StrangeSox

That's pretty ridiculous, it's pretty clear that someone sending you threatening messages or making threatening phone calls can give you a reasonable apprehension of fear. Saying something along the lines of "I'm going to beat the s*** out of you next time we meet" seems like a pretty clear threat when it's coming from someone who knows the girl and has motive. You're telling me it'd be unreasonable for her to fear for her safety?

FYI they weren't charged under an assault law, they were charged with "aggravated menacing."

Yes, he distilled the liberal/centrist hawk message so perfectly.

yeah the idea that something said over the internet doesn't count is pretty strange.

Responses to Rumsfeld's Iraq tweet are pretty good: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/19/the_finest...lds_iraq_tweet/

Judith Miller was a straight-up propaganda publisher for the Bush Administration (left-wing nyt!!!!!) and still gets regular appearances on Fox News. There's no consequences, so there's no incentive to change. The best you get from the liberal hawks is the "I was wrong, but for the right reasons, while you were right for the wrong reasons" mea cupla.

Where are the Media's Iraq War Boosters ten years later? http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/03/1...10-years/193117 Suck.On.This.

You sure can!

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 02:13 PM) enough with the usage of b****es and skanks, please.

I've already reported you to the FBI.

I was looking for something way back in the 'buster archives and came across this OP from the 2006 election results. It couldn't be more absurd. Funny how much stronger of a case you could've made for Obama using the exact same phrasing of that last paragraph.

Given that you're in Maryland, it's a bigger stretch. If you were both in Chicago, though?

They're not the same thing but the AP is about as mainstream news as you get.

ugh, and that grammar! atrocious! The first case seems like an overreaction, the second more of a legitimate threat. It seems you agree that there's some threshold for verbal assault, which means that either the police or a DA are going to have discretion at some point and that you don't have unlimited 1A rights to make threats of physical violence. Agreed that it's unnecessary that they'll be held for over a week. A few hours would be one thing, but not that long.

No they had to talk about White House Tours and the Egg Roll and, of course, Paul Ryan's (isn't he just dreamy?!) budget. Seems odd to be complaining about network news coverage when you're linking to AP, though.

So saying words is assault if I reasonably believe it'll happen? Is that even the law? And how is that any different from this exact situation where these girls threatened to beat the victim up, she reasonably believed it was a real threat and called the cops to report it? How does your preference remove Billy the Cop's or Donny the DA's judgement or make it different in any way from this case?

[pedantry] Catch-22 isn't the same thing as slippery slope [/pedantry]

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 10:14 AM) They're high school girls man. They're f***ing evil b****es to begin with. ...which makes the likelihood of them doing something dumb and retributive higher and fear of their threats more reasonable.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 10:02 AM) Even if they were direct I'd still argue there's a lack of reasonable apprehension of fear and they shouldn't be prosecuted. I pointed that out to you only to say it might have been something less direct. One was charged with threatening death, the other bodily harm. I don't know why you think the fear would be unreasonable here. The community was protecting the rapists because they were small-town heroes until this story got national attention. Even people outside of the community are engaging in a good amount of victim-blaming and attacker-sympathizing. There's going to be many in the community who revile her, especially close friends and relatives of the two boys. I think it'd be unreasonable to assume that threats from close friends and relatives weren't serious. These aren't some random article comments or something. If that's what the threat amounts to, agree. But I really don't see the DA going with that big of a stretch when it's only going to look bad for him in the end.

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. These girls know the victim, there's no doubt about that. And the motivation is clear, it isn't some random threat.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) So me threatening to rape your wife via letter, email, facebook, phone call, text or tweet should be protected speech simply because I'm not physically next to your wife at the time? edit: assume, for the sake of argument, that I know you and your wife's real names. is there some reason you're avoiding this hypothetical?

Well if the cops are lying about what was said and falsely charging them with threatening the victim's life and threatening bodily harm, that's a different story. I don't see any reason why we should assume that they are lying, though, and you never brought up this objection previously. In your first post you seemed to be saying that this speech was covered by the 1A regardless.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) Well that could be. I don't know what Ohio law is. Maybe they have an anti-harassment statute. Threats and free speech haven't really been defined well in the law. Threats can be unprotected, but it comes down to a reasonable person standard from both the listener and the speaker. And to me, girls saying stupid s*** over the internet doesn't create a reasonable fear on the part of the victim. I can't agree here. The rape victim of a national story that resulted in the conviction of two hometown heroes is going to be reviled by some in that community for "wrecking" those boys' lives. There's no reason to assume that these threats aren't legitimate--kids fight over dumber s*** every day, much of it originating on the internet. Agreed here.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:37 AM) Again it goes back to assault and the reasonable apprehension of immediate harm. It depends on the situation. If it's an ex-spouse that has a history of abuse, then yeah, that's probably not protected. Some random girls on the internet being dumb b****es? I don't see it. They're not exactly "random" in this case, though. They're relatives or friends of one of the convicted, live in the same town and know the girl. Why wouldn't this fall under some form of harassment?

On the one hand, we know voter fraud is real because lol democrats could never legitimately win elections, Real/Traditional Americans would never vote for them, but it's impossible to catch. On the other hand, incidents of voter fraud we catch are proof that the problem is endemic.