WATCH WHAT YOU SAY ON-LINE. A SARCASTIC JOKE - THAT SOUNDS LIKE A THREAT - COULD LAND YOU BEHIND BARS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

     Let it be clearly known - in case anybody who reads this edition of The Controversy has any doubts or lacks any understanding - the following is a commentary on a story that has been published in other areas of the media for several months.  I - the writer of this column - am a journalist who is expressing opinions based on the facts as I know of them.  When quoting the defendant in the case - who allegedly made the statements in question - or any other remarks pertaining to legal action being discussed - I am merely repeating what court documents claim have been stated by the defendant or by others.  The words are not mine...as I would never - even "jokingly" - use such language.  The Controversy by Gary B. Duglin is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

     Now...that being said...it is sad that I have to include the aforementioned disclaimer prior to writing today's commentary...but...I felt it was necessary... given the subject matter.

 

   Justin Carter was 18-years old - he's now 19 - when in early February, 2013...he made a sarcastic remark on Facebook.  He apparently was involved in a debate about a computer video game...which began on the League of Legends Web site...and continued on a Facebook page.  A total stranger allegedly accused Justin of being "crazy and messed up in the head."  Carter reportedly responded - in what has been described as a "sarcastic tone" - "Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head.  I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still beating hearts."  Court documents, however, say that Justin allegedly wrote in the Facebook chat, "I'm f---ed in the head.  I think I'm a shoot up a kindergarten...and watch the blood of the innocent...rain down...and eat the beating heart of one of them."  The problem with writing such words - besides that it's disgusting to hear in any context - that without vocalization... inflection and intonation...cannot be determined.  Therefore... realizing a "sarcastic tone" is not possible.

     Despite that...I am willing to give Justin Carter the benefit of the doubt and believe that he intended for his statement to be interpreted as "sarcastic."  Nevertheless...what Justin admits to saying was in very poor taste.  Very, very BAD taste - especially when it was less than two months from the day 20-year old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult educators in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

 Despite that...I am willing to give Justin Carter the benefit of the doubt and believe that he intended for his statement to be interpreted as "sarcastic."  Nevertheless...what Justin admits to saying was in very poor taste.  Very, very BAD taste - especially when it was less than two months from the day 20-year old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult educators in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

     Carter is certainly old enough to understand that what he said was not something to "joke" about - although he indicated his comment wasn't serious by adding "LOL" and "J/K" after his written words.  For those of you who are not familiar with social media abbreviations...LOL means "laughing out loud" and J/K implies that Justin was..."just kidding."

     A woman in Canada noticed Carter's comment and she contacted law enforcement authorities.  And since Justin lived less than half a mile from an elementary school in New Braunfels, Texas...police in "The Lone Star State" did not take the report lightly...and cops took the correct course of action by investigating.

     Officials then arrested Justin Carter and placed him behind bars.  A judge set bond at the outrageous amount of $500,000 - meaning that 10 percent of that...or $50,000...would need to be posted in order for Justin to be released from jail while he awaits trial.  Through my research, I have learned there have been actual murder suspects - who by the way later got convicted of the crimes - and their bonds were nowhere near a half-million dollars.  I'm puzzled as to why the judge ordered Justin's bond to be so high.

     Since the bail amount was beyond what Carter's family could afford...the teenager remained in jail...on suicide watch...from when he was booked on February 14th until July 11th - 5 long months.  According to his mother... Jennifer Carter... Justin was "assaulted a number of times" by other inmates so officials then "locked (him) in solitary confinement for weeks."  Fortunately now...thanks to an anonymous donor who posted the bail...Justin is home.  But for how long?  A grand jury indicted Carter on April 10th, 2013 and he faces a charge of making terrorist threats...which is a felony that could bring the teenager a prison sentence of up to a decade.  He has already rejected a plea deal to serve 8 years in jail...and his trial is scheduled for next year.  But now that Justin is free - at least for the time being - the ecstatic young man told CNN on Friday, July 12th, "I certainly would have thought a lot more about what I said and how permanent my writing is."

     Since Justin Carter's arrest, people have rallied together on-line to support him.  A petition at Change.org has received more than 125,000 digital signatures.  "Too many teenagers are being arrested, jailed and having their lives forever altered because of anti-terrorism laws and investigations that impede their First Amendment right to freedom of speech," reads the petition.  But the First Amendment doesn't give us an unrestricted right to free speech.  Freedom of speech doesn't allow a person to say absolutely ANYTHING.  If you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre...and there's no smoke or not a flame in sight...you can be arrested.  If you even mention the word "bomb"...while waiting for a commercial airliner to take off...you're going to be escorted off the plane in handcuffs and questioned by police.  

     Threats need to be taken seriously...and I completely understand and agree that our city, state and federal governments must be careful and cautious when there's a threat of school violence.  There's no two ways about it.  Authorities must be vigilant and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the threat is not credible.  But at some point, investigators need to have some common sense...and with Justin Carter...that is what Texas authorities lacked.  This is where this case has gone completely wrong.  

     Police performed a thorough investigation.  There was no proof that Justin's remark was meant to be genuine.  His so-called "threat" was made in jest and was not in any way legitimate.  There was no motive.  No weapons were found during a search of his apartment.  No notes...outlining or planning any devious, disastrous or doomful event... were discovered.  There is no evidence of any kind that even slightly gives a minuscule impression that Justin was being anything other than "sarcastic" when he selected a poor choice of words.

     Justin's father...Jack Carter acknowledges that "It's incredibly inappropriate when you take it out of context for sure."  But Justin's dad goes on to say..."It was a sarcastic remark in response to an insult."

     Justin's mother... Jennifer Carter agrees that her son...who she describes as "a good kid"...was wrong in what he wrote...but she says..."The authorities' over-reaction is ruining Justin's life.  We need to make sure he's not labeled a terrorist...simply for making a Facebook comment.  Things got out of control, but my son is not a terrorist."

     Is what Justin Carter wrote...a "true threat"...as defined by the United States Supreme Court?  David L. Hudson, Jr. is an expert in First Amendment issues.  He graduated in 1994 with a law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School...teaches First Amendment classes at Nashville School of Law and Vanderbilt University Law School...and he is the author or co-author of more than 30 books - including several on the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution and student rights.

     On the FirstAmendmentCenter.org Web site...Hudson writes that "the line between protected expression and an unprotected true threat is often hazy and uncertain."  Hudson says that "True-threat jurisprudence remains a muddled mess.  Courts often have trouble determining whether violent expression should be evaluated under the 'incitement to imminent lawless action' standard or under a true-threats line of analysis."  Since I am not a lawyer...I will not even venture an attempt to interpret what the Supreme Court, any court, or even the esteemed David Hudson is discussing at The First Amendment Center Web site.  I'm curious to know, however, where the courts draw the line between someone who is merely venting, blowing off steam or - in this case - responding to an insult...or someone who is genuinely and legitimately making a "true threat?"  Furthermore...I wonder how the courts determine - as I noted above - how a written comment on the Internet can be ruled a "true threat"...when the "tone" of the remark cannot be clearly understood?  As such...I'd be interested to know how the judge and the prosecutor in the case against Justin Carter were able to keep the teenager in jail for 5 months - until his bail was posted earlier in July 2013 - when there was no convincing evidence of a "true threat?"

      Kids today speak their minds by using various tools of communication.  From Facebook to phone calls...from texting to Twitter...teenagers - and even adults - are expressing themselves.  But in this day of technology...everyone must be extremely attentive of the words we choose.  Remember...with the Internet...it's possible for even private messages to be read by others.  Don't write anything that you wouldn't say to a police officer or in a court of law.  We do have freedom of speech...and we...as Americans...are protected by the First Amendment of one of our most precious documents...but only to a point.

     If what Justin Carter said is being considered a "threat" by authorities in Texas...someone please explain to me how certain Facebook pages that promote violence against George Zimmerman - the Florida man who was found not guilty in the shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin - are being left to remain on-line?  Recently, the offensive pages titled..."Kill Zimmerman" and "Let's Kill George Zimmerman" have been removed...and rightfully so.  Whether I...or anybody else...agrees or disagrees with the jury's verdict...it is disgraceful to post a Web site that proclaims the killing of anybody.  But officials at Facebook still refuse to remove "Kill George Zimmerman" and "George Zimmerman Must Die" pages...on the grounds they don't violate Facebook's "community standards" on credible threat of violence.  If blatant words such as "Kill George Zimmerman" and "George Zimmerman Must Die" are not considered threats...then how is what Justin Carter said...causing him to face criminal charges and a possible prison sentence?

     "I could kill him for saying that."  We've all heard people we know...speak that line about somebody.  Did the person really and truly mean that they could "kill?"  I doubt it.  Of course I don't know the statistics - and I'm certain that nobody does - but I'd bet that more than 99.9% of people who have made such a ridiculous comment...had no intention of killing anybody. Otherwise, our prisons would be filled with many more people.  Then there are the children who have turned to their mother or father...in a fit of anger because they didn't get their way...and say..."I hate you."  We all know that most youngsters who have uttered those three words...really don't hate their parents.  Unfortunately...human beings sometimes say things...they don't really mean.

     I'm surprised, at this point, that no senator, no congressman, no high-profile attorney...has stepped forward to investigate on behalf of Justin Carter.  If what Justin said was legitimately intended as a threat...and if...and I say IF...there was reason to believe...based on factual evidence that he was going to harm or hurt anyone...then a court would be right in locking him up.  Based, however, on the facts, to date, it is preposterous to think that Justin Carter is guilty of anything...but making an impulsively...stupid statement.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

     "We'll talk again."

The Controversy will make an effort to publish a new commentary every Sunday and Wednesday.  Unscheduled essays may appear, from time to time, on other days as well.
 

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net.  All Rights Reserved.