
Texas teen in jail for his Facebook comment - ramisms
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201307032030-0022876
======
scythe
He doesn't need an Internet campaign, he needs a good lawyer. He has a very
good chance of winning this case if he takes it to trial.

[ _I am not a lawyer and this post is not legal advice._ ]

The fact that he was detained isn't the problem. Prosecutors try bad cases all
the time. They're bloodthirsty inhuman bastards by design. The problem is that
his bail was set at $500k even though he was charged with nothing, that he
doesn't have a lawyer (read: society has not provided one) competent enough to
file a speedy trial motion and vacate this stupid charge on First Amendment
grounds by now: the problem is that our legal system is totally broken. Bail
that can be brought cf. the Eighth Amendment exists for a reason. Legal
counsel cf. the Sixth Amendment exists for a reason. But defense attorneys and
jury trials have been vilified to the point that even a "socially conscious"
show like _The Wire_ portrays Maurice Levy as the bad guy. And this is the
result.

It doesn't matter whether it's a real crime or not: a defendant _has the
right_ to be able to make bail. A defendant _has the right_ to a lawyer. A
defendant _has the right_ to a fair and speedy trial. The fact that we accept
figures like $500k bail for drug dealers, thieves, pimps, whatever is _also
wrong_. Bail is good. He who fights with monsters must take care that he
himself does not become a monster, _und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund
blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein._

~~~
maratd
> Prosecutors try bad cases all the time. They're bloodthirsty inhuman
> bastards by design.

Agreed.

> But defense attorneys and jury trials have been vilified to the point that
> even a "socially conscious" show like The Wire portrays Maurice Levy as the
> bad guy.

While true, this is not the problem.

Private criminal defense attorneys have a horrific reputation, charge through
the roof, but are highly competent and get results. Most of them used to be
prosecutors and know the system well.

There are really two reasons a budding attorney becomes a prosecutor. Because
they aspire to political office or because they want to get into private
criminal defense.

Who ends up as public defenders? Idealistic and _inexperienced_ attorneys who
are not paid well. This does not bode well for their clients. You really do
want somebody who used to play for the other team.

We should abolish public defenders and establish a voucher system where those
who cannot afford a private attorney are provided funds to allow them to do
so. In the end, it may end up costing use substantially less in tax dollars
and get good results for the accused.

------
laumars
It seems like there's a new story like this every month. And part of me
struggles to find sympathy for the individuals who have been arrested because
regardless of your opinion regarding surveillance, publicly saying anything
like " _I 'm going to shoot a school up_" -regardless of the obvious "joke"
behind said comment- is just dumb. He likely wouldn't have announced the same
remarks in real life, yet he and many others like him, do so online. It's like
they forget that conversations on Facebook and Twitter are not private.

That all said, it's still not right that these kids are detained for so long
based on such circumstantial evidence (and that's overstating the weight of
evidence, if these articles are to be believed verbatim) is a clear abuse of
justice. Kids say stupid things. As adults we might cringe, but many of us
were the same when we were teenagers. So locking someone up based on a stupid
comment is complete unacceptable.

edit: just to clear up a few points because I think some have misunderstood
me:

1) The comments in question were posted publicly on Facebook. It wasn't a PM -
it was a public message. This is why I stated that the teenager in question
likely wouldn't have made those comments in the same way in real life (ie he
wouldn't stand in the middle of a busy town center and announce the same
comments at the top of his voice for all to hear).

2) I appreciate the comments were a "joke" and it's not the content of the
message that offended me (far from it - I have quite a dark sense of humour
myself). It was the fact that he publicly announced his comments that I
thought was stupid. You have no idea who might misunderstand public comments
(case in point, me having to make clarifications in this post) - and this is
particularly dangerous with darker jokes where others might -at best- be
offended, but at worse, miss the point entirely. This isn't about censorship,
it's about respecting your audience (ie keep the darker jokes private where
your friends -who understand and share your humour- can enjoy).

3) I'm not blaming the teenager (or not exclusively anyway). I think what has
happened to him is completely and utterly unacceptable. However I do think he
was wrong for posting those comments to begin with. This is one of those
instances where several parties are in the wrong.

I hope this clarifies a few things :)

~~~
CodeMage
Whenever you feel it's difficult to find sympathy for those individuals, try
to remember every time you saw someone write something along the lines of "I'm
scared to post what I truly think."

In the last couple of years, those comments have become a lot more common here
on HN. I imagine it's pretty much the same everywhere else on the Internet.

Yeah, it's "dumb" to post something like that after seeing it backfire so many
times, but self-censorship that comes from that line of thought means you're
giving up one of the most essential freedoms your country is supposed to stand
for and be proud of.

~~~
laumars
Actually I'm all in favour for self-censorship because if everyone always
blurted out every stupid thought they had then the signal to noise ratio of
would be horrendous. However there needs to be a sane balance between having
the freedom to say dumb things but largely having more sense not to, and
having the freedom to say important things which might be unpopular but still
needs to be said. It's a difficult, if not impossible, balance to strike.

~~~
dlss
The thing you're calling X here isn't X. There's a big difference between what
the comment you're replying to is calling self-censorship (chilling effects),
and what you're calling self-censorship (googling before you ask a question,
etc).

If I understand you right, you're saying you support the state punishing
people for saying dumb things, but feel that it shouldn't be too harsh because
otherwise people won't say important things.

When I first read your comment I didn't think the idea of banning dumb speech
was a good idea. But hearing it put the way you just did made me change my
mind... because I think it would be hilarious. I hope you get your wish, and
your comment becomes Exhibit A at your upcoming trial :p

~~~
laumars
_> If I understand you right, you're saying you support the state punishing
people for saying dumb things_

I don't. I oppose it strongly[1][2]. I just think the kid is also in the wrong
(albeit less so). Sometimes people argue free speech as an excuse to say
anything - and while I'd rather live in a world where people have the freedom
to say whatever they want, I also think people have a moral obligation to be
mindful of the audience they communicate with.

A wedding speech is an example of this. The best man has to strike the balance
between embarrassing the groom while still keeping content appropriate for
kids and grandparents. So some of the jokes that the groom and friends would
laugh at in private might be best censored from the public version.

Granted that example is a really mild scenario that most people wouldn't
consider "self-censorship" (if just because it's what most people do in their
daily lives without much thought), but it demonstrates how we have a
responsibility not to abuse our free speech by now considering the audience
we're talking to. And that is where people run into problems.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991208](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991208)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991171)

 _> but feel that it shouldn't be too harsh because otherwise people won't say
important things._

And this is just another example of how some individuals think they can post
all sorts of rude bullshit online because "freedom of speech" gives them the
right to behave like pillocks.

Given the number of times I've stated and clarified the point that I'm not
trying to ban free speech nor am I justifying the teenagers jail time (which
is unjustifiable), you have no excuse to behave that way. But who cares about
having a sensible conversation when you can beat your chest like the alpha
male you assume to be.

The ironic thing is, when people like yourself make insulting remarks like
that, you force others to question whether they can be bothered to expose
themselves by giving an honest -if potentially unpopular- opinion. So you're
effectively encouraging self-censorship by posting trolling remarks.

~~~
dlss
> some individuals think they can post all sorts of rude bullshit online
> because "freedom of speech" gives them the right to behave like pillocks

Right. Freedom of speech does give them that right.

You've backed off from your original position all the way to merely making the
point that you wish people would think more about the effect that their
actions have on others before acting. I think everyone agrees with that.

Taking 14 paragraphs to say "people should think more before acting" is the
sort of thing I think you think should be self-censored.

> So you're effectively encouraging self-censorship by posting trolling
> remarks.

Reread the comment I replied to, and the comment it was replying to. You
didn't understand the other side -- you rounded it to the nearest straw man,
and then did a poor job of attacking it. I thought it was a waste of space on
the site. I do support your right to free speech... I just doubly support it
on sites that aren't this one.

Communities don't need to have the same standards as governments. If facebook
banned the kid for his comment, that doesn't seem wrong to me. Having the
government enforce things like this does seem wrong to me (for the reason that
I pointed out: we'd end up having to spend tax dollars supporting people like
you while they're in jail).

~~~
laumars
_> You've backed off from your original position all the way to merely making
the point that you wish people would think more about the effect that their
actions have on others before acting. I think everyone agrees with that._

That was always my position. Trying reading what I originally posted again
rather than posting kneejerk reactions.

 _> Taking 14 paragraphs to say "people should think more before acting" is
the sort of thing I think you think should be self-censored_

There was a number of points. And the post doubled in size because I had to
dumb those points down to people like yourself who seemed unable to read my
post in it's entirety before starting senseless arguments. Perversely, it's
yourself that should have considered before replying.

 _> Communities don't need to have the same standards as governments. If
facebook banned the kid for his comment, that doesn't seem wrong to me. Having
the government enforce things like this does seem wrong to me (for the reason
that I pointed out: we'd end up having to spend tax dollars supporting people
like you while they're in jail)._

" _we 'd end up having to spend tax dollars supporting people like you_"? What
the hell is that supposed to mean? I've probably contributed more towards
taxes over my life than you have.

And I was never in favour of sending this kid to jail. I don't know how many
times I need to reiterate that before you finally click. Or are you deliberate
trolling me just for the irony of being an insensitive moron in a discussion
about sensitivity?

------
ferdo
If he had said, "I want a drone to take out a school in Pakistan", he'd have
gotten recruiting calls from the military.

------
coldcode
People say stupid things all the time (like politicians). But bad speech is no
reason for long prison sentences and $500,000 bail. Words are just puffs of
air or clicks of keys not actions. Remember the childhood saying "sticks and
stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". If we choose to
punish words then people may as well turn to the hard stuff.

------
mitchi
This is saddening. Many lone gamers will say these things to make them look
tough, feared or just to make others think they're crazy. source : been in the
gaming community a long time. USA, where prison is the solution to everything.

~~~
coderdude
_USA, where prison is the solution to everything._

Don't post ignorant flamebait. You have no idea what you're talking about.

~~~
spdy
_According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults
were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-
end 2011 – about 0.7% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[7]
Additionally, 4,814,200 adults at year-end 2011 were on probation or on
parole.[11] In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision
(probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 – about 2.9% of adults in the
U.S. resident population.

_ The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world
(743 per 100,000 population), Russia has the second highest rate (577 per
100,000), followed by Rwanda (561 per 100,000)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Comparison_with_other_countries)

~~~
coderdude
So? That doesn't back up the flamebait claim that every illegal action a US
citizen engages in results in going to prison. I don't care if my country is
unpopular right now, it's still BS.

------
mtgx
Is the 1st amendment starting to die, too? The "free press" part of it,
certainly is:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-
wemple/wp/2013/06/1...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-
wemple/wp/2013/06/19/ap-chief-intrusive-government-is-chilling-journalism/)

------
Zak
Given that many people who actually shot up schools communicated their intent
to do so in some not especially ambiguous way beforehand, I think it's not
unreasonable for law enforcement to respond to it. In terms of impact, it's
probably similar to pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire.

I do not know if there is an appropriate law in his jurisdiction. It's pretty
close to the letter of the law for terroristic threatening, but the actual
impact of his actions seems more like disorderly conduct. If there's not an
appropriate misdemeanor for this, there should be.

------
islon
Freedom of speech at its best. Of course there's a limit to what you are free
to say, but 8 years of prison? Really?

~~~
schtev
I'm willing to bet that's just a theoretical upper limit, and will be tossed
out at soon as its in front of a judge. But still. The fact he was arrested at
all is just friggin stupid.

------
nsomaru
Poe's law at it again [1]

Also, how long between the original comment and the lol j/k?

At most, I think, he can be accused of being insensitive.

------
grecy
I wonder how long it will be until children younger and younger are jailed for
this?

I can see a time when a 6 year old will be jailed for pointing a plastic toy
gun at another kid at school and saying "I'm going to shoot you"

------
quchen
Back in the days you had to steal chewing gum from the grocery store to join a
gang, it seems that's superseded by writing something crazy online now.

------
pkfrank
What was his exact comment? I'm frustrated that one of the most critical
pieces to this story is seemingly being paraphrased.

~~~
grecy
_" I'm f---ed in the head alright, I think I'ma (sic) shoot up a kindergarten
and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat their still-beating
hearts,"_ he said.

According to [http://www.news.com.au/technology/teen-justin-carter-
jailed-...](http://www.news.com.au/technology/teen-justin-carter-jailed-for-
sarcastic-facebook-threat/story-e6frfro0-1226673667876)

------
koalakid
Thought crime is real in the US. I think we all make concessions not to say
things in emails, text messages and on the phone so we don't set off invisible
tripwires the government has set. We do it almost unknowingly.

The statement this guy said is different. It's not sarcastic, it's ultra-
violent and distressing. He's either a person completely devoid of morals and
decency, mentally ill, or so angry he can't control what he thinks and says.

He needs to fully account for what he said/threatened.

~~~
Quai
English is not my first language, but even for me, it is crystal clear that he
was sarcastic.

~~~
koalakid
English _is_ my first language, and I write for a living, and _it 's not
sarcasm_.

~~~
ionwake
was it a statement of intent?

