- This post by darthbrowser was thumbed up by:
- Doram (August 6th, 2013, 7:38 pm)
Justin Carter - Terrorist or Innocent Young Adult?
Forum rules
This is Serious Discussion. If you want to tell us how your day was or just get some things off your chest, you will find ample opportunity to find a corner to discuss all the good things we see, or reach out to anyone who needs help. Just remember to pay attention to the Principles of Serious Discussion, and link to the source if posting news.
This is Serious Discussion. If you want to tell us how your day was or just get some things off your chest, you will find ample opportunity to find a corner to discuss all the good things we see, or reach out to anyone who needs help. Just remember to pay attention to the Principles of Serious Discussion, and link to the source if posting news.
Re: Justin Carter - Terrorist or Innocent Young Adult?
Thumbs up x1 
by darthbrowser » July 8th, 2013, 7:13 pm
WickedOreo wrote:It's truly sad when I hear about news that is honestly appalling. Our First Amendment rights are being infringed upon and mere sarcasm is leading to innocent people being incarcerated for YEARS. I, for one, don't always understand sarcasm as non-literal, but the example of sarcasm in the Justin Carter case is by far epitome of stupidity on the reporter's case (infringing upon the user's rights by compromising his information on the computer) and the law enforcement's case. I was under the impression that you must commit the crime before you can be arrested, not indicted for conspiracy of a wrongful act without a lack of evidence. The 8th Amendment states:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." (as quoted from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
Why 8-10 years of incarceration for a simple instance of sarcastic exaggeration with no record of violence, weapons in the household, and otherwise little to no evidence of actual violence except for the quote itself? Wouldn't a psychological evaluation determine if he was actually that unstable?
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/29/cart-j29.html
http://globalnews.ca/news/679742/u-s-teen-jailed-for-terrorist-threats-after-comments-he-made-on-facebook/
Clearly, the instigator (the one who called Carter crazy/insane) should be the one being reported for cyberbullying for calling him a name, not the reply in its own self? Really, come on, people. Quit trying to infringe upon my (and everyone else's) rights as a legal citizen of the United States America and grow up.
That's my opinion on the issue. TL;DR: The way they went about punishing this man was undeserved and extreme.
While investigating the incident on other sites, I quickly ran into comments which betray the administrative line of thought:
Comments such as this (grammar corrected): "If Adam Lanza had made a[sic] online comment like this, and there [was] a concerned citizen there to report it, 26 people would still be alive today" were rather frequent.
Now, the question of whether or not this is entirely unfounded paranoia is rather complex.
After events such as Newton - which now occur under the still-present shadow of the American reaction to 9/11 - the government is expected to take measures to prevent further incidents - while ostensibly working to avoid overstepping its boundaries in its attempt to stop rare crimes.
Thus, they must walk a tightrope between apathy and authoritarianism - and the government is large, clumsy performer. Just as an obvious jihadist website may go unmolested, innocent citizens may be wrongly investigated. However, when something goes unnoticed, it doesn't receive a news story. On the other hand, when the government overreacts instead, the incident will be noticed.
To demonstrate, immediately after Newton, there was a flurry of articles like this one, which covers the elementary student who was suspended for possessing a cookie judged to be "in the shape of a gun:"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/02/7-year-old-boy-reportedly-suspended-after-making-a-gun-out-of-a-pastry-at-school/
These incidents represent the government to stepping to one side of its tightrope - the side of rampancy. What the the public rarely sees, however, is the government stepping onto the side of leniency, which, judging by all the online comments which haven't resulted in people being sent to jail, happens much more frequently.
Some are concerned about the apparent erosion of American rights, because they only hear about the government erring to one side of the tightrope it must walk.
-
darthbrowser - As Ninja As Myst
- Posts: 110
- Joined: October 25th, 2009, 5:01 pm
- Location: The Dystopia
A Good Start - Thumbs Up given: 3 times
- Thumbs Up received: 44 times
11 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2