The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: MoshMasterD on January 14, 2011, 09:42:44 AM
-
LINKO (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x199755)
kentuck (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-14-11 10:09 AM
Original message
It is illegal to threaten violence against another person.
Why isn't the law upheld?
If someone threatens Sarah Palin, then they should be arrested. If someone threatens Barack Obama, then they should be arrested. Threats of violence is not the same as free speech.
Name-calling and ridicule is not the same as threatening bodily harm. No matter how cruel the name-calling, that is fair game.
But it is not fair game to strap a gun to your leg and take it to a political event. That is threatening. That is not simply showing your support for the 2nd Amendment. Especially when you are carrying a sign or wearing a T-shirt talking about blood and the tree of liberty. Why are not these people arrested?
Isn't it time for both sides to make this distinction? It doesn't matter if the left uses vile language against the right or vice-versa, so long as it does not deteriorate into threats of violence.
There are over 300 million people in this country. There will never be a consensus about anything. That is the reality. But there is the rule of law. If these folks are not held accountable, it will only get worse.
Dude, if they follow this to the letter, the DUmp would be out of business a long time ago.
-
There are also laws for libel. Krugman should have a multi-million dollar suit filed against him for defamation from Palin.
My guess on threats will be seen by the DUchebags like free speech, a one way street for communist democrat vitriol.
-
They will cry, as I mentioned once before, Watts Vs. US.
-
We took both of our guns, strapped to our waists, to the Showdown in Searchlight. Palin was the biggest speaker there. We walked past countless police officers and not a single one told us to remove our weapons. I guess we weren't a threat. Would I take a gun to a political gathering? Yes. Would I take it there to shoot someone? Absolutely not. Unless someone like Loughner showed up, then I would draw & fire.
People who are afraid of guns make me laugh. It's not like the gun magically unstraps itself from the holster and starts firing into a crowd.
-
It's not like the gun magically unstraps itself from the holster and starts firing into a crowd.
Exactly. When a Glock gets up one day, loads itself and decides to walk down to the local liquor store and rob it, all on its own, then I will be in favor of gun control.
-
There are such laws, but there are many nuances and fine points to them. Which means it is all so far beyond the comprehension of a combative simpleton like kentuck that there really isn't any point in trying to explain them.
-
Mark Maker (162 posts) Fri Jan-14-11 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Does that apply to internet forums?
I can think of an interesting test case.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top
I wonder what test case that would be?
kentuck (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-14-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. The Internet does not allow you to threaten violence on another person.
Yes, we are responsible for our words. For example, saying something like, "I hope that son of a bitch chokes to death on a pretzel" is not the same as saying you are going to kill or hurt someone. You have inserted yourself into an act of violence.
"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Unless maybe you're blitzed on Jameson Irish Whiskey!
Mark Maker (162 posts) Fri Jan-14-11 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. I see your point, and you've explained the difference well.
What if an individual member of a forum repeatedly threatened another member with physical violence and even after the moderators deleted those messages that individual sent the threats again to the member via private message.
Would the individual making such threats at least qualify for a permanent ban from that forum, or can you envision an extenuating circumstance that would excuse it?
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top
Oh no, not my job.
kentuck (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-14-11 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. That would not be my call.
There are personal differences between individuals that are settled in fistfights and other ways every day in our society. This is not usually because of political differences as much as personal animosities. There is a distinction. However, it is not civil or acceptable to threaten another individual. It is unfortunate that it is such a part of our society.
"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
*snort*
notesdev (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-14-11 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. If you have documented, personal threats, take it to law enforcement
That's an issue that goes beyond the confines of a forum, and a ban or other forum-based sanction is insufficient. If the person is threatening you, chances are they threaten others as well, so do your part to put a stop to it by putting the lawful process in motion.
"How do you expect to rally the troops when you keep giving in on things that people really care about?" - Jim McDermott
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Who might they be talking about? Only BoBo knows.
-
Who might they be talking about? Only BoBo knows.
Oh, no! DUmmy Raven gets Plagiarist Pitt off the hook for messing with little girls at the junior high, and now he's getting in trouble for a drunken threat against the hobo.
-
Isn't kentuck the moron buildin' a boat in his back yard? Or is he just the one the got busted for growin' weed for medical use for his neighbors, wink, wink! or is he both?
nuff said!
-
Yes, we are responsible for our words. For example, saying something like, "I hope that son of a bitch chokes to death on a pretzel" is not the same as saying you are going to kill or hurt someone. You have inserted yourself into an act of violence.
However, saying a generic "Don't retreat, reload" is for the CDP.
If we can just stop Palin our glorious future communist utopia will be assured komrades!!!
-
Who might they be talking about? Only BoBo knows.
progressiveinaction (26 posts) Sat Jan-15-11 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. Is this a reference
to the William Pitt, bobbolink incident where he wanted to pound her face in?
-
This is a good place to post this. You'll see it's an ongoing program that hasn't had an update lately :-) O-)
http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/
-
"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman
Did Harry Truman actually say this? I googled it but it just comes up with forums I assume this primitive posts at.
I then checked Brainy Quotes and they don't list this one.
-
kentuck (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-14-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. The Internet does not allow you to threaten violence on another person.
Yes, we are responsible for our words. For example, saying something like, "I hope that son of a bitch chokes to death on a pretzel" is not the same as saying you are going to kill or hurt someone. You have inserted yourself into an act of violence.
I hope you choke to death on a pretzel, DUmbass.
Tell me, how do you feel about that?
-
Well, looks like Putz got to the mods, Mark Maker has met his. I guess you can't be making fun of the DU Bard. Oh well, got more where that came from.
-
I wonder what test case that would be?
Unless maybe you're blitzed on Jameson Irish Whiskey!
Oh no, not my job.
*snort*
Who might they be talking about? Only BoBo knows.
Pretzel logic - plain and simple...
-
Logic, DUmmies?
Neither word belongs on the same page together. :fuelfire: