Here's a very interesting case involving a New Braunfels teenager who posted a comment on Facebook last year that landed him in jail, and now in legal limbo.
According to news reports, it appears that during an exchange on the social network, he threatened to attack an elementary school. This happened within a few months after the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, so law enforcement agencies were on the lookout for potential clues that might have pointed to future violent incidents.
This is a good example of the right of free speech on one hand, and the need for government/law enforcement to keep us safe. This case also raises important questions about the criminal justice system and legal process.
Click here to read this article from the Dallas Observer, and then return here with your comments. How does this case connect with what you've learned in class (especially the discussion about the Brandenburg case and the imminent lawless action standard)?
Feel free to share your opinions about the free speech issues raised in this case.
And, please remember to include with your comment your first name, last name initial and class (TTh, M ITV or Honors).
70 comments:
Nietheari Almanza(Lillie) M ITV
So, after reading the article I don't feel like I have enough information about the correspondence to have an opinion but If in fact, this kid stated he wanted to harm an elementary class than his freedom of speech, and first amen. doesn't seem to be protected. Since this would be an issue for Nat'l security. I don;t know the age of this individual making these claims is but I am curious to know how if anything that will play a role in his defense.
Nietheari Almanza(Lillie) M ITV
So, after reading the article I don't feel like I have enough information about the correspondence to have an opinion but If in fact, this kid stated he wanted to harm an elementary class than his freedom of speech, and first amen. doesn't seem to be protected. Since this would be an issue for Nat'l security. I don;t know the age of this individual making these claims is but I am curious to know how if anything that will play a role in his defense.
I absolutely think that law enforcement should have the right to check up on what this young man posted, however, I do not know if it is legal for him to go to jail for this action. Brandenburg had said some very heinous, hurtful and wrong comments, but no violence actually occurred from his speech. So this young man in New Braunfels said a very heinous thing, BUT he never actually did anything. However, I can only imagine the outrage that would occur if he was released and then pursued the violence.
Jordan H. (TTh)
No violence resulted from this speech. This teenager said something a lot of people have said while playing video games. It was not a call to violent action in any way. Even if it was, it wouldn't have been persuasive enough to cause imminent lawless action. His speech should be protected by the First Amendment.
Jaclyn C. (T/Th)
I believe that it is Justin’s First Amendment right to post anything on Facebook within the limits of Free Speech laws. He has done just that. There is no evidence to prove that this was a call to action also, no imminent or immediate violence occurred afterward. According to the ruling in Bradenburg v. Ohio a violent call to action that doesn’t cause immediate lawless action is protected under Free Speech. I argue this isn’t even a violent call to action so it’s surely protected speech. Therefore the Comal County prosecutors do not have a strong case, whatsoever. He is a minor and has posted stupid things on his Facebook page. This is common for young people and his words cannot be taken seriously. The mention of a restraining order should not be considered fact until it is verified, therefore it is irrelevant at this point.
DJ K.(M ITV)
I think the key connection from what we've learned in class so far to this case is the issue of "clear and present danger." Was this 18-year-old truly a threat to the public? I don't think there's any way we can definitively answer that, but it seems pretty obvious that he wasn't. Looking at his recent past personal struggles, if anything he is only a danger to himself. I understand why this "threat" was taken seriously, and I hope our law enforcement agencies continue to take these kinds of threats seriously in the future. But at some point in the investigation, you have to look at the facts and act accordingly. The actions of law enforcement and the judicial system appear to be greatly flawed in this situation. To be coerced into a confession, and then to have bond set to such an unreasonable figure set this young man on a path that could only lead to suffering. We've learned that in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty, and until that point, you should be treated fairly. This young man was not treated fairly. Should he have said what he said? I don't think so, but without posing a threat of clear and present danger, it falls under the First Amendment as the right to free speech. Should he be placed under some kind of probation/supervision for the next few years to make sure he doesn't continue to go down this path of making threats? I would be absolutely fine with that. I think that kind of punishment fits the crime. But knowing that something like this can not only happen in this country, but in central Texas is frustrating to hear. This is the judicial system working for the prosecution, when it should always be working for the defendant until the prosecution can present a valid guilty case.
M ITV class
Yemi Akande
Just like Brandenburg, no violence resulted from Justin Carter’s comment. Justin Carter wasn’t calling for anarchy or inciting others to commit violent acts, nor was he teaching an abstract doctrine to anyone in my opinion. Instead, he focused on his own depravity. Just like in the Brandenburg case, I don’t believe that Justin Carter’s comment was persuasive enough to cause imminent lawless action especially because we don’t have the full context, extreme violence permeates video games and it is apparent that Justin Carter is not in the best frame of mind. Given the limited information, I see this at best as a cry for help; as such, I agree that he was just exercising his first amendment right in a rather petrifying manner.
I am glad the police took precaution once they were tipped albeit their less than perfect process which consequently endangered Justin Carter.
I believe the student's words should have been protected by the first amendment. I understand that it happened near the Sandy Hook event, which had the whole nation in hysteria so being arrested for his words was something, I feel, was quickly looked over because everyone was grieving, though it was unconstitutional. It should've been handled differently and in a way according to law. We can't simply bend rules all the time, though it might be difficult at times, I feel as though the laws are there for a reason and we must abide to them.
-Bridget Garraway
Monday ITV
Brenda B. T/Th
I think the only thing this young man is guilty of is bad timing and poor choice of words. What he said was very inappropriate, especially right after Newton, so I understand why someone would take his comments seriously; however, I agree with some of what DJ said, there was no "clear and present danger." It sounds as if Carter's comments were spoken (er,typed) in jest. He comes off as more of a troll than anything else.
I believe the government has right to watch and protect. What the young man said was extremely out of line - especially with the timing of the situation. Also, these days you can never take things too seriously, so I do see the danger and harm it could have caused. BUT, I do not believe in this case that there was anything dangerous about this situation and that he should be protected by the First Amendment.
Nicholas R. M ITV
Out of context, these comments do seem threatening and dangerous. Although they do seem to be sarcastic and dark, the reaction to these comments was seemingly unlawful. As the article points out, he was treated several unethical ways. He was forced to confess without having a lawyer present, he was held and indicted much later than he was arrested, and the bail was astronomically high.
The police do have a duty to protect citizens, but they do not have the right to take away an individuals freedom without due process of law.
Cortney C. TTh 12:30
I find this case to be a big mix up of information and different laws. With it being after the Sandy Hook shooting, I would say it is not covered under the First Amendment because it was a potential threat to security. That argument is still hard to make because we do not know the full context of the conversation with this mysterious Facebook women. The women could have instigated these hateful comments made by Carter. To make a solid decision I would need a better understanding of the other laws that were supposedly broken by law enforcement. This case sounds like it could possibly be dropped if his lawyer can prove he was mistreated by law enforcement. I am interested to hear where this case is now. It was nice to hear that his lawyer is doing this pro bono because he felt this case was messed up.
This definitely falls under "speech we hate the most", but since his comments did not present imminence for any real planning of shooting up a school, technically he didn't break the law.
I feel like this will really test the boundaries of free speech and digital media law, because is there a difference between threatening unlawfulness and threatening others lives.
TR 9:30 Honors
Skye W. M ITV
Although I'm not personally a fan of what he said, this falls under exactly what we spoke about in class. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't his right to say it. He wasn't even naming a particular school, day, time, etc. meaning clear and present danger isn't really what was being stated. Not having the full chain of what was said before his comments is quite damning to the prosecution. They have no evidence of the context of his message, or intent. The internet, or any written word, has the extreme ability to be taken out of context if we don't read the entire chain. That in and of itself should make this case over and done with.
I also know that I've seen far worse comments on other sites, and have never seen a case like this get so blown out of proportion. We can only go so far to protect citizens, but taking away rights granted from the constitution is unacceptable and unlawful. I expect that the law enforcement agents responsible for his arrest and keep in the jail will receive a civil suit of some kind soon.
This is a really tricky one... On one hand, I do believe that the first amendment should cover things said on facebook. If you take the comments about the elementary school as an isolated incident, then it's clear that his speech should not have landed him in jail. However, after reading the whole article and getting additional context, I would say that his words presented clear and immediate danger. Especially in light of his previous restraining order and violent tendencies.
Erin Finger (TTh Class)
I believe that because social media is so public that one should be very careful of what they say due to the sensitivity of verbiage and how it can affect people who have been through sensitive situations such as the sandy hook scenario. I do believe this child should be punished, and due to his past, this may be his only option. Because he is so young, he may need an immense amount of counseling or a life therapist to help him understand his words being detrimental to people around him during his punishment.
If we are basing this off a case such as Brandenburg v. Ohio, then his conviction should be overturned. Though, there is proof to Carter's violent threat there is no proof to actual violence committed. Was it a call to action? Possibly, but not a call of action to the public... but a call he made upon himself just like Brandenburg did. Carter's expression to shoot up an elementary school is like Brandenburg's statement to have "revengence" on the jews and african americans. Did he state it? Yes. But did he do it? No. Saying that, there is not enough evidence claimed to support the statement made on Facebook. If the court is not willing to accept the full string off messages off Facebook, then what evidence do they have? Yes, some people may have not liked what Carter had some (it bothers me) BUT perceived offensiveness is protected by the first amendment since it did not cause immediate lawless action. He should really censor what he says though, especially with how sensitive the public is these days due to prior incidents happening.
Sarah Duran
TTR 12:30
Aimee Jones
TTH 12:30
It sounds like this kid is savvy for facebook attention. I see how he was trying to be sarcastic, but I see how this may not be protected by the first amendment. Maybe everyone was being sensitive, however it's pretty interesting that he had a restraining order(sign for crazy). Doesn't seem like enough information to form a strong opinion for me though. I think he's young and dumb, and hopefully didn't have intentions of harming anyone. Also why was the article so focused on him being nerdy? Is this article trying to insinuate some bias that nerds are harmless?-yes.
Cori B. TTH 12:30
This kid doesn't even own a gun. There were no guns in his house. Kids going through depression say really stupid things to get any kind of attention. No one who really wants to kill themself would post that on FaceBook, they wouldn't want someone to stop them.
This boy doesn't seem like any kind of threat. I do think that he's learned his lesson in all of this though and I hope that he stops posting things like that and grows up. Shooting up a school or hurting other people won't solve anything going on in his life.
While the boy's comments are clearly distasteful and very offensive, I think his obvious sarcasm makes it clear that his words hold no threat or call to action behind them. For this reason, I believe his statements should be protected.
Kathryn Price (Honors)
Justin's comments are intimidating, but our generation is use to seeing these odd comments from time to time. I feel this behavior has more to do with how our generation works and sees social media not a boy trying to murder children.
I believe the police should have found him and questioned him, but not arrest him. I think there is clear and present danger if taken seriously, which is hard to determine.
In Brandenburg V. Ohio B did not say there were going to go kill someone, but said his opinion on actions that he thinks should occur. These are different situations.
Tara Pohlmeyer
(Honors)
Justin obviously didn't think about his comments before he posted them. I feel like the case was handled entirely wrong, too.
I do think Police were right in checking in on him, but it seems like they arrested him and charged him before having any evidence that he was the one who actually posted it.
It's really hard to figure out someone's intent from just reading Facebook comments. I do think though that threatening to harm people should always be taken seriously, and that this might fall under clear and present danger.
Could Justin's comments have incited immediate lawless action? Only he knows.
Besed on the screenshot of the conversation and Carters restraining order he should have been arrested and charged for terroristic speech under the Texas Penal Code section 22.07. Whether or not he is guilty of criminal speech remains to be seen.
However, I do believe that the actions of the Comal county law enforcement and the way in which Carter's confession was obtained was unethical.
Honestly, I feel that Justin Carter was very fortunate. Thousands of people are arrested every year for crimes that they did not commit. Very few of them can garner the media attention to have an anonymous donor post a five hundred thousand dollar bail, and convince a lawyer to defend them pro bono.
Whether or not the Brandenburg case will apply to Carter will depend on the court ruling. Personally, i think there is not enough evidence for a successful prosecution. However, I also think that if the entire Facebook conversation can be obtained then that may acquit Carter.
I think the take away from this case should be less about free speech and more about how current laws are struggling to keep up with technology. Had Carter had made these comments at the end of a football game in a restaurant or on the street the outcome would have been very different.
Rudy V
M RR ITV
Brenna B - M ITV
When I read this, I realized just how many people say daring stuff like this on social media just out of their own self expression to get a point across or joking with friends in a comment thread. I think because it happened at the time it did, when national security was sensitive to the subject, it gave law enforcement the right to check up on him. I do, however, strongly disagree with his arrest. We talked in class about the phrase "I'm gonna kill you" and how it is used in such a sarcastic sense these days that it's hardly a real terroristic threat. So I think had the police scoped out the situation better and learned he is just a sarcastic teenage boy, there would have been no harm done. I think this goes back to whether this incites imminent lawless action, and I believe in this case it would not.
Ashley L. M-ITV Round Rock
I feel especially with this being so close to the attacks at Sandy Hook not only was it a bad judgement on the students part, but also a threat to the security of the school, children and staff members. I do feel the authorities had the right to arrest the student based on his comments, especially with all of the school shootings and violence surrounding such cases. If you look at Columbine for example, I remember classmates saying they had heard the two students discussing events which led up to the massacre. What if their fellow classmates would have reported this to the authorities or to their teacher or principle. Would the Columbine shootings have occurred?
Jesse P. (M ITV)
Based on what we've been talking about in class relative to free speech, symbolic speech and what not I feel that law enforcement and prosecutors handled the case just fine. Even though the jury didn't have the entire thread of the post I don't think it was necessary. The most important part of the comment was the one that the prosecutor focused on "shoot up a kindergarten." These words suggest that someone is going to initiate an action against another group of people, in this case children. While I don't think he (Carter) was actually going to do anything, based on the evidence found in his home, or a lack thereof, authorities needed to send a message. If they allowed this young man to walk because he was "joking" or playing a "legends" game, then that would open up a whole can of worms to people online that engage in the same type of talk. Whether the boy meant the comment or not, the simple fact is that it was printed, published and posed a reasonable threat and now he will pay for reckless action and hopefully discourage others from doing the same.
I have never heard of a case like this before. What you say on Facebook is your own opinion, and that is your right, but other people can see it. Several people have been fired from jobs based on what they post on Facebook. It is public for other people to see. I think that what Justin said was concerning but obviously a joke. Especially since his comments were close to the Sandy Hook shooting. I think that law enforcement went too far and that he was not treated fairly. They did not have enough evidence that he was actually going to go to an elementary school and shoot it up.
Joseph Rojas M/ITV
There are a lot of components playing out here. I do believe that this needs to be looked at more closely and let all the documentations and interview unravel themselves. I am no Psychiatrist, but I did manage to learn a little in my Adol Psyc class. This young men is crying out for some attention, an if we ignore it, then, it can be a problem in the future. I don't think that jail time is really going to do any justice. I know we live in a very temper mental period, always being cautious, especially with our young ones. In term of legality, I don't believe that any imminent danger was established, just hardcore symbolic speech, just my opinion.
Nathan Moore
Honors
Though damning on first glance, I believe this case should have been thrown out in the first place. First, “Hannah Love” can’t be found so the only person to have any say in this, besides the government, can’t even be reached. Secondly the only evidence that Carter would be a deranged person was this singular screen shot from a cell phone. Without the context above and below these three comments, I find it really hard to convict someone. To me it would be like applying the imminent lawless action standard and convicting someone before they can even finish their statement. In essence this seems akin to bringing a case against someone for jaywalking. Just as I see people daily jaywalk on campus, I see people post stupid and threatening things like this on the internet. These prosecutors would have hundreds of years of trials if they ever read 4chan or reddit. I agree with this attorney when he says ‘ "The fact is, the case should be dismissed," he says. "He didn't do anything wrong. ... That's what dictatorships all around the world used to do. They'd say, 'If you confess to your crimes against the state, we will let you go.' I mean, fuck you. I didn't do anything wrong. ... 'Just admit you're a witch or we'll burn you. Why won't you just admit you're a witch?'"’.
As a side note I don’t appreciate the newspapers use of words like “nerd”, and “dork” etc. I feel like these words put a bias onto the reader, and for better or worse may sway their opinions of the fact. I’m not saying it’s illegal or anything, just something the informed reader should keep in mind.
Brittani Hammock T/Th
I can see why Justin Carter's comments upset so many people, but at the same time I don't think he was actually going to do the horrible things he typed. Justin's lawyer makes the point that if Justin is going to be charged based on a conversation that they need to see the whole conversation, not just a screenshot of the worst part of it. Also, it seems like Justin was replying to something said by the other person in the conversation. That other person, who police cannot identify, could have been saying things that were just as crude as what Justin was saying. All in all, I don't think there was enough evidence to lock Justin up and I think his 1st Amendment right was infringed upon.
Although Justin Carter’s words were sickening, I believe that he is still protected by the first amendment. Carter’s attorney Don Flanary said, "There must be a clear and present danger, and there must be a true threat. And if you don't have a true threat, then the First Amendment protects your speech. Plain and simple." I agree with what Flanary said in that a true threat was never made due to the fact that Carter failed to show intent. It seems to me that Carter’s arrest for his ignorant Facebook rant was a product of bad timing. I believe that authorities had every right to look into the situation, especially 60 days after the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy, but I do not think charging him with a third degree terrorist threat was appropriate. This case is a prime example of why it is so important to watch what you say on social media.
Delaney N ITV
Jesse Witt | Tues / Thurs, 12:30
This case is unusual for a number of reasons. After reading the article from the observer, I felt as though I was missing some of the details regarding the background of the accused. So, naturally, I searched online for more recent content. It seems as though our young man making threatening comments online has a history of doing so.
http://www.businessinsider.com/justin-carters-facebook-comment-scandal-2014-2
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/14/update-texas-teen-faces-8-years-in-prison-over-facebook-comment/
Regardless, I'm inclined to think that even despite a history of aggression online, that these posts should be protected by the first amendment. In considering the content of the posts, it's ambiguous at best -- "I’ma SHOOT UP A KINDERGARTEN" -- okay, which one? Where? When? Why? How? There's too much ambiguity in this threat for it to be taken seriously. Given the context of the exchange, it's reasonable to dismiss these remarks as the venting of another emotional child online. Should he have been making them? Absolutely not. Could they have caused emotional duress to individuals that encountered them? Of course. But we shouldn't be locking people for the better part of a decade for it.
By comparison: consider what our legal system would entail if even the most dubious of threats were handled as legitimate terrorist plans. This misuse of resources and needless human suffering in this case boggles the mind, and one can't help but wonder if the young man emerging from the prison won't be thirsty to justify the claims he's been accused of.
Makayla Velarde
Honors
This case was like Brandenburg in how they both expressed their ideas and as awful as they were- brandenburg was protected under the first and fourteenth amendment because his speech as awful as it was, was not a direct call to action bringing in the idea of abstract v action in speech. Very similar to Justin Carter's. I do agree with Austin police taking him in to question him because his Facebook comments could definitely pose a threat, but as Flanary stated, they should have looked at the whole conversation and the context it was put in. Carter was incredibly stupid for posting comments like that without thinking of any repercussions but i do believe that he should have been proven guilty and then punished, not the other way around. As much as i found carter's comments disgusting and awful, he should not have been punished the way he was, it brings us to the "freedom for the thought we hate".
Garrett F (Monday ITV)
I don't think his posts constitute a clear and present danger. Unfortunately, these kind of crude threats and senseless statements are all over the internet nowadays. I think because it happened so soon after Sandy Hook is why he's being prosecuted the way he is. However, it brings to light the issue of kids (mostly kids but applies to anyone) thinking there are no consequences for what they say over the internet, social media, and in text messages. Most of the time it's for attention, who can say the most senseless and nastiest thing just for the sake of being noticed or laughed at. Often these people would never say such a thing in person or bully someone in "real life." I think that was the case for the boy in this article. I think he's clearly got some problems so he needs some kind of counseling not jail. Sounds like he's had enough consequences as it is!
I believe the defendant's speech is protected because there was no evidence of clear and present danger besides the location of the school. Although the context of the conversation is unavailable it was inferred they were discussing video games and some things were said that were in poor taste and not likely a threat. I dont think its fair that he is facing jail time and the potential disruption of his life for that.
After reading this, I figured that it was just bad timing. Yes, he said some stuff that could be taken as threatening, but he never did anything he just said it. Like in the Brandenburg case his words were wrong, but there was no direct call to action immediately after the statement. I don't think facing jail time was the answer and how it was all handled was all wrong. I think he should definitely protected by his first amendment rights.
Sarah W. TTH 12:30-1:50
Taylor E. (TTH 12:30)
I think this case is very ridiculous and his words were taken out of context completely. I think his speech should have been protected because firstly, prosecutors don't even have the entire thread, they are just relying on three comments from a cell-phone screenshot. I do believe since so many school shootings had been taking place that the government did have the right to check on the situation because that was a serious comment made, however, I don't think he should have faced jail time. That punishment is definitely to the extreme, especially for a minor. Instead, he should have faced some probation and maybe a fine of some sort. Like Brandenburg, Carter's choice of words did present a call to action but no violence resulted from his speech, nor was it persuasive enough to cause imminent lawless action. He should have been protected by the first amendment.
This story is very sad for all parties. It is a shame this teen had to go through this experience but I do not believe the police were wrong in arresting him. I do not think his actions were protected by his 1st amendment right because his words were threatening and they should be taken seriously by law enforcement.
Casey Bean
4301 ITV Round Rock
I completely understand how serious this situation is seeing as America has seen its fair share of shootings, and I completely agree with local police checking in on the situation. But once they searched his home and saw that no evidence pointed to the fact that this kid could go mental, the whole operation should have been stopped.
The screenshot is completely out of context, we have no idea what he was saying before this and even if we had the whole thread it probably wouldn't show a call to action. This isn't a call to action. He doesn't even mention a school name, location, time or anything. This just another example of a kid venting out frustrations online, sure his choice of words is weird, but that's all it is. His speech is protected.
Nick C.
T/TH 12:30
Miranda G.
T/TH 12:30
I find this case very interesting because there is a fine line between a sarcastic response to an event, as the one mentioned above, and an actual, believable threat. Although I do not agree that what said New Branunfels kid posted on social media, I think that the citizen in Canada took the sarcastic comment far fetch. Yes, it was sensitive in timing because of the recent shooting that happened but it we search the web for just those keywords we would find a terror of information and many people who talk like this often. In no way do I think it is appropriate for people to talk certain ways about certain events... we wouldn't be America if we didn't allow this speech. As Americans we don't expect for our government to censor our thoughts which is why the comment that was made should be covered by free speech. I wish that people were more sensitive to what they put on social media because it offends people more often than not. This can be an example to kids everywhere that they need to be weary of what they post online because the wrong person could see and your life could be put through hell like this kids. I am sure he learned his lesson.
TTh - 12:30pm
The whole situation is unfortunate because I don't believe that the boy had any real malicious intent in what was said. However, had the authorities not prosecuted him despite knowing what he had said and the boy had actually followed through with his word, there would be an enormous amount of backlash. With that said, it's hard to believe that the boy is being prosecuted so harshly for a seemingly hollow (but absolutely irresponsible) facebook comment. Terroristic threats should always be looked into in today's society.
TTH 12:30
I think this case is pretty concerning because for one, he should have never said what he said regardless of the context it was in. I understand that it is important to have the full context of words, but you just don't say what he said. I mean, how would you expect someone who read it to NOT act on it and call the police? Also, no violence resulted because of his words, but how do we know that nothing would have happened? We don't. In the Brandenburg case, the questions were whether it was a call to violent action or teaching an abstract doctrine. In this case, I'm unsure as to if it is imminent lawless action or not. I'm not 100% certain that he didn't intend to incite violence. It's also really hard to tell because we don't know if maybe after he said the awful things he said, if maybe he wrote an "LOL, JUST KIDDING GUYS," or something of that nature. If he did intend to act on his words, then it isn't protected by the First Amendment, but if he didn't, than it is protected. So, I'm not sure if I believe that his speech was protected. I feel like he walked a very fine line with what he said. Either way, I think it will be very hard to convict him without the rest of the conversation.
Celena H T/Th
I feel like the boys first amendment speech is not protected in this case since he was threatening harm. However, I feel that the authorities severely overreacted. The Facebook post was one in a series of conversation between the boy arrested and another individual. The authorities only used the single post and didn't place the post in context. While I understand the authorities' desire to detain the boy, the information should have been thoroughly investigated. It is unfortunate that we live in a society that something like this happens and the perceived seriousness is a result of the heinous acts of some very disturbed individuals.
Although, Justin Carter probably wasn't meaning his comment on Facebook to blow up and everyone take him literally, he posted it on social media for the world to see, and I believe he should pay the price. I do not have kids, but if I did I would be terrified for them to be in school, especially when comments like "I'ma SHOOT UP A KINDERGARTEN" go viral. Whether he meant it or not, you don't post that online and not expect to get in trouble. Yeah, we have the right to "free speech" but if the speech is directed to incite imminent lawless action than it is not protected. In Brandenburg's case, the USSC reversed his conviction, but I do not think the USSC should reverse Carter's.
Amanda Emmons
TTh 12:30-1:50
Lauren Moreno MC 4301-
Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled that government agencies "cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action." The article mentioned that Carter was depressed and made various Facebook posts about being different/an outcast and comments about committing suicide. His girlfriend also alleged that he threatened to kill himself and also threatened her.
Many of the teenagers who have gone on school shooting sprees in the past had a history of depression and the feeling of being an outcast or were the victims of bullying.
Carter repeatedly showed on social media that he met all this criteria.
To make a comment about shooting up an elementary school just 2 months after one occurred could've been interpreted as a threat of a copycat shooting.
The mistakes in the past were made because even though most, if not all, of the prior shooters had a known history of depression, bullying, outcast etc. and were being psychologically examined, no one took the initiative to further investigate what should've been recognized as a smoking gun.
So maybe he was just a nerd with a dark sense of humor with no motivation to go on a shooting rampage and being that he met the criteria mentioned, it would be irresponsible not to make the steps, that should have, been taken in the past. This was a case worth looking into and law enforcement had every right, in my opinion, to handle the situation as a threat.
Law enforcement shouldn't wait to take action AFTER a crime has been committed, that's why it says "LIKELY to incite imminent lawless action"
Colin Ashby: T/TH 12:30PM
Law enforcement had good cause to investigate the Facebook comment and take action.
The kid's past included suicide threats, depression, and other comments about being different. Carter didn't seem to inciting violent action but his comment shouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment
Law enforcement looked at the kid's past (which included triggers that previous school shooters have had) and make a good call on what to do.
This incident reminds me of the recent fiasco involving a tweet that a 14 year old girl from the Netherlands send to American Airlines, telling them that she was a terrorist and was "going to do something big" on June 1st. She was later arrested.
If people post trigger/keywords, law enforcement should intervene to investigate
Yet again, I understand both sides and feel really conflicted about this issue. On one hand, if there was no follow-up to the Facebook comment, kids might see their words as yielding no consequences. Colin Ashby brought up an interesting, recent example of something similar. A teen girl tweeted a "joke" (and several back-peddling tweets after) and was arrested as a result. Yes, she's just a dumb teenager, but there was a chance (albeit a slim one) that she was serious. I guess my bottom line is that I would rather law enforcement be safe than sorry.
Amanda R., TTh 12:30 p.m.
Fantasia Valencia (T/TH 12:30)
After reading the article I understand where the police was coming from when wanting to arrest Justin Carter after his Facebook post. I also believe after he was arrested and nothing was found in his home to prove evidence behind the Facebook post his comments should have been forgotten. People post crazy comments all the time on Facebook. I think this case was looked at seriously solely because it was after the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. The Brandenburg v. Ohio case tells us when there is no imminent lawless action we are protected by the first amendment. Since Carter's post was not a clear and present danger I believe the charges should have been dropped.
Though I do not agree with the things said by Justin Carter, I do think the backlash from his comments extreme. His comments were not a call to action . There was no real threat in his post and when searching his home there was nothing showing him was going to act on his words. His comments should be protected speech under the First Amendment. but because of the situation of Carter's comment he could be facing a lot of jail time. It shows that on social media you must always be truthful and watch the things you post or say.
Caitlin Bogard (TTH 12:30)
People always post things on Facebook that are inaproppriate and dramatic, but this does not mean that you should threaten people or places over the internet. Since our world has turned into a place where we have to be concered about shootings at schools or army bases we do need to look out for people who say things like this.
In this case with Carter saying something like this just months after Sandy Hook, I could see why government would be on high alert. But since it was a younger child they should have investigated the case more before arresting him.
Yes, the student has a First Amendment right to say what he feels, but when it comes to threatening people's life it is a charge that should be taken seriously and looked into. He should be fined, take his Facebook down any serious punishment, but not arrested.
konrad carlson(tth1230)
The biggest thing that can be learned from this case is if your upset do not post on your social media accounts. Even if you don't mean what you are saying somebody will end up taking it serious. It not worth risking 10 years in prison to post something that is meaningless.
Madison Wilson TTH
Wow! This case is pretty outrageous. I think the ending comments from Flanary really sum up how wrongly this case was handled.
"First you prove the crime, then you get the punishment."
I don't think Justin Carter was smart in joking around on a public web domain about shooting up an elementary school in such a short time frame after the Sandy Hook incident.
Nooo, not smart at all. I thought he was supposed to be a "nerd"?
When it comes down to it, there was a huge lack of evidence for the case to have blown up that big with a half a million dollar bond and hefty prison sentence.
It's really disappointing to see how helpless Carter was when dealing with the criminal justice system when, in my opinion, there is no criminal in this case.
If this idiot of a student decided to post on Facebook that he was going to shoot up an elementary school, then no absolutely not his freedom of speech is NOT protected.
Is this even a real question? I understand he is young, but after such events, this is considered a serious threat. He should be punished, and if not, then I would like to punish him myself.
Oops forgot to put my class.
T-Th 12:30
Anna Ochoa
Plain and simple, I think he'll be let go. Think of the cross-burning cases, or even when Westboro church said such awful things at the funeral of a fallen soldier, under the first amendment they did not spark violence, nor did any result from it. Extremely distasteful and untimely? You betcha. But, if this is allowed to be punishable with nothing happening after a "vague" comment made (no specific school or people), then it would be a form of censorship that does not need to happen. The dude needs help for sure and does not deserve to be around anybody else for that matter, but under the FA, I VERY RELUCTANTLY say that he is justified.
Shelby Gehrels M 2:00
This situation is definitely a tricky one. The wording of what he said specifically shows a threat, which is illegal. Because he said he was going to shoot up a kindergarden, free speech is not protected. Safety comes before free speech in this instance. The kid clearly has instability issues going on, there is no telling what he would do, therefore we should not just wait around for something to happen.
Where it gets tricky is the evidence... Why could they not find the thread of the "love" girl. It gets confusing.
All in all he should not be protected because he is posting a real threat to society.
Casandra Medina T/Th 12:30
Although he should not be threatening to shoot up a kindergarten, which is just an awful, stupid thing to say, we cannot censor people especially on their own personal Facebook pages. I absolutely think what he said was stupid and definitely uncalled for, but he did not shoot up the school and the police didn't even find weapons at his residence.
Katie Peloquin (TTH)
Unfortunately,I think that his speech is protected by the first amendement because of the lack of evidence, how vague his comments were, and the lack of a specific call to action. However, I do think that once tipped off, law enforcement are completely justified in treating the comments as a serious threat and doing an investigation. Luckily they got him before he could actually do anything, but that also means he could get away with it because they can't prove that something would have happened. If it were up to me I'd keep him locked up to just teach him a lesson if nothing else.
I think Flanary is right, what Carter said should be protected by the First Amendment. What Carter said might have been taken out of context since not the whole Facebook thread was read, and there was not real or at least enough evidence of Carter making a call to action. Although it makes no sense to me why he would say those things in a public forum especially after an incident like Sandy Hook Elementary, it sounds to me like Carter was just stating his opinion.
Valeria G. T/TH
Media Law TTH 12:30pm
This has definitely been an interesting read. Let's address the issue first, "is Carter really a threat?" Was there a clear and present danger? In my opinion authorities took this way too far. I understand that what Carter said was distasteful and that he picked a bad time to say something like that (after the Sandy Hooks shooting) but in my opinion it's just a messed up kid that doesn't know how to filter what he says. Facebook is a place where people express themselves and at times we might not like what people say. In this case I believe something needed to be done, but they should have approached the issue differently. A mental screening? I feel like they had little to none evidence to put him in jail. I understand why the police wanted to follow up. It's just contradicting with other things we've covered in class. It made someone scared, "Hannah Love," someone we don't even really know. Did this really reach a lot of people? It just seems like all of this is really unclear to say he was an actual danger.
This is a really tricky and interesting case in my opinion because really how far can you go with saying something that could be potentially dangerous and be "just kidding". Who is really the judge of what is crossing the line or not. I find that there has been many times when I know plenty of us have said something on facebook or any social media that if taken seriously could be harmful but that's just the way some people talk and express themselves.Some people have a darker sense of humor than others. I get that Carter's comments were offensive but they didn't find anything in his house that could lead the police to believe that he was of an danger to himself and anyone else. Like I said previously, it is quite tricky because a simple comment that could be harmless in your eyes could now wind you up in jail depending on who reads it. It's good to be cautious of course and I completely get why the police followed up on it but I don't understand why he was taken to jail. Overall, I get why the comments would be of concern in this particular case and his background with his ex and the restraining order doesn't seem to help out the situation but it also makes me think in general terms and wonder what is crossing the line or not and how can you prove your dark sense of humor to a judge if you were ever put in that situation.
Claudia Salazar
TTH 12:30
Also, I had posted a link about Drake on the Facebook page but I just realized that my name on facebook is Klaudia Escobar. Sorry for the confusion.
Molly Vochatzer (T-TH 12:30 class)
This was an interesting read, especially because it happened so close to home and was such a huge case. I'm torn about how I feel about everything that happened. In relations to imminent lawless action standard, I feel that Carter did present a "clear and present danger" threat because the words he used about shooting up a kindergarten and eating the hearts of the students is not something to be taken lightly - therefore, I feel that the government was definitely right for intervening and taking it seriously...especially after the events that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary. There are so many other traumatic events that have occurred other than Sandy Hook that leave the government with no choice but to take action against threats said online - whether the person who said them meant them or not. On the other hand, I do agree with Carter's attorney about how it's not fair that he is being charged when they are making their decision based off of a screenshot on someone's phone. I believe that to make a fair charge then the jury should have to see ALL of the things that were said on the thread so that they have a better idea about if Carter was being serious or not. Again, I'm torn about what the right thing is in this specific case and it definitely made me do a lot of thinking about media law and what I would decide if I were part of the jury.
Molly Vochatzer (T-TH 12:30 class)
This was an interesting read, especially because it happened so close to home and was such a huge case. I'm torn about how I feel about everything that happened. In relations to imminent lawless action standard, I feel that Carter did present a "clear and present danger" threat because the words he used about shooting up a kindergarten and eating the hearts of the students is not something to be taken lightly - therefore, I feel that the government was definitely right for intervening and taking it seriously...especially after the events that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary. There are so many other traumatic events that have occurred other than Sandy Hook that leave the government with no choice but to take action against threats said online - whether the person who said them meant them or not. On the other hand, I do agree with Carter's attorney about how it's not fair that he is being charged when they are making their decision based off of a screenshot on someone's phone. I believe that to make a fair charge then the jury should have to see ALL of the things that were said on the thread so that they have a better idea about if Carter was being serious or not. Again, I'm torn about what the right thing is in this specific case and it definitely made me do a lot of thinking about media law and what I would decide if I were part of the jury.
Social Media posts generally carry such a subjective nature to them, that society is forced to make examples out of people that choose to post things like this. Unfortunately, sometimes pain breeds understanding.
Taylor Alanis
ITV Mondays
I agree with quite a bit of people about how Carter didnt say these things as a call to action. i do believe the police should have followed up on this threat and questioned carter especially about his intentions but i don't think he should be in jail. Especially because his bail is excessive. I do agree that maybe previous facebook posts show that he is disturbed but i think this case has gone on too long. i don't believe he was serious about what he said and i do understand why his lawyer is arguing that a child shouldnt be in jail with dangerous people. It is sad that he got sexually assaulted and yes "facebook matter" and you should watch what you say on the web. it is just sad to see how a conversation that probably was not thought out and took only a few minutes to post is now costing Carter possibly his life (as in prison and threats to his safety)
I can see why he was brought in to begin with. He posted on a public forum about shooting up an Elementary school which is a touchy subject to begin with. Then add Sandy Hook on top of that. Kidding or not you have to watch what you post. Does he need to be charged? Yes. Does he need to be in jail for 10 years (I believe thats what the verdict was?) No. Especially after after the police looked into it it didnt seem that the kid had serious intentions. (It sounds more like he has depression issues that need to be sought with, which i know is irrelevant.)
In the end, his words caused an uproar and violated safety. Which is something you can not do.
Honestly, I'd be lying if I didn't admit feeling like they were a bit too harsh on him, but these days too many horrible things go on, and many with potential warning signs that if someone had taken seriously could have prevented such tragedies. I feel like to start awareness about a certain topic, there needs to always be those extreme cases that people look on as an example not to do something, and in this case I believe that he is one of those examples about the seriousness of things you may post on the internet.
Post a Comment