Hacker News Reader

Comment by alan_cx | Hacker News Reader

"But threatening to shoot up a school, in the light of recent events... really? "

Yes, absolutely, really. If you are in playground type ranting slanging match, you go of the most extreme things to say, which could cause shock in the recipient. Right now, things like school shootings are the current shock fodder, and well in peoples minds. So people will use that subject. Same with pedophiles and terrorists. And of course, many strands of comedy also use this.

There is nothing whatsoever strange about this.

View on HN

I'd say it depends on the occasion. For instance, when Louis C.K. says something similar while performing a comedy show, it's absolutely clear that he's not actually going to shoot up a school. It's meant to shock his audience. When you're posting these things on the internet to people you probably don't even know in person (so they have no way to know wether you're joking or not), things can get hairy quickly.

I'm sure the person he made the threats to knew he was joking, and thought it would be a good troll to report him to the authorities. Bad taste aside, when you're not 100% certain your 'threat' won't be perceived as such, please don't write them down.

No, it does not depend on the occasion. It depends only whether or not there seemed to be an actual intent to do something terrible.

Teenagers say stupid shit all the time, sometimes just to see if they can out-shock or out-weird their friends. Especially online. The context of the conversation matters.

> Teenagers say stupid shit all the time

And sometimes they do stupid shit.

Some simple advice: don't shoot people, and don't threaten to shoot people. Threats can be very serious, and shouldn't be thrown about so casually.

And how is that clear that Louis C.K. will not blow up a school ?

Because of the context. What is the context in this case ? We don't know because the US justice system decided that context is not important.

We have freedom of speech. It's been established that apart from actual threats, or a couple of other instances (defamation, libel), this right is absolute. And this example is comedy, so it is clearly covered.

You are part of the problem.

OK, I'll bite. Because... why am I part of what problem exactly?

Your first response to this clear case of injustice amounts to "well it's understandable, we certainly can't blame the authorities for being vindictive idiots who destroyed this kid's life over a throwaway joke."

If enough people did blame the authorities, we wouldn't have the horrible system we have. It wouldn't even have to be a majority; we've made progress in the past based on a principled minority of citizens pulling their heads out of their asses. Since you apply the blame that should go to the "justice" system to its victims instead, you are part of the reason the system does not improve.

Whoa! Jumping to conclusions here! My first reaction was not that it's understandable and that we can't blame authorities. It was more 'we can't put 100% blame on the autorities'. Let me be very clear: I'm 100% pro freedom of speech. Everyone should be allowed to say/post whatever they want, no matter how deranged. Unfortunately, that's just not the reality we live in. The reality is that the US has become a surveillance state, and that you should mind what you post online. My point is that if you post stupid things like this on the internet, you can expect some consequences.

Side note 1: The fact that we're having this conversation shows that it's incredibly difficult to get all nuances of your opinion across over the internet.

Side note 2: Free speech in my opinion is the fact that you CAN say anything you want. It doesn't mean that you SHOULD.

I appreciate that you have a special nuanced opinion about this case, but nuance doesn't right wrongs. Tyranny thrives when people convince themselves that their "correct" behavior will keep them out of the woodchipper.

> I'd say it depends on the occasion.

But the "occasion" was not allowed as evidence (context of the posts).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com