Judge Refuses To Dismiss League of Legends Terrorist Threat Case

[Dollabillyall]

Soooo... basically somebody got jailed for being sarcastic? Hipsters beware...
Also, don't go on holiday to the USA. You have a better chance of surviving bad taste comments in North frickin' Korea.

 

[miketehmage]

This is so fucking stupid. A guy makes a joke and gets put in prison. Texas pls.

 

[option1soul]

I

thought that's why we have that "freedom of speech" thing, so that our government can't police what we say. I guess the constitution doesn't mean much anymore.

Oh dear Lord.

Free speech doesn't have universal ramification. You cannot threaten, you cannot call for someone's death, you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and so on. And adding "lol jk" to it (and after the fact, I might add) doesn't mean that people aren't going to see it as a threat.

If you jokingly threaten to kill someone, the authorities aren't guaranteed to see it that way, and this neither violates freedom of speech nor is it something new.

f you're going to talk about free speech and the Constitution, know what it says and what it means. Arguments like these do more to devalue free speech than anyone involved in this case is likely to. Now, one could argue about other portions of the Constitution, since the bail was pretty unreasonable, the charges seem harsh, and there have been questions raised about due process, but that's another story (and not all of it confirmed).

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, nor does it mean freedom to threaten...

Actually, it does... Or it's supposed to. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is something different. This was neither a threat nor calling for someone's death nor "inciting imminent lawless action". If what you claim is true than every single person who says "I'm going to kick his ass" would be held on legal grounds; not to mention the amount of depraved hate and violent speech that passes for normal on websites, forums, and gaming blog sites.

This was his personal facebook page, he was using OBVIOUS hyperbole ("eat their still-beating hearts"), and he was responding to someone's harassing comments (regardless of how "bad" the comment was or wasn't). He didn't threaten anyone directly, didn't show intent, and didn't infringe on anyone's rights.

This is EXACTLY what kind of free speech is supposed to be protected by the constitution. I'm shocked that you claim to "know what it says and it means" but seem to think we wouldn't be able to say things like this. I guess the fear has already started to take over... But maybe I shouldn't say that too loud, hmm?

I was incorrect, it was actually (according to the initial report) a woman from Canada who decided to take action about it... Which makes it even worse when you think about it.

 

[Little Gray]

How stupid do you have to be to "joke" about shooting up a school when several schools were recently shot up in a country that was already insanely paranoid about this type of shit. I say the gene pool will be better off if this kid spends some more time behind bars.

 

[Erttheking]

So they're going to ruin years of his life because of one comment? The legal system in this country is a joke.

Also can someone please explain to me how dozens of people can harass a female developer and threaten her kids and people will just say "don't feed the trolls" but when someone makes a joke about shooting up a school they talk about how good it is that he's getting prosecuted?

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

I signed the petition on this months ago. What a pile of idiotic shit this case is. If it was fair game to arrest someone for tasteless comments I would be long gone. It's evidence of the dawn of a censorship state which can't distinguish a real threat.

 

[Altorin]

In my morality, "threat" isn't even really a thing, unless the threat itself causes some undue harm to another person.

Was anyone unjustly harmed by this "threat"? Did the schools see the threat and LOCK DOWN and cause a huge public panic costing thousands of dollars in just panic awareness uptime? No. Someone saw his facebook post and turned him in. I don't even blame her. If I saw that on my facebook, I'd probably be pretty offended by the person that said it - I've been utterly offended on facebook before, it does happen - and if I didn't know that person well enough to understand that they're joking around.. like if just some random person on my facebook said that, I'd probably consider bringing it up. That's a justified action I think.

The unjustified action here really dealt with the police department's behavior and just the entire way this case was handled. The truth of the matter is, the ONLY person who was unjustly harmed by this kids actions are him and his family. Noone else suffered for his words. That's really it. Not another person was actually "threatened". The justice system basically bullied this kid, stripped his rights away, treated him like garbage for no good reason.

So basically it's that. Context is everything, and the truth of the matter is about measuring actual facts, not just pondering that these LoL trolls need a martyr and that you're going to teach this kid a lesson about watching his mouth. I really don't want the state standing over me with a bar of soap like an angry mom with a foul mouthed kid. That's not how the modern world works. It might have flown when you didn't have a 24 hour news feed in your pocket constantly. Never would have heard of this before the internet. There would be no real way to even have this discussion before the internet.. So I'll grant you that this is probably how it's worked in the past. But now? Fuck that.

At the end of the day you have to, or rather should have to, measure the victims. That's how you know justice has been served. The balanced scales have been a symbol and metaphor for our notion of a system of Justice since the freaking ancient greeks. If it turns out that in fact the only victim of his crime is himself, then that's hardly a crime. If he caused damages, that's another thing entirely. That just doesn't seem to be the case here.

OT: as for this newest bump in the story, regarding the Judge, that's unfortunate, but that's his call really. He's a Judge. If he wants to see the evidence, he gets to see the evidence. Hopefully for the kids sake the judge falls on this side of the fence, but Judges aren't renowned as a profession for their lenient and understanding natures, sadly, lol

 

[not_you]

His comment was clearly made in jest, for fuck's sake, you bunch of humourless fucks."

Again, you can't just say shit like that and expect to get away with it...
no matter how many "lol" or "jk" you put on the end...
Serious threats deserve serious consequences

 

[BarbaricGoose]

"The kid was obviously making a joke"
I DONT CARE, maybe we can send him to jail, and use him as a exemplary punishment for all the scum that inhabits the internet... You pussy ones, who hide cowardly behind a screen, THOU SHALT BE PUNISHED.

Thats at least my opinion.

This is eight years off a kid's life. Or four with parole, I guess. I don't know what punishment would be appropriate, but I do know that eight years, or even four, ain't.

It WOULD be one thing if this would deter people from being assholes, but it won't. In fact, it's been proven that making an example out of someone does not deter other... "Criminals." It's been proven in so many ways, with so many different crimes. Just look at piracy. There have been disgusting stories where some people have been charged hundreds of thousands of dollars by record companies for each $0.99 song they illegally downloaded, but has that stopped piracy? No. People have been jailed for pirating games, but has that stopped piracy? Nope. Evidence is everywhere that making an example out of someone does NOTHING to deter future crimes.

And our prisons are already full, and the recidivism rate is high. We don't need to throw some stupid kid who made a stupid joke in there with the hardened criminals. Or, you know, the other stupid kids we've locked up for stupid reason. We throw him in there, and statistically, he's a higher chance of going back than not. Why turn him into a criminal when we could teach him the lesson that this sort of thing is not okay, WITHOUT ruining his future?

 

[Alleged_Alec]

snip for size

Again, you can't just say shit like that and expect to get away with it...
no matter how many "lol" or "jk" you put on the end...
Serious threats deserve serious consequences

Context and hyperbole alone show that this was not serious.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I seriously doubt you could pick this out from a nutjob who followed through.

Maybe, can you provide me with a single example containing obvious hyperbole and calling it out as a joke specifically?

Have you ever known someone who said they were going to kill themselves and then said it was a joke only later to find out they weren't joking? I have.
Threats against life aren't anything to joke about, and nothing is obvious unless you can get inside someone's head and read their thoughts accurately which is as far as I'm aware not a thing folks can do. At all.
If Law Enforcement didn't take it as a credible threat and the kid DID do exactly that, then they'd be responsible for not following through on it. Erring on the side of caution is wiser than assuming people are joking about violent threats.
I personally wouldn't make a threat like that if I weren't going to back it up and follow through with it, not because of the legality but because its just not something I'd joke about.
And making threats joking or not are serious business. For example if you were to threaten someone with bodily harm, even if you were joking, and they took you seriously and were scared for their well being, that is considered under the law ASSAULT.
And to folk making parallels to someone doing stand-up comedy, someone writing a book/movie/tv script, those are not the same thing. You can't apply tv tropes to real life people, and making threats on a social media site is almost the same thing as doing it in real life. The law is starting to take that shit extremely serious, especially where I live where a 12 year old girl killed herself over harassment, bullying and threats made on facebook. So yeah, its pretty fucking serious and not at all funny.
The whole "grow thicker skin" and other such arguments are BS, because as soon as you cross the line into making someone feel threatened or someone feeling you aren't joking no matter how many lol's you put after it or if you say j/k, its credible.
Kid deserves to get slapped down for being a douchebag and other people need to learn what's appropriate and what isn't.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

This is eight years off a kid's life. Or four with parole, I guess. I don't know what punishment would be appropriate, but I do know that eight years, or even four, ain't.

You do realize he hasn't been convicted nor is it guaranteed that if he is, he'll get the maximum sentence... I mean learn how the legal system works a bit before you knee-jerk react to terms such as "up to 8 years". Or maybe just some reading comprehension.

 

[auron200004]

snippers

I can't...what? Are you serious? A kid responds to somebody else's claim (him being crazy) with a jest that was OTT. 8 years in prison potentially. And you say he deserves it because he needs to learn what's appropriate and what isn't?

This kid has been locked up for months, been raped, needed to be put in solitary confinement (which many individuals consider a form of torture at this point) because of said repeated rape, and put on suicide watch because he said a joke online. Then, the judge is now making it possible for this horrible business to continue on for potentially eight more years. And he deserves that.

Great. Good. Nope, that's completely justified. Yup.

EDIT: Not to mention that him being put into prison would make him a convicted felon. Thus, he will never be able to hold down a decent job above minimum wage. All because of a (inappropriate, I will admit) joke on the internet. Yeah, that's justice being fair and blind for you.

 

[mrhateful]

what happened to that first amendment??

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

snippers

I can't...what? Are you serious? A kid responds to somebody else's claim (him being crazy) with a jest that was OTT. 8 years in prison potentially. And you say he deserves it because he needs to learn what's appropriate and what isn't?

This kid has been locked up for months, been raped, needed to be put in solitary confinement (which many individuals consider a form of torture at this point) because of said repeated rape, and put on suicide watch because he said a joke online. Then, the judge is now making it possible for this horrible business to continue on for potentially eight more years. And he deserves that.

Great. Good. Nope, that's completely justified. Yup.

Lets just assume now that all threats followed by a j/k aren't real then. I can go about threatening anyone I like, no matter what the context as long as I say j/k lol, its all good. Maybe just maybe common sense should come into play and making threats like that, especially in the wake of a school shooting isn't just in bad taste but probably a bad fucking idea.
You're seriously asking me to have sympathy for the kid?
No I don't feel sympathy for the kid. Not one fucking bit. Why should I? He obviously doesn't have any sympathy for the victims of Sandy Hook, nor did he have enough common sense as to not make a threat like that. So no, I won't feel bad for him. Sorry, but you open your mouth and say something stupid and someone calls you on it you get what you get.
Sucks for him, but freedom of speech isn't a blanket statement that protects everything that comes out of a person's mouth. BTW, how are you, I or anyone else but the kid supposed to know if his threat was actually a joke? There's a reason why in this country its also illegal to even joke about presidential assassinations. Thats not a loss of freedom, its a fucking preventative measure.

 

[spartan231490]

Yeah awesome, because we''re not allowed to be sarcastic or have a sense of humor anymore. All I can say to anyone who thinks that this is right: is that I hope you are the next ones to have your rights violated and lives ruined over something that was obviously sarcastic.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah awesome, because we''re not allowed to be sarcastic or have a sense of humor anymore. All I can say to anyone who thinks that this is right: is that I hope you are the next ones to have your rights violated and lives ruined over something that was obviously sarcastic.

Unlikely. I doubt many people are going to jokingly plan to shoot up a school on a public space. But, I mean, you were just sarcastic, so I'm assuming that since they've taken away the right to sarcasm, you won't see this because you'll be in jail? I guess that's the logic you've put forth.

 

[auron200004]

snip

Nice try. Read my post again. Not once did I mention the "lol" or "jk" which you seem to be harping on. In fact, I agree with you...sort of... in that those in and of themselves don't disqualify something from being a threat.

But this wasn't said in a vacuum. It was a direct response to something said immediately beforehand as a sarcastic response.

And regardless, just because you don't like what somebody said doesn't mean that he should be punished with jail time for it. Or should any joke about flying planes into two tall buildings be construed as a terrorist threat, no matter the context?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

snip

Nice try. Read my post again. Not once did I mention the "lol" or "jk" which you seem to be harping on. In fact, I agree with you...sort of... in that those in and of themselves don't disqualify something from being a threat.

But this wasn't said in a vacuum. It was a direct response to something said immediately beforehand as a sarcastic response.

And regardless, just because you don't like what somebody said doesn't mean that he should be punished with jail time for it. Or should any joke about flying planes into two tall buildings be construed as a terrorist threat, no matter the context?

You realize that threats are made in response to things, right? They don't exist in a vacuum either, they're triggered by something else. So your analogy doesn't hold.

 

[auron200004]

You realize that threats are made in response to things, right? They don't exist in a vacuum either, they're triggered by something else. So your analogy doesn't hold.

Here, a more apt analogy:

Man 1: What are you, a terrorist?

Man 2: Yep. I'm gonna fly a plane into a skyscraper while praising Allah.

Add lols or jks wherever you want.

Tasteless and offensive? Certainly. Worthy of punishment that could be up to 8 years in prison? Apparently yes.