The government shouldn't be able to track your online act-

I am going to nuke USA tomorrow how much are you going to charge me for that threat

>freedom of speech means freedom of consequences

So what you're saying is a call for change should be a crime if it upsets pulic order?

>i support freedom of speech except when the government says i shouldn't
no, your free speech ends where your actions begin.
fuck off statist

I could see this easily abused. Some edgy fag could decide to "prank" his friend by making threats on his friends ip. I doubt they do any kind of intensive research other than "it was your ip you must have done it". I remember There was an incident a little while back where a guy got swatted and killed over a video gayme fight. The problem is that the guy who got killed wasn't even involved in the actual dispute. One of the fags fighting fake doxed himself with the innocent guy's name and address. The cops raided this random guys house and shot him dead when he opened the door. He had no idea what was even going on because he wasn't even involved in the fight that led to the swatting. This makes me think that they do no actual investigative work. Likely because it's more cost effective to arrest or kill a disposable rando than the money it costs to actually prove a crime was committed by the suspect.

i have no problem with this. this is the modern day analog of someone overhearing someone making a bomb threat to the school and them calling police with a description of them.

the REAL problem comes when law enforcement act on their own volition and start going after people online. when they do that, more often than not, the spineless companies willingly give up whatever info they request, no warrant needed.

forgot to add: someone making a bomb threat on a payphone in public

Would you support it if muslims came walking down your streets, wearing "sharia police" uniforms and ask every woman they meet to wear a hijab?
Would you defend them when they're discussing bombings and running with cars through crowded areas?

quick clarification
>discussing bombings and running with cars through crowded areas?
both only discussed verbally

> I doubt they do any kind of intensive research other than "it was your ip you must have done it".
>Assuming the person paying the bills for an IP address is also the one responsible for all the activity that flows through it is "tenuous," according to the ruling by Judge Gary Brown of the U.S. District Court in Eastern New York.
>A federal judge in California went further: Geolocation systems used to identify the specific building assigned an IP address are so imprecise there's a 20 percent to 50 percent chance the accused doesn't even live in the same federal District Court jurisdiction their accusers claim they occupy, according to California District Court Judge Dean Pregerson in a decision issued May 1, but was reported only yesterday at TorrentFreak.
>A Florida state judge issued a similar ruling two weeks ago, confirming that an IP address is not a person. Together the two rulings potentially invalidate hundreds of thousands of convictions and undermine settlements many complain were the result of bullying, not solid evidence and effective litigation.
itworld.com/article/2726795/networking-hardware/courts-quash-copyright-trolls--recognize-ip-address-is-not-a-person.html

>Would you support it if muslims came walking down your streets, wearing "sharia police" uniforms and ask every woman they meet to wear a hijab?
should asking someone to wear something different really be a crime? is that the road you want to go down?
>Would you defend them when they're discussing bombings and running with cars through crowded areas?
oh, so now it's illegal to discuss terrorist acts?

So I take that as a yes then? Alright, fine with me.

torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/
rt.com/usa/ip-constitute-person-copyright-suit-973/
techland.time.com/2012/05/07/you-are-not-an-ip-address-rules-judge/
tomshardware.com/news/torrent-download-Piracy-IP-address-porn,15548.html

the short answer is yes, they have a right to ask you to wear a paper bag but they can not force you to.
they can even force you to on their own property, but not on yours.
and making any speech illegal is wrong.

Not them but what's wrong with people asking others to partake in their religious tenets? It's all perfectly fine until they actually employ the use of force.

"...intentionally say or do something which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities to be fearful of bodily harm..." -actual definition of intimidation
Saying that what you said is analogous to an actual plausible threat is a joke.
In this situation, "call for change" means "I want to get out of school". But if you threaten civilians as part of your "call for change", then there should be consequences.
There's an overlap between actions and speech, when your words give someone a legitimate reason to fear action, and thus waste resources trying to deal with them, is that not the same as an taking an action?

I hate mudslimes but their stance feminism is one thing I could support. If mudslimes can succeed in making feminism illegal I will gladly start making "refugees welcome" signs. Women's rights has done more damage to modern society than anything else as it has weakened the family unit and shifted power from the individual and the family to the state. The standard of living for both sexes was way higher before women destroyed the higher education and job sectors.

>when your words give someone a legitimate reason to fear action

>when your words give someone a legitimate reason to fear action
so i should be able to police peoples words based on emotions?
> and thus waste resources trying to deal with them,
deal with what? deal with mean words?
> is that not the same as an taking an action?
nope

we have precedents with muslims, pic related. jehovah's witnesses with smiles walking around knocking on doors arent then later knifing people on the subway.

Stupid gunfags will fuck up the internet because of their little retarded hobby.

>In this situation
What happened to the good shit you were talking earlier?
>Your free speech ends when it directly costs other people time, effort, and money to keep public order

> jehovah's witnesses with smiles walking around knocking on doors arent then later knifing people on the subway.
surely you understand the difference between talking about religion and using force in any fashion

Everything except the "ask" and "discussing" parts have nothing to do with speech. Any speech is okay speech as long as it's not directly and imminently causing danger to others or infringing on their rights.

And as soon as they move to take such action you should be free to shoot them.

Are you saying that the school who was targeted by this threat should have just laughed it off and done nothing about it, and if there was a shooting, say "oh well, there was nothing we could do"? Try to find out if it was credible, waste state resources finding out it was a hoax, and then not at all reprimand him for his action of trying to mislead the public?
I don't see what point you're trying to make here.

You're free to paste another sticker over that one that denounces shariah.

>potentially invalidate hundreds of thousands of convictions
>hundreds of thousands
So yeah like I said it's cheaper and easier to falsely arrest disposable randos without following the actual law. Do you think all these people magically got set free? Do you think they won't arrest more people now that the narrative is focused on how blatant these school shooter fags are on social media?

I just took him for the type of person who'd disagree with what he said earlier in this context. looks like i was wrong and he stands by his principle.

How can you have freedom of speech without freedom of consequences?

>the left is using school shootings to justify bigger and bigger government
Do not go to the harbor tomorrow, child, else you will be covered in hot tar and feathers and made to look as a chicken. A fitting punishment for loyalists to the crown.

>Are you saying that the school who was targeted by this threat should have just laughed it off and done nothing about it,
did i say that?
the school can do anything they want defensively. prevent that person from getting on school grounds, hiring security, closing school, or any other number of defensive actions
but the state has no right to jail someone for saying "i want to be a professional school shooter"
>ay "oh well, there was nothing we could do"?
except there is. it's just harder than going out and jailing anyone who says things that you dont like, right? God forbid we have a little inconvience.
>and then not at all reprimand him for his action of trying to mislead the public?
"mislead the public"? misleading the public should be a crime?

>Do you think all these people magically got set free?
No, because the state never follows its own court rulings. see: spying on americans
>Do you think they won't arrest more people now that the narrative is focused on how blatant these school shooter fags are on social media?
they already are

> Anericans think their free speech includes making terrorist claims
If Aghmed claimed he was going to bomb a school tomorrow everyone here would be singing a different tune

>the school can do anything they want defensively. prevent that person from getting on school grounds, hiring security, closing school, or any other number of defensive actions
>but the state has no right to jail someone for saying "i want to be a professional school shooter"
>except there is. it's just harder than going out and jailing anyone who says things that you dont like, right? God forbid we have a little inconvience.
Wasting state resources is a crime.

>Wasting state resources is a crime.
yeah no shit that's what this thread is about

It's Facebook. Only retards use it.

Yet he was arguing that he shouldn't have been arrested for his posts that the most sensible reaction to would be a waste of state resources because "they're only words"

Dont even try to argue with these cunts m8
They're the same loonies that claim if every child had a gun school shootings wouldn't happen

If we put armed gaurds in the school we wouldn't have a problem.

> schools have a serious funding problem
> teachers don't even have a budget for markers and other school supplies
> maybe if we put armed guards in every classroom this wouldn't happen
FUNFACT: the school had an armed guard on site and the shooting still happened

If the other students were properly trained and armed there would be no need to pay for armed guards. Free school security with survival instinct as the incentive instead of a "guberment paycheck", everybody wins.

This is my biggest problem with hardcore gun advocates. As long as the second amendment is in the constitution, I'll defend it as a civil liberty. but for crying out loud, this mentality just as one that refuses to examine the root of the problem and instead finds a gratuitous band-aid is just so asinine and shallow.

Banning guns only makes things worse. Then only criminals will own guns. Banning alcohol made things worse. Banning drugs made things worse. If you want to do anything that might be moderately effective I would say ban co-ed education. Most of these school shooter fags are "tfwngf" and "no male role models" have other "mens" issues that are ignored or amplified when in a co-ed environment. An all boy's school with all men teachers would do more to attempt to address the underlying problems than more guns or less guns.

They could have just cancelled school

>co-ed works everywhere in the world
>oh but not in america
That's a new one for me, never saw someone scapegoat co-ed.

>"I killed that man"
>gets thrown into jail
>"MUH RIGHTS"
That's what you sound like

I disagree with you, but is a fucking putz.

Don't arm students, just hire 3 unemployed veterans to guard the entrance. Maybe even some roof Koreans.

OP of here
You may disagree with me, but I actually don't disagree with you. There's a clear threat to public safety in the here and now that can be remedied with some bolstered perimeter.
I don't think that bolstered perimeter consists of handing guns to teenagers because teenagers are generally idiots.

Once again mens issues are made fun of and ignored. Raising these boys in an all male environment with strong male role models where they can learn how to be responsible productive and strong men will do more to address the issues and prevent these tragedies than putting them in the current pozed sjw environments where being a man is automatically "toxic". It would also be much easier to identify the troubled potential shooters because more attention would be given to them.

>far-left cucks
>wanting free speech

fuck, you're stupid.

Tits or gtfo

no u

You have to go back.

>post shit on public website without a VPN
>not expected to get tracked

what you are saying is partially true but not for the reasons you think. hating women is the fedora-tipper equivalent to SJW's crying about 'muhh patriarchy'

>yet (((they))) couldn't tell who made the youtube comments

This guy was MKULTRA'd...

>implying VPNs wouldn't turn you over at the drop of a hat

>Then people stop making threats and just carry out the act with no warning

checkmate FBI

That's nothing new in the Land of the Free.

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

So much for the first amendment.

>admitting to the crime ever

why

>I like to sit at home going about my usual business while ignoring my neighbours explicit death threats since it is their right to free speech

> start fightning free speech because it ___might___ cause damage to someone
> next time someone wants to do it, it'll do it without posting on FB first
Now you still geet school shooters AND no free speech.

honestly I can't wait for the internet to be completely de-anonymized

Life, work, and everything will be much more efficient. Along with getting rid of third worlders and every other bad thing that plagues the internet now.

>arm security at the school!
>they did
>w.. well, arm the students!
holy shit you are dumb