Threats of violence and freedom of speech

[Firestarter 0]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The California Supreme Court is deciding whether to throw out the conviction of a 15-year-old boy who served 100 days in juvenile hall for writing a poem that included a threat to kill his fellow students.

 

The case weighs free speech rights against the government's responsibility to provide safety in schools after campus shootings nationwide.

 

Attorneys for the San Jose boy, identified as George T. in court records, described the poem Thursday as youthful artistic expression. One passage says: "For I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school." Another reads: "For I am Dark, Destructive & Dangerous."

- Is violent poetry criminal?

 

Of course, the question nobody has asked yet is this: can't we just throw him in jail for churning out such godawful dreck? "For I am Dark, Destructive & Dangerous?" Puh-leez.

[Justice 0]

The Government should really start hiring bullies to beat the fuck out of these weiners.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And of course if the school did nothing in regards to this poem, and the kid did start a shooting spree, we'd all be going "Why wasn't anything done? The school knew beforehand he was a threat!" and the lawsuits would start flying...

[KingPK 0]

Just schedule a poetry jam at some Compton high school and have him be the featured performer. Problem solved.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Writing about killing actual people in the school should always be crossing a line for a student. No matter what these lawyers argue, students have limited free speech and should be subject to punishment for threatening acts like this.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Now if this kid wrote about killing some gay students the courts would give him a few extra years...

[Guest MikeSC]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The California Supreme Court is deciding whether to throw out the conviction of a 15-year-old boy who served 100 days in juvenile hall for writing a poem that included a threat to kill his fellow students.

 

The case weighs free speech rights against the government's responsibility to provide safety in schools after campus shootings nationwide.

 

Attorneys for the San Jose boy, identified as George T. in court records, described the poem Thursday as youthful artistic expression. One passage says: "For I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school." Another reads: "For I am Dark, Destructive & Dangerous."

- Is violent poetry criminal?

 

Of course, the question nobody has asked yet is this: can't we just throw him in jail for churning out such godawful dreck? "For I am Dark, Destructive & Dangerous?" Puh-leez.

Are his parents divorced? It would go along with a theory by The Onion:

 

Study: Children Of Divorce Twice As Likely To Write Bad Poetry

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

Overturn the conviction. This kid's an asshole, but frankly I'm tired of excuse after excuse (national security, etc.) being used as a means to get around the 1st Amendment.

He only wrote about a committing a crime and that is still a far cry from carrying it out.

Edited May 28, 2004 by Naibus

[Guest Anglesault]

But he's ONLY A KID!

 

How is a fifteen year old supposed to know that people won't like the idea of other students being shot to death?

 

Anyway, this was just the focus of a Judging Amy epidsode. Some kid made up a hitlist and got the floorplan to the school. Amy decided that that was all within his rights. He went home and killed his family. O'Reilly yelled at her.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Students are not totally protected by the 1st amendment. I used to write violent and bloody stories for class all the time and never got in trouble because I had the sense to not include real people.

[Guest MikeSC]

Overturn the conviction. This kid's an asshole, but frankly I'm tired of excuse after excuse (national security, etc.) being used as a means to get around the 1st Amendment.

He only wrote about a committing a crime and that is still a far cry from carrying it out.

Why do we take these threats seriously?

 

Look at what happened at Columbine high school.

 

Look at what happens when we DON'T take things seriously.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

Overturn the conviction. This kid's an asshole, but frankly I'm tired of excuse after excuse (national security, etc.) being used as a means to get around the 1st Amendment.

He only wrote about a committing a crime and that is still a far cry from carrying it out.

Why do we take these threats seriously?

 

Look at what happened at Columbine high school.

 

Look at what happens when we DON'T take things seriously.

-=Mike

Klebold and Harris would have commited those crimes regardless of whether they were suspended for the materials (disturbing or otherwise) in their possession or not.

 

Just because someone might act out a ficitious but violent role is not a reason to arrest them for having written it or being in possession of it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Overturn the conviction. This kid's an asshole, but frankly I'm tired of excuse after excuse (national security, etc.) being used as a means to get around the 1st Amendment.

He only wrote about a committing a crime and that is still a far cry from carrying it out.

Why do we take these threats seriously?

 

Look at what happened at Columbine high school.

 

Look at what happens when we DON'T take things seriously.

-=Mike

Klebold and Harris would have commited those crimes regardless of whether they were suspended for the materials (disturbing or otherwise) in their possession or not.

 

Just because someone might act out a ficitious but violent role is not a reason to arrest them for having written it or being in possession of it.

But, Naibus, how do we tell which threats are serious and which ones aren't?

 

Let's say this crap poet decided to act out on his poems. Do you honestly think there would not be a wide chorus of people saying "How could you NOT see the warning signs?"

 

It's a damned if you, damned if you don't thing --- and it is unfair to the authorities.

 

It's up there with people bitching that Bush's recent mentioning of an increased terror threat is just politics only weeks after they bitched that he sat on info to prevent 9/11.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

Overturn the conviction. This kid's an asshole, but frankly I'm tired of excuse after excuse (national security, etc.) being used as a means to get around the 1st Amendment.

He only wrote about a committing a crime and that is still a far cry from carrying it out.

Why do we take these threats seriously?

 

Look at what happened at Columbine high school.

 

Look at what happens when we DON'T take things seriously.

-=Mike

Klebold and Harris would have commited those crimes regardless of whether they were suspended for the materials (disturbing or otherwise) in their possession or not.

 

Just because someone might act out a ficitious but violent role is not a reason to arrest them for having written it or being in possession of it.

But, Naibus, how do we tell which threats are serious and which ones aren't?

 

Let's say this crap poet decided to act out on his poems. Do you honestly think there would not be a wide chorus of people saying "How could you NOT see the warning signs?"

 

It's a damned if you, damned if you don't thing --- and it is unfair to the authorities.

 

It's up there with people bitching that Bush's recent mentioning of an increased terror threat is just politics only weeks after they bitched that he sat on info to prevent 9/11.

-=Mike

Yes, I agree. It is "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" but where do we draw the line that says our rights of expression are being violated?

I realize that there must be a balance between the rights of the individual and the security and safety of society, but unless the latter is greatly threatened, I prefer to tip the scales in favour of the former, not matter how disagreeable it may be.

Edited May 29, 2004 by Naibus

[muzz 0]

The Government should really start hiring bullies to beat the fuck out of these weiners.

Seconded.

 

It ain't my country, so yeah, throw the kid in jail.

 

And I object to the constant use of, "For I am..."

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, I agree. It is "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" but where do we draw the line that says our rights of expression are being violated?

I realize that there must be a balance between the rights of the individual and the security and safety of society, but unless the latter is greatly threatened, I prefer to tip the scales in favour of the former, not matter how disagreeable it may be.

But if they DON'T act upon it --- the authorities are liable for wrongful death suits and the like, which will bleed them for millions.

 

The curse of our (America) litigious society is that authorities will err on the side of what is less likely to get them sued.

-=Mike

[Slayer 0]

The curse of our (America) litigious society

In the end, only the lawyers win

[Highland 0]

Well hopefully they can get that bill putting a cap on litigation damages into law, if it hasn't already been shot down. I read an article a while ago, I think it was from Newsweek, about different professionals (a nurse, police officer and a little league coach) and the number one fear they had was being sued for the most inconsequential things "My son didn't make the team, I'm suing!" but those inconsequential things carried ridiculous costs (since there is no monetary limit or means of measuring "pain and suffering, etc."

[Guest MikeSC]

Well hopefully they can get that bill putting a cap on litigation damages into law, if it hasn't already been shot down. I read an article a while ago, I think it was from Newsweek, about different professionals (a nurse, police officer and a little league coach) and the number one fear they had was being sued for the most inconsequential things "My son didn't make the team, I'm suing!" but those inconsequential things carried ridiculous costs (since there is no monetary limit or means of measuring "pain and suffering, etc."

Naibus, it will never happen for two reasons:

1) Our Congress is almost completely made up of...lawyers.

2) The legal lobby would raise holy hell (my brother is a lawyer and he is NOT fond of ANY changes, such as loser-pays and the like)

 

Lawyers are GIFTED demagogues. They will go on and on about getting justice for the common man --- all the while ignoring that they LOVE class-action suits where the plaintiffs get very little money while the lawyers get millions.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

Perhaps those same congressmen and senators could fight so vigorously to take back the rights they caused their constituents to lose when they passed the Patriot Act....

[Guest MikeSC]

Perhaps those same congressmen and senators could fight so vigorously to take back the rights they caused their constituents to lose when they passed the Patriot Act....

Care to name the rights lost by the Patriot Act?

 

Just one.

 

The left has done a bang-up job of demonizing it (well, except for Janet Reno, who thought it was a good idea) --- but that is ALL they've done.

 

Nobody's rights have been lessened. Nobody has been oppressed due to it.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

Perhaps those same congressmen and senators could fight so vigorously to take back the rights they caused their constituents to lose when they passed the Patriot Act....

Care to name the rights lost by the Patriot Act?

 

Just one.

 

The left has done a bang-up job of demonizing it (well, except for Janet Reno, who thought it was a good idea) --- but that is ALL they've done.

 

Nobody's rights have been lessened. Nobody has been oppressed due to it.

-=Mike

Yet.

It's only a matter of time.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yet.

It's only a matter of time.

No, it's not a matter of time. No rights have been threatened. As you admit, none have been suspended or ignored.

 

The Patriot Act simply corrected the problems that the 9/11 Commission has spent considerable money investigating.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The left has done a bang-up job of demonizing it (well, except for Janet Reno, who thought it was a good idea) --- but that is ALL they've done.

 

I didn't know that. Ewww.

 

Well hopefully they can get that bill putting a cap on litigation damages into law, if it hasn't already been shot down. I read an article a while ago, I think it was from Newsweek, about different professionals...

 

There was a story on everybody's favorite cable new channel a while back that talked about doctors refusing to treat emergency room patients that weren't covered by insurance (I may have gotten a few facts wrong -- the patient may have been not registered with that hospital's health plan or something). While waiting for an ambulance to take him elsewhere the man died. The reason the doctors didn't want to treat him was for fear of being sued, and truth be told, I don't blame them.

 

Of course the lawyers on this story were all outraged, but they were just pissed that they couldn't sue the hospital or something. Greedy fucks.

 

My half-brother just got his M.D. license, and he spent a LONG-ASS time getting it, putting in countless years of sacrifice and study. I wouldn't want him to lose it all trying to save someone that was dying fast and who ended up suing afterward...

[Guest MikeSC]

Well hopefully they can get that bill putting a cap on litigation damages into law, if it hasn't already been shot down. I read an article a while ago, I think it was from Newsweek, about different professionals...

There was a story on everybody's favorite cable new channel a while back that talked about doctors refusing to treat emergency room patients that weren't covered by insurance (I may have gotten a few facts wrong -- the patient may have been not registered with that hospital's health plan or something). While waiting for an ambulance to take him elsewhere the man died. The reason the doctors didn't want to treat him was for fear of being sued, and truth be told, I don't blame them.

 

Of course the lawyers on this story were all outraged, but they were just pissed that they couldn't sue the hospital or something. Greedy fucks.

 

My half-brother just got his M.D. license, and he spent a LONG-ASS time getting it, putting in countless years of sacrifice and study. I wouldn't want him to lose it all trying to save someone that was dying fast and who ended up suing afterward...

kkk, you can be sued if you break somebody's ribs --- WHILE GIVING THEM THE HEIMLICH MANEUVER. Yeah, screw that whole "I saved your life" thing --- I'll sue you for, er, not letting me die.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think you're protected under the Good Samaratan laws for something like that. They can sue you but judges have to throw it out. And I think it's even harder if you have ceritifications.

[2GOLD 0]

If I remember correctly, if they can prove you didn't have certification at the time to perform the Heimlich then yes they can sue your ass and more than likely will have a case. If they can prove you performed it incorrectly while not certified then you are really screwed.

 

This is why cops say, "Don't remove a person from a car in a car accident unless the car is about to explode" since they can sue you if they hurt their back or something even if it was caused by the wreck.

 

To sum up, the correct thing to do is to let people die. It's God's will, or something.

[Highland 0]

This is why I am so critical of the Patriot Act.

[godthedog 0]

so, back to the subject...

 

Speaking for the state, Laurence said the boy's poem cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. The boy passed the poem to a girl in his English class 11 days after a student killed two classmates and wounded 13 others at Santana High School in Santee on March 5, 2001.

this deeply disturbs me. fuck this little piece of shit, he knew exactly what he was writing and exactly what kind of reaction it would provoke. free speech does not apply here.

[Guest MikeSC]

so, back to the subject...

 

Speaking for the state, Laurence said the boy's poem cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. The boy passed the poem to a girl in his English class 11 days after a student killed two classmates and wounded 13 others at Santana High School in Santee on March 5, 2001.

this deeply disturbs me. fuck this little piece of shit, he knew exactly what he was writing and exactly what kind of reaction it would provoke. free speech does not apply here.

Well, the youth don't have full rights anyway --- but it ALWAYS boggles my mind when somebody is STRIVING to generate controversy --- then acts shocked -- SHOCKED! --- when controversy is, in fact, generated.

-=Mike