site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   2370 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for December 20, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Court opinion:

  • During a telephone call, a prisoner's romantic partner asks him whether he is gay. The prisoner becomes angry and ends the call. On the next day, he writes a two-page email explaining that he is not gay, he hates homosexual people, and if he had been at home he would have shot her for insulting him so badly.
  • The prison reads the email, blocks it from being sent, charges the prisoner with the offense of threatening another person with bodily harm, convicts him of that offense, and imposes punishment of 90 days of solitary confinement, 60 days of lost good-behavior credit, and 15 days of lost recreational privileges.
  • The appeals panel reverses. The prisoner's objective in writing this email obviously was to convince his romantic partner that he was not homosexual, not to threaten her or anybody else with bodily harm. Therefore, the conviction was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.

He didn’t even say “…in Minecraft.”

There is a well known case where a man told another man that he would have killed him had the judges not been in town. He was tried for threatening him and was found not guilty because the judges were in town. This was back when judges circulated between towns to try cases. Based on that case, shouldn't he have been found not guilty?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberville_v_Savage

Doesn't exactly look like "fun thread" material but...

The rules for inmates are very different (and stricter) than rules for people on the outside.

"I'd shoot you for saying that to my face" is something extremely unlikely to result in prosecution under normal circumstances.

But inmates (and parolees) can definitely be charged/revoked for stuff like that. They get no slack, and (imo) rightly so. If you're already in lockup, sending your girlfriend an email threatening violence (even if you were being hyperbolic) is something you should know better than to do, and if you don't, you probably should stay in lockup.

Doesn't exactly look like "fun thread" material

You are supposed to laugh at (1) the prisoner's writing two pages of "no homo" and (2) the appeals panel's being forced to defend the prisoner's right to send "repeated[] express[ions] of hatred of individuals belonging to the LGBTQ+ community" that it finds "vulgar, reprehensible, and distressing".

"I would've shot you for that" is definitely not a threat, but I guess I'm ok locking that sort of person up regardless if it was serious.

How is that not a threat? It's just "If you do that when I'm able to kill you, I will" but in subjunctive rather than future tense. Either way, after the criminal's release the victim has to choose between avoiding the threatened speech or getting killed.

The appeals panel's full rationale:

At the outset, we reject the notion that Chase's J-pay email constituted a threat to LGBTQ+ inmates, others, or his girlfriend, none of whom received the email. We recognize the DOC's concern and interest in preventing inmates from threatening each other or making threats against others. However, Chase's email, though vulgar, reprehensible, and distressing, does not constitute a clear and unambiguous threat based upon the objective analysis required under Jacobs v. Stephens.

In Jacobs, our [state] Supreme Court addressed whether a comment made by an inmate to a corrections officer constituted a threat. The corrections officer had asked the inmate, Jacobs, for his identification card and he responded, "Fuck you, I ain't giving you shit. If you want my ID, step in the back room." Another witness reported that, as the officer turned to walk away, Jacobs stated, "Come on, come on, I'll fuck you up." On appeal, Jacobs argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that he threatened the officer with bodily harm. He asserted that, while he used abusive language, he did not intend to threaten the officer.

Our Supreme Court held: "The determination of whether a remark constitutes a threat is made on the basis of an objective analysis of whether the remark conveys a basis for fear." And a reasonable mind could conclude that Jacobs had threatened the officer. The Court noted, however, that other witnesses heard him make additional threatening comments. It stated: "When words of an inmate are of such a nature as would reasonably convey the menace or fear of death to the ordinary hearer, then that is a threat of bodily harm and therefore punishable under [the prison regulations]."

Here, Chase's email was directed to his girlfriend and allegedly offered to explain that he is not gay and how offended he was by her question. Unlike Jacobs, there were no witnesses to Chase's words, although they are memorialized in the email. His specific comments and disdain for the LGBTQ+ community, however, were not directed at any particular person, and there is nothing in the record to support a finding that Chase intended to harm any of his fellow inmates who may be gay, or his girlfriend. We are not persuaded that Chase's unsent email reasonably conveyed any menace or put any individual in fear of death to constitute a true threat of bodily harm.

Amazing. Perfect Friday Fodder.

Methinks bro doth protest too much.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats