It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We Are Being Spied Upon and Freedom of Speech is Gone

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
I don't like this either. But if you actually did study the law. You would realize that threats need to be investigated before they can be ascertained to be critical or not .


Really

What about having a judge sign a warrant first.

Seems to work for other countries. American arrogance is to the moon at this point.




posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Don't "vent" on the internet. Everything you put on the internet is forever. You can go outside and scream at the sky and feel better, and it won't come back to haunt you later or embarrass you.

Remember, we are all responsible for what we say on the internet.


What exactly are you saying.

You want to eliminate free speech.

Are you an American or Saudi ?



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: RubberSky

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Don't "vent" on the internet. Everything you put on the internet is forever. You can go outside and scream at the sky and feel better, and it won't come back to haunt you later or embarrass you.

Remember, we are all responsible for what we say on the internet.


What exactly are you saying.

You want to eliminate free speech.

Are you an American or Saudi ?


Way to deliberately misunderstand what is being said.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: RubberSky


What about having a judge sign a warrant first.


Any act committed in public does not require a warrant. The Internet is a public space.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
One has to be careful of what we say. We cannot have an opinion that goes against popular belief. We cannot have strong opinions or thoughts on anything because it's a threat unless proven otherwise.

Guilty until innocent. Our world is an amazing place.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
One has to be careful of what we say. We cannot have an opinion that goes against popular belief. We cannot have strong opinions or thoughts on anything because it's a threat unless proven otherwise.

Guilty until innocent. Our world is an amazing place.


No-one on this thread is saying that; everyone can express themselves, but they should be prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of what they say.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

No, there shouldn't be consequences for opinions. It's petty and retaliatory. You say people should be prepared to take responsibility. I say you're right. People should take responsibility for their own inability to accept differing opinion.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: DJW001

No, there shouldn't be consequences for opinions. It's petty and retaliatory. You say people should be prepared to take responsibility. I say you're right. People should take responsibility for their own inability to accept differing opinion.


It doesn't matter what should be the case in your opinion, it matters what is the case. If you tell a vicious lie about me I demand the right to sue you for libel, and there is nothing you can do about it... except not tell vicious lies about people. Making implicit death threats also falls into this category.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

No, you couldn't sue for libel. Well you could, but it would fail. You can't sue for an opinion. If I think you're a liar, and post a comment, it's nothing more than a personal opinion. That's protected.

Just to be clear: I'm not calling you, nor do I think you're, a liar. It's just an example.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace


No, you couldn't sue for libel. Well you could, but it would fail. You can't sue for an opinion. If I think you're a liar, and post a comment, it's nothing more than a personal opinion. That's protected.


But this thread is not about opinions. If you post an opinion someone disagrees with, you can expect them to argue with you. That is a consequence you need to deal with. This thread is about someone who posted a very graphic violent fantasy about a specific person in a place where the public, including the object of the violent fantasy, could read it. That anyone would do such a thing thinking that it would have no consequences in the real world is itself evidence that the individual may have psychotic traits, and therefore may represent a real threat!



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




Six commenters over at "Reason", a Libertarian site, made comments online about a judge involved in the Silk Road case. These comments included:

“Its (sic) judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.”
“Why waste the ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first.”


Are those comments from the OP not opinions?



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace


Are those comments from the OP not opinions?


Only if you consider statements like "Jews deserve to be liquidated" and "raping women is always justified" to be mere "opinions." They are in fact implicit threats, not opinions, and should be handled differently than, say, whether or not "Mad Max" was a good movie.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I don't like this either. But if you actually did study the law. You would realize that threats need to be investigated before they can be ascertained to be critical or not .


An "investigation" can have just as a chilling effect on speech as actual jailing.

No reasonable person would take this as a threat - it's just a comical expression.

Let's say someone spay painted "pig" on their house, do the cops now have a right to investigate everyone who posted negative comments?



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: EternalSolace


Are those comments from the OP not opinions?


Only if you consider statements like "Jews deserve to be liquidated" and "raping women is always justified" to be mere "opinions." They are in fact implicit threats, not opinions, and should be handled differently than, say, whether or not "Mad Max" was a good movie.


Do you consider PC comments of that nature to be implicit threats too? How about "all child molesters should be castrated" or the popular "let's kill the lawyer jokes?"

Just within the last few decades, a comment like 'two men having sex is natural and ok" could also have been taken as an implicit threat.

In fact, in the 1950's your examples of "threats" were probably opinions held by many, many people who NEVER acted upon them. Opinions that now have been changed not by "investigations" but by information.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001
I've agreed with enough of your posts to believe you will see this differently if you think on it longer. Your signature stands for the very freedom these people were exercising.

There is a difference between declaring an opinion and announcing an intended action. On a more practical level, we can't waste time and taxpayer money every time someone rants on the internet. People get emotional, and often say things they don't mean.

We know the feds have been doing this for some time, yet we always hear after the fact that people were making alarming statements on social media. Dorner, the two idiot Muslims in Texas, Nadal Hassan - the list goes on and on. They all said things on the net before they took violent action, but none were stopped beforehand.

So clearly the practice is ineffective. The FBI recently admittted that cell phone metadata has never helped them stop a terror plot. They said they like having the records because it makes the prosecution phase easier. Laziness in the FBI? Couldn't be.

We have to worry about having our lives turned upside down over absurd threat investigations, and they still don't prevent anything. IIs it worth it?



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: RubberSky

I'm saying, be cognizant of what you put on the internet as it's not the same as yelling at your dog.

What you say on the internet is permanent, like scratching letters on the side of a cliff. It stays there. Long after your mind and emotions have changed, your anger and thoughts are still there.

It's pretty simple: don't say it on the internet if you aren't responsible enough to stand by it at a later time. It's about personal responsibility, after realizing the environment in which you are speaking.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Wow...should have kept on this thread of mine. How about this:

threat
THret
noun
1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
"members of her family have received death threats"
synonyms: threatening remark, warning, ultimatum
"Maggie ignored his threats"

Now tell me...how does the sentence "it is judges like this that should be taken out back and shot" fall into the definition of a threat? It is not an "intention to inflict" anything.
edit on 6/13/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


Now tell me...how does the sentence "it is judges like this that should be taken out back and shot" fall into the definition of a threat? It is not an "intention to inflict" anything.


implied:

[im-plahyd]

adjective
1.
involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood:
an implied rebuke; an implied compliment.


dictionary.reference.com...

threat:

[thret]

noun
1.
a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:
He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
2.
an indication or warning of probable trouble:
The threat of a storm was in the air.


dictionary.reference.com...

What this hinges on is his use of the word "should," however:

should:

[shoo d]

auxiliary verb
1.
simple past tense of shall.
2.
(used to express condition):
Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3.
must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency):
You should not do that.
4.
would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt):
I should think you would apologize.


dictionary.reference.com...

The author of the comment considers it his moral duty to kill and mutilate the judge: that's what makes it a threat.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist


've agreed with enough of your posts to believe you will see this differently if you think on it longer. Your signature stands for the very freedom these people were exercising.


And I support his right to say it if he truly believes it. Nevertheless, all actions have consequences. Threatening a judge will definitely draw the attention of law enforcement.


There is a difference between declaring an opinion and announcing an intended action.


But opinions are often a predictor of actions. Hitler repeatedly expressed his opinion of Jews.


On a more practical level, we can't waste time and taxpayer money every time someone rants on the internet.


I completely agree, but there are agencies tasked with the protection of civil servants, and for good reason. A judge must feel that his life will be protected however he rules, or he will be unable to rule objectively. Just as doctors won't perform abortions if they think their clinic could get bombed, judges might not rule a racketeer guilty if he thought members of a gang might take revenge.


People get emotional, and often say things they don't mean.


Yes, which is why a mature person does not go online in anger!


We know the feds have been doing this for some time, yet we always hear after the fact that people were making alarming statements on social media. Dorner, the two idiot Muslims in Texas, Nadal Hassan - the list goes on and on. They all said things on the net before they took violent action, but none were stopped beforehand.


In this case, the issue isn't preventing a crime, it is reassuring a civil servant so they can discharge their civil function.


So clearly the practice is ineffective. The FBI recently admittted that cell phone metadata has never helped them stop a terror plot. They said they like having the records because it makes the prosecution phase easier. Laziness in the FBI? Couldn't be.


I agree...


We have to worry about having our lives turned upside down over absurd threat investigations, and they still don't prevent anything. IIs it worth it?


I agree that trying to predict crime is ineffective and even unconstitutional. That is not what this thread is about, neither is it about "freedom of speech." It is about the very real consequences of thinking that internet anonymity can permit one to commit what is essentially a "hate crime:" verbal assault.
edit on 13-6-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Spied on..? Probably.

But no free speech..?

Dude, if free speech were gone, you wouldn't be posting here..!!




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join