Previous 1 3
Topic: GA woman arrested for facebook post that allegedly makes ter
regularfeller's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:29 PM
So long freedom of speech? Opinions?

msharmony's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:41 PM
freedom of speech doesnt cover this behavior

anymore than it covers inciting to riot


disseminating information related to terrorist acts, seems an appropriate charge,,,,,,,,

I don't wish to see either side giving karte blanche to kill the other(cops citizens) and if we can catch them in the 'plotting' stage proactively, Id much rather it be that way than waiting until someone dies for a reaction

yellowrose10's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:42 PM
Ok no clue what you are talking about. Can ya expand on it?

msharmony's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:44 PM
Edited by msharmony on Wed 04/29/15 09:45 PM
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/east-point-mother-arrested-threatening-facebook-po/nk5Rf/

regularfeller's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:45 PM
Google the topic for full details. Nutshell, women stated she was thinking about killing every white police officer she saw, etc., etc., on a facebook post and others should do the same.

regularfeller's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:47 PM

freedom of speech doesnt cover this behavior

anymore than it covers inciting to riot


disseminating information related to terrorist acts, seems an appropriate charge,,,,,,,,

I don't wish to see either side giving karte blanche to kill the other(cops citizens) and if we can catch them in the 'plotting' stage proactively, Id much rather it be that way than waiting until someone dies for a reaction


Okay, that leads me to ask my next question - What about all the people saying every rioter and gang member should be killed and that they would perform this act of murder themselves. Are they not guilty of the same crime?

yellowrose10's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:48 PM
An East Point woman accused of making serious threats against police officers on her Facebook page is in jail.

Channel 2’s Liz Artz learned the FBI, Homeland Security, the District Attorney’s office and the New York Police Department assisted East Point police with Ebony Dickens’ arrest.

Dickens is accused of writing a Facebook post Monday using the name Tiffany Milan in which she called for "death to all white cops nationwide."

The post went on to say, “I thought about shooting every white cop I see in the head until I’m either caught by the police or killed by them… Might kill at least 15 tomorrow, I’m plotting now."

“That’s 15 people that she’s talking about killing within a day or so, so whether she is serious or not that's something that we have to take seriously,” said East Point police Lt. Cliff Chandler

In the post, Dickens says she condones black-on-white killings. She took down the post on Tuesday, just hours before she was arrested.

RAW: Judge warns Ebony Dickens' sister after courtroom outburst

The post was also shared on the WSB-TV Facebook page Tuesday. We took it down immediately and reported it to Atlanta Police and our FBI contacts.

Dickens’ neighbor says she never would’ve expected that type of post from the 33-year-old mother.

“Oh my God, I’m shocked. I just can't believe my neighbor would do something like that,” Erica Collie told Artz.

In the midst of the Baltimore riots and on the heels of several police shootings, Collie says she finds the post unbelievable.

“Very dangerous and kind of careless of her to even put something like that on Facebook,” she said. “That’s scary. I just can't believe she did that."

It took police less than 24 hours to search Dickens’ condo and take her into custody.

While executing the search warrant police seized computers, a cell phone and a firearm.

“I don't think she anticipated that we would respond as quickly as we did,” Chandler said.

Dickens has been charged with disseminating information related to terrorist acts.

East Point police say their investigation is ongoing and there could be more charges. The FBI is conducting its own investigation.

Detectives say Dickens will be transported to the Fulton County jail Wednesday.

msharmony's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:49 PM


freedom of speech doesnt cover this behavior

anymore than it covers inciting to riot


disseminating information related to terrorist acts, seems an appropriate charge,,,,,,,,

I don't wish to see either side giving karte blanche to kill the other(cops citizens) and if we can catch them in the 'plotting' stage proactively, Id much rather it be that way than waiting until someone dies for a reaction


Okay, that leads me to ask my next question - What about all the people saying every rioter and gang member should be killed and that they would perform this act of murder themselves. Are they not guilty of the same crime?



if they go on to say they are plotting to carry out such actions,, then yes

Rock's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:51 PM
Terroristic threats, and statements made to cause
undue fear or panic, generally aren't covered under the
protections of "free speech".


regularfeller's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:55 PM
So, limited free speech...unless you make terroristic threats towards a group deemed socially unacceptable?

no photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:56 PM
So long freedom of speech? Opinions?

Is it any different than a teen posting on Facebook how they're going to shoot up or bomb a school?

As an absolute, yes, so long freedom of speech, but it's been going good bye slowly but surely for a long time.

Stupid can't yell fire in a crowded theater laws.

But really, I think the important thing to note is how FBI, Homeland Security, the District Attorney’s office and the New York Police Department has earned it's taxpayer funding by breaking the "check facebook" code in finding potential domestic terrorists.
It's a good thing we have all these different organizations deep in the Facebook world.


msharmony's photo
Wed 04/29/15 09:59 PM
its also good so many potential threats have enough ego or stupidity to need to broadcast their intentions on media such as facebook,,

regularfeller's photo
Wed 04/29/15 10:06 PM
Again, when police or "good citizens" make terroristic threats towards the ne'er do wells of society, why is this not prosecuted? Because it lacks agenda? There is no example to be made in doing so? When we hold one person accountable for words or behavior and allow others to speak similar words without penalty isn't there an unjust prejudice in our reckoning.

(By prejudice I am not inferring anything to do with race).

msharmony's photo
Wed 04/29/15 10:08 PM
I believe they should be if they imply they are ACTIVELY engaged in a plan to harm others

which is different than just having an opinion that it should be done,,

regularfeller's photo
Wed 04/29/15 10:08 PM

its also good so many potential threats have enough ego or stupidity to need to broadcast their intentions on media such as facebook,,


:laughing: I agree with you there! I'm always shaking my head at these criminals who elude capture and then post accounts of their exploits all over social media.

regularfeller's photo
Wed 04/29/15 10:15 PM
I believe this as well. Read any comment section of any news story about the riots and you will see what I mean. Back to Ferguson and beyond.

There are tons of police dash cam video where officers make terroristic threats against people they have detained or taken into custody. Threats of bodily harm, even death. People of all races, genders, and ages have been victimized. And the police officer's speech meets all the criteria of terroristic threats.

I am not advocating special treatment for this woman. I am advocating EQUAL treatment for all people regardless of their role in society.

msharmony's photo
Wed 04/29/15 10:17 PM

I believe this as well. Read any comment section of any news story about the riots and you will see what I mean. Back to Ferguson and beyond.

There are tons of police dash cam video where officers make terroristic threats against people they have detained or taken into custody. Threats of bodily harm, even death. People of all races, genders, and ages have been victimized. And the police officer's speech meets all the criteria of terroristic threats.

I am not advocating special treatment for this woman. I am advocating EQUAL treatment for all people regardless of their role in society.


drinker drinker drinker

Sojourning_Soul's photo
Thu 04/30/15 06:12 AM

So, limited free speech...unless you make terroristic threats towards a group deemed socially unacceptable?


Your rights end where anothers begins

2OLD2MESSAROUND's photo
Thu 04/30/15 07:50 AM
Edited by 2OLD2MESSAROUND on Thu 04/30/15 07:53 AM

regularfeller stated >>>
So, limited free speech...unless you make terroristic threats towards a group deemed socially unacceptable?

Sojourning_Soul stated >>>
Your rights end where anothers begins


My AG of KS stirred this BS up back when the Internet was in it's infancy >>> because he was so worried about 'smut/porn/naked images' haunting his every computer screen on his PC!!!
**********
COPA represents Congress' second attempt to impose severe criminal and civil sanctions on the display of protected, non-obscene speech on the Internet. A first attempt, the Communications Decency Act of 1996, was declared unconstitutional by all nine justice of the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU.

In 2002, the Supreme Court upheld a law requiring public libraries throughout the country to install blocking software on their computers to censor sexually explicit speech as a condition of federal funding.

Briefs supporting the ACLU challenge in Ashcroft v. ACLU (03-218) were filed by a broad range of mainstream media and arts organizations, including the Association of American Publishers, American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Recording Industry Association of America and Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts.

**************
About 'Internet/Terrorist Threats' this case was one that the SCOTUS heard >>>

For decades, the court has essentially said that ��'true threats'�� are an exception to the rule against criminalizing speech. These threats do not have to be carried out -�� or even be intended to be carried out - to be considered harmful. Bans against threats may be enacted, Justice Sandra Day O'��Connor wrote in 2003, to protect people ‘'from the fear of violence' and ��'from the disruption that fear engenders.'�� Current legal thinking is that threats do damage on their own.

****************************
But we already have this as our Interstate Communication Statute to go by >>>

18 U.S. Code § 875 - Interstate communications

(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875


no photo
Thu 04/30/15 07:56 AM
tell a cop hes a pig, and see how far free speech gets you. a buddy of mine witnessed a kid on his 21st bday drunk off his @$$ getting beat by like 5 cops simply for being drunk and talking back to the cops. he didnt threaten the cops, just had a few choice words for them. he ended up gettin his head beat in and my buddy said "hey thats not necessary" next thing he knows hes in handcuffs. he went to court and told the judge i was just exercising free speech because the cops had no right to do that. the judge told my friend "you were in the wrong place at the wrong time" and found him guilty of disorderly conduct for telling the cops they didnt need to beat a drunk 21 year old kid senseless for talking back to them. so much for free speech.

Previous 1 3