
Petition to release Cameron D'Ambrosio - ck2
https://cms.fightforthefuture.org/teenager/
======
aqme28
A lot of people on Reddit, etc... seem to be misinformed about what illegal
free speech is, so here's some relevant case material:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio>

_"Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that
speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless
action.

...In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the
limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing
more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and
therefore did not meet the imminence requirement."_

From Cameron's case: _"The Methuen Chief of Police even stated: 'I do want to
make clear he did not make a specific threat against the school or any
particular individuals...'"_

Vague threats are not illegal.

~~~
bradleyjg
_Brandenburg_ lays out the incitement exception to the First Amendment. If I
understand the allegations correctly (and that's made more difficult by the
lack of the actual lyrics) the prosecution claims that the speech would
instead be unprotected under the true threat doctrine.

The leading Supreme Court case on that doctrine is _Virginia v. Black_ 538
U.S. 343 (2003)[1], but unfortunately it's neither as clear nor quotable as
Brandenburg. Here's the gist of the rule:

"'True threats' encompass those statements where the speaker means to
communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful
violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need
not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true
threats "protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence" and "from the
disruption that fear engenders," in addition to protecting people "from the
possibility that the threatened violence will occur." (internal citations
omitted)

[1] [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-
bin/getcase.pl?court=US...](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-
bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-1107)

------
rayiner
It should be noted that it's not the feds holding this kid, it's the police of
his small-town Boston suburb. See:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/cameron-
dambrosio-b...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/cameron-dambrosio-
bomb-threat-boston-terrorism_n_3204149.html).

"Police learned of the threats after a student alerted a school official, the
Herald writes."

"'When we're just recovering from what occurred in Boston, to make a threat
and use what occurred in Boston to enhance your threat, is extremely alarming
for us,' Methuen Police Chief Joseph Solomon said at a press conference after
D'Ambrosio was apprehended."

Also: [http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x326078366/Judge-Hes-a-
thr...](http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x326078366/Judge-Hes-a-threat).

"Cameron D’Ambrosio was in Lawrence District Court yesterday in a suit, tie
and shackles for a hearing to determine whether and how he could be released
from custody after being arrested May 1."

Not that it excuses the local police department's actions, but small-town shit
like this has always happened. News of it just moves at light speed now thanks
to the internet.

------
kunai
I get two inferences from this:

A) The people of this society are turning into safety-obsessed, overly
politically correct weaklings

or

B) The two sides of the political spectrum exist to distract us while they
both behind the scenes exist to remove our freedom

Unfortunately, I'd have to say I think both A and B are true.

~~~
betterunix
You missed (C): That the overwhelming majority of politicians in power right
now sit on the same side of the political spectrum, and that the debate has
not been two sided for a very long time.

~~~
shawndumas
only one party believes that an unborn human has rights and protections under
the law regardless of whether or not the respective mother wants them.

only one party believes that two adults in love can be married under the law
regardless of whether or not the respective people are of the same sex.

if nothing else just those two diametric positions seem to indicate an
important and meaningful distinction between the two parties.

~~~
btilly
Even such an obvious litmus test as this is imperfect.

According to polling data, over 20% of Republicans self-identify as pro-choice
and 34% of Democrats as pro-life.

There are plenty of Republicans who support gay rights. In fact did you know
that the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell stems from a lawsuit about the matter
filed by gay Republicans? Yes, I know that Obama publicly takes all of the
credit for that one, but the bill that he pushed for took effect on September
20, 2011 while _Log Cabin Republicans v. United States_ forced an end to
enforcement on July 6, 2011.

There is no simple litmus test. Each party is a coalition of people with
enough common interests that they prefer one tent over the other.

------
Blahah
Poor kid - his only crime was being a terrible rapper.

~~~
Buzaga
and living in USA

~~~
sdfjkl
The UK is not far behind and using the recent Woolwich incident as an excuse
to rapidly catch up: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/26/theresa-
may-m...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/26/theresa-may-measures-
combat-terrorism)

------
jrockway
Can I read the other side of the story somewhere? I feel like I'm not getting
the full truth.

~~~
ChrisAntaki
Sure. Here's a more complete version of his lyrics:
[http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/05/23/a-methuen...](http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/05/23/a-methuen-
teens-rap-lyrics-have-kept-him-in-jail-for-three-weeks/)

"[Bleep] a boston bominb wait till u see the [bleep] I do, I’ma be famous
rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!"

He's talking about beating murder charges too.

I love the 1st amendment, don't get me wrong! This dude was crossing the line
though.

~~~
adventured
By this standard, nearly every rapper from the last 30 years should be in
prison on terrorist charges.

------
ChrisAntaki
<http://youtu.be/-wbJTHkdBMc?t=38s>

From his rap: "Every day with a life of crime, and I'm always screwing up my
life"

Yeah!! That's pretty accurate.

------
rasur
Hmm, free speech in the USA seems to be quite a costly exercise these days.

~~~
youngerdryas
I'm sure he'd be fine in Europe.

~~~
derleth
Unless, of course, he "insulted Turkishness" in Turkey or insulted the
Holocaust in Germany.

~~~
vacri
_insulted the Holocaust in Germany._

Eh? Deny, yes, but 'insult'? What?

The Holocaust and Nazism are special things, by the way. You can still speak
out against Germany.

------
marcamillion
I am sorry....I feel no sympathy.

People need to understand that words have meaning. Just because 'free speech'
is protected by the constitution doesn't mean that you can (and should) say
any crap, at any time, without thinking about the consequence.

When you say stuff like:

 _fuck a boston bombing wait till you see the shit I do, Imma be famous for
rapping and beat every murder charge that comes across me._

Let's take a step back here, and assume for a minute that he REALLY was
planning something - and not just talking tough. If he did it, and he posted
this stuff on Facebook, and the FBI didn't do anything about it.....what would
the fracas be then?

The FBI is incompetent....they knew he would do it, yet they did nothing, etc,
etc, etc.

It's really a lose-lose for them. They can either take preventive measures, or
do nothing in the name of 'free speech protection' and risk the chance that
this latest bozo is actually going to follow up with action.

Kudos to the FBI for taking this seriously and showing people you can't just
say crap like this without any consequence. Living in a free society comes
with a cost. Not saying that a recent terrorist event was "nothing" is one of
those costs.

It's simple really.

Also, if you think you aren't living in a free society, try moving to Saudi
Arabia, many countries in Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, many S. American countries,
many eastern european countries, etc.

~~~
mindcrime
_Also, if you think you aren't living in a free society, try moving to Saudi
Arabia, many countries in Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, many S. American countries,
many eastern european countries, etc._

Just because other countries are _less_ free hardly proves that we are living
in a free society. Maybe there is no free society on Earth?

 _Kudos to the FBI for taking this seriously and showing people you can't just
say crap like this without any consequence._

I can't even begin to understand this mindset. In fact, it makes me a bit sick
to hear somebody talk this way. But I suppose you think that if we all just
sit back in the shadows, embrace fear, behave and do as the all mighty
benevolent government tells us, then everything will be alright.

~~~
marcamillion
I know it's an unpopular thing to hear....but freedom is a relative concept.
You are only as free as compared to someone/something else.

The world is a rough place, and is not a utopia. The fact is, people want to
hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. Ignoring it, doesn't
make those dangers go away.

I am not defending everything the gov't does in the name of security, but the
fact is that these challenges are not easy. They are doing the best they can.

If they didn't act on it, and this kid did in fact do something, we would be
having a COMPLETELY different conversation now.

The reason these things are so tricky is because many of these attacks happen
by 'lone wolves' which are almost impossible to stop.

So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure
you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence.

~~~
mindcrime
_I know it's an unpopular thing to hear....but freedom is a relative concept.
You are only as free as compared to someone/something else._

That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN.
Freedom is binary, you are either subject to coercive force being applied to
deny you your freedom of choice, or you're not. You can't be "sort of free"
any more than you be "sort of pregnant".

 _The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for
granted._

Aaah, the "they hate us because we're free" bit. I hear that a lot, but
haven't heard a plausible justification for it yet. From what I've seen, most
of the non-westerners who are out to attack the West are mostly pissed off
because we occupy lands they consider holy, invade their countries, depose
their elected leaders, stage coups, supply weapons and training to "Group A"
this week, then switch to considering "Group A" our enemy when it suits us,
and generally meddle in their affairs.

 _So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure
you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence._

No, exactly because I am fully aware of how difficult it is to prevent a
single "lone wolf" actor from doing Bad Things. And as regrettable as that is,
living in a free society has certain dangers that come along with it. Maybe in
some hypothetical Unobtanialand you could impose a draconian dictatorship /
totalitarian government sufficient to prevent all violent crime... but would
anybody actually prefer to live there? I'm guessing "no".

I don't know what it is with people today... as far as I'm concerned, "Give me
Liberty or give me Death" isn't just some archaic catch-phrase to study in the
history books... it is the very definition of what it means to live. If we
aren't free, what else could matter more than trying to become so - even if it
means dying in the process?

~~~
reinhardt
> That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN.
> Freedom is binary, you are either subject to coercive force being applied to
> deny you your freedom of choice, or you're not. You can't be "sort of free"
> any more than you be "sort of pregnant".

Now _this_ is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN.
Any human population with size > 1 has to compromise on this inane idealistic
notion of "absolute freedom" for individuals, for the simple reason that your
freedom to blast the music at 3am conflicts with my freedom to get some sleep.
"Sort of free" is the best we can hope for.

~~~
marcamillion
Exactly...plus....what you consider 'freedom' someone else may consider
tyranny, etc.

So it is always relative.

For instance, some people think living with their parents is freedom. Others
think it is akin to jail.

It's all relative.

------
QuantumGood
Threats can be hard to parse because for the speaker, the point can be a very
emotional self-expression, rather than some kind of accuracy of intent.

One interpretation is:

I'm going to do something insane that will make the news. It may involve the
White House, and it will be worse than the Boston bombing. There will be
multiple murder charges against me.

Or: I'm going to publicly murder people in a fashion worse than the bombing.

The last Facebook lyrics before he was arrested:

 _I’m not in reality, So when u see me [bleeping] go insane and make the news,
the paper, and the [bleeping] federal house of horror known as the white
house, Don’t [bleeping] cry or be worried because all YOU people [bleeping]
caused this [bleep]._

 _[Bleep] a boston bominb wait till u see the [bleep] I do, I’ma be famous
rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!_

The whole alternate interpretation (it's an insufficiently specific threat,
and primarily rap braggadocio) hinges mostly on the interpretation of the
inclusion and placement of the line "I’ma be famous rapping."

The problem is that the kid is clearly talking about himself killing people.
The whole rap perspective doesn't fix that sufficiently, especially as Rappers
talk about and threaten real murders, as well as merely "bragging" about them.

It certainly seems _likely_ that he's merely trying to "sound like a rapper"
rather than threatening actual harm, but the words don't really absolve him of
the threats contained therein. It is difficult to parse legally:

1\. Legal: It lacks imminence (Brandenburg)

2\. Illegal: It does _communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit
an act of unlawful violence_ (Virginia v. Black)

3\. Legal: It is not directed _to a particular individual or group of
individuals_ (Virginia v. Black)

4\. Illegal: _The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat...a
prohibition on true threats...protect[s] individuals
from...fear...disruption...[and] the possibility that the threatened violence
will occur_ (Virginia v. Black)

If there was a middle ground legally for people who's intent was less harmful
than their speech it would benefit this kid, but how would you prove that? And
it would muddy the law's ability to fight against true threats.

~~~
davorak
> It certainly seems likely that he's merely trying to "sound like a rapper"
> rather than threatening actual harm, but the words don't really absolve him
> of the threats contained therein. It is difficult to parse legally:

It did not seem that hard to parse, but I am not a lawyer.

> 1\. Legal: It lacks imminence (Brandenburg)

No deadlines, so nothing showing anything soon. "I’ma be famous rapping," but
first he needs to be a famous rapper which suggest no time soon.

> 2\. Illegal: It does communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit
> an act of unlawful violence (Virginia v. Black)

Threats in the lyrics are no different then threats and comments in many
rappers famous and non-famous and more often then not seem non-serious( are
not carried through, evidence of planning is lacking etc.)

> 3\. Legal: It is not directed to a particular individual or group of
> individuals (Virginia v. Black)

He only mentions the white house, no specific individuals or groups. If he had
mentioned individuals or party or a subcommittee it seems like it would still
fall under political free speech which in general is heavily protected because
it is supposed to at the root or a foundational pillar of the US's democracy.

>4\. Illegal: The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat...a
prohibition on true threats...protect[s] individuals
from...fear...disruption...[and] the possibility that the threatened violence
will occur (Virginia v. Black)

I see no evidence in the rap lyrics I have read that he was trying to cause
disruption in the government or to change a group or individuals actions
through threat.

> If there was a middle ground legally for people who's intent was less
> harmful than their speech it would benefit this kid, but how would you prove
> that? And it would muddy the law's ability to fight against true threats.

Normally in the US, at least, you do not have to prove some one's innocence.
The state has the burden of proving guilty.

------
mxnakqozlsjannl
Disgusting, also, how can anyone not see how all this shitty things your
government does tends to make people like it even less? maybe breeding more
'terrorists'? That's the most recent terrorism problem, no? American citizens
turning against their own country or something?

I've got to be honest on one thing here, I don't plan on shutting my mouth
about how much I think this things are terrible, and I guess I must also not
plan to set foot around there anytime soon, would I get locked up for hearing
"Paris - Bring it to ya" and posting it to my Facebook? I certainly COULD,
apparently, so I won't be going there... before, I thought it would be nice to
know California, where most of my favourite bands come from, go to the Burning
Man, do a road trip and know the country and all the famous places but I'm
giving those up.

------
trustfundbaby
It unfortunate, but the kid is an idiot. how you can post lyrics like that and
not think it would set off alarm bells all over the place after a kid (right
around the same age did something so terrible) just weeks before is beyond me.

Hopefully he walks but I hope he finds the experience harrowing enough to
learn a lesson or two about applying a little common sense to the concept of
free speech.

------
greenyoda
Prior discussion here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5748053>

------
Steko
Oh no, white kid from the suburbs too? Time to get outraged.

~~~
im3w1l
I think the statement implicit in your post definitely sounds plausible, but
is it true? Can you point to an individual from another group being given
similar treatment for similar action, where people did not become outraged?

~~~
Steko
Are you asking me if there are other people who:

(1) make random threats against the POTUS or the WH or other public figures or
places

(2) aren't actually a clear and present danger to carry out those threats

(3) that still get the full monty by secret service/fbi/local cops/prosecutors

(4) don't get to the top of HN

Yes, there are probably a lot of people like that. And everyone says the same
thing about most of those people, "Christ, what an idiot".

Now I don't want to trivialize that this kid is clearly innocent and the
victim of some injustice. I certainly don't think he "deserves it". But
there's lots bigger injustice in the world to get outraged about and I think
threads like this make decent platforms for calling the HN community out over
it's blinders.

------
dattaway
His previous documented criminal history of physical violence was used as
evidence.

~~~
rasur
You mean the biting claim in an 8th grade fight and a fight with his sister
(who appeared in court in his _defense_ for this current infraction) for which
the Police were called (so, a domestic incident in other words). Yes, quite
the terrorist - off to Gitmo with him! :-|

~~~
dattaway
This is the way the law works and should not be a surprise. He has an
established documented history of harming people and the court failed to see a
legitimate artistic merit of his case. Fortunately, he can take these
arguments to the appellate court.

~~~
gt7570
Your first claim was documented criminal history. Where is it Sherlock?

