From The "What You Post Online, Counts" Department

[Sheepdog1968]

As to the link, she and another woman were having a strong disagreement and she posted a pic of her pointing a gun and wrote something that could be termed as a threat. Bad idea.

As for social media, I try to keep in mind whatever I write may be recalled at a later date. I am polite. If I disagree on an idea or thought with something and want to express an opinion (which I do less and less over time as it is the same discussions) I try to keep it professional and not personal. I can think of a few times (don't recall the details) where someone disagreed with me and made it a bit personal. Rather than reply and say anything I just never responded to it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I guess Big Brother really is watching.

Aarond

.

In this case, it wasn't Big Brother who was watching. It was one of Big Brother's little cousins running around who took a screenshot and reported it to Big Brother.

 

[leadcounsel]

In this case, it wasn't Big Brother who was watching. It was one of Big Brother's little cousins running around who took a screenshot and reported it to Big Brother.

Reminds me of 1984, the novel, and the children spies.

 

[DeepSouth]

Wow, thought police are alive and well.

The more I see stuff like this the more I realize we really are in a police state.

 

[Flynt]

I doubt the Virginia law and the actions of the cops would pass muster under this SCOTUS ruling:

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...reme-court-says-prosecutors-must-prove-intent

 

[justice06rr]

Facebook is rabidly anti-gun. Which is why I don't post any pictures or statuses related to firearms on my page. I posted a picture of a gun I was trying to sell to gun trading group and it was reported. A rifle just laying on my bedroom floor was "threatening."

The only time I mention firearms on FB is in THR-style advice. I would much rather be rid of Facebook altogether but with so many friends in the military across the country and around the world, it is worth keeping despite how they feel about the 2A.

There are many gun trader groups in FB. I'm not sure why you're post was flagged, but I'm pretty sure they are allowed on firearm trading/for sale groups.

You can even find a group for AR15's and AK47's, although they are seen by the media as evil black rifles (EBR's).

 

[Frank Ettin]

I doubt the Virginia law and the actions of the cops would pass muster under this SCOTUS ruling:

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...reme-court-says-prosecutors-must-prove-intent

Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly why you think that and exactly what legal analysis supports your opinion?

To actually understand the case, what it means, and how it might apply, you need to actually read the Supreme Court decision (Elonis v. U. S.(Supreme Court, No. 13–983, 2015)). You might notice, if you actually read the case, that the decision was based on an interpretation of the federal statute Elonis was accused of violating and whether or how that statute might apply to the particular facts of the case.

So really Elonis wouldn't have anything to do with Kristin Holmes and her difficulties under Virgina law.

 

[herrwalther]

There are many gun trader groups in FB. I'm not sure why you're post was flagged, but I'm pretty sure they are allowed on firearm trading/for sale groups.

At one point I was part of 5 such groups on FB. Wasn't really in a selling market but if something caught my eye, something could be worked out. Some were very local with a few hundred members and one was over five thousand. Admins can't keep out every anti that tries to slip through and be a fly in the ointment.

Not that case. There was a case of a man (ex?) posting to facebook things much worse (IMHO) about a lady. Best I remember from an npr story, there was no real danger because the guy was supposedly just 'venting', so there was no crime.

Oh that one. Haven't heard anything about that one. Thought you meant the SCOTUS case that made the rounds on FOX that day.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Big Brother and Orwells 1984 and Animal Farm have came to past.

 

[SSN Vet]

As we used to say back in my navy days...

Ya can't fix stupid!

 

[Jeff White]

Another example

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/th...ne-commenters-who-trashed-the-silk-road-judge

The Department of Justice has ordered libertarian website Reason.com to turn over the information of six commenters after they made threats against the federal judge who presided over the Silk Road trial.

Ken White of the blog Popehat obtained the grand jury subpoena issued by the Department of Justice last week, which demands "any and all identifying information” the website has pertaining to the threatening commenters. This includes email addresses, telephone numbers, IP addresses, and billing information associated with the accounts.

The subpoena targets users who commented on an article published on May 31st regarding a letter from Ross Ulbricht, the creator of online drug market Silk Road, pleading for leniency ahead of his sentencing for charges surrounding the site. The comments appeared after Judge Katherine Forrest gave Ulbricht two life sentences for his crimes.

“It’s judges like these that should be taken out back and shot,” a user named Agammamon wrote, according to the filing.

The comments are "very clearly not true threats"

“It’s judges like these that will be taken out back and shot. FTFY [fixed that for you].” a user named Alan replied (emphasis in the subpoena). Another user added: “Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.”...............The Department of Justice declined to explain how, exactly, it was alerted to the threatening comments on Reason.com, but a representative told Motherboard that “the US Marshal Service goal is ensure the safe and secure operation of the federal judiciary.”

“We do not discuss in detail our specific security measures or investigative procedures,” the representative said in an email. “However, we constantly assess our security posture and are ready to respond and actively investigate all threats and inappropriate communications.”....complete story at the link

 

[old lady new shooter]

“It’s judges like these that should be taken out back and shot,” a user named Agammamon wrote, according to the filing.

The comments are "very clearly not true threats"

Waitaminnit. The other guy was let off for making detailed threats to people in his immediate circle, on the rationale that he was just "venting", these internet commenters are clearly just armchair "warriors" and they're being followed up?!?

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Waitaminnit. The other guy was let off for making detailed threats to people in his immediate circle, on the rationale that he was just "venting", these internet commenters are clearly just armchair "warriors" and they're being followed up?!?

The final disposition of any of these situations will be decided based on a whole lot more information and evidence than we have here. You're looking at a tiny corner of the picture and trying to draw conclusions about what the whole picture looks like. That will never get you anywhere.

The bottom line here is that what you post on the Internet and have both social and legal consequences. You're out in public amongst strangers. Be prudent and discrete.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

Simply proof that you can be arrested for anything up to and including "eating a ham sandwich on Sunday."

"I'm going to find you and hurt you" is communicating a threat, "come find me and I'll protect myself" isn't; it's a warning.

I'll also not that nowhere does it say she has been convicted and I honestly doubt if the cops care as their purpose was achieved - making someone's day miserable in hopes that they won't do the same thing again. Not what official powers are supposed to be used for, however.

"It's actually against the law to say it in public," said Kevin Carroll (Fraternal Order of Police_. "It's a part of the disorderly conduct statute. If it's against the law to say it in public..why wouldn't it be against the law to say it to someone through a computer?"
Apparently anything you post on your PC that the public can see is the same as shouting it out in the public square.

 

[Tirod]

"Free speech doesn't say you have the right to insult somebody else or threaten them in any form."

Somebody never worked retail. The average American consumer is ok, most of the time, but work with enough of them during the day, somebody says something demeaning and attempts to put a clerk or service worker "in their place."

If we had "Courtesy Police" stationed at every checkout lane there would be arrests daily - at each register.

The average consumer no longer practices "Do unto others," they practice a much more selfish and imperious form of "you are subservient." Retail clerks can't give honest answers any more - they would face a hotline call to corporate and get fired. It's no wonder that when posting on line or hearing an opposing point of view, they jump ahead to the triple dog dare without any consideration of politeness.

Our political landscape offers them examples of going too far daily. Why should they throttle it back when they here one party is attempting to starve seniors to death, and the others are just moles trying to overthrow the government and institute a new socialist empire?

We just had to start bolstering self esteem with worthless tokens of minimal participation, as if they were Olympic level performance.

We just had to pose every political situation as being a no compromise solution, take it our way or not at all, rather than gain some incremental improvement.

We just had to paint it all black or white - the Nazis get hunted down into their old age, sure. But the people who made the decisions to incarcerate American citizens who just happened to be of Japanese descent? Free pass.

WE DON'T APPLY THE STANDARDS EQUALLY. Ethical fail. Don't expect the schools to do it - it runs too close to religious training and that isn't allowed, oh, NOOOOooo we can't have that! We MUST celebrate diversity above ALL!

Ok. We got diversity. Now we should be able to tolerate hate speech, death threats, etc if that was true. Obviously not. Real diversity isn't allowed - only politically correct speech that meets the ever shifting rules of an extremist group.

If you can't see that I might suggest you haven't been in the pot long enough to notice it's getting hot. And why some of us might discuss tactics, but we never say exactly what we actually plan to do.

We may try to inform those by explaining what we were taught, but OPSEC also means not saying certain things, too. And with the ITAR restrictions coming up, even that may be risky. One view is that it will require the .Gov to approve distribution of technical information BEFORE it's allowed.

Obviously we need to restrict free speech in order to build a brave new world. All part and parcel of the agenda.

 

[DHJenkins]

More proof that most social media platforms are more trouble than they're worth.

 

[OilyPablo]

More proof that most social media platforms are more trouble than they're worth.

Well THR isn't half bad. Some other decent forums as well. Also there are many many FB groups more pro 2nd than THR. When people say these things I can clearly see they are ignorant. And what I really like is the ability to educate. Not telling anyone to join FB but to say they are antigun isn't true and to completely abandon any media and leave it to the vacuum of the people against the Bill of Rights is just nuts.

 

[Jeff White]

This thread is not about which social media is best. It's about the possible consequences from things you post online.

 

[ACP]

that's no different from pointing a gun at another, unarmed person in a road rage incident when all they are doing is yelling at you.

stupid, stupid move by an assumed legal gun owner. hope you enjoyed your "rights and freedoms" while you had them. You obviously could not be trusted to use them correctly.

 

[MyGreenGuns]

There is a big difference between pointing a gun at someone in real life versus pointing a gun at a digital camera.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, what you post does count, when it is a threat. Imagine that.

 

[jrdolall]

I post on FB on a regular basis. My posts are ultra conservative and generally offensive to anyone with thin skin. I have put posts of Confederate Flags, guns, anti Liberal, etc and none have ever been reported or removed by FB.

If you are on the Web in any fashion then "THEY" can find you.
Got a cell phone? THEY can find you.
Got an email address? THEY can track your usage.

Social Media and the internet in general are no different than normal life. If you do something stupid like threatening someone (that can mean saying "I will stomp your A**) you can be arrested in today's world. An Alabama football player was actually arrested early this year for yelling that exact thing in public. All charges were dropped because nobody touched anyone but he was physically arrested for domestic abuse for yelling that phrase.
Point a gun at someone in real life and you can be arrested. Point a gun at someone on the internet and you can be arrested.

 

[stonecutter2]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...acebook-thugging-gun-selfie-article-1.2173529

Virginia woman arrested for ‘Facebook thugging’ after posting gun selfie

To be fair, when reading the article, the comment that she made could be construed as a mild threat to the person she sent the picture to. It was a poor judgment call on her part, and she knew, and that's why she took it down.

I hardly think this was something worthy of taking up police time with, but apparently the person on the receiving end was freaked out. People are utterly terrified over small things these days. Overreaction has become an American pastime.

 

[stonecutter2]

I'm interpreting the caption with the photo as a threat was actually made to the gun pic person....then she reacted.


"I'll post a few actual pics of me so you know the difference when u "come find me"

That tells me they got into some kind of argument over mistaken identity - and the person said they'd "come find her."

If I were this gal, I'd lawyer up and turn the tables if that's the case - charge them with stalking/assault or whatever applies, and claim the pic was an attempt at self defense.