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.

 

Jailed for three weeks awaiting trial over Facebook posts

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
could be there's more to it. I've heard worse than that in rap songs without any action from the police/government. One track I remember was called "Kidnap the Presidents wife"


This was on an old album I listened to a lot as a bonus track... Warning: some bad language



And that's just an example, there's tons of questionable rap out there which could you see you arrested if this case is anything to go by!




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
could be there's more to it. I've heard worse than that in rap songs without any action from the police/government. One track I remember was called "Kidnap the Presidents wife"


This was on an old album I listened to a lot as a bonus track... Warning: some bad language



And that's just an example, there's tons of questionable rap out there which could you see you arrested if this case is anything to go by!


They only care about scaring the next generation to make them more pliable automatons!
easier to manipulate and less likely to retaliate!
Can you imagine our government doing to the public of the 1800s what they do to us!
Would the people of the 1800s stand for such corruption?
IMHO they would revolt but today we are content in the land of consumption instead of freedom!



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
First it's gonna be our guns, then this pesky little freedom of speech thing, and there's allreay lawmakers wanting to ban Muslims ,so freedom of religion is right around the corner

Does not sound like my America



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralChaos
So much for "freedom of speech".
He should be able to threaten to blow up the entire country if he wants to.
That's why it's called "freedom" of "speech".

But hey, what the hell do I know?


Freedom of speech has its limits.. You can't go into a movie theater and yell "FIRE" and hide behind the first amendment.

In this case though, it was rap... It's a form of art I guess so the 1st amendment does protect it... I think they should lock up every rapper that raps about killing, every rock musician that sings about sacrifice, every writer that writes about death.. Matter of fact lets lock up all of Hollywood for making a "threatening" movie about the white house. You know, Olympus has Fallen, White House Down... We don't want any Koreans getting crazy ideas. Lock them all up, hell they shouldn't even get a trial these terrorists need to be sent to Guantanamo.
I'm thinking there might be some Sheldon Coopers reading this so I will specify that was sarcasm.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
If they jailed this teenager over some facebook posts, why haven't they jailed Adam Kokesh yet?

His openly admits on July 4 to marching on Washington DC, armed with about 1000 individuals to rebel against the government.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
That'll teach him to Grow up and take responsibility for his own actions then wont it....

lol at all you people condoning threats of violence, you wouldn't be defending him if he actually carried out his threats would you? and HOW do you know he wouldn't carry them out??

stupid kid gets everything he deserves.


we live in an age of internet warriors or ( cowards) as i call them, freedom of speech does not mean you can post offensive material or threats of murder.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 
If "inciting violence and imminent lawlessness" are determining factors, shouldn't the entire Westboro Baptist Church mob be in jail after every protest?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by b14warrior
 


If he had a recording contract, he could make up any old crap lines he wanted, threatened anybody or anything and his handlers in the music industry, politicians, judges and bankers would call it art. Two different sets of rules, maybe three.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
the guy has a history of making violent threats. everything is logged and someone at head office probably thought it was time to make an example of him..

do we want to live in a world where people make violent threats?

..even if they're supposedly "fighting for the truth"?

like how Eminem raps about how "he's got the money to have you killed by someone who has nothing" (this was seriously investigated as a threat against the bush admin.)

or how Michael Moore convinces some old lady to say "cock punch" for a political campaign..

ever heard that saying "the one who looks into the abyss, to study monsters.. has to be careful he doesn't become a monster himself"?

share information, resist the empire.. we want a peaceful world.. but we're not going to get it through violence



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 
If "inciting violence and imminent lawlessness" are determining factors, shouldn't the entire Westboro Baptist Church mob be in jail after every protest?



No because what the Westboro Baptist Church puts on their signs and does is actually protected free speech as distasteful as that would seem. "God" is the one that does everything in the signs. The signs do not urge people to do violence or instigate fear. They are purely religious and political commentary. There was a recent Supreme Court case (Phelps v. Snyder) that actually put what the Westboro Baptist Church does to the test in terms of the First Amendment. The decision was 8 to 1 in the Phelps' favor with both free speech and freedom of religion being protections for the church. The limitation of free speech that came up was not "threat of violence" but was instead, the offensive nature of the signs as the extremely vulgar and offensive to a reasonable person is also a limitation on free speech. If I recall correctly, both Shirley and Fred Phelps are lawyers. It's pretty safe to say that they know what is protected free speech and what isn't and that's what makes them so infuriating because what they are doing is protected by our Constitution. In fact, as distasteful as the WBC is, what they are doing and how it upsets the majority is precisely the reason why free speech exists. The freedom of speech is threatened not when the majority of the populous share an opinion but when a small faction holds an opinion that angers the majority. As much as I find the WBC distasteful among other things, their perpetual existence indicates that free speech does exist as long as you know the way around the limitations.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mindsmog
we live in an age of internet warriors or ( cowards) as i call them, freedom of speech does not mean you can post offensive material or threats of murder.


While I agree that we should probably draw the line at actual (credible) threats, I don't see the problem with "offensive material". I think free speech was intended to protect offensive speech. If you're not offending anyone, you don't really need protection, right? Who's going to try to shut you up if they like and agree with everything you have to say?

I've seen what happens when the line is drawn at merely being offensive and it ain't pretty. It's only cool if you disagree with what is being said and you're ethically OK with other people being silenced simply for being offensive.

Frankly, I think there is value in letting people get their hatred and anger off their chest by just writing what they think. That doesn't mean I agree with threats. But just offending people is another matter, isn't it?



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   
At least he doesn't live in the U.K where he could be jailed for making "racist" (anti-islamic) statements about jihadists on facebook.

Honestly though... You'd think more people would care that you can now be thrown in jail for the $&!@ you say on the internet.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph


Honestly though... You'd think more people would care that you can now be thrown in jail for the $&!@ you say on the internet.


As much as I wish I could agree here, I think realistically you have to look at the fact that if you sent a threatening letter to someone by snail mail, you'd probably at least get a visit by the police. Maybe even a restraining order filed against you. Completely unfettered speech is a great thought but in real life, people are going to abuse it and it's just not going to fly with the public. I think we do have to be realistic.

But in a sense, I feel that these incidents (And it seems like there are an unusual number of them lately) are going to be used to weaken ALL forms of speech and not just threats. I think this is how they will get the door open and they'll gradually blur the lines until nobody really knows what's safe to say anymore. I hope I'm wrong.
edit on 26-5-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralChaos
So much for "freedom of speech".
He should be able to threaten to blow up the entire country if he wants to.
That's why it's called "freedom" of "speech".

But hey, what the hell do I know?


Freedom of Speech is ok when you want to buy politicians against the best interests to the rest of the nation though eh? Which one has more obvious detrimental effects?



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by RomeByFire
 



We should grab that story and post it to our FB's and then put in quotes " ‘everybody you will see what I am going to do, kill people,”

To show our support for this poor kid!!! I totally agree w/ the OP here. I might add that I loved the OP's vocab! Very impressive and the word gubment floored me! Funnier then heck! lol thanks OP F&S!
edit on 26-5-2013 by tracehd1 because: Correct



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Casualboy100
I wouldn't be suprised if he was an ATS member


ATS members probably wouldn't be making free music speeches on FB unless they were anti-ATS members. Plus, the lyrics would contain more evidence-based research into the subject matter thereby turning the song into a thesis instead.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


It helps to get the full story. Suppose that this person made good on his threats, and it later emerged that he had a history of violence. Then the same people crying about his so-called freedom of speech being trampled all over would be criticising the authorities for failing to act when they had the chance. This often happens, and dangerous people are left free to inflict pain and death upon others.

If this was genuinely a case of freedom of speech being removed, then I would speak out against it. But going by the information you quoted, its evident he is dangerous and the right move was made in this instance. Words are one things, actions are another entirely different matter. He is where he belongs.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Firefly_
reply to post by Sankari
 


It helps to get the full story. Suppose that this person made good on his threats, and it later emerged that he had a history of violence. Then the same people crying about his so-called freedom of speech being trampled all over would be criticising the authorities for failing to act when they had the chance. This often happens, and dangerous people are left free to inflict pain and death upon others.

If this was genuinely a case of freedom of speech being removed, then I would speak out against it. But going by the information you quoted, its evident he is dangerous and the right move was made in this instance. Words are one things, actions are another entirely different matter. He is where he belongs.


Your points are well taken and I made the same ones a few posts back.

I think the fear many have is that there may be a danger that these types of events could potentially be exploited to turn the public against free speech altogether. I know it's a little difficult to imagine. But if we have a constant drumbeat of these kinds of threats going on at the same time when there are actual events happening, the public is going to be very upset and may well be susceptible to suggestions for irrational restrictions on all speech.

As I said before, I really hope this is just my tendency to look for conspiracies everywhere. In my view, that would be great. I don't really want to be right about these sorts of things. I talk about them because I fear them and hope it isn't so.

But you do have a point. We need to encourage responsibility in this community. The last thing we need is conspiracy theorists getting more bad press than we already get. We can't afford to be seen defending people who are making violent threats. I don't think this is who we are. We are not violent. We are not dangerous. We are not crazy. We are here to talk about things in a civilized fashion. To ask questions that need to be asked and to ponder the answers. They are going to try to paint us ugly but we don't have to help them.
edit on 26-5-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


You just ruined it



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
But wait, nothing is being done about the Reddit's sexual abuse forums, teaching people how to get away with sexual crimes?

Priorities are a very funny and telling thing about a country.







 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join