Board index › Topical Discussion › Television, Film, and Video

Man gets 25 years in jail for threats against Trey and Matt

Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,021
Location: Houston, Texas

26 Feb 2011, 10:42 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110225/us_nm/us_southpark

In the words of Eric Cartman: "This isn't a victory for me, this is a victory for the justice system...and my balls."


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

26 Feb 2011, 10:47 am

So he just said people should be attacked and got thrown in jail for it? That's some great freedom of speech you got there, guys.



techn0teen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 663

26 Feb 2011, 11:35 am

Asp-Z wrote:
So he just said people should be attacked and got thrown in jail for it? That's some great freedom of speech you got there, guys.


It was a blatant death threat. That is not protected as free speech under our current law and should not be considered free speech.

The fact that he wanted to attack and kill another for their freedom of speech (the showing of Muhammad) just because he didn't agree with it is a violation of freedom on speech.



Last edited by techn0teen on 26 Feb 2011, 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

26 Feb 2011, 11:38 am

techn0teen wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
So he just said people should be attacked and got thrown in jail for it? That's some great freedom of speech you got there, guys.


It was a blatant death threat. That is not protected as free speech under our current law and should not be.


I'm gonna kill Bill Gates if my PC crashes again! :evil:

Oh no, I guess I deserve to be thrown in prison for 25 years now, right? :roll:



techn0teen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 663

26 Feb 2011, 11:41 am

Asp-Z wrote:
techn0teen wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
So he just said people should be attacked and got thrown in jail for it? That's some great freedom of speech you got there, guys.


It was a blatant death threat. That is not protected as free speech under our current law and should not be.


I'm gonna kill Bill Gates if my PC crashes again! :evil:

Oh no, I guess I deserve to be thrown in prison for 25 years now, right? :roll:


That's a figure of speech. Nice try.



Mindslave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,034
Location: Where the wild things wish they were

26 Feb 2011, 11:59 am

Freedom isn't freedom if it has limits. Regardless of the situation, or any other for that matter, from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, freedom with limits is like getting a free burger for 3 dollars.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

26 Feb 2011, 12:17 pm

Mindslave wrote:
Freedom isn't freedom if it has limits. Regardless of the situation, or any other for that matter, from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, freedom with limits is like getting a free burger for 3 dollars.


This this this. A million times this.

Put one exception on someone's rights and you'll end up having to expand it, too. It's inevitable.

To take another example from South Park, didn't they once do an episode against censorship, concurring that if you bow down to censoring something, you'll end up censoring everything eventually? It's a very good point, and it bears a level of relevance here.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,021
Location: Houston, Texas

26 Feb 2011, 2:07 pm

I think it's because, since 9/11, and especially after the school shootings over the past few years, as well as the attempt on Rep. Giffords, these things are taken very seriously.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Feb 2011, 2:11 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
Mindslave wrote:
Freedom isn't freedom if it has limits. Regardless of the situation, or any other for that matter, from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, freedom with limits is like getting a free burger for 3 dollars.


This this this. A million times this.

Put one exception on someone's rights and you'll end up having to expand it, too. It's inevitable.

To take another example from South Park, didn't they once do an episode against censorship, concurring that if you bow down to censoring something, you'll end up censoring everything eventually? It's a very good point, and it bears a level of relevance here.


Like it or not, though, there are legal exceptions for what constitutes free speech in the U.S., particularly where the speech in question would infringe upon others' rights to personal safety. Sincere death threats are not protected as free speech, because their intent is to rob the victim of his or her sense of security, and/or intimidate him or her into taking a certain course of action, or into silence, at threat of force. That runs counter to the entire point of having laws protecting free speech in the first place. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that speech inciting "imminent lawless action" was not protected by the First Amendment; in other words, speech that precipitates criminal acts, such as homicide, is also considered criminal. You are forgetting, Asp-Z, about Stone's and Parker's rights to free speech-- it is the violation of their rights, and not Chesser's, that lies at the core of this case.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

26 Feb 2011, 2:19 pm

Chevand wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Mindslave wrote:
Freedom isn't freedom if it has limits. Regardless of the situation, or any other for that matter, from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, freedom with limits is like getting a free burger for 3 dollars.


This this this. A million times this.

Put one exception on someone's rights and you'll end up having to expand it, too. It's inevitable.

To take another example from South Park, didn't they once do an episode against censorship, concurring that if you bow down to censoring something, you'll end up censoring everything eventually? It's a very good point, and it bears a level of relevance here.


Like it or not, though, there are legal exceptions for what constitutes free speech in the U.S., particularly where the speech in question would infringe upon others' rights to personal safety. Sincere death threats are not protected as free speech, because their intent is to rob the victim of his or her sense of security, and/or intimidate him or her into taking a certain course of action, or into silence, at threat of force. That runs counter to the entire point of having laws protecting free speech in the first place. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that speech inciting "imminent lawless action" was not protected by the First Amendment; in other words, speech that precipitates criminal acts, such as homicide, is also considered criminal. You are forgetting, Asp-Z, about Stone's and Parker's rights to free speech-- it is the violation of their rights, and not Chesser's, that lies at the core of this case.


I'm not saying you're wrong - it's obvious US law has restrictions on freedom of speech for cases like this from the result of this case. I'm just saying it's a bad idea in my opinion.



Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Feb 2011, 2:34 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
Chevand wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Mindslave wrote:
Freedom isn't freedom if it has limits. Regardless of the situation, or any other for that matter, from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, freedom with limits is like getting a free burger for 3 dollars.


This this this. A million times this.

Put one exception on someone's rights and you'll end up having to expand it, too. It's inevitable.

To take another example from South Park, didn't they once do an episode against censorship, concurring that if you bow down to censoring something, you'll end up censoring everything eventually? It's a very good point, and it bears a level of relevance here.


Like it or not, though, there are legal exceptions for what constitutes free speech in the U.S., particularly where the speech in question would infringe upon others' rights to personal safety. Sincere death threats are not protected as free speech, because their intent is to rob the victim of his or her sense of security, and/or intimidate him or her into taking a certain course of action, or into silence, at threat of force. That runs counter to the entire point of having laws protecting free speech in the first place. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that speech inciting "imminent lawless action" was not protected by the First Amendment; in other words, speech that precipitates criminal acts, such as homicide, is also considered criminal. You are forgetting, Asp-Z, about Stone's and Parker's rights to free speech-- it is the violation of their rights, and not Chesser's, that lies at the core of this case.


I'm not saying you're wrong - it's obvious US law has restrictions on freedom of speech for cases like this from the result of this case. I'm just saying it's a bad idea in my opinion.


Why? What would you propose instead, in the case of one person or collective's freedom of speech conflicting with another's rights?



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

26 Feb 2011, 3:16 pm

Chevand wrote:
Why? What would you propose instead, in the case of one person or collective's freedom of speech conflicting with another's rights?


If you attack someone - as in, actually attack them, not just talk about it - the government should take action. But I don't get how simply saying someone should be attacked would infringe on that person's rights. Perhaps you could enlighten me there?



IdahoRose
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 19,801
Location: The Gem State

26 Feb 2011, 4:11 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
I think it's because, since 9/11, and especially after the school shootings over the past few years, as well as the attempt on Rep. Giffords, these things are taken very seriously.

Exactly. That's why people these days need to be very careful about what they post on the Internet.



Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Feb 2011, 6:05 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
Chevand wrote:
Why? What would you propose instead, in the case of one person or collective's freedom of speech conflicting with another's rights?


If you attack someone - as in, actually attack them, not just talk about it - the government should take action. But I don't get how simply saying someone should be attacked would infringe on that person's rights. Perhaps you could enlighten me there?


If the intent of the speech in question is to intimidate the other person, or extort silence from them, it's absolutely infringing on that person's rights. In this particular instance, Chesser made statements suggesting that physical harm should befall the makers of South Park because of their depiction of Muhammad in one of their episodes. His statement included the addresses of people who worked at Comedy Central (and not just Matt and Trey, either). You can't just threaten that somebody will end up dead if they don't forfeit their own rights of free speech, and then propagate information that facilitates actual vigilante actions against them. What if Comedy Central had been victimized by a shooting or bomb threat afterwards, by someone influenced by Chesser's words and armed with the information he made available in his posting? Sure, Chesser would not have pulled the trigger himself, but he would have at least been culpable for the endangerment of innocent people. That's the line that separates what is and isn't protected: endangerment of others.

Don't get me wrong-- free speech is great, and I fully advocate an expansive definition. But there's one big exception, and that is sincere threats of violence, because threats very often have real consequences that the speaker may or may not foresee.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

27 Feb 2011, 5:58 am

Chevand wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Chevand wrote:
Why? What would you propose instead, in the case of one person or collective's freedom of speech conflicting with another's rights?


If you attack someone - as in, actually attack them, not just talk about it - the government should take action. But I don't get how simply saying someone should be attacked would infringe on that person's rights. Perhaps you could enlighten me there?


If the intent of the speech in question is to intimidate the other person, or extort silence from them, it's absolutely infringing on that person's rights. In this particular instance, Chesser made statements suggesting that physical harm should befall the makers of South Park because of their depiction of Muhammad in one of their episodes. His statement included the addresses of people who worked at Comedy Central (and not just Matt and Trey, either). You can't just threaten that somebody will end up dead if they don't forfeit their own rights of free speech, and then propagate information that facilitates actual vigilante actions against them. What if Comedy Central had been victimized by a shooting or bomb threat afterwards, by someone influenced by Chesser's words and armed with the information he made available in his posting? Sure, Chesser would not have pulled the trigger himself, but he would have at least been culpable for the endangerment of innocent people. That's the line that separates what is and isn't protected: endangerment of others.

Don't get me wrong-- free speech is great, and I fully advocate an expansive definition. But there's one big exception, and that is sincere threats of violence, because threats very often have real consequences that the speaker may or may not foresee.


OK, I think I get where you're coming from now.

But I still think sentences this big should only be thrown around if it can be proven that something actually happened as a result of what was said. Though, on the other hand, it's obviously of interest to prevent it in the first place.

Tricky subject.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

28 Feb 2011, 5:03 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
So he just said people should be attacked and got thrown in jail for it? That's some great freedom of speech you got there, guys.


It's not just that. He supplied information regarding the whearabouts of cartoonists who were supposed to portray Muhammed. He encouraged people to leave suspicious packages around so that real bombs would go unnoticed. He tried joining a Somali terrorist group. Its not a freedom of speech issue, he literally did want them dead and encouraged others to do it


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do