Sharpen My Ax,The 1st Amendment

Godfather.

Brandon J. Raub, 26, has been in custody since FBI, Secret Service agents and police in Virginia's Chesterfield County questioned him Thursday evening about what they said were ominous posts talking about a coming revolution. In one message earlier this month according to authorities, Raub wrote: "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/20/ou ... z24B8jbZ00

I'm a little torn over this one....did the the FBI avoid a mass murder by detaining this guy ?
or are his 1st amendments being violated ?
where does "free speach" end and the threrat of violence begain ?
and how much of our "personal computer" activitys watched ? is this forum checked on by the FBI ?

Godfather.

fisherman

If I saw Mr. Raub's comments on facebook I would do what I could to try and get him help. There have been far too many incidences here in America when people just looked the other way and something bad ended up happening. He wasn't arrested for speaking his mind by the government he was questioned by FBI, Secret Service, and local police. After that conversation they had him speak with a mental health professional and at that time, based off the recommendations of the mental health professional, he was detained, probably to a mental health facility.

I had friends growing up that needed help and I didn't do anything and they went on for years fighting those demons on their own. I think it is up to each and everyone one of us to look out for each other and to know that there are people out there who can help.

I hope Mr. Raub gets the help he needs and he knows that his friends and family will always be there for him.

BinFrog

When people go on killing sprees, they always go back and find these kinds of posts and ask "why didn't this raise any red flags?". So when someone is finally confronted and assessed BEFORE committing any crimes, I don't have a huge problem. When someone says they have sharpened their axe and are ready to sever heads, I'm cool with a little precautionary mental check-up.

If you don't want to alarm anyone and have them question your mental state and ability to function is society, don't publicly state that you are ready to cut off people's heads. Not really much of an issue here.

Godfather.

I have to agree with both of you guys.

Godfather.

brianlux

A good example of how you can have both freedom of speech (well, sort of, you know) and consequences what what you say.

hedonist

BinFrog wrote:

When people go on killing sprees, they always go back and find these kinds of posts and ask "why didn't this raise any red flags?". So when someone is finally confronted and assessed BEFORE committing any crimes, I don't have a huge problem. When someone says they have sharpened their axe and are ready to sever heads, I'm cool with a little precautionary mental check-up.

If you don't want to alarm anyone and have them question your mental state and ability to function is society, don't publicly state that you are ready to cut off people's heads. Not really much of an issue here.

Well said, BF.

Speak! Speak loud! But be prepared to reap what you (say you will) sow.

Cosmo

BinFrog wrote:

When people go on killing sprees, they always go back and find these kinds of posts and ask "why didn't this raise any red flags?". So when someone is finally confronted and assessed BEFORE committing any crimes, I don't have a huge problem. When someone says they have sharpened their axe and are ready to sever heads, I'm cool with a little precautionary mental check-up.

If you don't want to alarm anyone and have them question your mental state and ability to function is society, don't publicly state that you are ready to cut off people's heads. Not really much of an issue here.

...
If James Holmes posted on his Facebook page that he was going to shoot up a movie house... and police acted upon that information... detained him... confiscated all of his weapons and ammo... what?
I mean, it is easy to sit and say, 'That would have been the right thing to do'... with the luxury of hindsight and knowing what the results are. But, would it have? Holmes was a law abiding citizen who was protected by the First Amendment of Free Speech in a public forum and the Second Amendment to own firearms before the shootings... and if the shootings had never occurred, he would still be a law abiding citizen... right?

Zoso

it's a red flag... if he says stuff like that then he has no right to freedom of speech or freedom.. he should be charged and sentenced.

BinFrog

Cosmo wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

When people go on killing sprees, they always go back and find these kinds of posts and ask "why didn't this raise any red flags?". So when someone is finally confronted and assessed BEFORE committing any crimes, I don't have a huge problem. When someone says they have sharpened their axe and are ready to sever heads, I'm cool with a little precautionary mental check-up.

If you don't want to alarm anyone and have them question your mental state and ability to function is society, don't publicly state that you are ready to cut off people's heads. Not really much of an issue here.

...
If James Holmes posted on his Facebook page that he was going to shoot up a movie house... and police acted upon that information... detained him... confiscated all of his weapons and ammo... what?
I mean, it is easy to sit and say, 'That would have been the right thing to do'... with the luxury of hindsight and knowing what the results are. But, would it have? Holmes was a law abiding citizen who was protected by the First Amendment of Free Speech in a public forum and the Second Amendment to own firearms before the shootings... and if the shootings had never occurred, he would still be a law abiding citizen... right?

No. Publicly stating that you are about to go on a shooting spree in the movie theater is enough cause to warrant arresting the guy. He had freedom of speech, and he lawfully owned weapons. That's completely independent of using your freedom of speech to declare that you are about the break the law by using your weapons for mass murder and creating public hysteria. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that there won't be repercussions. You have the freedom to declare that you mean ill will towards a political figure...but rest assured you will be monitored or interrogated once you make those claims public.

blackredyellow

The problem with stories like this, is that we only see a couple of quotes or posts on the news. But when the authorities were looking into him after being notified about the threatening posts, who knows what else they found or what this clown even said to him. There could have been more threatening and more specific things that they've founds.

Zoso

thank god this thread hasn't turned into to a freedom of speech argument :roll:

MotoDC

brianlux wrote:

A good example of how you can have both freedom of speech (well, sort of, you know) and consequences what what you say.

Without regard to the current topic specifically, I have to disagree. For me, the critical dividing line between "free speech with consequences" and all-out "restriction of free speech" is whether those consequences are enforced by the government.

Chik-fil-a is a perfect example of "free speech with consequences", as long as Boston's mayor (or wherever it was) doesn't use his office to prevent them from doing business.

In this particular case -- and I'm anything but a constitutional attorney -- aren't there explicit limitations to the 1st amendment when the speech can be construed as an incitement to riot or unrest? That is, the gov't has a duty to keep the peace, such that speech that threatens that peace can be legally restricted.

edit: haha, sorry Zoso. But Brian started it!!

mikepegg44

MotoDC wrote:

brianlux wrote:

A good example of how you can have both freedom of speech (well, sort of, you know) and consequences what what you say.

Without regard to the current topic specifically, I have to disagree. For me, the critical dividing line between "free speech with consequences" and all-out "restriction of free speech" is whether those consequences are enforced by the government.

Chik-fil-a is a perfect example of "free speech with consequences", as long as Boston's mayor (or wherever it was) doesn't use his office to prevent them from doing business.

In this particular case -- and I'm anything but a constitutional attorney -- aren't there explicit limitations to the 1st amendment when the speech can be construed as an incitement to riot or unrest? That is, the gov't has a duty to keep the peace, such that speech that threatens that peace can be legally restricted.

edit: haha, sorry Zoso. But Brian started it!!

Correct, but I don't think what he wrote is tantamount to inciting a riot. The fact that they are detaining him against his will for words gets dangerously close to minority report thought police doesn't it?

MotoDC

mikepegg44 wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Without regard to the current topic specifically, I have to disagree. For me, the critical dividing line between "free speech with consequences" and all-out "restriction of free speech" is whether those consequences are enforced by the government.

Chik-fil-a is a perfect example of "free speech with consequences", as long as Boston's mayor (or wherever it was) doesn't use his office to prevent them from doing business.

In this particular case -- and I'm anything but a constitutional attorney -- aren't there explicit limitations to the 1st amendment when the speech can be construed as an incitement to riot or unrest? That is, the gov't has a duty to keep the peace, such that speech that threatens that peace can be legally restricted.

edit: haha, sorry Zoso. But Brian started it!!

Correct, but I don't think what he wrote is tantamount to inciting a riot. The fact that they are detaining him against his will for words gets dangerously close to minority report thought police doesn't it?

It does seem a bit reactionary. Meaning if Aurora hadn't happened so recently, I wonder if this ax sharpener guy would have been detained/arrested.

blackredyellow

mikepegg44 wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

brianlux wrote:

A good example of how you can have both freedom of speech (well, sort of, you know) and consequences what what you say.

Without regard to the current topic specifically, I have to disagree. For me, the critical dividing line between "free speech with consequences" and all-out "restriction of free speech" is whether those consequences are enforced by the government.

Chik-fil-a is a perfect example of "free speech with consequences", as long as Boston's mayor (or wherever it was) doesn't use his office to prevent them from doing business.

In this particular case -- and I'm anything but a constitutional attorney -- aren't there explicit limitations to the 1st amendment when the speech can be construed as an incitement to riot or unrest? That is, the gov't has a duty to keep the peace, such that speech that threatens that peace can be legally restricted.

edit: haha, sorry Zoso. But Brian started it!!

Correct, but I don't think what he wrote is tantamount to inciting a riot. The fact that they are detaining him against his will for words gets dangerously close to minority report thought police doesn't it?

But like I said, (like most news stories) we don't know all the details. There may have been MUCH more than the one post in the article, and even when police when to see him, he could have been ranting or acting all sorts of crazy. If he tells the cops he's going to kill people (or whatever), they can't just leave, and hope he doesn't, can they? If something then happened, all the reactionary people mad about this story would be calling for the cops' jobs if they left.

FrankieG

Godfather. wrote:

In one message earlier this month according to authorities, Raub wrote: "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads."

I disagree with the arrest/questioning. I take this more as a figure of speech rather than a threat.

Of course it is very hard to draw this line...

mikepegg44

blackredyellow wrote:

But like I said, (like most news stories) we don't know all the details. There may have been MUCH more than the one post in the article, and even when police when to see him, he could have been ranting or acting all sorts of crazy. If he tells the cops he's going to kill people (or whatever), they can't just leave, and hope he doesn't, can they? If something then happened, all the reactionary people mad about this story would be calling for the cops' jobs if they left.

Say what you will about Kokesh, but here is an interview with the Man himself

http://youtu.be/sX1EvM6XksM

He probably was uncooperative from the sounds of it...maybe that is why it has gone further than it normally would have.

He certainly doesn't sound crazy, but that doesn't mean he isn't potentially violent. I just am leery and probably a little scared of a government that promotes thought crime prevention. I see the benefits I suppose, just don't agree with the actions...

but one has to wonder if he was more cooperative would he have been committed for 30 days. Either way, it is ridiculous that someone was arrested for a facebook post that was neither specific nor different from a lot of what I see posted in forums and elsewhere

Cosmo

BinFrog wrote:

No. Publicly stating that you are about to go on a shooting spree in the movie theater is enough cause to warrant arresting the guy. He had freedom of speech, and he lawfully owned weapons. That's completely independent of using your freedom of speech to declare that you are about the break the law by using your weapons for mass murder and creating public hysteria. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that there won't be repercussions. You have the freedom to declare that you mean ill will towards a political figure...but rest assured you will be monitored or interrogated once you make those claims public.

...
I'm just trying to raise some Constitutional issues. I understand the consequences of free speech... the typical on is screaming fire in a crowded theater. It is a violation as long as there in NOT a fire in the theater... if there is, it becomes an alarm.
Becuase no one is truely clairvoyant, no one can see the outcome of future events. I understand taking pre-cautions to prevent tragedies... but, the problem is, we don't know about tragedies until they actually occur, right?
I'm all for screening people... for example, the individual citizen that stock piles weapons and ammunition and builds a fucking arsenal. But, as long as that person has not done anything illegal... why treat him as a criminal? I agree, he poses a possible threat in the future, but do we really want to go down that path?

Godfather.

Cosmo wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

No. Publicly stating that you are about to go on a shooting spree in the movie theater is enough cause to warrant arresting the guy. He had freedom of speech, and he lawfully owned weapons. That's completely independent of using your freedom of speech to declare that you are about the break the law by using your weapons for mass murder and creating public hysteria. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that there won't be repercussions. You have the freedom to declare that you mean ill will towards a political figure...but rest assured you will be monitored or interrogated once you make those claims public.

...
I'm just trying to raise some Constitutional issues. I understand the consequences of free speech... the typical on is screaming fire in a crowded theater. It is a violation as long as there in NOT a fire in the theater... if there is, it becomes an alarm.
Becuase no one is truely clairvoyant, no one can see the outcome of future events. I understand taking pre-cautions to prevent tragedies... but, the problem is, we don't know about tragedies until they actually occur, right?
I'm all for screening people... for example, the individual citizen that stock piles weapons and ammunition and builds a fucking arsenal. But, as long as that person has not done anything illegal... why treat him as a criminal? I agree, he poses a possible threat in the future, but do we really want to go down that path?

just saw this add on craigs list.....



PartEE favorS for your LandscapinG Talents (Spring Valley)

---

Date: 2012-08-22, 9:03AM PDT
Reply to this post
Reply to: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:dnmgx-3222106138@sale.craigslist.org">dnmgx-3222106138@sale.craigslist.org</a><!-- e --> [Errors when replying to ads?]

---

I'm looking for a landscaper who can I can trade party favors for labor....
MUST have own lawn mower and experience in yard work
Tina and I are looking forward to hearing from you
TEXT or CALL
six-1-nine
2-zero-3
five-one-4-six
thanks

WTF ???does drug dealing on the net fall under the free speach ammendment ???

Godfather.

hedonist

Godfather. wrote:

just saw this add on craigs list.....



PartEE favorS for your LandscapinG Talents (Spring Valley)

---

Date: 2012-08-22, 9:03AM PDT
Reply to this post
Reply to: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:dnmgx-3222106138@sale.craigslist.org">dnmgx-3222106138@sale.craigslist.org</a><!-- e --> [Errors when replying to ads?]

---

I'm looking for a landscaper who can I can trade party favors for labor....
MUST have own lawn mower and experience in yard work
Tina and I are looking forward to hearing from you
TEXT or CALL
six-1-nine
2-zero-3
five-one-4-six
thanks

WTF ???does drug dealing on the net fall under the free speach ammendment ???

Godfather.

I wonder what he means by "PartEE favorS"? Surely he's not dumb enough to announce "Get yer illegal drugs here!"...is he?

(and I wonder if Tina is aware of this offer)

I'm a huge fan of the barter system, though.

Godfather.

hedonist wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

just saw this add on craigs list.....



PartEE favorS for your LandscapinG Talents (Spring Valley)

---

Date: 2012-08-22, 9:03AM PDT
Reply to this post
Reply to: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:dnmgx-3222106138@sale.craigslist.org">dnmgx-3222106138@sale.craigslist.org</a><!-- e --> [Errors when replying to ads?]

---

I'm looking for a landscaper who can I can trade party favors for labor....
MUST have own lawn mower and experience in yard work
Tina and I are looking forward to hearing from you
TEXT or CALL
six-1-nine
2-zero-3
five-one-4-six
thanks

WTF ???does drug dealing on the net fall under the free speach ammendment ???

Godfather.

I wonder what he means by "PartEE favorS"? Surely he's not dumb enough to announce "Get yer illegal drugs here!"...is he?

(and I wonder if Tina is aware of this offer)

I'm a huge fan of the barter system, though.

Springvalley is well known for it's partEE favors I just can't believe people would post anything like this...ummmmm :think: they could be cops doing a sting....

Godfather.