Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion "In Minecraft": What CuckTears doesn’t understand about "true threats" and the First Amendment

PPEcel

PPEcel

cope and seethe
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
29,095
Note : Since the meme references an FBI agent, this post is a discussion of freedom of speech in the United States only.

_________________________________________________________________________________________


SUMMARY (TL/DR):

CuckTears suggests that an incel can be held criminally liable and convicted for speech, under U.S. law, should a reasonable person perceive such speech to be threatening, notwithstanding the statement "in MINECRAFT".

Actual U.S. law suggests that speech adjudicated out of context, under the "reasonable listener test", or under a standard of proof requiring only negligence on the part of the speaker, would, in fact, be constitutionally insufficient and violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.


Introduction

This essay is (sort of) a response to the following thread on Reddit. But for a while, I've also wanted to address the trend of individuals adding "in minecraft" to the end of every edgy statement, and what the First Amendment would say about it.




What makes a threat?

One of the earlier cases addressing the “true threats” exception to the First Amendment dates back to the Vietnam era. During an anti-war rally, an 18-year-old subject to the draft proclaimed, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” For this utterance, he was arrested by the Secret Service. In Watts v. United States (1969), the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the young man and noted that facetious or hyperbolic statements, which are protected by the First Amendment, had to be distinguished from “true threats”, which are not.

What the Supreme Court failed to do in Watts, however, was fully develop and articulate a detailed test to categorize “true threats”. As such, lower courts have had to reach their own conclusions on what “true threats” are. In the intervening years some federal appeals courts and state courts have read the Watts opinion to develop the Watts factors, where the courts consider 1) the context of the statement or statements in question; 2) the reaction of the recipient or listeners; and 3) whether the threat was conditional. Some courts have developed narrower definitions of “true threats” that are more protective of the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for example, define a “true” threat as a threat “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.” (See United States v. Kelner (2nd Cir. 1976)) To this day, multiple courts at the federal and state level still operate on slightly different definitions of "true threats".

As another example, one of the Supreme Court’s more recent cases considering the definition of “true threats” can be found in Virginia v. Black (2003). Black involved two white men who had set up and burned a cross on the lawn of an African-American neighbour and were consequently convicted under a Virginia statute outlawing cross-burnings. In Justice O’ Connor’s plurality opinion, the Court noted that a "true threat" is one:

....where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals...
Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.


The question of intent

Black, however, raised another constitutional question, one concerning due process. The Court partially struck down the Virginia statute against cross-burning because the law considered cross-burning to be prima facie evidence to intimidate. The Supreme Court reasoned that such a presumption places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that such cross-burning was not intended to intimidate, and consequently violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In simpler terms, here’s a new constitutional question: for the government to punish someone for issuing a “true threat”, does a) the government need to prove that the speaker intended to communicate a threat, or b) is it enough for the government to prove that a reasonable listener would have considered it a threat (“reasonable listener test”)?

Just two years after Black, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said yes to a) and no to b). In United States v. Cassel (9th Cir. 2005), Judge O’Scannlain wrote that in punishing a threatening communication, a jury instruction that fails to include “a mens rea element of subjective intent” would not comport with the First Amendment. (For another appellate-level case involving threatening communications and the First Amendment, see United States v. Alkhabaz (6th Cir. 1997).)

It would take another ten years for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally answer this question in Elonis v. United States (2015). Elonis is a notable case in that it is the first and only time thus far that the Supreme Court has evaluated the “true threats” doctrine in the internet age. Anthony Elonis was a man who posted a series of violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his wife and bombing a kindergarten. After he was visited by federal law enforcement, Elonis wrote more rap lyrics about killing the FBI agent who visited him: “...Took all the strength I had not to turn the bitch ghost...Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat”. He was then arrested, charged, and convicted of multiple counts of threatening interstate communications under 18 U.S.C. §875 (c). The conviction was upheld by the Third Circuit, and Elonis appealed to the Supreme Court.

In an 8-1 ruling, the Court ruled in favour of Elonis. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion held that in order to punish an individual for a “true threat” without violating the First Amendment, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had an intention to threaten; neither negligence on the part of the defendant nor the “reasonable listener test” is sufficient to prove criminal liability. In repudiating the "reasonable listener test", Roberts wrote:

Elonis’s conviction, however, was premised solely on how his posts would be understood by a reasonable person. Such a “reasonable person” standard is a familiar feature of civil liability in tort law, but is inconsistent with the conventional requirement for criminal conduct— awareness of some wrongdoing. Having liability turn on whether a “reasonable person” regards the communication as a threat—regardless of what the defendant thinks— reduces culpability on the all-important element of the crime to negligence.


“In MINECRAFT”

A CuckTears member suggests that "the perception of the person being threatened and the courts perception of whether a reasonable person would feel threatened...that make it a threat". Another suggests that "a threat is a threat", dismissing any and all context.

Fortunately for us, the facts are not on their side. In light of the above analysis, it is clear that the "reasonable listener test" is constitutionally insufficient to override the robust protections that the First Amendment offers for free expression. Don't take my word for it. Take Justice Sotomayor's words in her concurrence in the denial of certiorari in the case of Perez v. Florida (2017):

Together, Watts and Black make clear that to sustain a threat conviction without encroaching upon the First Amendment, States must prove more than the mere utterance of threatening words—some level of intent is required. And these two cases strongly suggest that it is not enough that a reasonable person might have understood the words as a threat—a jury must find that the speaker actually intended to convey a threat.

So what does that actually mean? Am I suggesting that appending "in MINECRAFT" to a threatening statement automatically absolves one from any criminal liability?

No, I am not. What I am suggesting is that the government has the burden of proving that, in context, the speaker intended to convey a threat. The government has to prove that the speech was not uttered in jest nor is hyperbolic (refer to Watts).

There is indeed very little precedent concerning the practice of appending "in MINECRAFT" to a threatening statement. I would be very much interested in seeing such a case work its way up the judiciary.

Perhaps a jury or judge is convinced that adding "in MINECRAFT" and, say, a series of laughing emojis, to a vaguely threatening statement that is posted to an obscure online community known for shockingly depraved humor is sufficient to establish reasonable doubt with respect to the defendant's intent to issue a "true threat". Perhaps not.

In any case, what we do know is that the minds of CuckTears, once again, reveal the depths of their ignorance.
 
Last edited:
This is a good thread with a lot of good information so I won't bring up your richfaggotness here

Basically incels are all entirely non-violent and nothing they do constitutes a threat including the speech here
 
Basically incels are all entirely non-violent and nothing they do constitutes a threat including the speech here
That's not what I said but I will take the compliment.
 
That's not what I said but I will take the compliment.
I mean do you see any threats on this site that have actual intent behind them
 
they'll post this thread with "not reading all that incel" and then forget about it a day later when they make some snarky comment about how incels cant write more than a paragraph or some shit
 
not even the title
 
They make tons of threats against incels and men who like jb's all the time, with no "in minecraft" added, so they'd be the first ones to go to jail according to their cucked interpretation of the laws.
 
Most of the in Minecraft stuff is appended after sentences which aren’t even threats. Wishing or advocating for certain crimes is never illegal no matter what. Saying something like I will do x might raise eyebrows but won’t do anything. If you tell the name of a specific person or give a specific time frame or date then the fbi might come to your house. Even then they will most likely just ask a couple questions and leave.

Almost nobody even adds the in Minecraft thing anymore. People only did it because of the rules on this forum, not the law.
 
Fuck the CuckTears, the day the FBI came to my shitty third world neighborhood, it will be the day of the end of the world. :feelshaha:
Same, sooner will my dictator hang me for calling him gay on youtube.
 
Most of the in Minecraft stuff is appended after sentences which aren’t even threats. Wishing or advocating for certain crimes is never illegal no matter what. Saying something like I will do x might raise eyebrows but won’t do anything. If you tell the name of a specific person or give a specific time frame or date then the fbi might come to your house. Even then they will most likely just ask a couple questions and leave.

Almost nobody even adds the in Minecraft thing anymore. People only did it because of the rules on this forum, not the law.
I will kill all normies in minecraft
 
I hope every single ITcel is thrown into a pit of crocodiles and viciously devoured with their bodies torn limb by limb, and then when the crocs shit their digested remains out, that the remains are fed to cows, which then again are shit out, and eaten by curries in India for good luck, and then shit out again, and that those remains are force fed to those ITcels' parents (in Minecraft)
 
Apparently memeing about not even a specific person is a ''threat'' to these soycucks.

Yet they have not any shed of worry when women openly say they want to kill all men and encourage doing so.

By the way, Imagine wishing someone to get in prison for having an opinion in the internet that is not rainbows and faggy wholesome reddit shit, specially considering the fact that the root of said opinion is typically the outrage of an injustice. These guys sure want to ''help incels'' huh. Someone WISHES the worst to a piece of shit that bullied and physically harmed a low status kid for years, what a bunch of domestic terrorists, right?

Good luck making them read all of that thought considering they can't even google the basic definition of the word before parroting like the retarded NPCs they are.
 
I hope every single ITcel is thrown into a pit of crocodiles and viciously devoured with their bodies torn limb by limb, and then when the crocs shit their digested remains out, that the remains are fed to cows, which then again are shit out, and eaten by curries in India for good luck, and then shit out again, and that those remains are force fed to those ITcels' parents (in Minecraft)
very vivid
 
Very good information bro...

That "reasonable man" rule goes towards lots of things...
 
Very good information bro...

That "reasonable man" rule goes towards lots of things...
But it just isn't sufficient to establish criminal liability. Civil liability, e.g. a negligence/emotional distress tort, is another issue.
 
But it just isn't sufficient to establish criminal liability. Civil liability, e.g. a negligence/emotional distress tort, is another issue.
Apparently, what you are implying here, is, if a gang of niggers are yelling "we gonna kill you White boy!" (Over and over, like a chant), then assuming i survive, then i can sue them for emotional damages?

That's is a relief!
 
Apparently, what you are implying here, is, if a gang of niggers are yelling "we gonna kill you White boy!" (Over and over, like a chant), then assuming i survive, then i can sue them for emotional damages?

That's is a relief!
yeah, that sounds plausible

note, though, that speech on a matter of public concern, in a public space, cannot be the basis of liability for an emotional distress tort. SCOTUS ruled in Snyder v. Phelps (2011) that the Westboro Baptist Church was protected by the 1st Amendment when they picketed the funeral of a dead Marine.
 
I hope every single ITcel is thrown into a pit of crocodiles and viciously devoured with their bodies torn limb by limb, and then when the crocs shit their digested remains out, that the remains are fed to cows, which then again are shit out, and eaten by curries in India for good luck, and then shit out again, and that those remains are force fed to those ITcels' parents (in Minecraft)
based
 
My attention span is short so I won't be able to read all of it, but high IQ post nonetheless.
 
Apparently, what you are implying here, is, if a gang of niggers are yelling "we gonna kill you White boy!" (Over and over, like a chant), then assuming i survive, then i can sue them for emotional damages?

That's is a relief!
they gonna accuse you of ''provoking them for saying the n word'' :soy: and they'll get out of jail scott-free jfl
 
they gonna accuse you of ''provoking them for saying the n word'' :soy: and they'll get out of jail scott-free jfl
Damn niggers!

They dindu muffin Ron...

#thanksjews
 

Similar threads

Q
Replies
64
Views
1K
Qwertyuiop99
Q
ethniccel1
Replies
21
Views
390
ItsJoeverNigga
ItsJoeverNigga
LostSoulUK
Replies
17
Views
363
LostSoulUK
LostSoulUK
Kina Hikikomori
Replies
2
Views
128
Kina Hikikomori
Kina Hikikomori
AsiaCel
Replies
4
Views
279
faded
faded

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top