Soxbadger

So based on my interpretation of the stalking law, if the person threatens more than 1 time on the internet it would be actionable. A single threat, seems to be okay.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:45 PM) Well we're having the discussion, but this is pretty basic criminal law from what I read in those cases. Words are not enough. Period. The most recent case you cited was 2004, some of those cases were in the 80s, which was prior to most people having the internet. You didnt even cross reference the stalking law, so Im not sure how complete your research is. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fullt...72000050K12-7.3 ec. 12-7.3. Stalking. (a) A person commits stalking when he or she knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and he or she knows or should know that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to: (1) fear for his or her safety or the safety of a third person; or (2) suffer other emotional distress. © Definitions. For purposes of this Section: (1) "Course of conduct" means 2 or more acts, including but not limited to acts in which a defendant directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means follows, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about, a person, engages in other non-consensual contact, or interferes with or damages a person's property or pet. A course of conduct may include contact via electronic communications. (2) "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writings, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system. "Electronic communication" includes transmissions by a computer through the Internet to another computer. (3) "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering, anxiety or alarm. So Im just not sure you are actually right on current IL law.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:43 PM) Because there's no way reading something on Twitter or Facebook alone can make someone feel a reasonable apprehension of fear. I mean, I guess if the girls showed up outside of her house after making the tweet? I could see that as a possibility. Really Jenks? Lets say you knew me. And we just had a big confrontation. I go home that night and do the following: If I post a picture of myself with a knife, gun, machete and a picture of your family with the caption: "My next victims later tonight, its going to be worse than Manson" Youd have no fear? Non reasonable apprehension of fear? Im sure you wouldnt even call the police.

Ive been to lazy to break out my lexis to confirm what the Illinois law is, but I will say that just because its a law today, does not mean I am going to simply say: "Oh well cant do anything" I will continue to ask questions and discuss whether or not this is right, and whether we as a society should do something about it. (edit) Jenks, No idea where you are getting that from me. I said that for me it would be like assault and depend on how actionable it was. In this case as its people who know each other and the threat is derived from something that actually happened, it seems pretty real/actionable to me. Thus the comparison to someone threatening Lebron for not making a free throw.

Im not really a fan of either wildcat or read option in NFL. If you come up with something new that teams werent ready for, you are going to have success with it for a while. It is going to be interesting to see what happens when teams have thought and schemed for zone read for a year. This isnt college, DEs are going to start obliterating QBs. Its the same reason why regular option just never sticks in the NFL. You cant leave QBs to get decimated. The risk/reward is to low.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:18 PM) Not everyone intends to follow through with the threat. I've been to a bar and told a guy that I'd f*** him up if he kept bothering my then-girlfriend. It would have been ludicrous to arrest me for that even though it was a threat. I was trying to get him to leave us alone. I wasn't trying to hurt/kill the guy. You really think that warrants being arrested and held in jail for X number of days? Also, I think people can spin "threats" in the exact same way you can spin hate speech. Your example of hoping someone will die in a horrible fashion, that's a threat. You want that person to die and you might be the one to do it. Better be safe and arrest you just in case you follow through with it. What's it matter if i'm being indirect about it. Add to all of this the fact that it was on the internet and IMO it's even more ludicrous. It's the most unfiltered medium for communication and all of a sudden we're going to take a hard line rule with it? Come on. Jenks, Oh so because "not everyone is actually going to follow through" we should allow people to be terrorized, because thats fair? You seem to think that you should have a right to threaten violence on people, I just dont agree. Sure your not a bad guy for threatening that you would f*** someone up, but if you actually werent going to do it, then its kind of meaningless anyways? I personally dont make threats that I am not go follow through on. So when a stranger at a concert on Saturday said that I should do something that I thought was classless to one of the girls I was with, I told them that "This is why I am at a concert with girls and you are not." Had he kept bothering me, I would have told him that if he didnt leave something bad would happen. If he kept it up, something bad would have happened. And my example is not a threat. You can try and spin something, but most reasonable people can understand the difference between: "I hope you die" and "I am going to kill you" If they cant, well that is presumably why we have judges and juries who are there to determine what a reasonable person would think in that situation. But you have to give me a single good reason why there should be a blanket privilege for threatening speech. Just because you want to be able to threaten people, does not mean its a good reason for allowing it. And the entire internet thing is just a joke. If the internet is the wild west, why cant I gamble, buy drugs and do whatever I want on it? Maybe because laws still apply to the internet?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:13 PM) He said, in so many words, that he is going to add read option looks to the offense (not that he is going to run an actual read-option offense - don't have the QB to do that). I just read the quote, it does not even say that the Bears will use it, just that they are looking at it. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-f...ize-read-option coach Marc Trestman said he’s open at looking at the read opinion. “every team is looking at it right now,” Where are the journalism police? The headline doesnt match the content. Well he should be open to looking at anything.

Well I honestly dont know what it means. Because any time Ive ever seen a "read-option" it meant "zone read". If he is just using the term and talking about something else, than maybe it will work.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:04 PM) Read option is more than just the mesh action between a QB and a RB. I dont think he means running the inverted veer over and over with Cutler. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:04 PM) It takes a quick juke or stutter step to gain 5 yards. Besides, you can just give it to Forte 5-7 times a game, and if he gains 40-50 yards, then teams will have to try and crash him more often. If they do so, Cutler is free. Either way Im not a fan of putting a QB at risk of getting injured. I dont even like that RGIII is doing it that often because I think its a recipe for disaster and injury. I mean I have no problem with them calling a play out of shotgun and giving Cutler the option of handing off to Forte or going play action pass. I just think that you do not want QBs taking RB hits. For example, Russel Wilson almost never actually runs read option. Most of his running comes off of boot/option or broken passing plays. In college he never used the read one time, and in the pros Ive only seen it as a decoy, hes never actually kept the ball.

Read option should be a no. The problem is that if you dont have experience with it, you are going to end up getting your QB killed as their responsibility is to hold the ball until the DE commits. So if you are scheming against the Bears, you just simply instruct the DE to crash the QB every single play and get as many free hits as possible. You need an QB who can legitimately make someone miss 1 on 1 to run this scheme. That is why it works for players like RGIII, Cam Newton, etc. If the DE crashes the QB and the DE misses, the QB is free, so when you are playing a legitimate run qb, the DE has to respect the outside. Does Cutler really need to be taking more free hits?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) The same can be said for hate speech - why do we allow it, why protect that speech. Well, because we deal with that in a free society. We're more concerned about the slippery slope than of the offense of the speech. And I agree with that position. No because hate speech has a legitimate place in society. You have the right to have a negative opinion of others. Nazi's have the right to hate jews. They can say Jews are responsible for all the evils of the world, that Jews are the worst thing ever. The reason that needs to be protected because otherwise people can use "restrictions on hate speech" to stop their opponents from saying negative things about them. Allowing for public discourse, is one of the fundamental reasons for having the 1st amendment. Unlike threats of violence, I can defend hate speech easily. People should have the right to say they hate something, just as much as people should have the right to say they love something. But why should anyone be allowed to threaten someone else with a crime? What rationale purpose does it serve to allow people to threaten crimes against each other? The purpose of hate speech is to convince people to follow your cause. Not really a good comparison in my opinion. Just to apply it to the example at hand. If the person posted hate speech: "I hate you, you ruined my cousins life, I hope that you die in a horrible fashion, I hope that you go to hell..." That would be entirely protected. It may be abhorrent, but there is no legitimate reason why someone cant hate another person. But that is completely different than actually threatening to harm someone and saying that the next time you see them they are dead. I really see no way to justify that speech, and I consider myself pretty hardcore first amendment.

That is one of the biggest reasons that I did not go apple. I have no apple products, I dont use itunes. So I was going to have to load everything through itunes, instead of just copying folders into "Music". If you have a bunch of apple stuff I assume not a big deal, but if you dont its just kind of annoying.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) For the same reason I can call a black person the N-word if I wanted to and it's protected, but I can't fire him/her for being black. You're free to say the word, you're not free to act a certain way. I think you should be free to tell someone you'll beat the crap out of them, and if you reasonably believe it'll happen call the cops and they'll get arrested/charged with assault. If they do it in a harassing manner (which I think is weak unless they did it more than once, but perhaps there's a victim exception I could agree too), same thing. I mean, I get where you guys are coming from. No one should be supporting these girls as they are awful human beings. But at the same time i'm looking bigger picture and I don't want Billy the Cop deciding if what I say is threatening enough to warrant me being physically arrested, hauled to a jail and brought before a judge. That's pretty severe for saying something that in 99.9% of cases will never result in actual violence. Im not sure what side you are arguing here. Either you think that 1st amendment protects speech, including harassing speech, or it does not. The hypothetical you referenced has no relevance to the discussion. This is about harassing speech, and I asked if you thought that since speech is generally not actionable, that a law that was created making "harassing speech" illegal, should be unconstitutional. You can say you are looking at the big picture, but the problem for me, is who do we err on the side of caution for? Do we err for the people who are making death threats? Or do we err for the people receiving death threats? For example: Why should this be protected? Why should someone be able to threaten another with physical violence in an attempt to coerce or intimidate them? Does that seem like something that should be protected under 1st amendment? By not allowing people to make death threats, will there be a substantial erosion of rights? I personally think that under assault this could be good enough. Im not a criminal lawyer, but I do believe that threat alone can be assault. Now there may be some questions about "immediacy", but as the threat said "when I see you", I would argue that is as soon as possible, which means immediate. Im sure there is plenty of case law.

Im waiting for that SS2k dunk. If dunks on a 10ft rim over his kid, Id watch that youtube at least 5 times.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 10:05 AM) I've said I think that should be protected unless the circumstances support that I could reasonably believe that you'd follow through on it. Do I know you? Have you made threats before? Have you committed acts like this before? Etc. If I just randomly received a letter from you because we disagreed over Soxtalk? No. I don't think you should be arrested for that. Harassment maybe, if Illinois has a law like that (and it doesn't take more than one act to violate the law). But something along the lines of threatening violence/assault? No. Harassment is different because it's less about the words being used and more about the fact that you're, well, harassing someone. Here is the problem I have. If we are saying speech is protected (including threats), then why is harassment (verbal) allowed? It would seem that the harassment law was in violation of the 1st amendment, if you believe that the 1st amendment protects violent speech. This is probably one of the most difficult arguments for 1st amendment supporters, because even I have to admit that there is a line where the speech is of so little value, that I just do not believe it is worth protecting. Harassment for the sake of intimidation would fall under that. The problem is, that once you create a law that disallows "harassment" then I can try and use that law to prevent you from free speech. Catch 22 and in my opinion, no real good answer.

I really like my galaxy3, might be a while before I replace it.

No I think there are some areas where there are legitimate counter arguments. I just see no real good argument for why we should be asking for a lot more govt intrusion (id requirements) over an issue that can be fixed in other ways. The main point is to ask why a party that is for "small govt" is trying to push "big govt" down our throat, when there are other less intrusive means?

I actually have no idea what you are saying anymore. I am against voter id laws, I clearly stated that, I have no idea why you keep referencing that to me. I actually am not assuming anything. There is voter fraud, its a fact. It happens. Now you say that you arent concerned because its "negligible", I say that is your opinion and that in my opinion we should strive to eliminate as much as possible. I actually assume that both parties are cheating and thus by having more ways to catch people, less people will cheat. I know that is damn crazy. Its like why did baseball ever test for steroids? At one point no one had ever tested positive for steroids, so why ever implement a test, that just seems like a waste of time. Once again, no idea why you keep responding to my posts and mentioning voter id. Im against voter id, Ive clearly explained why its wrong and I dont really think there is any good argument against mine.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:35 PM) One side wants less people to vote and is blatant about what group of people that would be (likely opponent voters). The other wants more people to vote. I feel pretty comfortable prescribing sinister, anti-democratic motives to one side in this case. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 07:56 PM) Opportunity cost. At best, it's simply a bureaucratic expense. More likely, it results in some level of disenfranchisement. Great, maybe don't jump into the middle of a conversation about a specific issue and, in particular, a specific Supreme Court case and comments made by a specific Justice and assume that everything I'm saying is applicable to whatever novel ideas you'd like to try? Oh Im sorry, you wanted to create rules where you could only talk about a very specific subject and then not have to answer questions about other subjects? That seems really fair. Look at the post above, you said that one side was "anti-democratic", I merely said that both sides are anti-democratic, and acting like only 1 side tries to get an advantage is just blatantly misleading. So you are right, after I discussed your specific case and argued why I disagree with voter ID, I actually came up with other solutions to try and solve the problem. You dont like my solutions because they could potentially prevent a member of your side from voting, thus you keep trying to paint me into a corner about an issue Ive already clearly discussed. If you dont have the ability to defend your overall position, that is fine, just admit that you are arguing for your side and trying to get an advantage. Its what most people do. But dont act magnanimous about voter rights, if you actually dont want to really address voting issues and instead just want to say how bad the other party is because of X, Y, Z reason.

Right your basically arguing that spitballs are okay but corking bats isnt okay. You think .00005% is fine, I say why not try to get better. In fact, you cant even prove that number, you really have no idea how much voter fraud there is, because we only know about people who get caught, which are the dumbest of the dumb. So once again, instead of burying my head in the sand and saying "Stay Calm Everything will be okay", I am being proactive and saying "Why risk it, why not try and get better?" You keep talking about Republicans, why do I care about them? I care about both sides, I want to stop both sides. I guess it just seems like what you are really arguing for is an edge for your party and I dont really agree with that. I want a system where neither party has an advantage, even if that means I lose. Playing fair is more important than winning sometimes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 05:58 PM) Nope, Illinois is IIRC the most-heavily Democratically gerrymandered state! But we were talking about voter ID laws, right? In that case, one party is actively and openly trying to disenfranchise some groups of voters while the other side is fighting for the fraudless status quo. To make the argument that one side is not on the morally right side here, you need to show that the Democrats somehow disproportionately benefit from looser voter ID laws that lead to fraud after you show that this fraud actually exists. No you made a comment about how Republicans after winning tried to gerrymander, implying that Democrats dont do the same thing. Which is patently false. You keep jumping around, instead of focusing on the overarching argument, that both sides make rules to get advantages in elections. You seem to be trying to create an imaginary line that somehow Democratic cheating is more honorable than Republican cheating, but I just call it cheating QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 06:08 PM) I just don't see why it makes sense to believe in something for which there is no evidence and for which the data counter-indicates. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012...atic-deception/ hundreds of thousands of disenfrachised voters, many orders of magnitude more people than are even plausibly committing in-person voter fraud. Perhaps read my posts? Where did I ever say people should be disenfranchised? What proposal did I make that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people? How would a database that cross references instantly, disenfranchise anyone more than the current system? I await your response, because it seems like you feel that we should do nothing and just leave the status quo, and never try and improve. And your absence of evidence argument is somewhat annoying. There is evidence people have been caught committing voter fraud. Its like arguing that no one else at a certain HS is drinking because only a few students were actually caught drinking... Generally we presume that more people get away with something than are caught doing it, so if 1% are caught, its almost guaranteed that the number who tried is > 1%. And furthermore, you are acting like as long as it doesnt happen a lot, it doesnt matter. I personally believe that we should try to eradicate all voter fraud, through reasonable means, because otherwise you are disenfranchising every citizen who actually played by the rules. Their vote gets diluted and that isnt fair. I know not your concern, but its mine.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:25 PM) So, because my roommate had his contract with the rental office voided due to medical reasons, my rent is going to go from $475 a month to $700. f*** me. Hmm joint and several liability on the lease? You look at it to confirm they have the right to do it? Basically the clause should say that you are jointly and severally liable for the rent, yadda yadda. Also see if there is any outs.

Im not sure if the nba has indisputable, but what I hate about the NFL is that if people can legitimately argue about a call, its clearly not indisputable. Indisputable means that no reasonable person will have a different opinion.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:59 PM) No, that would be because you're setting up a dichotomy to claim "both sides!" equality here. If both sides benefit equally from lax voter ID laws, then you can't proscribe sinister motivations to one side who wants to keep the laws the same. But we have actual evidence to the contrary. Democrat-controlled states haven't passed numerous measures designed specifically to disenfranchise likely Republican voters. We haven't seen Ohio and Florida-like shenanigans (closing dem-heavy polling places, understaffing them, giving them shorter hours than rep-heavy ones, etc.) in blue states. We didn't see Democrats push to rig the Electoral College in their favor after 2004 like some state Republicans have considered. One party has very clearly made voter disenfranchisement one of their main political tools. Okay you are right, Democrats are just true blue good guys who never bend rules and dont try and use any method necessary to win elections. If you want parrots, just go to some sort of nonsense Democrat website where you can all talk about how the Democrats have never done a single bad thing and the Republicans are the evils of the world. It really isnt helpful to actually making the US voting system better, its just backing your dog in the fight. (edit) I mean the implication is that Democrats have never gerrymandered, is that even defendable?

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) They must wear guy incognito glasses or something. I just dont see why it makes sense to stick my head in the sand and just believe its not happening. Who is exactly harmed by preparing for the worst and hoping for the best?