Man Arrested For Facebook Post Supporting Sandy Hook Gunman

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I think what he said was sick and if he said it in front of me, he'd probably get punched in the face. However, I can't support arresting him over it. By all means, arrest me for punching him in the face (totally worth it) but free speech is sacred to me.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 2ndFUTURE
 

The idiot was asking for it....and his comment can be construed as trying to incite (more school) violence. The first amendment does not stand for such. It does allow for calling for impeaching someone in high office but not for yelling "Fire!" in a theater.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
edit on 20-12-2012 by th3onetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Those defending his "Freedom of speech" apparently don't get it. Freedom of Speech does NOT include inciting panic. Is running into a crowded theatre and yelling "Fire" protected speech? I rest my case.

This "Child" is an idiot - and an illiterate! What scares me is that soon he will be an adult, walking freely among us. Someone did a terrible job raising this waste of resources!



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I really don't see a conviction on this, in the long run, if he fights. While a lower court might convict, upon appeal he should very well be found not guilty, for the simple fact that he did NOT do anything illegal.

Tasteless and stupid, yes, but not illegal.

Even the inciting panic, while arguable, would not hold, simply because it's not a clear and present danger, there is no imminent threat or danger stemming from the so-called panic. While people might have their panties in a wad and some might feel for their safety, that is not necessarily a *panic.* The only problem is that so many people called with a concern (and not just with disgust but with actual concern), which is why it is arguable and why i lower court might convict but a higher court wouldn't (legally shouldn't).

And if he is convicted, i would still appeal for wrongful arrest and conviction, especially if he has to do the 30 days and pay the fine.


Joseph Resovsky, 20, says he wanted to make a point with this Facebook post but it could cost him a $1,000 fine and 30 days in jail.

This case promises to test the limits of free speech and answer the question: At what point do hurtful words become criminal?


The the limits of free speech, you betcha. It ought to help redefine what is considered free speech that that no one else is arrested for such a thing. That's why if the lower court fails to acquit, this should be escalated.

Here's the interesting (but erroneous, IMO), rationale:


"This is the modern day equivalent of yelling fire in a movie theater. He just does it through the internet," Medina Police Lt. Dave BirkBichler said.


SOURCE

This is NOT the equivalent. Is saying "I'm glad there was a fire in the theater" the same as yelling "fire!"? No. What a stupid rationale.
edit on 20-12-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Another loss of freedom for the Americans.. Shame on you all for allowing this to happen.

Freedom must be held above all else, no matter how stupidly they may use it.
edit on 20-12-2012 by dmsuse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 2ndFUTURE
 


This one is really tough to call.

On one hand, the man clearly broke the golden rule; and with the terror stricken mindset the public has, I can understand why saying, "viva la !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", might be construed as threatening to them.

On the other hand, he was probably just being stupid to get attention - like telling a really bad joke to the wrong audience. Moreover, if he can be considered to be inciting panic, then so can every news outlet who has covered any horrible story. (Idk which news channel I was watching, but on there, this one new anchor started addressing that “the shooting was not terrorism”, and then went on to say terrorism about 5 more times before he ended his sentiment with, “but it was domestic terrorism”. He was clearly trying to invoke fear, and that could be considered to be inciting panic.)

If I were the judge of his case, I would make him write the golden rule 20,000 times and then release him.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
While agree that this guy is a jerk. Being a jerk is not illegal.

Anyone who has ever told someone to F@%# OFF on the internet is guilty of the same behavior.

This arrest is a total violation of the right to free speech and should not be tolerated.

The only punishment that would be valid is his account being banned.

I'm shocked at the people who agree with this arrest.

I can't believe people are so quick to throw away their basic rights over hurt feelings.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
yeah i can see why they'd say its inciting violence, long live school shooters ? really? if you don't agree with his arrest you agree with what he said. tell me why his post isn't violent and i'll take what i said back. he's basically telling any would be a-hole he supports them. if someone does it and his post is in their browser history he should be an accomplice.

edit on 20-12-2012 by christoph because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I support freedom of speech but when you're stupid enough to say something like that when passions are so high I can't see myself rallying to your cause .

I might have gone with disturbing the peace since it seems he managed to do that .



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
If this is possible, why cant the Phelps be arrested for doing this in person?
Quite the double standard there. The WBC incites more uproar than an idiot online looking for attention.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I don't see how that guy's facebook post is any different than what the West Baptist Church does. But he's not a lawyer, so he goes to jail. Nice country you guys have there...



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
So, shouting 'fire' in a theatre (when there is no fire) is considered 'inciting panic'.

Let's take this a step further.

If somebody, shouts 'they have weapons of mass destructions' or 'it will come in the form of a mushroom-cloud' or 'they will have the bomb in x days, weeks, months', when there are no WMDs.
Should not that be 'inciting panic' as well?

And shouldnt these people repeating it over and over again be arrested?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 2ndFUTURE
 


The real problem here are that people are stupid enough to call 911 with a non emergency.
In reality everyone who called it in should have been warned about tying up the lines and made to feel like idiots.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join