Free Speech
 

I think the DA made the right choice.

There must be something that I'm missing. Mr Buss was arrested for posting those comments on a blog?

His IP address was acquired by the police for this comment?

What was the original ( trumped up ) charge?

It's a mystery to me why he was even investigated and arrested in the first place.

I think the DA made the right choice too. The police seem to have made the wrong choice, but the DA made it good.

James Hetfield wrote in 1988, and it's still true today:

Could that have been construed as terroristic threatening or something like that? If so, doing nothing with this information would be REALLY BAD if something happened later. Gotta admit that agreeing with murderers and implying that that is the way to solve a problem is kinda nuts.

Plus, for all they knew, he was a minor. If someone were really posting a comment like that genuinely, he would basically have to be. They did their jobs--they investigated, found out they were wrong, and released the guy an hour later.

I'd say this was highly inflammatory, encouraging students to shoot their teachers.
But, doesn't rise to the yelling "fire" in a theater level, therefore is protected speech under the first amendment.

Some people, especially foreigners, don't understand that distinction or it's importance, saying it's just a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago. They say it doesn't apply today, it should be changed, updated, modified to fit the times.

No... it should not.

I'm also wondering what the original charge was.
Ok, things like inciting a riot, threatening violence, encouraging murder, these are rightfully crimes. But I cant make any of these crimes fit the text given.
I guess the police did the right thing in finding out who it was and if they were likely to commit a shooting. But I still don't see why or on what charge he was arrested.

Now for the compare-and-contrast example: a magistrate in Australia has allowed nine men (aged from their teens to 26) to walk free without so much as a conviction recorded against them, after gang-raping a ten-year-old girl - on the grounds that she "agreed" to sex. :mad2: :mad:
There is an outcry, and the sentences will probably be appealed. I bloody hope so.

I disagree with the first teachers comments all the way. Just a stupid troll, as we all have seen or been one.

But:

I don't think trolling should be illegal yet. It is obnoxious, and at times I've had to make my apologies. But in an internet society you have to make sound distinct judgements on real and perceived threats. You must commit a crime and not just be exaggerating about circumstances that had nothing to do with you, to make a point. If they arrest under those conditions, not only does it reflect an attack on free speech, but hits the area of thought crimes.

This does go with my point on another thread however. Police and other agencies will go out of their way to find the people making inflammatory comments on, supposed, anonymous boards and blogs.

:)


Power to the people and yes, even the trolls.

He was being sarcastic, as the article states. Really, what teacher would call it "a part time job were you work maybe 5 hours per day and sit in the teachers lounge and smoke the rest of the time?" He just needed an eye-rolling smiley (or three or four,) that's all.

The police, having arrived with an arrest warrant for someone they thought would turn out to be a teen, could not very well glance at the guy, say "Oops, I think you might be in your thirties, so nevermind." Procedures had to be followed at that point, but the error was resolved quickly and mostly painlessly.

Is that really your arguement here? He should have had an eye-rolling smiley?

I'm out!

I think it was a stupid comment by the teacher but he should not get fired. Yes, it is controversial but it opens up the door for shit I don't want to see happening.

Is your argument that this schoolteacher genuinely considers the Columbine kids to be "heroes?"

By comparison, would you say you were "trolling" when you said this a few days ago? Or would you say you were obviously being sarcastic?

Clod-About the death van's in China...Well, I didn't want to bore anyone with posting a whole thread about it...I thought people might be unaware of this new "humanitarian" course of action the Chinese have decided to take. I still think that it is intersting enough to post a thread...but I'd be even more of a troll. Did you know that those existed Clod, prior to my trolling? Did you know that I am fascinated (not in a good way) by what was done there and assumed that others might be as horrifed and want to freakin know? It has nothing to do with the current topic but I am glad that you plugged the quote again for me. It's in the "U.S. expat working in China thread" everyone. And there is a link to the mobile death unit.
Troll? Or trying to ask people to take a "gander" at things that concern me and that I worry about? I don't know...good question. I stated in the above reply that I can be a troll and have had to make my apologies...but tell me..Don't you post things that you find personally alarming in hopes that people will become aware of exactly what not to do ever? Am I still in the free speech thread? It doesn't seem like it by looking at your comments Clod. Why are you bringing up that quote from another thread? To prove I am a troll sometimes (excluding the death van topic)which I have already admitted to? Great point Clod!!!
:)

About the topic Clod: I don't care in what vein the teacher was speaking, he broke no laws either way....Saying people deserve a course of action doesn't mean that you are threatening to do it. Like people on the cellar and Bush.

Instead of holding a resentment about my comments, moving forward, I hope you address your response to them in the thread they are posted. Or we can play a game where you remember them, and try and use them as benign ammunition.

Even if my comments weren't sarcastic Clod, it isn't illegal for me to say...specious arguement. I paraphrased the last line, right from an article I found, that was sincere. I still think the death van topic needs to be addressed obviously...but it's still unaddressed in the proper thread.

Oh my God, Cicero, you have my point completely backwards...

Yes, you have every right to say what you said about the Chinese vans. I'm glad you said it. It was a relevant and interesting post, and not trolling. Just like the teacher was not trolling. He was speaking with extreme sarcasm to make a point, just like you were. I don't hold any resentment for either your post or the teacher's, they were both completely fine in my opinion.

The only thing I was ever saying was that this comment

was inappropriate because the teacher was not trolling. He was being sarcastic. Of course you "disagree" with his comments, because so does he. I wasn't holding any resentment or throwing anything in your face, I was just using a random post to show that sarcasm is not trolling. You are not a troll (and neither was the teacher,) that is the whole point.

Do you think he is now more or less popluar among the teachers and students?