[corresation]

They arrest the guy and sentenced to ten years in jail with just a screenshot of a Facebook comment as a starting evidence.

I don't believe he has been sentenced to anything. He was given an offer of 10 years probation, which his lawyer bizarrely spouts off against as if deals are not the common actions in the justice system.

In any case, he confessed to what was stated, and despite the spin now that it was a false confession, in earlier versions of reports about this he freely admitted that he said what he said...but that he purportedly followed it up later by an lol that made it all okay.

It is actually interesting seeing how people sway in opinion about things. In the whole Flappy Bird fiasco, many were calling for the heads of those who "threatened the life" of the author, even though the threats were almost universally clearly absurd or satirical. Yet in this case it is an outrage that the police followed up on threats against children (shortly after Sandy Hook), and then when they discovered a confluence of concerning behaviors (suicide threats, restraining orders, bizarre behavior) they pursued actual charges.

Should people be raped in jail? Of course they shouldn't. No criminal should. Though it's interesting that many on here believe that he is not like those other criminals, when the jails are stuffed with non-violent offenders who likewise shouldn't face sexual assaults.

Should people face absurd sentences about thought crimes? Of course not.

But what you say matters. Words have consequences. This whole fallback on some rote "Freedom of Speech!" thing is devolving from a civilized behavior.

EDIT: I see that we're not looking for a rational, mature discussions. More of a rah rah rah mass outrage.

[chc]

Oh, don't be such a martyr. Sometimes the fault is your own. In this case, your description of the course of events displays a good understanding of what happened, and yet you present it in a way that is quite deceptive. If you want a better response, try being more even-handed.

> In any case, he confessed to what was stated, and despite the spin now that it was a false confession, in earlier versions of reports about this he freely admitted that he said what he said...but that he purportedly followed it up later by an lol that made it all okay.

This reminds me of a courtroom scene in My Cousin Vinny. Upon being told that he was being charged for the murder of the sheriff, one of the main characters exclaims in disbelief, "What?! I shot the sheriff?!" And then in trial, the prosecutor asks him, "Did you not tell police, 'I shot the sheriff'?" That movie was a comedy, but you're seriously trying to make this argument. You're acting like a silly parody of a prosecutor. Agreeing upon the words used does not mean this guy "confessed."

And yes, the fact that it wasn't actually a threat does make it OK. Why wouldn't it? What interest does the law have in punishing people who aren't actually issuing threats? Should Alan Rickman be afraid of punishment for all the villainous lines he's delivered on camera?

[corresation]

Your analogy adds nothing but noise to the conversation.

The lawyer for the accused never recants either the confession, or that his client said what he is reported to have said. In typical defense lawyer posturing, instead he tries to draw doubt about the metadata around it. And for good reason given that the accused has repeatedly admitted, to the police, prosecutors, and even the media, having written exactly what was reported, but now we're to pretend that maybe it was a different person, or that Facebook messages were doctored?

Note that the prosecutor almost certainly has the messages from Facebook, and the fact that the police went on the early variant is utterly irrelevant.

What interest does the law have in punishing people who aren't actually issuing threats?

Since you like anecdotes, imagine that someone walks around pretending to punch random bystanders, but he pulls up at the last second. Hilarious, right? Now they have no intention of actually hitting, and can even point at a history of being the sort of person that pretends to hit people.

Is it assault?

Yes, of course it is. The recipients of the threat reasonably believed in its validity, so what the perpetrator thought is irrelevant. This is the same reason why bomb threats, threats against persons, etc, are prosecuted, despite this contrived notion throughout this thread that they need to prove that one has the means and intention of carrying it out.

Freedom of speech is one freedom. But as with most freedoms that need to be balanced between people, your freedoms end where my nose begins. Your freedoms to express violent threats ends where there are people who might reasonably assume them to be legitimate, for instance. This is the case in the US and almost all Western countries, so it's odd seeing so many seemingly thinking this is protected speech. It isn't.

[chc]

> The lawyer for the accused never recants either the confession, or that his client said what he is reported to have said. In typical defense lawyer posturing, instead he criticizes the metadata around it. For good reason given that the accused has repeatedly admitted, to the police, prosecutors, and even the media, having written exactly what was reported, but now we're to pretend that maybe it was a different person, or that Facebook messages were doctored?

Again I ask: Should actors be liable for threats they've delivered in a movie? Surely not. Why? Because of what you call "metadata," which is commonly called "context." We know that these actors were not sincere because they said the words in the context of a movie. The idea that context doesn't matter is positively absurd. Human communication is hugely reliant on context for meaning, and humor even more so.

> Since you like anecdotes, imagine that someone walks around pretending to punch random bystanders, but he pulls up at the last second. Hilarious, right? Now they have no intention of actually hitting, and can even point at a history of being the sort of person that pretends to hit people.

> Is it assault?

> Yes, of course it is. The recipients of the threat reasonably believed in its validity, so what the perpetrator thought is irrelevant.

Precisely — it is normal to assume that you are being punched when somebody swings his fist at you. But when somebody in the middle of a lighthearted conversation responds to the statement "You're crazy" with "I'm totally CRAZY — in fact, I'm so crazy I'm going to $CRAZY_THING," it is not necessarily the case that they are actually going to do $CRAZY_THING. If he had said "fling poop," would you have actually assumed he was going to fling poop?

The objection here is that there is no reasonable belief in the validity of this so-called terrorist threat. The mere fact that somebody said the words "I am going to shoot up a kindergarten" doesn't mean he is actually declaring an intention to do so. I just said them right now. Are you going to report me? The rest of this comment is, after all, just metadata.