coyote said:
Land of the free and the home of the brave, eh?
Click to expand...
Hasn't been land of the free for awhile now. I have seen many cases like this over the last 15 years.

No one has the right to say whatever you want. That's not the meaning of free speech either according to the supreme court. Just look at the various cases over the years.
 
Last edited:
Coyote, thank for the petition link. I've signed it and hopefully it helps in some way.

Couchpotato I've heard that hate speech is allowed under the freedom of speech, is that true? Because that makes imprisoning an 18 year old over a sarcastic comment all the more ridiculous.

Which reminds me of this picture I saw. Probably one of the saddest things I've seen :(
1zqzwcy.jpg
 
Dr. A said:
Couchpotato I've heard that hate speech is allowed under the freedom of speech, is that true? Because that makes imprisoning an 18 year old over a sarcastic comment all the more ridiculous.
Click to expand...

In theory yes but lately it depends. Hate speech and bullying seem be the new targets to make examples of people.

It's hard to abolish the amendments and all the government can do is alter them a little. All that means is there working as the founding fathers planned.

To sum it up what everyone needs to realize is they can say whatever they want, but they better be ready for the consequences.
 
Hate speech is largely protected so long as it does not include a direct threat. It can however be used as an enhancer to a crime charge though.
 
From what I have observed, so called hate speech is in the ear of the beholder!! Sometimes 'truth' can be construed as hate speech. We had an incident a few years ago where a Christian minister made a comment about Muslims based on what the Koran said and he was taken to court for hate speech by a Muslim even though what he said was the truth about their beliefs. He won, eventually in court!!
 
I don't think it's a good idea to criticise the faith of people based on their religious text. It can go both ways :)
 
Errr, Corwin? Which "he" won? Kinda hard to comment on the case when I know nothing about it and not so much about Australian law but I think it would be really easy to pull off plenty of hate speech just by quoting the bible. Heck, I bet you could pull off something pretty blistering using Leviticus alone.
 
This case is a gray area for first amendment coverage. Obscenity is not covered by the first amendment but there is not a black and white set of criteria for defining it either. Also, there's precedent for the first amendment not providing protection for credible/probable threats. Considering the kid lived near a school, coupled with the heightened paranoia from Sandy Hook, there may be an argument there, depending on the judge. How this case will proceed will hinge on whether or not the "lol j/k" was indeed part of the posts as the defendant claims or not.
 
Last edited:
Zloth said:
Errr, Corwin? Which "he" won? Kinda hard to comment on the case when I know nothing about it and not so much about Australian law but I think it would be really easy to pull off plenty of hate speech just by quoting the bible. Heck, I bet you could pull off something pretty blistering using Leviticus alone.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the minister won. What he said using the Koran was not criticism, he basically just quoted from it, but some Muslims objected to him doing that. Strangely, when they mis-represented what the Bible says, nothing happened.
 
coyote said:
Land of the free and the home of the brave, eh?
...
The quote was brought to the attention of the police by a woman in Canada, probably the model of politeness.
Click to expand...

sorry?
 
Couchpotato said:
In theory yes but lately it depends. Hate speech and bullying seem be the new targets to make examples of people.

It's hard to abolish the amendments and all the government can do is alter them a little. All that means is there working as the founding fathers planned.

To sum it up what everyone needs to realize is they can say whatever they want, but they better be ready for the consequences.
Click to expand...

Yeah the founding fathers wanted the government to work like bioware boards.

Everyone disagreeing or criticizing is a troll/ hate speech. Then round them up and do as they like.

The whole point of revolution was to get out from under the thumb of oppressive government that killed people based on their religion, politics, or just for the hell of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Devlin

Just one of millions, but in her case she didn't DO anything and they basically killed her and her whole family just to force her to testify against someone.
 
Last edited:
Jailing this kid for being ignorant and foolish sounds like just the thing to do if you're not very bright or you actually want to cause more harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.