First Amendment Rights

[rigney]

A 26 year old combat veteran is taken into custody by local, state and federal authorities for psychiatric evaluation after voicing some pretty wild accusations on Facebook. While no arrest was made, he Raub; is going to be detained for a month while the testing is conducted. Why, when we have cooks running all over the place threatening mayhem here in this nation? Just the other day I watched as three or four Black Panthers in uniform, were interviewed on a TV news cast. They were very adamate in conveying their thoughts that all whites should be killed. Are any of them locked away somewhere for a months evaluation? No! But aren't we on one hell of a slippery slope when our government can simply pick and choose its straw monsters?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/20/outcry-after-military-veteran-detained-for-anti-government-facebook-posts/

Edited August 21, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

A trained combat veteran posting about severing heads represents a bit more potential danger than civilians in mock uniforms being interviewed on TV. But I think the real issue here is the state law Virginia passed to help prevent lone-gunman-type crusaders from carrying out their threats. It's probably knee-jerk legislation, but I'm sure it was passed to avoid some of the cases you hear about where someone goes on a rampage yet there was ample evidence on the internet that they were planning something terrible.

[rigney]

A trained combat veteran posting about severing heads represents a bit more potential danger than civilians in mock uniforms being interviewed on TV. But I think the real issue here is the state law Virginia passed to help prevent lone-gunman-type crusaders from carrying out their threats. It's probably knee-jerk legislation, but I'm sure it was passed to avoid some of the cases you hear about where someone goes on a rampage yet there was ample evidence on the internet that they were planning something terrible.

You really think so? People bent on murder seldom advertise their intentions. I don't recall the Columbine murderers, the theater killer or that political rally nutcase who shot Gabby Giffords in the head make any threats before launching those attacks. So, let's just be leery and not sweat guys dressed in mock nazi uniforms wearing swastika arm bands or a bunch of radical blacks in mock uniforms making nightmarish threats. But by all means, let's be extremely aware and overly cautious of a young ex-GI making a dumb assed remark on Facebook. Edited August 21, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

You really think so? People bent on murder seldom advertise their intentions. I don't recall either the theater killer, Columbine murderers or the nut who offed the folks at that political rally while shooting Gabby Giffords in the head, make idle threats before launching those attacks.

I don't know if they have anything like that on Holmes (it was only a month ago, he's still an "alleged" killer), but:

 

http://en.wikipedia....School_massacre

Upon accessing Harris's website site, Guerra discovered numerous violent threats directed against the students and teachers of Columbine High School. Other material included blurbs Harris had written concerning his general hatred of society, and his desire to kill those who annoyed him. Harris had begun noting the completion of construction of pipe bombs upon his site.

 

... and:

 

http://tpmdc.talking...trail-video.php

The suspect in the mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona — in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head and a federal judge was killed — left a trail on the Internet, including YouTube video clips and what appears to be a deleted MySpace page.

And there have been many other tragedies where the perpetrator had left many clues to a fragile and violent mental state on the Web.

 

Again, I'm not sure this isn't just knee-jerk legislation, and I'm not sure I support such an invasion of privacy, but it's clear where the impetus comes from, and it's certainly understandable that people would react this way when, in hindsight, it's 20/20 clear that some maniacs do advertise their intentions. I just don't think this can be justified though, possibly detaining hundreds or thousands of people in hopes of catching someone before they may commit a crime.

[rigney]

I don't know if they have anything like that on Holmes (it was only a month ago, he's still an "alleged" killer), but:

 

http://en.wikipedia....School_massacre

 

 

... and:

 

http://tpmdc.talking...trail-video.php

 

And there have been many other tragedies where the perpetrator had left many clues to a fragile and violent mental state on the Web.

 

Again, I'm not sure this isn't just knee-jerk legislation, and I'm not sure I support such an invasion of privacy, but it's clear where the impetus comes from, and it's certainly understandable that people would react this way when, in hindsight, it's 20/20 clear that some maniacs do advertise their intentions. I just don't think this can be justified though, possibly detaining hundreds or thousands of people in hopes of catching someone before they may commit a crime.

The thought should be in the back of all our minds at all times. Not to drive us into paranoia, but to think that, Hitler did it Stalin did it, Pol Pot did it, and dictators from that time forward has done it. In Syria it is happening as we speak. Such evils can be a mere glance or only an instant from incarceration to extermination. Edited August 21, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

The thought should be in the back of all our minds at all times. Not to drive us into paranoia, but to think that, Hitler did it Stalin did it, Pol Pot did it, and dictators from that time forward has done it. In Syria it is happening as we speak. Such evils can be a mere glance or only an instant from incarceration to extermination.

Vigilance is necessary, I agree.

 

It doesn't help that the random violence is usually perpetrated by the quieter types we have to dig to find (and even then usually only in hindsight) while the ones that crow about it on the public airwaves are usually just birdbrains tweeting (or am I unaware of all the Blank Panthers killing white people stories?).

[rigney]

Vigilance is necessary, I agree.

 

It doesn't help that the random violence is usually perpetrated by the quieter types we have to dig to find (and even then usually only in hindsight) while the ones that crow about it on the public airwaves are usually just birdbrains tweeting (or am I unaware of all the Blank Panthers killing white people stories?).

As far as I know Black Panthers have killed no one. Right now both them and the American Nazi party are names that only sound bad. But will either of these tribes one day put such ideas into action? I certainly hope not! Edited August 21, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

As far as I know Black Panthers have killed no one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Newton#Fatal_shooting_of_John_Frey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#Controversy

From the fall of 1967 through the end of 1970, nine police officers were killed and 56 were wounded, and ten Panther deaths and an unknown number of injuries resulted from confrontations.

Right now both them and the American Nazi party are names that only sound bad. But will either of these tribes one day put such ideas into action? I certainly hope not!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nazi_Party#Koehl_succession_and_ideological_divisions

On November 3, 1979, some members of the NSWPP and a Ku Klux Klan group attacked a Communist Workers' Party protest march in Greensboro, North Carolina. The alliance of neo-Nazis and Klansmen shot and killed five marchers.

 

Now, I think that both should have the right to free speech, as long as it isn't speech that incites crimes. But something that is almost as important is making sure that people are informed before making such speeches. Please, in the future, do check before making factual statements.

=Uncool-

Edited August 21, 2012 by uncool