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.

 

Follow-up: Rosemount (MN) educator resigns after 'kill Kavanaugh' tweet

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


I look at calling for assassination even if she wasn't serious the same as shouting fire in movie theater.


we have always had some limits on our free speech the main difference is back in the day you could challenge someone to a duel to redress the grievance versus having the law do it.




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




I mean, all she actually did was make a stupid joke.


To you, it's a stupid joke. To me, it's a stupid joke. To a John Hinckley type who might be out there?? Maybe not so much a joke, but a command.



I could wear purple socks to work tomorrow that might set someone off to kill someone.

We can't live our lives in bubble wrap just so that an unbalanced person won't get triggered.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf


It's been done though, wasn't there an actor wanting John Wilkes Booth to come back?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   


I just hate the idea that we (as a society) have become so snow-flakey that bad jokes or even hate speech can get a person fired/punished.


I don't know where the line should be drawn but it sorta seems we may be past it.

Current point appears to be if no one knows you said it, 100% OK, if they know then 100% bad. It is what happens when people mix up the internet anonymity and real life.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



I just hate the idea that we (as a society) have become so snow-flakey that bad jokes or even hate speech can get a person fired/punished.


I don't know where the line should be drawn but it sorta seems we may be past it.

Current point appears to be if no one knows you said it, 100% OK, if they know then 100% bad. It is what happens when people mix up the internet anonymity and real life.


I definitely draw the line before thought policing folks over their internal monologue. However, if they make the stupid decision to post these killing thoughts publicly, then IMO they should be taken to task and have those threats treated seriously. Else, we risk someone dying and discussing the reason ad-nauseum on why nobody took it seriously before it happened. Which, happens REPEATEDLY here. So, let's take these seriously enough to investigate and determine of the poster is mentally fit and not actually willing to carryout their statement.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

A grammatically incorrect liberal educator... I am definitely not surprised. That's the problem these days. You don't have to be smart or intelligent to be an "educator." Hell you don't even have to be able to read to be an educator in NY.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Do those purple socks have, and I quote, ""So whose [sic] gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?", sewn into them for that person to read...?

There's a quantifiable difference between the two...


It's much akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. MHO, of course.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

That logic then also means we should take anonymous threats at the same level. Look at what get said at times here.

Of course, if a person is putting a name with it at least it makes it easier to find the person.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Eye for an eye. Roseanne was released by ABC for free speech that was nothing like this grammatically challenged educator's words.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krakatoa


I say, good show all around. And, IMO, she should be subject to a mental evaluation and her teaching licence pulled until such time as she can be declared safe to herself and others.


That seems kind of dramatic and authoritarian... Well, at least it does from a rational based perspective.

I mean, all she actually did was make a stupid joke.


So did Roseanne. I'm glad we're finally seeing a little consistency.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

How do you know it was a joke? There was nothing in the tweet that would give the idea it was a joke.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

How do you know it was a joke? There was nothing in the tweet that would give the idea it was a joke.


And, her profession is not a comedienne, unlike Rosanne. She is a teacher of young impressionable children.

BIG DIFFERENCE between the two, so you cannot compare.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

But they don't. Conservative educators are intelligent enough to understand that you don't do that.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: DBCowboy

Eye for an eye. Roseanne was released by ABC for free speech that was nothing like this grammatically challenged educator's words.


That's a perfect example of how free expression has become politicized.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

How do you know it was a joke? There was nothing in the tweet that would give the idea it was a joke.


And, her profession is not a comedienne, unlike Rosanne. She is a teacher of young impressionable children.

BIG DIFFERENCE between the two, so you cannot compare.


Exactly. But they were hoping Roseanne would sink down to irrelevancy. Suddenly when it's something they wouldn't mind, it's just a joke.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

At least it's getting consistent.

But how would you feel about this story if someone attempted to shoot Kav because of her words?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DBCowboy

Do those purple socks have, and I quote, ""So whose [sic] gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?", sewn into them for that person to read...?

There's a quantifiable difference between the two...


It's much akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. MHO, of course.


Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre is the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

This was a butt-hurt woman who had taken identity politics too far and got emotional.

Chicks do that.

Just get 'em some wine and chocolate and they'll usually settle down enough to make dinner.




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: DBCowboy

At least it's getting consistent.

But how would you feel about this story if someone attempted to shoot Kav because of her words?


I'd blame the shooter because personal responsibility.




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Well DBCowboy, have to disagree with your train of thought. What she was doing was soliciting a crime.


solicitation - Legal Definition. n. A request or petition intended to obtain something; criminally urging, advising, or ordering someone to commit a crime; offering to pay for sex or requesting money in exchange for sex; an attempt to increase the number of one's actual or potential clientele.



A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission. It is immaterial that the actor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such a communication.

The crime of criminal solicitation is the actual soliciting, or seeking to engage another to commit a crime, not the subsequent commission of a crime. Therefore, a defendant can be convicted of soliciting, even though the person refuses and the solicited crime is never perpetrated, as long as the intent that that crime be committed is present.

definitions.uslegal.com...


I believe it is a criminal offense in all United States of America. And if nothing else, it is inciting violence which is also illegal


Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.




In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred

edit on 11-10-2018 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Irishhaf


It's been done though, wasn't there an actor wanting John Wilkes Booth to come back?



I am sure JWB has voted in a lot of elections since his death.



new topics




 
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join