#51  
Old 02-12-2020, 10:24 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,268
SDMB v. 'Luci, 666 U.S. ___ (2020) will be informative too.
  #52  
Old 02-12-2020, 11:23 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
SDMB v. 'Luci, 666 U.S. ___ (2020) will be informative too.
Oh, you! I almost looked that up.

~Max
  #53  
Old 02-13-2020, 05:37 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
It's not about immediacy; it's about whether the threat was credible and would cause "reasonable" fear for safety. Novels and songs don't cause reasonable fear. Here is how FL defines credible threats:
That's how they define "credible threat." But how do they define the word "threat" by itself, which is what was used in the law?

What UltraVires seems to be afraid of is that the term "threat" might be ill-defined in law, and thus take on its everyday English meaning.

It does seem to me that the law should have said "credible threat" instead of just "threat."
  #54  
Old 02-13-2020, 06:54 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That's how they define "credible threat." But how do they define the word "threat" by itself, which is what was used in the law?

What UltraVires seems to be afraid of is that the term "threat" might be ill-defined in law, and thus take on its everyday English meaning.

It does seem to me that the law should have said "credible threat" instead of just "threat."

I looked it up.
First of all it is not specifically a crime to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. It is a crime to intentionally create a dangerous situation by causing a panic for no apparent reason (I presume it's legal to accidently cause a panic if there is an actual fire).

It's usually considered a misdemeanor in most places anyway (unless someone is actually killed or seriously injured I assume).

So in this particular case, where school is out and there is clearly no intent to actually cause harm, I think it is clearly an overreaction.
  #55  
Old 02-18-2020, 03:11 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
Here are the exact words of the bill which became FL law:
Quote:
Written Threats to Conduct Mass Shootings or Acts of Terrorism : Prohibiting a person from making, posting, or transmitting a threat to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism in a writing or other record in any manner that would allow another person to view the threat; exempting certain providers of services from liability, etc.
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...1&SessionId=86
You have quoted the (long) name of the law, not the actual text within. The text is currently codified as FLA. Stat. 836.10.
836.10 Written threats to kill, do bodily injury, or conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism; punishment; exemption from liability.-
  1. Any person who writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter, inscribed communication, or electronic communication, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or any person who makes, posts, or transmits a threat in a writing or other record, including an electronic record, to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, in any manner that would allow another person to view the threat, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
  2. This section does not impose liability on a provider of an interactive computer service, communications services as defined in s. 202.11, a commercial mobile service, or an information service, including, but not limited to, an Internet service provider or a hosting service provider, if it provides the transmission, storage, or caching of electronic communications or messages of others or provides another related telecommunications service, commercial mobile radio service, or information service for use by another person who violates this section. This exemption from liability is consistent with and in addition to any liability exemption provided under 47 U.S.C. s. 230.
The term "credible threat" is not used in this statute. Contrast with the stalking statute (FLA Stat. 784.048), part of which is reproduced in the below spoiler.
SPOILER:
"Credible threat" means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.


The standard jury instructions when it comes to a criminal charge under 836.10 are as follows (Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 8.22):
"To prove the crime of Written Threat to [Kill] [Do Bodily Injury] [Conduct a Mass Shooting] [Conduct an Act of Terrorism], the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
*There are two ways to violate § 836.10, Fla. Stat. Give as applicable.
  1. (Defendant) [wrote] [composed] a[n] [letter] [electronic communication] [inscribed communication].
  2. The [letter] [electronic communication] [inscribed communication] contained a threat to [kill] [do bodily injury to] [(victim)] [any member of (victim’s) family].
  3. (Defendant) [sent] [procured the sending of] that [letter] [electronic communication] [inscribed communication] to (victim).
Give if applicable
It is not necessary for the State to prove that the [letter] [electronic communication] [inscribed communication] had been signed.

Definitions. Give if applicable.
An "inscribed communication" is a communication that is written or printed.
To "procure" means to persuade, induce, prevail upon, or cause a person to do something.
The second way to violate § 836.10, Fla. Stat. is set forth below.
  1. (Defendant) [made] [posted] [transmitted] a writing or other record.
  2. The writing or other record contained a threat to conduct [a mass shooting] [or] [an act of terrorism].
  3. (Defendant) [made] [posted] [transmitted] the writing or other record in a manner that allowed another person to view the threat.
A "record" includes an electronic record.

Comments
The statute may raise First Amendment concerns. Trial judges and attorneys should consider Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) and Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

The name of (victim) in the first set of elements 2 and 3 must be the same person.

There is no statutory definition for the term “electronic communication.” In the absence of case law, trial judges will have to fashion their own definition, perhaps by looking at § 934.02(12), Fla. Stat. and § 668.602(7), Fla. Stat. The definition for inscribed communication comes from the dictionary definition of the word inscribed. The definition of procure comes from the manslaughter standard instruction.

*The act of posting a message on social media that threatened to “shoot up” a school did not constitute a violation of law under the clause of § 836.10, Fla. Stat., that prohibits the sending of threats to a specific victim because it was not sent directly to the victims.J.A.W. v. State, 210 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In response to J.A.W., the Legislature created an alternative way to commit the crime by removing the requirement that the threat be sent to the person threatened.

This instruction was adopted in 2013 [131 So. 3d 720] and amended in 2018.
~Max
  #56  
Old 02-19-2020, 03:46 PM
VOW is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NE AZ
Posts: 3,577
Qualifier: my kids are in their thirties now.

When they were in high school, gang violence was the big threat. This was before Columbine, so if a dangerous kid smuggled in a gun, it was typically to hit a specific target.

I told my kids, " If you hear/see/know of a gun on campus, go tell a teacher, then LEAVE THE SCHOOL IMMEDIATELY. I will handle any repercussions from your unauthorized exit." This was discussed at work, and another parent suggested that by "telling," my kid would be marked for retaliation.

I maintained retaliation was a separate issue. My point is that ifvthere is a gun on campus, I don't want my kid there!

Today, it's worse, much worse. Now the threat is to shoot anything and everybody. There are shootings on elementary schools! My grown daughter has heart failure when she hears of any elementary school campus shooting, because her kids are grade school age!

I honestly don't give a good Gawd-damn about anybody's freedom of speech, when it comes to threats of school shootings. Those freedoms are annihilated when they come up against the right of a child who is at the very beginning of his or her life. Period. Joje or tease about any other subject in the world. I don't care. That speech can remain free under all circumstances.

But when it comes to a threat, real or imagined, against a school, stomp on those idiots. Schools are supposed to be a safe place, where we can entrust the most precious things we have: our children.

Tthe Supreme Court ruling was that freedom of speech did not extend to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That ruling should be expanded to include, "or threatening to shoot up a school."


~VOW
__________________
Klaatu Barada Nikto
  #57  
Old 02-19-2020, 05:12 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by VOW View Post
[The] Supreme Court ruling was that freedom of speech did not extend to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That ruling should be expanded to include, "or threatening to shoot up a school."


~VOW
Contrary to the footnote in Florida's standard jury instructions, there is no free speech element at hand here. Threats of violence are already excluded from First Amendment protection according to federal courts of appeal, after all, extortion is a crime. United States v. Quinn, 514 F.2d 1250 (1975). Also the Florida case, Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). When a person sends a message saying they will shoot up a school, if they know that message will be read as a threat, then they have sent a threat. From Elonis, supra,
"There is no dispute that the mental state requirement in Section 875(c) is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat, or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat."
~Max
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017