Cook, I think Unbounded has seemed quite open to reason in his arguments, so it would be more productive for the Debate Thread to explain to him why his points are misguided rather than be cruel to him.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall of London in 1856, in Harlem in 1884,[1] and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead. In the Shiloh Baptist Church disaster of 1902, over 100 people died when "fight" was misheard as "fire" in a crowded church causing a panic and stampede.

A false alarm, also called a nuisance alarm, is the deceptive or erroneous report of an emergency, causing unnecessary panic and/or bringing resources (such as emergency services) to a place where they are not needed. False alarms may occur with residential burglary alarms, smoke detectors, industrial alarms, and in signal detection theory. False alarms have the potential to divert emergency responders away from legitimate emergencies, which could ultimately lead to loss of life. In some cases, repeated false alarms in a certain area may cause occupants to develop alarm fatigue and to start ignoring most alarms, knowing that each time it will probably be false. The concept of this can be traced at least as far back as Aesop's story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, where many episodes of a boy falsely yelling "wolf" caused the townspeople to ignore his cries when a real wolf came.

this pretty much sums it up.

Even if it is humorous, it is still a legitimate threat, and much be addressed as such.

I believe that if you incite false panic and a life is lost either due to the panic, or because they were not treated due to your panic, you can be held responsible.

This is kind of like the whole "Swatting" thing that went around, which is now considered a felony.

Quote from Captain Cook

this pretty much sums it up.

Alright, sure.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

I'm not sure you can reasonably say that he did this with the goal of inciting panic. (I'm pretty sure that's why he was released in the end.) It wasn't as if he intentionally went in public and screamed "I'm going to go shoot up an elementary school and eat the heart of a child!". It was said online, in the context of an argument with another person where, obviously, emotions are running high and people are getting angry.

People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall of London in 1856, in Harlem in 1884,[1] and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead. In the Shiloh Baptist Church disaster of 1902, over 100 people died when "fight" was misheard as "fire" in a crowded church causing a panic and stampede.

Except from what I can tell, not a single person was harmed besides the kid who said that stuff. I'd understand if there was anything indicating that he actually went out of his way to freak people out instead of it being a result of him being in a poor situation.

A false alarm, also called a nuisance alarm, is the deceptive or erroneous report of an emergency, causing unnecessary panic and/or bringing resources (such as emergency services) to a place where they are not needed. False alarms may occur with residential burglary alarms, smoke detectors, industrial alarms, and in signal detection theory. False alarms have the potential to divert emergency responders away from legitimate emergencies, which could ultimately lead to loss of life. In some cases, repeated false alarms in a certain area may cause occupants to develop alarm fatigue and to start ignoring most alarms, knowing that each time it will probably be false. The concept of this can be traced at least as far back as Aesop's story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, where many episodes of a boy falsely yelling "wolf" caused the townspeople to ignore his cries when a real wolf came.

I honestly think you're going out of your way to assume that there was any real intent behind this, which is absolutely key. I think deciphering intent would simply come down to a difference in experience and worldview, however.

Even if it is humorous, it is still a legitimate threat, and much be addressed as such.

Now this is where I start to get worried. At what point do we draw the line between something being a joke and something being an honest-to-goodness threat? Looking at his comment, I wouldn't be surprised if I've said something foolish like that out of sarcasm or while being stuck in an argument at some point in time, but I don't think I've ever had the desire, means, or capabilities to ever do any such action for as long as I've lived. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in this thread said something like that at some point in time during all of their years on the internet as well. I mean, sure, you want people to be careful and not let actual things get past, but context and such should still definitely be considered before you throw people behind bars, lest you risk ruining an innocent life.

I believe that if you incite false panic and a life is lost either due to the panic, or because they were not treated due to your panic, you can be held responsible.

This is kind of like the whole "Swatting" thing that went around, which is now considered a felony.

Thing is, I don't remember anything about any lives being lost due to this panic, and nothing I've found has indicated that any harm occurred to anyone, as I said before.

So this is what you have a judge and a jury for. The very fact that you use words like:

Quote from Unbounded

I'm not sure you can reasonably say... *snip*... Except from what I can tell... *snip*... I honestly think you're going out of your way to assume ...*snip*... I think deciphering intent would simply come down to a difference in experience and worldview... *snip*... context and such should still definitely be considered...*snip*

The very fact that you use words and terms like that means this case is open to interpretation and argument. Thats what you have a judge and a jury for. It isn't like the American justice system clamped down on him V for Vendetta style and he disappeared forever. It was determined by a legal procedural system that it did cause panic, and it was a felony.

The fact that this does NOT happen often is proof that Freedom of Speech isn't under attack.

Quote from Nish

So this is what you have a judge and a jury for. The very fact that you use words like:

The very fact that you use words and terms like that means this case is open to interpretation and argument. Thats what you have a judge and a jury for. It isn't like the American justice system clamped down on him V for Vendetta style and he disappeared forever. It was determined by a legal procedural system that it did cause panic, and it was a felony.

I mean, yes, this is exactly what we have a judge and jury for in the end. Since this same sort of thing has happened before with a similar result he'll probably end up perfectly fine. I consider this situation to be a flub-up but I don't expect it to go much further than it already has.

The fact that this does NOT happen often is proof that Freedom of Speech isn't under attack.

That you seem to think this is my position is a tad frustrating, but I'm going to assume it's my fault for never going out of my way to be explicitly clear with my position.

My thoughts on this case aren't that it's indicative of "free speech being under attack and our rights are being trampled en masse". My thoughts on this case are that it's foolish that he was arrested and held for an extended period of time without any thought given to the context of the situation, and context is something important that cannot be ignored. That's not to say other things such as tone of voice, volume, etc which can't really be interpreted very well through text, and can be interpreted in person.

All that stated, I don't think I really have very much else to say on this subject. (I think I'm starting to repeat myself, sorry about that!) I'll leave you with some reading that may (hopefully) help the discussion progress a bit further for everyone else involved:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/nuances-threat-facebook

the context doesn't matter.

A line was drawn, a line was crossed.

That's really all there is.

Quote from Captain Cook

the context doesn't matter.

That can't be true. Suppose we were having a debate about gun rights and someone said "Let's say I'm a kid who wants to shoot up a school; is it not made easier for me if my parents own a gun?". That contains the phrase "I'm a kid who wants to shoot up a school," but it's obviously a totally reasonable thing to say in that context.

In that example the only way to misinterpret it is to strip out the surrounding text, but we can construct examples where that's not the case. Someone who wasn't careful about their phrasing might say, with exactly the same meaning, "I'm a kid who wants to shoot up a school. Where am I gonna get my gun? Am I going to go through legal channels and mental-health checks? Or am I going to just take it from my parents?". Phrased like that, even if you had the entire post to go by you couldn't be certain that you weren't reading the diary of a future serial-killer. But in context it's obviously a rhetorical point.

Also, you made a point about the context earlier when you mentioned it was said after a recent school shooting. And Azure brought up that it was made by someone living near to a school in a country where this is a sensitive topic. But if context doesn't matter then we don't get to use those factors to judge the statement. We would have to judge whether or not the statement on its own would be enough to convict someone. It may well be, but it's less clear-cut.


I have no opinion on whether or not the kid in question should have been arrested. My point here is purely that context is important. But I don't think this was a free speech issue either way - he wasn't arrested for making a joke, he was arrested for making a threat. The fact that he didn't, in fact, make a threat does not mean free speech rights were violated any more than an innocent man accidentally arrested on charges of murder is having his right-not-to-murder-someone violated.

Unbounded, I didn't think that was your point, but the fact is that you are talking about one isolated incident which doesn't have great bearing on this topic in general. It is more about a perceived miscarriage of justice rather than the issue of Free Speech, isn't it?

Quote from Zed

That can't be true. Suppose we were having a debate about gun rights and someone said "Let's say I'm a kid who wants to shoot up a school; is it not made easier for me if my parents own a gun?". That contains the phrase "I'm a kid who wants to shoot up a school," but it's obviously a totally reasonable thing to say in that context.

In that example the only way to misinterpret it is to strip out the surrounding text, but we can construct examples where that's not the case. Someone who wasn't careful about their phrasing might say, with exactly the same meaning, "I'm a kid who wants to shoot up a school. Where am I gonna get my gun? Am I going to go through legal channels and mental-health checks? Or am I going to just take it from my parents?". Phrased like that, even if you had the entire post to go by you couldn't be certain that you weren't reading the diary of a future serial-killer. But in context it's obviously a rhetorical point.

Because you're saying "Say, If I want to shoot up a school..." That can be disregarded for two reasons:
1- It's not a direct threat
2- It's rhetorical to make a point. You shooting up the school isn't the focus of the conversation, it's used as part of a bigger conversation.

Quote from Captain Cook

Because you're saying "Say, If I want to shoot up a school..." That can be disregarded for two reasons:
1- It's not a direct threat
2- It's rhetorical to make a point. You shooting up the school isn't the focus of the conversation, it's used as part of a bigger conversation.

You just indirectly said context matters.

Context of the threat itself.

If you noticed, Zed never directly said he wanted to shoot up the school.

Under any condition, if you say "I'm going to shoot up a school" you've technically made a threat.

Quote from Captain Cook

If you noticed, Zed never directly said he wanted to shoot up the school.

Under any condition, if you say "I'm going to shoot up a school" you've technically made a threat.

Quote from Zed

"I'm a kid who wants to shoot up a school. Where am I gonna get my gun? Am I going to go through legal channels and mental-health checks? Or am I going to just take it from my parents?"

stripped of context, that quote is a threat according to you. that's clearly wrong.

Quote from Captain Cook

2- It's rhetorical to make a point. You shooting up the school isn't the focus of the conversation, it's used as part of a bigger conversation.

Quote from Captain Cook

If you noticed, Zed never directly said he wanted to shoot up the school.

I think this might be a case of cat having my tongue but I think you get the point.

If it's for education or demonstration purposes, a hypothetical threat can be made as long as it's very obvious it's for, you know, education or demonstration purposes. This isn't the thought police.

But if an actual threat is made without any preambulatory disclaimer, then it's technically against the rules.

Let me make this clear, yeah, I think it's dumb he got arrested for what's obviously a joke, but again, considering the timeframe he made the comment, and how unpredictable internet culture is to the mainstream media, it kind of makes sense why he'd get caught.

I mean, I can see why this is confusing so feel free to let me know

i'm actually not really sure what we're arguing for right now, haha

Any threats are considered as an endangerment towards communities. Naturally, a security force
wants to prevent any serious crimes, context or no. Things have happened
in the past because they were disregarded as a non-serious threat.

Usually, there's only a reinforcement in awareness. Look, if says someone going to
shoot, or threaten someone like that. They find out where a suspect are and could arrest you,
it's as simple as that.

There is no room for rationalizing the situation, or demeaning the scene because
everyone should be able to feel safe from shootings.

freedom of speech is neither a right nor a privilege it's a necessity