Reckless Talk on the Internet by Freedom Fighter Leads To...

[Roih Uvet]

PureCocainePureCocaine

Roih Uvet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Now these crackers

This isn't a race issue you ******** wigger.

Now, where I'm from "crackers" means "authority figures such as police, judges, high-social-status folk, district attorneys, politicians, and the like." Only way it relates to white folk is by way of how often those people are white.


But you and me, well, maybe not you if Your Particular System comes about, but you and me right now, we're not crackers. We're just white boys.


Unless you say something racist and messed up, then you might become a cracker depending on how much money you have.

That's like saying there's a difference between niggers and blacks. s**t is retarded. Stop racializing a class issue.

[The20]

PureCocainePureCocaine

The internet SHOULD be lawless. FREE. THE. AIRWAVES.

No it should not. Lawlessness includes more than just dope and free porn movies and music.

[Larry Matasareanu The 2nd]

The20

PureCocainePureCocaine

The internet SHOULD be lawless. FREE. THE. AIRWAVES.

No it should not. Lawlessness includes more than just dope and free porn movies and music.

Should at lest be able to vent to friends/family without having the gov bust the door in

[DynaSuarez Wrecks]

Larry Matasareanu The 2nd

DynaSuarez Wrecks

You're confused.

Death threats are not protected by the first amendment when spoken, so why should they be protected when they're written on the internet?

(This extends to the broader problem where some people seriously believe that the internet should be lawless, which is just plain stupid).

I realize what you're actually upset about, though. You're concerned with police officers using software to actively go hunting for certain kinds of speech. That's actually a fourth amendment issue, not a first. I agree that cops should not be allowed to intercept communications that are obviously meant to be private (such as an email or text message), but tweeting or Facebook walling your thoughts is obviously publishing of those thoughts. This entails "in plain sight" or "imminent discovery" or some legal doctrine like those, so they should have no legal protection by any Constitutional provision.

When I write s**t on facebook thats for friends and family its not really for anyone else

Then set your Facebook settings to private. If the general public can go to your wall and see your death threats against police officers, then cops have every reason to be kicking your door in to put a taser in your a**.

[Corona Licorice]

Azg

PureCocainePureCocaine

Now these crackers

Don't call people that.

Who honestly gets offended at being called a cracker? S'gotta be the least intimidating racial slur there is next to honky.

[Larry Matasareanu The 2nd]

DynaSuarez Wrecks

Larry Matasareanu The 2nd

DynaSuarez Wrecks

You're confused.

Death threats are not protected by the first amendment when spoken, so why should they be protected when they're written on the internet?

(This extends to the broader problem where some people seriously believe that the internet should be lawless, which is just plain stupid).

I realize what you're actually upset about, though. You're concerned with police officers using software to actively go hunting for certain kinds of speech. That's actually a fourth amendment issue, not a first. I agree that cops should not be allowed to intercept communications that are obviously meant to be private (such as an email or text message), but tweeting or Facebook walling your thoughts is obviously publishing of those thoughts. This entails "in plain sight" or "imminent discovery" or some legal doctrine like those, so they should have no legal protection by any Constitutional provision.

When I write s**t on facebook thats for friends and family its not really for anyone else

Then set your Facebook settings to private. If the general public can go to your wall and see your death threats against police officers, then cops have every reason to be kicking your door in to put a taser in your a**.

Only thing you should worry about is future/present employers. What do they charge you with for something like that??? I mean since it wasnt really sent to the cops can it really count as a threat??? If I tell person B Im gonna kill person C is that a threat??? I cant say I was just venting????

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Larry Matasareanu The 2nd

Suicidesoldier#1

If you post it on facebook, it's pretty much public access, sowwy.

What does that mean???

When you say something in public, you're liable to be overheard by someone. Like if you give a speech, or you make a death threat in the middle of a crowded mall. If you post it on a blog, where it can be easily googled. So, if they can find it when it's in public, it's not really snooping around.

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Corona Licorice

Azg

PureCocainePureCocaine

Now these crackers

Don't call people that.

Who honestly gets offended at being called a cracker? S'gotta be the least intimidating racial slur there is next to honky.

Calling someone a racial slur is ******** retarded, regardless of whether or not it offends them. I can imagine scenarios where calling someone a ****** or a s**c wouldn't offend them, that doesn't mean it isn't ******** idiotic on my part.

[Radical Ice Creamist]

The problem with identifying threats on social media is most of the time there is no way to really know the context. That's what makes the Internet different from in-person. That's why we have /sarcasm tags, perhaps we should have more tags to denote drunkeness, anger, humor, whatever else the government will take seriously.

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

Freedom of speech does have limits, as it should

The same way you can't yell fire in a crowded building without there actually being an emergency, you can't threaten someone's life in public (yes, the internet is largely public) without expecting to at least get questioned or watched by police

[Project 429]

Roih Uvet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Now these crackers

This isn't a race issue you ******** wigger.

Something about this post and this response are very funny to me. Sometimes this board is great, after all.

[Its A Crystal]

PureCocainePureCocaine

The internet SHOULD be lawless. FREE. THE. AIRWAVES.

So hypothetically you would have no problem with people posting images of them raping and murdering children on the internet and going unpunished?

The Internet should be lawless after all.

[Lord of the Vine]

PureCocainePureCocaine

Roih Uvet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Now these crackers

This isn't a race issue you ******** wigger.

Now, where I'm from "crackers" means "authority figures such as police, judges, high-social-status folk, district attorneys, politicians, and the like."

You mean pigs?

[DarkSohisohi]

Azg

PureCocainePureCocaine

Now these crackers

Don't call people that.

I will assuming this is parody

Roih Uvet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Now these crackers

This isn't a race issue you ******** wigger.

Indeed, it's a freedom of speech issue and racism is an inherent part of freedom of speech. . .

[DarkSohisohi]

DynaSuarez Wrecks

You're confused.

Death threats are not protected by the first amendment when spoken, so why should they be protected when they're written on the internet?

If the NRA can say there should be no gun laws then I'm more the willing to say their should be no laws against speech whatsoever

DynaSuarez Wrecks

(This extends to the broader problem where some people seriously believe that the internet should be lawless, which is just plain stupid).

In regards to speech and piracy, yes. Your privacy and information are is being traded and sold to the highest bidder. If a company think this is how information should be treated, I have absolutely no problem using their logic when taking their content for my own benefit.