Thread: Civil War 2.0

  1. #436
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    30,664

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Yeppers. I hope the teacher sues, honestly. It's a stupid thing to post, but it's not illegal and the school district cannot punish it (unless she said 'As a school teacher @xxx, in my official capacity, ....')
    Or her contract explicitly has a 'morality in public' clause. Which actually does show up in a lot of public teaching contracts these days.


    My take away is that this is no worse than all the rednecks during the Obama years expressing the same ignorant frustration over having a black president, it's harmless and not a real threat, it's just someone venting dissatisfaction.
    I wouldn't even censor you.

 

  • #437
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,501

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Yeppers. I hope the teacher sues, honestly. It's a stupid thing to post, but it's not illegal
    Let's let the secret service / FBI / Marshalls Office decide that. Calling for the assassination of a supreme court justice is not necessary in the realm of covered free speech. " Khaalid Abdulkadir is serving a term of probation after tweeting death threats against a federal judge and agents in 2015."
    Last edited by Mistwell; October 9th, 2018 at 02:27 AM.
    I like hats.

  • #438
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,293

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    Let's let the secret service / FBI / Marshalls Office decide that. Calling for the assassination of a supreme court justice is not necessary in the realm of covered free speech. " Khaalid Abdulkadir is serving a term of probation after tweeting death threats against a federal judge and agents in 2015."
    It is absolutwly covered political speech. Death threats, which must be credible, are not. Or have you been ignoring your civic duty to report Spoony when we blathers on about hoping someone does for Trump?

    There's no way this teacher's tweet is anything other than political hyperbole. That it's a tweet us a strong point for this. That there are no specifics is another. This is speech you don't like, but it's straight up protected.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #439
    Two fake lawyers arguing. Who will prevail?
    Signature too big and pornographic. Next offense will be a ban.

  • #440
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,501

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    It is absolutwly covered political speech. Death threats, which must be credible, are not. Or have you been ignoring your civic duty to report Spoony when we blathers on about hoping someone does for Trump?
    You might recall I mentioned to Spoony once that my friend used to work for a large radio station, and the host he was producing made a joke about shooting a political figure, and the secret service was on the phone in a matter of 20 minutes (and then he had me on the phone in about 25 minutes). Secret Service does not fuck around, and they absolutely have the authority to take shit more seriously than it's intended. I told Spoony it was a stupid thing he was doing and it did bring risk with it. I am not going to be the guy who reports Spoony, but I don't think he's necessarily on legally safe ground with those comments, no.

    Here is the Supreme Court holding on what constitutes a true threat, and you might be surprised to learn it's not based on the intent of the speaker to actually commit the violence:

    "“True threats” encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not
    actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats “protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence” and “from the disruption that fear engenders,” in addition to protecting people “from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.” Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death...Limiting the definition of true threats to only those statements where the speaker subjectively intended to threaten would fail to protect individuals from “the fear of violence” and the “disruption that fear engenders,” because it would protect speech that a reasonable speaker would understand to be threatening."

    This series of cases came about when some racist fuck burned a cross to intimidate some people and then claimed they never intended any harm but were doing it as hyperbolic political speech which gave them a sense of catharsis. That didn't fly, the Court didn't care if they actually intended to physically harm anyone, and they went to prison.

    There's no way this teacher's tweet is anything other than political hyperbole. That it's a tweet us a strong point for this. That there are no specifics is another. This is speech you don't like, but it's straight up protected.
    The question is did she intend to communicate a threat to Kavanaugh or his family which they might reasonably fear, even if the private purpose of her communicating that threat was merely her personal catharsis and hyperbole to get some angst off her chest over the Kavanaugh hearings.

    I strongly suspect she didn't actually intend Kavanaugh to ever see or hear about the tweet, or take it seriously. But I don't know for sure. I don't know anything about her, other than it appears over time her appearance went from what you might typically call "teacher" to what you might more typically call "more angst ridden than most teachers appear", and her commentary on Twitter appears to have taken a notably increased more radical political tone over time along with that appearance change. People who know her will know if this was intended to never be taken seriously by anyone, or if she's had some sort of psychological change recently and was seriously meaning it to put fear in Kavanaugh or his family. Which is why I said leave it to professionals to figure that out.
    Last edited by Mistwell; October 9th, 2018 at 10:55 PM.
    I like hats.

  • #441
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,293

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    You might recall I mentioned to Spoony once that my friend used to work for a large radio station, and the host he was producing made a joke about shooting a political figure, and the secret service was on the phone in a matter of 20 minutes (and then he had me on the phone in about 25 minutes). Secret Service does not fuck around, and they absolutely have the authority to take shit more seriously than it's intended. I told Spoony it was a stupid thing he was doing and it did bring risk with it. I am not going to be the guy who reports Spoony, but I don't think he's necessarily on legally safe ground with those comments, no.
    The Secret Service looking into something doesn't make it a crime. Very few things the Secret Service look into are ever even charged.

    Here is the Supreme Court holding on what constitutes a true threat, and you might be surprised to learn it's not based on the intent of the speaker to actually commit the violence:
    You would lose that bet.

    This series of cases came about when some racist fuck burned a cross to intimidate some people and then claimed they never intended any harm but were doing it as hyperbolic political speech which gave them a sense of catharsis. That didn't fly, the Court didn't care if they actually intended to physically harm anyone, and they went to prison.
    No, the true threat doctrine started with the guy who, during the Vietnam draft days, said, "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." That is was refined later with the case you mention ignores that speech, especially political speech, is given very wide latitude by the courts. While yes, you don't have to actually intend harm, for a threat to be true the listener must not just be genuinely in fear of harm from you, but you must also have the capability to carry out the threat. IE, a threat to punch you in the face, no matter how vehemently spoken or truly intended, is not a threat if it's from a paraplegic.

    The question is did she intend to communicate a threat to Kavanaugh or his family which they might reasonably fear, even if the private purpose of her communicating that threat was merely her personal catharsis and hyperbole to get some angst off her chest over the Kavanaugh hearings.
    Yup, and the courts have a long caseload of saying that politically motivated hyperbole, especially if spoken on the internet and not said directly to the 'target', is to be generally considered to be protected political hyperbole. This is why Spoony isn't in danger with the stupid he spouts -- he's not threatening Trump directly, he's espousing general political hyperbole in a non-directed general manner.

    [quote[I strongly suspect she didn't actually intend Kavanaugh to ever see or hear about the tweet, or take it seriously. But I don't know for sure. I don't know anything about her, other than it appears over time her appearance went from what you might typically call "teacher" to what you might more typically call "more angst ridden than most teachers appear", and her commentary on Twitter appears to have taken a notably increased more radical political tone over time along with that appearance change. People who know her will know if this was intended to never be taken seriously by anyone, or if she's had some sort of psychological change recently and was seriously meaning it to put fear in Kavanaugh or his family. Which is why I said leave it to professionals to figure that out.[/QUOTE]

    They're likely not going to bother. This made the news, for some reason, but there's literally thousands of similar statements on twitter right now, and about half are even worse than this. This is noise. The limited resources of the government will be used on people who aren't schoolteachers ranting on Twitter that lives many states away from the supposed 'target'. This is a nothingburger, legally. It's a great example of stupid in action, though, which is why it made the news. Your handwringing over whether or not this person randomly catching the attention of a news cycle is really making threats towards Kavanaugh doesn't mean it's actually important or a real threat. It is, though, another data point in the slow erosion of speech freedoms, which are dipping quite low lately as the vicious partisanship has people more and more interested in using government to silence the other side. This example just highlights a double dose from both sides.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #442
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,501

    Ignore User
    I guess her follow-up tweet, before she deleted it all and shut her accounts down and then quit her job, was this, ""Brett kavanaugh will be dealing with death threats for the rest of his life being on the Supreme Court. I doubt my mid-west ass is a real threat.""

    Yeah doesn't sound like the kind of threat Kavanaugh or his family would reasonably take seriously.

    However, here is the law it's under (and specific to officials including judges). Investigators are probing whether [accused] had made any similar statements in the past and whether she’d purchased a gun or other weapon.
    Last edited by Mistwell; October 10th, 2018 at 06:50 PM.
    I like hats.

  • #443

  • #444
    I wonder what exactly are we hoping to accomplish with posting sensationalist headlines about such people? Are we trying to rival Breitbart or Facebook? Are we trying to copy Xyxox, and want to be part of the problem, in what little way you can contribute to it in the nanocosm of Circvs Maximvs?

  • #445
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    30,664

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully View Post
    I wonder what exactly are we hoping to accomplish with posting sensationalist headlines about such people? Are we trying to rival Breitbart or Facebook? Are we trying to copy Xyxox, and want to be part of the problem, in what little way you can contribute to it in the nanocosm of Circvs Maximvs?
    I don't know what "we" are trying to accomplish, but I do know what Mistwell is trying to accomplish.

    About four to five months back it was mentioned by someone* that the left had become increasingly violent. And not for good reasons. This was poo-pooed by our resident lefties. Ever since Mistwell has been on a one man crusade to rub their noses in the left's violent outbursts.




    * It was me.
    I wouldn't even censor you.

  • #446
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,888

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    About four to five months back it was mentioned by someone* that the left had become increasingly violent. And not for good reasons. This was poo-pooed by our resident lefties. Ever since Mistwell has been on a one man crusade to rub their noses in the left's violent outbursts.
    You are endlessly moronic. Please show me where it says he is of any partisan affiliation? Oh, that's right, it doesn't, because 'tards like you always love to accuse anyone who does anything potentially violent as being on the left side of politics and seem to conveniently forget that they almost always turn out to be on the conservative side.

    Fuck you're stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

  • #447
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,387

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    I don't know what "we" are trying to accomplish, but I do know what Mistwell is trying to accomplish.

    About four to five months back it was mentioned by someone* that the left had become increasingly violent. And not for good reasons. This was poo-pooed by our resident lefties. Ever since Mistwell has been on a one man crusade to rub their noses in the left's violent outbursts.




    * It was me.
    I believe I might have helped there. He doesn't realize that what he is doing is the equivalent of putting up every instance of pitbull attacks, without realizing we know how small those instances are when you take into account how many pitbulls are out there...

    So in other words, he's not really accomplishing anything of note.
    Last edited by kirinke; October 11th, 2018 at 12:59 PM.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #448
    Quote Originally Posted by kirinke View Post
    I believe I might have helped there. He doesn't realize that what he is doing is the equivalent of putting up every instance of pitbull attacks, without realizing we know how small those instances are when you take into account how many pitbulls are out there...

    So in other words, he's not really accomplishing anything of note.
    So nobody claimed that everyone on the left has become violent. To go back to the pitbull analogy, if you have 2% of pitbulls biting people, and suddenly it becomes 4%, it's still a major increase even if it's still just a small fraction of the number of pitbulls out there. He's also doing this because the right also fits the pitbull analogy where only a fraction of them bite people, but those on the left here didn't have a problem claiming they were the most violent of the two sides.

    Mistwell is just showing that to be false and that there is a major increase in the left with regard to violence.

  • #449
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMaxperson View Post
    So nobody claimed that everyone on the left has become violent. To go back to the pitbull analogy, if you have 2% of pitbulls biting people, and suddenly it becomes 4%, it's still a major increase even if it's still just a small fraction of the number of pitbulls out there. He's also doing this because the right also fits the pitbull analogy where only a fraction of them bite people, but those on the left here didn't have a problem claiming they were the most violent of the two sides.

    Mistwell is just showing that to be false and that there is a major increase in the left with regard to violence.
    But he can only show that the reporting on left violence has increased on CM. It's not like we had a "Violence from the Left" watchdog thread the last 10 years that carefully tracked these incidents.

    And so, his efforts are essentially meaningless. It's a form of "Conservative Virtue Signaling" - maybe to compensate that he didn't vote for Trump or something. Or maybe just because he's bored and likes some CM action.

  • #450
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,293

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully View Post
    But he can only show that the reporting on left violence has increased on CM. It's not like we had a "Violence from the Left" watchdog thread the last 10 years that carefully tracked these incidents.

    And so, his efforts are essentially meaningless. It's a form of "Conservative Virtue Signaling" - maybe to compensate that he didn't vote for Trump or something. Or maybe just because he's bored and likes some CM action.
    You are aware that most posts here are virtual signaling for the various tribes, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • Page 30 of 41 FirstFirst ... 11121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •