. The distinction is made between whether it is a joke at somebody else's expense (or without the other person realizing it's a joke and especially if it results in distress or physical harm to the person hearing it) or simply a comment intended to evoke laughter. Somebody being offended by a joke however is not grounds enough for the freedom of speech to be abridged, even if it is in incredibly poor taste.

EDIT: Also, if you go up to someone and tell them you are going to set a school bus on fire or whatever at some point that stops being a joke and becomes a potential confession. Saying something like that for ironic effect to someone who is guaranteed to understand the joke should be perfectly acceptable (and in theory is). If it's not followed by a confirmation that it was in fact only a joke then I think there is cause for alarm if the joke was made ambiguously. The kid in question not only said he was joking but he structured his "joke" in such a way that it would be construed by fluent English speakers as sarcasm.

[Wooderson]

You're quite late on this.

Justin is not the only guy in prison for this. Another 19 year old was arrested for other similar "terrorist threats" in which he was joking on RuneScape. I think the whole thing is a joke. Pretty much sums up how shit governments/law is/are.

EDIT: Here.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/02/second...me-threat/

[Your Computer]

You absolutely should IMO. The difference between yelling "fire!" in a theater and joking about murder is that in the former example the joke is both experienced involuntarily and is not immediately perceived as a joke. If you go to see a stand-up comedian with an extreme sense of humor however you are well within your rights to simply leave and you need not be exposed to it any more than you wish. Plus, the context makes it abundantly obvious that whatever the comedian says is a joke and should be taken as such. The distinction is made between whether it is a joke at somebody else's expense (or without the other person realizing it's a joke and especially if it results in distress or physical harm to the person hearing it) or simply a comment intended to evoke laughter. Somebody being offended by a joke however is not grounds enough for the freedom of speech to be abridged, even if it is in incredibly poor taste.

EDIT: Also, if you go up to someone and tell them you are going to set a school bus on fire or whatever at some point that stops being a joke and becomes a potential confession. Saying something like that for ironic effect to someone who is guaranteed to understand the joke should be perfectly acceptable (and in theory is). If it's not followed by a confirmation that it was in fact only a joke then I think there is cause for alarm if the joke was made ambiguously. The kid in question not only said he was joking but he structured his "joke" in such a way that it would be construed by fluent English speakers as sarcasm.

I didn't necessarily intend to imply while on the job (although, a comedian, while on stage, making a joke, "I'm going to go kill someone," leaves, and a minute later comes back saying, "Just kidding!" may fall along the lines of screaming "fire!" in a theater). Nevertheless, there was no information provided by the family on whether or not the "which was followed by saying JK (just kidding) and LOL (laughing out loud)" happened at a later time, after the original posting (i.e. enough time that would allow for confusion). "Followed by" tells me that the kid responded to his own comment twice, and did not simply post it all in one comment. I'm not going to go out of my way to find these facebook comments, but if we're going to be talking about context, the time stamp of these comments would be crucial. If the time stamp were to show a significant amount of time had passed between comments, would you still claim he should not go to jail?

IMO, "IMO" has no significant effect on what i say.

[i3670]

Does anyone have a link showing the whole conversation leading up to that sentence? I would very much like to read it.

[Wooderson]

As ALIAS posted in the Random Thread, TheAmazingAthiest said it perfectly. This type of action goes to show that people are no longer innocent till proven guilty but guilty unless proven innocent.