Petition to release Cameron D'Ambrosio
cms.fightforthefuture.org
cms.fightforthefuture.org
"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.
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...
"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....
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, there are parties other than blue and red.
And to whomever says that a vote for a third party is a vote wasted -- congrats. You're one reason this country is in such a mess.
Two teams play the exact same game on the exact same field. They wear different colors, but that's entirely superficial -- it has nothing at all to do with the game being played.
How can we demonstrate that this is different?
1) He repeatedly posted anti-government statements on Facebook among other sites
2) He posted supposedly threatening rap lyrics invoking Boston and the White House
3) They arrested him for making terrorist threats
This is what's known as a trial balloon. When fascists silence freedom of speech, they don't do it by rounding up millions, they do it by making a few public examples, and everybody else learns what not to say. Through this process it becomes extraordinarily easy to bring an entire population into compliance with new restrictions on speech, without actually altering any Constitutional amendments.
There is nothing wrong or outrageous about assuming that someone who makes such claims has far-right political leanings.
I suspect there may be one because the site is one that I've seen lie about the contents of bills while urging people to donate money. This does not instill confidence in their reporting.
"[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.
From his rap: "Every day with a life of crime, and I'm always screwing up my life"
Yeah!! That's pretty accurate.
Our government - $6.3 trillion in total expenditures (size of Japan's total economy) - is so massive it's effectively impossible to check its power or keep track of it. Nobody could ever afford to do so, and so the abuse of power sprawls.
Eh? Deny, yes, but 'insult'? What?
The Holocaust and Nazism are special things, by the way. You can still speak out against Germany.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
To be fair, there are semantic arguments about the nature of "freedom" to be had. But I, for one, don't find your example to contradict the notion of freedom as a binary proposition in the slightest. But I wouldn't contend to have a "freedom to blast music at 3am" in the first place, if you take "blast" to mean "play at such a volume that it interferes with the ability of my neighbor to sleep". shrug
I never said "they hate us because we're free". I said that people want to hurt the Western freedoms. Big difference. I am not justifying the actions by any gov't, but ignoring the reality on the ground is equivalent to burying your head in the sand and hoping the bad guys go away.
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?
I hear you, and while I agree with you principle....I suspect that if you were President, you would probably be doing similar things.
The mere fact that Obama, who bashed Bush for doing these same things, has gone further than Bush to "protect the motherland" is testament to the enormous pressures on the office of POTUS to prevent major attacks on the homeland.
Also...."give me Liberty or give me Death" is a nice trope to roll off your tongue when you aren't a victim of terrorism. I am not saying you are (or aren't). But...quite frequently, many people like to cling to theoretical ideals until they are tested (either experiencing some tragic terrorist event, in this case, that could have been "easily" stopped - or being the 1 person responsible for the safety of everybody else).
Either way, these issues are not easy and sticking dogmatically to tropes - despite a changing environment - is not likely a prudent strategy.
I don't like the ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties as the next guy, but at the same time....there must be a line on what people are allowed to do and say.
When did Obama do that?
Obama criticized Bush for Iraq. (Rightly so IMO.) However the war on terror was something he was always supportive of. For example he was one of the relatively few Democrats who voted to give the telecoms retroactive immunity for handing over illegal wiretaps.
Now lots of other liberals criticized Bush on those grounds. But I don't remember Obama doing so. (And if he did, it was probably to throw some red meat. In 2007 when I researched him, Obama was clearly conservative for a Democrat.
If history tells us anything, it is that time and time again, governments are the principal actors in massacres and globe-spanning wars. They are the time-tested source of evil, no doubt about it.
I realize you didn't have a holocaust of your own in the USA, but surely you can learn from history.
A frightfully common misconception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_Sta...
We have also had a slavery based economy with unspeakable cruelty and concentration camps (though not death camps, to America's credit...) for Japanese Americans during WWII. In more modern times we have additional examples of atrocities, many of them ongoing. If you look outside of the boarders the picture becomes even worse.
Nevertheless, the myth of the benevolent American government persists. Somehow historical atrocities, (relatively) small scale modern domestic atrocities, and atrocities that do not take place within the borders do not count. Current American government being good seems to be axiomatic to a disturbing portion of American citizens. It is assumed that our government is good and from that assumption explanations for everything are developed.
You really swallowed 'they hate us for our freedom' hook, line and sinker, didn't you?
> If they didn't act on it, and this kid did in fact do something, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation now.
You're arguing that we should prosecute thought-crime, because it might result in a real-world crime? Wow.
> 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.
A classic: making an assumption about how others would feel based on your own feelings.
This is common propoganda, but is it true? I have no doubt people dislike our country, but do doubt that it is because of our democratic ideals....
...
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."
I agree that living in a free society comes with a cost, but it's pretty clear that this man's right to free speech is being violated. Also, the fact that there are countries with horrible human rights violations doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the USA is truly a "free society."
A free society is a relative term. Free from tyranny, free from government oppression. Free from gov't interference. Those are all relative to those things happening (or happened) elsewhere. Regardless, I hear you on his rights being violated.
Let's assume for a minute that this was a credible threat and the FBI didn't follow up on it like this. Let's say he did do another bombing and killed 20 people, who would you blame?
It wasn't, which renders the whole rest of your point moot.
The kind of bad logic you're espousing is exactly what gets us zero tolerance laws, that in which any means are acceptable, no matter how absurd, if what it's preventing is bad enough.
It's outsourcing of judgement, something which has shades of grey, to a law, which has only black and white. This is not EVER a good idea.
How far are you willing to go stop a school shooting? Trample all over the first AND second amendments? Put the TSA at the front entrance of every school?
I find it very.... odd, that someone who can grok the nuance that "freedom" is a relative term is unable to understand that same nuance applies to other things as well.
From 2010, a story about a child who took a tiny toy gun (part of a lego figure) to school. The principal was going to suspend him, but checked with an official from the local education department.
(http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/big_brouhaha_ov...)
Yes, the US isn't Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, etc. The problem is that it is heading in the wrong direction. We are becoming more hate filled, more suspicious, less empathetic, more of a police state, and more tyrannical. That the first derivative of these things is heading in the negative direction is exceedingly worrying because the acceleration curve tends to steepen, and, as a result, the tyranny grows rapidly.
The lack of empathy you've displayed is exactly the problem. More concern for "just desserts" than for compassion and humanity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.