I knew you didn't think that, and my comment was in jest. Also, no, I am not making fun of Raub. Raub has some serious issues.

My two cents: In Raub, we have a man that thinks that world leaders are ritually sacrificing children in Colarado, and has allegedly made vague threats about some sort of action. His own former platoon leader said that Raub is the kind of person to make good on threats, and to top it all off, yes he was a former Marine. So, he is a guy with a delusional world view who is making threats and has small arms and hand to hand combat training to boot.

How many times have we seen people say that the writing was on the wall in the aftermath of events such as the Oklahoma City bombing and Columbine? People always lament that nobody acted. Well, somebody acted this time. Good on them.

You better watch out ,,, You better not cry ,,, better not pout,,,, I'm tellin you why,,,, because ,,,the FBI is comming to town .... They see you when you're sleeping ,,,, they know when you're awake,,, they know when you're naughty or nice, so be good for heavens sake.
So this guy mention cutting off heads in reference to a rap song he heard on a closed page of facebook, so who did he threaten again, I would be more worried about the black panthers talking on the air waves of killing whitey and calling for revolution {warning vile language}http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTAEtO2iENQ .
So why did the FBI think they needed to mess with a Marine, I also like the thought, that the FBI needed at least 10 pair of boots on the ground to take 1 Marine, cowards. So you better watch out ,,, you better not cry ,,, better not pout,,, I'm tellin you why ,,,, Because the Marine Corps is comein tooo town. You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us, you tipped your hand,, and now we are on to you, I see all these government agencies are buying millions of hollow point rounds, to bad they are pistol rounds, you won't get that close to a Marine. Still no warrant, no complaint, no arrest, and a judge found that the FBI violated his rights....

Well, if the FBI wasn't reading this thread before, they are most certainly reading it now.

Seriously doubt anyone from the Corps is coming to his rescue.
All these rounds that the Govt is supposed to be buying, is right from the "Conservative Alerts" daily BS,lol

http://www.conservative-daily.com/20...an-government/

http://www.networkworld.com/communit...rrorist-nature

This is always a tough call. What if he had gone postal, then the public would be crying "Why did we not do something when all the signs were there"?

I don't think this was the thought police infringing on a citizens right to state political opinions. The wording of some of his writings would, to a prudent person, indicate the chance that he was intending to take action. All we have are his words that he chose to publish. We can't know if he was joking/venting or whether he was intending on taking the action.

It is a tough call. Where is the line? Who decides where that line is?

We do not live in a peaceful society. We do have individuals who are taking violent actions against citizens. We also have citizens who like to joke/vent on the Internets Tubes.

How much False Positives are we willing to accept for a low number of False Negatives? And who chooses?

My opinion?

I can post on the Internets Tubes that Bush/Obama is a fink; that our congress sucks, and that generally I am really pissed at the current state of our government, that Bachmann is a skanque, and Pelosi is a crook.

All that is, and should be, protected under the First Amendment.

But as soon as I cross "the line" of making threats, that's when, in my opinion, I start moving outside my constitutional rights.

Now the argument can be made about the difference between credible threats and non-credible threats.

The evaluation on the credibility of threats comes after an investigation. Not before.

People have to recognize that threats are being perceived as being credible unless there is clear evidence otherwise. When people post threats on the Internets Tubes, people are taking this seriously and rightfully expect the authorities to investigate.

Now whether the government properly investigated in this specific instance is unknown as I am sure we do not have all the information.

I may, if the facts are ever released, even believe that the government did not investigate this person properly. But I do think that the government has the right and responsibility to investigate people making threats against government people.

While his beliefs are not mainstream - there is nothing in them that constitute any kind of threat. A man is free to believe what he chooses. Nothing in the article linked show any violent posting - other than the quote from a rap song. So how many other people on facebook are posting violent lyrics from songs - and how many others have been arrested?

The only other claim regarding "violent" posts refer to his communications that were directed to friends in reference to them all being involved in playing an online game with each other. So how many people talk smack when your playing games with your friends? How many are "psychologically detained" for it?

I don't know WHY this is happening - but the mere fact that it is makes one have to wonder why the powers that be - are reacting to him this way. If his beliefs were not so outlandis - it could possibly make one think he might be right...

Because being an ex-marine doesn't make you special, an ex marine can be just as crazy and believe in just as many crazy NWO theories as any other dickhead,.
You claim to be an ex marine and you spout absolute nonsense , does being an apparent ex marine make you immune from the nonsense you spout?
If you said you was starting a revolution instead of saying you was hidng in your basement with a cache of ammo and a slice of worms while avoiding the Fema death camps does it make you a possible threat or just a sad bugger in a basement

Because you have a recent history of ex servicemen going extreme right wing crazy and an "active" attempt by extreme right wing crazies to both enlist themselves and recruit pathetic sympathetic servicemen wingnut conspiracy theorists to the "patriotic" cause.
Bloody simple isn't it:yeah:


On the day that is the day is any of the apologists for this poor creature going to compare his freedom of speech episodes with poor old oppressed only playing a game Brevik?
Clesrly you are a UN stooge and are willing to allow the French British Chinese and Russian to vote with Obama to request a peacekeeping force in Lubbock

As some of you wrote-his statement is not an threat, maybe an insult to some politicians.

And as I see it- Then one of these politician can sue him and take him to a court.

I'm not an neonazist, Communist, Gay lover, a.s.o BUT!! I fight for their rights to have their opinion, how sick it may be. And it's not the same as I would respect their believes-I don't

Markus

It's a tricky situation, and you can see why agencies like the FBI and CIA have missed suspects before. For all we know this man could have been another Whitmann. It is most likely going to turn out that he wasn't, but how do you act? Do you let the shootings and bombings happen first and then arrest the individual, or do you take a chance and do it before the event.

Just remember how many people were screaming at the FBI and CIA after the Oklahoma bombings, and all the other tragedies. "Why didn't we do something about it before it happened?" "Why wasn't this man noticed by the system and stopped before he killed all these people".

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you are prepared for bombings to happen, or you are prepared for arrests to happen. I can't say I like the idea of whatever I write on Twitter of Facebook being used against me, but to be honest, before the internet if you wrote something down on a piece of paper, signed it with your name and glued it to walls all over town, and then got arrested, then what you wrote would be used against you in a court of law, just as anything you said whilst being arrested would, as per the Miranda warning.

Good let them read it, I have a first amendment right to speak my mind, as long as I don't shout fire in a crowded building, or make threats of harming anyone, I'm good, and if the black panthers can get away with the calling to kill white people the, FBI can explain why they get a pass it is equal justise for all the last I recall, and if I stay in the confinds of the rules of this forum I will speak my mind in this matter, it is my right and my duty. I took an oath to defend the constitution from all enimies foreign or domestic, not this government or this administration and that feeling goes with every vet I know. See you in November. Speaking of November why don't, one of you masterminds tell me what the big deal is about showing an I.D to vote, heavens knows if the democats win, it will be yourz paperz pleazzzz at check point charlie.

The moral: If you walk out of a bar drunk, randomly threatening people. Only your drunk buddies can hear your drunk ramblings.

If you pull out your phone and do the same thing on facebook, everybody can read it(and with auto correct, your ramblings would be more coherent)

thus, the moral is, don't say stupid things on the internet

Yeah, about that; threatening law enforcement with violence is probably outside the bounds of what Neal wants on the forum. You may want to check some of your wording. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here because I really don't want to see you brigged or banned.

EDIT: Just be very careful, please. I think you're an okay guy, and everything was fine up to the second paragraph in post No. 17.

Your answer, made me think

What is strongest in USA-your first amendment
Or a owner of a forum and his or her rules

Can a person set aside your basic rights

Let say that this person is from USA and he or she, created a forum, like this one and they rules was made so that your first amendment was set aside.

Is that legal?? Just wondering

Markus

On a private internet forum, yes it is completely legal. Since Neal pays for this space, he is able to decide what he wants discussed here and what he does not. For example, the discussion of software piracy and the posting of pornographic images are forbidden. Images of violence and gore are also banned. Most profanity is also not permitted. And violence against law enforcement is most certainly not going to fly.

Neal has given the example, and it is a good one, of a radio talk show host. The host gets to screen the calls to decide which get aired and which do not, as is his right. This is no different. Another example is a resturant owner that does not permit smoking in certain areas of the establishment, or a nightclub owner that reserves the right to keep certain individuals from entering the club.

In short, if you want to do those things, you can make your own website to do it. But the site owner has final say about what goes on his bandwidth.

Well the way it is, is that that a forum is generally treated as someone's personal property, and as such the owner can deny you access for any reason at all. Neal for example could ban you for any reason including if he doesn't like your post, the same way you can tell someone to get out of your house.

You can say whatever you want but you might be denied access to Neal's property if you say the wrong thing.

Edit: beat to the punch while writing this.