Supreme Ct. to Decide Whether Online Threats are Illegal?


We hate Facebook at all that other nonsense which villifies people and brings out the worst a la Jerry Springer mode…and now the Supreme Court is going to rule on a case where the ex husband threatened to cut the ex up in pieces but his attorney says he was just reciting a “song” which had those lyrics???

Angry and hostile after his wife left him, the father of two also lost his job when he retaliated against a co-worker’s accusations of sexual harassment by posting a picture on Facebook of himself holding a knife to the woman’s neck. In response to his termination, the man posted that he felt like a nuclear bomb about to explode and pondered shooting up an elementary school. About his estranged wife, he wrote “There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.”

What we suspect,  is that because certain threats cannot be shouted out in public places, without consequences,  we don’t think they should be shouted out online either, or in emails, or via texting. We believe they will lead others to think you do mean what you say, since talking and writing all convey messages.

While one could say “I now quote from song ABC, that !@# is gonna run his truck over $%^ and she will be dead”, it’s possible if someone believed that the guy has a truck and he intends to run down the ex, that could be a real threat, even if veiled.  We would never recommend saying anything like that online, via text, phone, messaging, or in any other form.

We have seen FIRSTHAND how a father, in a TEXT to his own son, texted that if you hurt my dogs, I will kill you (something pretty close to those words) and the prosecuter simply blew up the picture of the text, put it overhead, and the rest was history. It resulted in first degree premeditated murder conviction.

So everyone should be VERY careful of shooting off their mouth and of any other forms of writings, messages, text, etc.  In fact texting and online data are far WORSE, because when someone verbally states something, there are considerations for the circumstances, the place, the tone, and a host of other factors.  ONLINE and via texting, there are no such forgiving factors.

Therefore, what we think that most ARs use, is outright misrepresentation and slander/defamation,  by CALLING BREEDERS PMs, WHEN THE REALITY IS, THERE IS NO ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF AN ALLEGED PM, AND WE NEVER, NEVER, NEVER sling that word around. It’s right up there with every racial, ethnic, sex, religious, disabled, or other denigrating term used for everyone, including blacks, hispanics, asians, gays and everyone else.